Piše: Jože Biščak
Although commentators and analysts sympathetic to the Ljubljana mayor are trying to prove that the initiators of the Ljubljana “parking” referendum lost and that Janković won, the message is actually different: the beginning of the end of a long era in the Slovenian capital. This is also demonstrated by Janković’s statement that the new parking regime he wanted to impose at all costs will not be implemented before the end of his term. The man is afraid. He knows that parking could decide the election. He has realised that citizens have begun to ask themselves: “Why exactly still him?”
It is true that the quorum was not reached, and too few voters voted against. Why? It is holiday season, many people are already at the seaside, and besides, the referendum did not affect most Ljubljana residents. The parking ordinance affected only those citizens living in apartment blocks and neighbourhoods built during the most intensive period of socialist construction (1960–1980). Because the former communist regime aimed to ensure that private property would not exist – meaning people would not have their own cars but would use public transport – they did not build underground garages or enough parking spaces. Therefore, people living in newer blocks (which have two‑ or three‑level underground garages) or in residential houses simply did not show up at the polling stations.
Nevertheless, 40,000 votes against the ordinance send a clear message: enough. Especially because both left‑ and right‑leaning voters joined the Civil Initiative Ljubljana (CILJ) in supporting the referendum. Everyone has had enough of Janković’s autocratic management of the city, where he decides everything himself. The parking ordinance was only the latest symptom. Before that: the C0 canal, the incinerator, garages under the main Ljubljana market, utility prices, strange traffic schemes… Always the same pattern of mayoral rule: top‑down, with little regard for those who pay the bills. That is why the referendum, although formally “unsuccessful”, is Janković’s moral and political defeat. It showed that the support which, due to charisma and media backing, was long truly impressive, is now rapidly fading. And the “yellow card” he received was not a card for one ordinance, but for his entire way of governing.
In 2022, his list lost its absolute majority in the city council for the first time; now he governs with the help of the Freedom Movement and the SD. The first cracks already appeared then. That is why autumn, when local elections take place, will be extremely interesting. If the referendum energy spills over into voter turnout, and if a candidate emerges who can articulate the frustration with the long‑lasting rule of one man who has managed the city as his private fiefdom, then Janković may face a surprise. And lose the election. The current city sheriff is helped only by the fact that the amendment to the Local Elections Act, under which only Slovenian citizens would be allowed to vote at the local level, will not yet apply this autumn (a referendum initiative has been filed). And it is precisely among foreigners in Ljubljana, who mostly come from former Yugoslav countries, that Janković traditionally enjoys strong support.
There is much wrong in Ljubljana. From traffic jams and incomprehensible environmental interventions that reduce quality of life, to poor air and housing problems. The Slovenian capital is a textbook example of what long‑term rule brings, a rule that began with promises of efficiency and “work without ideology”, but eventually turned into a permanent coalition between the public administration, selected contractors, and left‑wing activists. What they all share is the belief that citizens, without their wisdom, do not know what is good for them, and that Ljubljana residents need a “fatherly” mayor who will tell them what they may and may not do.
Now everything is in the hands of Ljubljana’s citizens. In autumn they must decide whether they still want mafia‑style management of the capital or whether they want something better – that the fate of the city will not be decided by a single man.
