Piše: Dr Janez Remškar
On December 2nd, we witnessed an ideologically and politically “completely balanced” discussion hosted by Marcel Štefančič. The participants included Dr Vesna Bergant Rakočevič, Dr Rajko Pirnat, and Dr Peter Klepec.
A few words need to be said about the composition of the panel. Let me start with Prof. Dr Rajko Pirnat. The day before his appearance on Marcel’s show, in relation to the government’s and the Minister of the Interior’s failure to comply with a court ruling regarding the legality of appointing the current Director-General of Police, he unequivocally stated that the actions of the government and the minister were illegal. A lawyer and professor made this assessment. Yet, the Minister of the Interior sees nothing controversial in the government’s actions, openly admitting – essentially incriminating himself – that they have been doing the same all along. In other words, they have not provided clarity on whether candidates for high office meet the qualifications or not! Fascinating! The professor deems this illegal! The courts ruled the same. The government and the minister? Silence. How is this possible? The court has spoken. However, Vesna Bergant Rakočević, the president of the Judicial Society, did not address the illegality of the government and minister’s actions.
Regarding the events in Celje, the professor criticised Janez Janša’s conduct, stating that his critique of the judiciary was unacceptable. This perspective must be respected, as he is entitled to his opinion as a lawyer. Perhaps, though, he could have pointed out that some judicial decisions are indeed questionable. He did not. It seems that criticising judges is off-limits, and now judges have replaced doctors as the “gods” of society – no longer in white coats but in robes. I would ask Prof. Pirnat whether he held such a critical view back in 2014, when Zoran Janković, appearing on Croatian public television, responded to a question by host Aleksandar Stanković: “Are you ever afraid that one day you might be convicted and sent to prison?” by saying, “Not at all. For all these years, I have been, so to speak, the biggest opponent of Janez Janša’s politics on the executive level.” Back then, there was no public outcry over this statement, which revealed a lot about our judiciary! Did the professor speak out at that time, even if he was not explicitly asked? It seems it would have been appropriate, if only for professional reasons. Alarm bells should have rung everywhere – but they did not. Why not?
There is no need to write more about the judiciary’s professionalism or the trust in its expertise. Perhaps a public survey before Janša’s ruling, asking, “Do you believe Mr. Janša will be convicted after 20 years of trials?” would have provided interesting insights for the judges.
Now, a few words about the “balance” of Marcel’s interlocutors. I have already commented on the professor. Vesna Bergant Rakočević is the head of the Judicial Society and the wife of Igor Bergant, a journalist who has been an advocate for the “depoliticization” of RTV Slovenia. I have no objections to Vesna Bergant Rakočević’s or Igor Bergant’s right to free thought and decision-making. However, the fact is that they are politically aligned – and not with the political centre, much less the right. Again, there is nothing wrong with that! Everyone is entitled to their stance. But viewers have the right to expect that a national television station, which is supposed to be politically impartial, provides information from different political perspectives and from people with diverse worldviews so that they can form their own opinions.
Regarding Dr Peter Klepec and his political orientation (again, nothing wrong with it – he has every right to it), here are just a few facts. He was inspired to pursue sociology by Dr Slavko Gaber, completed his degree at the Faculty of Arts under Dr Mladen Dolar, and was taught by figures such as Dr Slavoj Žižek and Dr Božidar Debenjak, who also led a department at the political school in Kumrovec and completed a doctorate on the concept of alienation in Engels’ philosophy. He was also an assistant professor for Marxology. Is it plausible that such a person can provide politically philosophical commentary without any ideological undertone? Who believes that? Once again, many thanks to the “depoliticized” national broadcaster and especially to Marcel for his outstanding intellectual contributions!