By: Gašper Blažič
You may still remember my column (HERE) in which I wrote about political bipolarity as both a challenge and an opportunity. I do not want to repeat everything that has already been written, but it is worth recalling these facts, because it is well known that the collective memory of Slovenians is often highly selective and also “infected” with the syndrome of the “Egyptian pots of meat.” By this I do not mean only Yugonostalgia, which has in fact been present all along, but also the return to political models of the 1990s which were, on the one hand, somewhat productive, yet ultimately failed to deliver real added value.
What I have in mind, of course, are the “broad,” meaning ideologically mixed coalitions that were formed by Dr Janez Drnovšek. In 1998, during one of the debates – I believe it was the constitutional impeachment against him for having “cooked up” the secret agreement with Israel – he told the MPs that they would end up fighting each other over his succession. What he did not know was that this applied mainly to his own party at the time, LDS, which he himself led. And it applies even more to the current holders of power, who are held together only by an “anti-Janša” resentment. Otherwise, they are deeply at odds with one another. The opposition can, popcorn in hand, watch the political and moral disintegration of the coalition. And this does not refer only to the three parties that compose it, but also to all its “NGOs” and media. And, of course, all the social subsystems that this coalition has “depoliticised,” from RTV to the police, which preferred to grab Aleksander Repić rather than investigate possible misconduct by the lawyer whom Repić allegedly blackmailed. And which prefers to investigate animal carcasses next to Svoboda’s posters and the possible authors of recordings with wiretaps rather than verify the truthfulness of the contents of those wiretaps.
What do such circumstances tell us? That in elections one should not give one’s vote to just anyone, but to those who are the bearers of change. And who are now the target of those in power. In tomorrow’s new issue of Demokracija, we have hinted that something unexpected could happen in the days before the election. For example, a police raid on our editorial office and on the homes of journalists, or on the homes of opposition MPs. At this moment, Golob’s camarilla is like a wounded beast that instinctively destroys everything that comes under its claws.
But apparently this does not sober some people up. Let us look, for example, at the case from the newspaper Delo, which seated the controversial president of the National Assembly, Urška Klakočar Zupančič, and MP Eva Irgl at the same table. Irgl was an SDS MP for twenty years, left the party in October 2024, and remained an MP. She said the following: “If we are the ones forming the government, then we will also go to the left side and look for common ground where we can find it, in order to form a government of political breadth.”
To clarify certain agreements, it is worth recalling that MP Eva Irgl, if we take the statement out of context, very likely has in mind a hypothetical situation in which Logar’s Democrats would be the party to whom the President of the Republic would grant the mandate to form a government (which does not necessarily mean they would win the most votes). It is clear that the winner forms coalitions with whomever they choose. This is simply the weakness of the proportional system, in which even after the election it is not entirely clear who the winner is and who will take over the government. We saw this in 2018, when Marjan Šarec formed the government, even though his party came second and had practically half the share of the winning SDS; he was saved by the “anti-Janša” coalition. Until, of course, that famous throwing in the towel happened. If, for example, the Democrats were given the chance to form a government, we can imagine that Zoran Janković would again end up in the coalition, whether they liked it or not. At least according to the polls, since Svoboda will apparently retain the status of the strongest party of the transitional left.
But at the same time, in the same article or podcast (HERE and HERE), we learn that Irgl is also not in favour of Janez Janša leading the government, even if it were right‑of‑centre. With this, the above‑quoted statement takes on a somewhat different meaning and suggests considerable confusion, while also revealing a point of contact with Svoboda. Usually, the mandate to form a government is given to the president of the party that wins the most votes, or to the candidate the party proposes. Let us say that this is SDS. But in this case, the government is formed by all the parties invited into the coalition and that respond positively to the invitation, while the winner is the one who invites and thus directs the formation of the government. So, imagine a situation in which the new mandatary, Janez Janša, invites the Democrats into the coalition, along with the joint list of NSi, SLS, and Fokus, and in this case the coalition would have more than enough votes for a comfortable majority. If Eva Irgl insists, just like Klakočar Zupančič, that she does not see Janša as the future prime minister, what happens then? Perhaps the Democrats refuse the invitation? Or they set conditions? That is, of course, their legitimate right. And perhaps it is good that they said this before the election. Above all so that those who were undecided about whom to support in the election can see which option truly brings change. Because first criticising the government and then, with fingers crossed in your pocket, making pacts with the same people to form the next government is not something that would be in Slovenia’s interest.
But perhaps Eva Irgl – whom I have personally known for about 25 years, since the time of studying theology – is right in at least one respect. She knows perfectly well that she cannot bring both Janez Janša and Zoran Janković into the same coalition. Now the only question is which of the two she will give priority to. It would be right for the Democrats to say this without beating around the bush in these ten days we still have before the election. We are waiting.