By: Davorin Kopše
Salto mortale or death jump from a height is an Italian noun phrase that in its origins illustrates the dangerous dizzying deeds of a circus acrobat. Later, it began to be used in other areas as well, among them in assessing political performance, which we call political somersault mortale. In this case, it is not a leap, but a fall of a policy that falls from its imaginary heights to real ground, resulting in self-harm. You could also say that those who higher fly, shall lower fall. This is exactly what happened to Slovene politicians last week, who represent the left pole and are trying to overthrow the Slovene government with all their might.
More than thirty years after independence and the abolition of the totalitarian socialist system under the leadership of the Communists, Slovene politics still behaves as the only one that has the exclusive right to lead the country. Born in the blood of their political opponents, they pushed aside all democratic standards, which they still cling to today. They are fighting uncompromisingly for power and are not interested in the consequences. As long as they themselves do not suffer. This time, they did or they should have, as their attempts to discredit the Slovenian government and the country abroad have crumbled to dust.
Slovenian representatives in the European Parliament, Tanja Fajon, Igor Grošelj, Milan Brglez and Irena Joveva, as well as Ljudmila Novak from the coalition Nova Slovenija, tried to present Slovenia as a human rights violator for several months, where, among other things, unacceptable pressure is put on the media and their freedom. Last week, a delegation from the European Parliament’s Committee on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights, led by Sophie in ‘t Veld, visited Slovenia for monitoring. This delegation comes from the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE).
They rejected about twenty credible experts
From the preliminary events on the left political scene of the EU, we clearly saw that the delegation came to Slovenia with convictions that were based on spreading lies. They were also helped by their own biased political orientation, which is not in favour of the Slovenian government. Despite the blockade of the majority media, information came to the public that the group was deliberately politically unbalanced. For unexplained reasons, they refused to cooperate with all those who could also provide information and facts for the benefit of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia and the actual situation. As we have learned, they even tried to prevent the participation of Slovenian MEP Romana Tomc, which fortunately did not succeed. At the end of the day, she was formally nominated to the commission by the European People’s Party, which could not be rejected.
It was Romana Tomc who suggested the interlocutors for the time during the delegation’s visit. Fearing the presentation of a balanced picture of the situation in Slovenia, they refused to cooperate with around twenty credible experts with the opposite opinion. The excuse was that many others had already been chosen and that enlargement would mean opacity due to the crowds. This is similar to the claim that we have media pluralism in Slovenia only because of the number of media, which is not and should not be the only criterion for balance. In terms of content, the Slovene media, which are otherwise massive, are still 90 percent in favour of the left wing political scene.
Let us also refer to the words of Romana Tomc, who, after the departure of the group at a regional meeting in Carinthia and in some media (where she was allowed), revealed the background of the events during the three-day visit of the delegation. Unfortunately, we do not have many other public sources for now. She said that the participants Violeta Tomić and Nataša Sukić from Levica especially made a fool of themselves. Unfortunately, their performances cannot be traced, but we can imagine the fiasco of these two extremes if we follow their performances in the National Assembly. These constantly force the listener to close their ears, as they are literally biased, both in terms of content and form, indigestible.
The most important finding of the commission during the visit to Slovenia is that there was no real reason for the visit. Namely, they found that Slovenian institutions work, that the government does not influence them and does not try to influence them without authorisation, that the media are free and independent, but that we have a rather polarised society where there is a lot of tension. The basic conclusion of the delegation is therefore that in Slovenia we have no problems with the democratic organisation of institutions and that the government does not exert pressure on the media, and the secondary one is that we have a strong polarisation of society. From the above, it is not difficult to determine who is causing the tensions. The policy of constant attempts to discredit the normal situation in the country does not contribute to the stability of the situation, but on the contrary. The findings are thus a hard landing of a high-flying policy that has once again tried to glorify itself by spreading lies. Another fact saddens. Malicious media, which helped escalate the tension before the visit, set a cushioning pad after the visit by not reporting the fiasco correctly.
Disappointment of the media
The head of the delegation, Sophie in ’t Veld, gave an introductory speech at the press conference at the end of the visit. This is the MEP who censored the video of the Slovenian government and its President about the actual situation and pressure on the media, whose victims are witnessed only by alternative media. The latter could not ignore the facts, which were by no means in favour of the majority media and malicious political forces in the country. They were expecting a pogrom that did not take place, so they were disappointed and almost gave up on the questions. Instead of being happy, they hung up their cameras and noses. Someone from the delegation allegedly even asked one of the journalists if he was not satisfied with the favourable outcome, and he just smiled sourly.
As it was also stated that there is a bit too inappropriate overlapping of political poles in our country, the media jumped on to this. They also include tweets in the story, where they to re-illuminate only Janša’s tweets, which are exclusively reactionary in nature. They are not interested in the causes. Sometimes it seems that the most important media and political topic is tweeting. This is another indicator of the emptiness and misery they are capable of. In inappropriate communication, they try to encourage inappropriate communication.
To the disappointment of the media and the KUL political scene in Slovenia, we could all be happy to live in an age of digitalisation and social networks, where nothing is hidden. The media no longer have complete primacy in covering events. We would never know from them how vile the reasons for the urgent decisive reactions on Twitter, with which Janez Janša kicks up dust among evil liars, can be.
A report follows
In addition to preventing the participation of important experts in the situation in Slovenia in the field of democracy and the role of the media, we must not overlook another fact. The delegation was otherwise prepared to visit the Ministry of Culture, where it could get acquainted first-hand with the regulation and operation of the media space. However, it cancelled the visit immediately after the Ministry requested that the meeting be recorded. Recording would provide authentic assurance of the facts from the conversations. As the guests refused to do so, doubts remain as to the correct text of the report that follows.
Truth, justice and freedom are never values fought for forever, so they must be constantly fought for. In the regard of making the report, we can undoubtedly rely on an important member of the group Romana Tomc. Given her transparency efforts, we can be sure that she will insist on the correct wording of the report.
I do not know whether in the past the members of similar commissions were united in their final assessments and how things went if they were not. I also do not know whether it is permissible to give a formal separate opinion in this case, but in our case it can be expected at least informally in case of disagreement. And it will also fill the lines on social media. Salto mortale, welcome.
