By: France Cukjati, president of the Assembly for the Republic, former president of the DZ of the RS, theologian and philosopher
Respect for human dignity is becoming more and more threatened, especially when it comes to whites, indigenous peoples or even Christians, but also when it comes to defenders of traditional values and critics of the ideology of free choice of sex. It is at risk if a person opposes the confiscation of honestly created property and freedom of thought, speech, and writing.
It is also about respecting human dignity, even before a person cries into the world and even before saying goodbye to life. Today, in the twenty-first century, the most threatened is the dignity of those natural human facts that have been laid down in the human genome for two million years and are manifested in the marriage of husband and wife and in the family as the most natural environment for the conception, birth, and upbringing of children.
Not all ideologies respect all this basic human dignity. Some even deliberately neglect and trample on individual human natural facts worthy of respect.
Like every person, every political party builds and justifies its actions with a certain worldview. It is here that we encounter a big difference between them. Some try to follow the principle of the universality of human dignity, while others recognise this dignity only for certain groups based on skin colour, political belief, religion, or non-belief, etc. Therefore, some work in a connecting way, while others work in an exclusive way. Some create a state-building environment of acceptance of everyone, while others divide the nation, introduce unrest and division. Each party may be tempted to show some individuals or groups significantly less respect than others. Some are even hostile to certain individuals or groups.
Unlike animals, humans cannot live without a holistic view of the world. It also helps him answer individual challenging questions. Man wants to understand the world in which he lives. Those who deal with important social issues need understanding the most. There is no good politician who does not base his views and decisions on a clear and authentic worldview. Even a political party, if it wants to be stable, credible, and predictable, must base its thinking and action on a clear and mature worldview.
Therefore, if we know the party’s ideology or the politician’s worldview, we know what to expect from him. If his campaign programme is not aligned with his worldview, it can be nothing more than sweet talk blown by all the winds.
So, can the candidate for the president of the country be identified by party? Can he have a political belief if he wants to be the president of all citizens who are members of different parties and refer to different ideologies, different religions, different worldviews?
Not that he “may”, but he “must” have a clear worldview backbone! A broad, deep, and mature worldview from which he derives his uprightness and his stable ethical stance. An attitude that helps him to answer new and sudden global questions. A view that provides him with inner satisfaction, even when he experiences unfair criticism and pogroms. Of course, the Ljubljana FDV cannot give him such an opinion. Only life can give it to him if a person with his openness and heart allows it.
After the Second World War, when Europe was destroyed, humiliated, and torn apart, Schuman, de Gasperi and Adenauer appeared, who felt from the foundations of their worldview what to do and how. They were people who were leavened by life – also by the experiences of the Christian tradition. And that is how we got the European Union of Peace and Cooperation, which has been losing its original roots in recent decades, because we are increasingly being overwhelmed by strange worldview constructs. Today, not only Europe, but also Slovenia needs leading politicians of this kind.
Such policies can only be found and given to us by an effective democracy based on two basic assumptions. Firstly, that the nation freely chooses people to whom it entrusts with the responsibility of the state, and secondly, that the voters are objectively informed and know these candidates “all the way around”. So that they are not judged by their promises and sweet talk, but by what they can realistically expect from them when the curtain of pre-election shows falls.
This year’s set of candidates for the president of the country is rich. Their presentation is also better than usual. It is not difficult for voters who want it to assess what they are like at the core of their personality, what worldviews they follow. For example, we know what to expect from candidates who have internalised the idol of Che Guevara or the “find yourself!” business model. We also know that candidates who have already proven themselves to be reliably capable, committed, responsible, honest, and broadly inclusive patriots in important civil service positions will meet our expectations.
Therefore, voting for the president of the country should not be a lottery, but a sober choice.
