By: Dr. Matevž Tomšič
The rejection of the Parliamentary Investigation Act in the recent referendum is undoubtedly a blow to the governing coalition. Although the result was close, it nevertheless represents a painful defeat. On top of that, it appears they may also lose the referendum on the mandatory public broadcasting licence fee. Victory in the other two consultative referendums is, more or less, merely a consolation prize.
Such an outcome was fairly unexpected, as opinion polls had predicted that the law would be approved. In fact, the government is only at the beginning of its term, when it could normally count on strong public support. Its predecessor, it should be remembered, was winning referendums during the early phase of its mandate.
From the standpoint of substance, however, the failure of the law to enter into force may not prove particularly problematic. The argument that the referendum’s initiators were primarily seeking to shield former Prime Minister Golob and his associates from investigations into controversial business dealings connected to Gen-I is probably correct to a significant extent. Nevertheless, such investigations can still be conducted under the current legislation. More broadly, what matters most is that the law enforcement authorities responsible for investigating potential criminal offences carry out their work effectively.
The referendum rejection of the law is above all a symbolic defeat for the governing coalition. For the left-wing opposition, which was left somewhat disoriented after failing to form a government, the result will boost confidence. It has learned that overturning government legislation through referendums can be successful. This is bad news for the government ahead of the upcoming referendum on the Intervention Measures Act. Its rejection would be far more damaging, since many of the government’s political priorities and policy measures are based on that legislation.
Perhaps the most striking aspect of the campaign was that opponents of the Parliamentary Investigation Act succeeded through extraordinary manipulation. While manipulation is an inevitable feature of political campaigns, the argument here is that it exceeded all reasonable limits this time. Opponents claimed that the new law would effectively introduce a political police force. This was not merely a blatant falsehood but also an insult to those who genuinely suffered persecution at the hands of the communist-era secret police. Moreover, those warning that a so-called political police force would target ordinary citizens, monitor private communications, scrutinise bank accounts, and engage in similar practices were displaying remarkable hypocrisy. These self-proclaimed defenders of civil liberties remained silent when, during the previous government, a parliamentary commission allegedly engaged in exactly such conduct, severely violating the rights of individuals who were not even the subjects of the investigation but merely witnesses. This amounted to a serious abuse of the parliamentary inquiry process, intended solely to settle political scores with opponents. This was later acknowledged by the then Secretary General of what was then the largest governing party. Yet, the left-wing activists who campaigned so vigorously against the new law appeared untroubled by those actions. Of course, because it was their side doing it, while the targets were the so-called “Janšists.” And they surely deserve nothing better, do they?
The government side clearly underestimated the power of political manipulation. It mistakenly assumed that most citizens would recognise the opponents’ hypocrisy and would not be misled by their messaging. As a result, it did not prepare sufficiently for the referendum and conducted a significantly more passive campaign than its opponents. Once again, however, it became apparent that the political left possesses a network capable of mobilising large numbers of voters in the final days before an election or referendum. The influence of major media outlets, which opposed the law, contributed to the outcome. For that reason, this referendum defeat should serve as a wake-up call ahead of the more consequential referendum on the Intervention Measures Act. The government will need to prepare much more thoroughly and adopt a more proactive approach. Manipulation should never be underestimated, no matter how transparent it may appear.
