By: Vančo K. Tegov
Slovenia, and with it its citizens, is facing a classic dilemma: continue with high spending, promises and polarisation, or shift toward rational governance, reducing dependence on the “public trough” and ensuring long‑term stability. This is a legitimate question that Slovenia genuinely needs to confront.
Let’s look at the facts (as of May 2026). Fiscal reality. After the March 2026 elections (Svoboda 29 seats, SDS 28, others fragmented), the Golob government failed to form a coalition and moved into opposition. The situation remains unstable – new attempts at forming a Janša‑led government, support pacts, or early elections are all possible.
The deficit increased from 0.9% of GDP in 2024 to around 2.2–2.5% in 2025, and the 2026 budget foresees further expansion toward 2.9%.
Public debt stands at around 65–66% of GDP, with rising pressures from population ageing, public‑sector wage reforms, the green transition (coal phase‑out), defence (NATO), and social transfers.
Expenditure is growing faster than revenue – a typical pattern: interventions (floods, energy, wages, bonuses) become permanent, while investments are often inefficient or delayed.
This is not necessarily “hysteria” but a structural problem: high current spending limits the space for investments in productivity, infrastructure, and long‑term security. If the trend continues, future generations will pay through higher taxes, lower growth, or cuts.
Liberal “transfer‑ism” a knife to the throat of public finances
The four‑year period (2022–2026) under the Golob’s government brought an expansion of current spending and social transfers, which is now clearly reflected in public finances. There are no “empty granaries” in the sense of bankruptcy, but the trend is worrying and unsustainable.
Main drivers of deficit growth: Public‑sector wage reform (a major increase in public‑sector salaries). Higher transfers to the pension fund (ZPIZ), the health fund, and long‑term care. Winter bonuses and deliberately planned high expenditures for pensioners and workers, subsidies, energy, floods. Cash social transfers planned to grow by 7–8% annually – beneficial to no one and “in favour” of the deficit. Immature and financially unhealthy.
Social protection and healthcare already accounted for more than half of public spending. Additional entitlements (widow’s pensions, long‑term care, bonuses) structurally increased current expenditure. This is a typical pattern of excessive generosity with public money – popular in the short term, but limiting investments in infrastructure, defence (NATO 2–3%), and productivity in the long term.
The truth is that a welfare state works only if the economy is productive enough to finance it. If spending grows faster than GDP and tax revenues, the system becomes a pyramid resting on borrowing or higher taxes for younger generations.
After a period of “liberalism in spending” (high current expenditure), rationalisation is needed, with people competent to deliver it. Citizens demand metrics: how fast is productivity growing, how much is dependence on transfers decreasing, and how much remains for future investments? Words about “social justice” without fiscal reality are empty.
Logic of change
Every long‑lasting government (regardless of ideology) develops clientelism, inefficiency, and resistance to accountability. A generational shift in politics and reduced political influence over state‑owned companies, appointments, and subsidies can bring more order and meritocracy. This is not automatic, it requires systemic reforms (e.g., better public procurement, term limits, transparency).
Intolerance and loudness: Polarisation (left–right, Janša–Golob) has been extreme in Slovenia for decades. Loudness often replaces arguments. The logic lies in results: which policies actually raise GDP per capita, reduce import dependence, improve health and education, and strengthen security? Promises of “better for everyone” without numbers are empty.
Citizens and voters should not jump at the first offer. Programmes must be compared using measurable indicators: productivity growth, public finances, rule of law, demographics. Truth, ambition, and the ability to improve must be demonstrated empirically.
What would a “new government” mean as a compass?
No government is a guarantee. But it must be given a chance, and must prove its capability. Stability, security, and a healthy future require: Fiscal discipline – gradual reduction of the structural deficit, prioritising investment over current spending.
Reforms – pension, healthcare, education, labour market (less bureaucracy, more flexibility).
Depoliticization – of state‑owned companies, the judiciary, the media.
Realism – not just words about “green”, “digital”, or “social”, but actionable measures that generate growth.
“Better for everyone” in reality means policies that raise the average, not merely redistribute. Slovenia has strong foundations (small, open, educated), but risks losing ground due to demographics and inefficiency. The compass points toward long‑term sustainability, not momentary emotions or promises. Regardless of who forms the next government, hopefully within a week, the key will be monitoring actions: do they reduce dependence on borrowing and clientelism, or merely change the teams at the trough?
Citizens have the duty to demand the former.
