By: Gašper Blažič
In Slovenia’s constitutional system, the President of the Republic generally does not hold a position comparable to that of the presidents of the USA, France, or the Russian Federation. His role is in fact more symbolic, despite being elected through direct elections. In some European countries, if they are not constitutional monarchies, the president is chosen by the parliament. Germany and Italy are such examples – as well as Hungary, which recently “dismantled” its president early by adopting the 17th constitutional amendment, resulting in the resignation of President Tamás Sulyok. This is said to be part of the systemic measures taken by the government of Péter Magyar against allies of former prime minister Viktor Orbán.
For Hungary, this is already the second resignation of a president in the past three years, since President Katalin Novák voluntarily stepped down in 2024. It is worth recalling that the term‑limit rules for the presidency in Hungary are practically the same as in Slovenia. A presidential term lasts five years, and a maximum of two consecutive terms is allowed. Novák served less than two years, and Sulyok just under two and a half. This means that together they did not serve even one full presidential term. It is also worth noting that neither of them was removed through impeachment – a mechanism also recognised by the Slovenian constitution.
Despite the fact that the roles of the president in Slovenia and Hungary – despite different election methods – are very comparable, Slovenia has never had a president resign early. Slovenia has had a president since the end of 1992, as the adoption of the current constitution (23 December 1991) enabled elections under the new system. As is known, Milan Kučan, the former president of the presidency, then served two presidential terms, meaning he was head of state for almost 13 years, not counting his leadership of the Central Committee of the League of Communists. Despite relatively weak formal powers, Kučan was strong through informal networks, which became evident when he founded Forum 21 after retiring, an institutionalised form of his circle, about which Danilo Slivnik wrote a widely discussed book.
And what about the informal power of the presidents who followed Kučan’s retirement? Janez Drnovšek decided to run only after long hesitation, but the second half of his only term was marked by illness. Danilo Türk was the first president after Kučan who took his informal role very seriously and acted arbitrarily in favour of the political option that “delegated” him – something that ultimately backfired when he lost to Borut Pahor, the only president after Kučan to win two consecutive terms.
And the current president, Nataša Pirc Musar? It is noticeable that after the election of the fourth Janša government, she continues to act in line with her previous profession as a lawyer, except now she is a political lawyer for the left. She justifies her role by saying she “will not be silent” and must defend democracy, something she was not particularly eager to do under the previous government. A particularly striking example of her arbitrariness was her intervention in favour of Tanja Fajon, who failed to obtain a high diplomatic post in the EU because the current government supposedly “pulled the handbrake.” The president was not interested in the fact that the procedure was actually unlawful, since neither the previous nor the current government had formally processed the nomination. A doctor of law who previously worked as a lawyer suddenly forgot about respecting rules, just so she could publicly attack the government, which also shows her misuse of the presidential office. Pirc Musar is, for example, disappointed with the government’s actions, but not with Tanja Fajon’s. At least not publicly.
This is also a good reason for the broader public to deliver a clear NO to the current president and her political practice next autumn.