By: Gašper Blažič
Friday, March 14th, was once again reserved this year as a commemorative day for Dr Jože Pučnik. Not only because of the annual awarding of diplomas to the participants of the Pučnik Academy and New Politics, but also due to the relevance of the current topic.
This year’s theme was dedicated to geopolitics, which is once again becoming a key factor in international relations, and hate speech, which has become an excuse for the return of censorship in public discourse. These issues were discussed once again in the Knight’s Hall of Slovenska Bistrica Castle, which has in recent years become a regular venue for participants of the Pučnik Symposium. The event also welcomed international guests. Among them were Dr Norbert Eschborn, head of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation’s regional office, and Dr Robin Harris from the Centre for the Renewal of Culture, both based in Zagreb. Sofia Solemacher van der Vegt from the Christian Democratic Institute in Budapest, who attended last year’s event, addressed participants this time via video message, as did Marek Mutor from the European Platform of Memory and Conscience. Many, however, missed the presence of Gorazd Pučnik.
When social democrats and Christian democrats join hands
Some might find it surprising that Jože Pučnik, an intellectual who combined social sciences and humanities and was a firm social democrat, is now a figure of interest primarily for Christian democratic and conservative forces, rather than modern social democrats. Some critics also point out that Pučnik identified as an atheist in 1990, yet many Christians regard him as a near-saintly figure. These paradoxes may seem unusual, but they reflect the heterogeneity of DEMOS, the coalition he led, which was nevertheless united by shared values. During Slovenia’s independence process, Pučnik held no formal political office – he was neither a minister, a member of the presidency, nor a parliamentarian – yet as a charismatic dissident, he had tremendous influence over the DEMOS coalition and the independence government. He was the driving force that kept pushing forward, even when progress stalled, sometimes even anticipating events before they unfolded. In November 1990, after a historic internal meeting, Pučnik was the first to announce to the media that the plebiscite for independence would be held on December 23rd, 1990. This caused great anger from Milan Kučan, who was used to the Communist Party (CK ZKS) making all key decisions for the state and society, and who did not tolerate competition. Kučan then imposed conditions on DEMOS, which had to accept them in order to keep the referendum date. The plebiscite was a resounding success, far exceeding expectations. “Yugoslavia is no more – this is about Slovenia,” Pučnik declared on the night of the referendum results, adding that the Slovenian people had given their leaders a clear mandate to implement independence. After independence, Pučnik faced many hard lessons in democracy. He briefly served as Deputy Prime Minister in 1992, later as a parliamentarian, and after his political retirement, he became a strong supporter of civil society. He understood that Slovenia had not yet fully overcome the remnants of totalitarianism. Today, 22 years after Pučnik’s death, this remains truer than ever.
“The end of history” has not arrived
If Pučnik were still alive, he would likely agree that the “end of history” – as proclaimed years ago by Francis Fukuyama – has not yet come. Or, as the editor of Demokracija Dr Metod Berlec stated at the beginning of the Pučnik Symposium: “We are witnessing the return of geopolitics to international relations. As a result, we are seeing a brutal war in Ukraine, chaos in the Middle East, and much more. History is unfolding right before our eyes. With geopolitics making a comeback, international law is becoming secondary to military, economic, and technological power. It is clear that internationally recognised borders are under threat and that we are entering a new era of global divisions. We must think realistically, soberly, and prudently – and act accordingly in international relations. /…/ We are facing the rise of so-called soft totalitarianism – not just in Slovenia, but across the collective West. Fortunately, in the United States, a new political leadership has emerged that prioritises freedom of speech. /…/ The question arises: what about Europe? Will freedom of speech still be a European value, or will it be stifled by Brussels bureaucracy in the name of some allegedly higher goals?”
Communication is becoming increasingly regulated
Thirty-five years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, new challenges and questions continue to emerge, shaping both the present and the future. The opening addresses by international guests hinted at this reality. For example, Dr Norbert Eschborn, drawing from his global experience, highlighted the growing restrictions on freedom of speech. Even in mundane situations, such as a job interview, communication is now highly regulated, making it difficult to even ask basic questions. Similarly, Polish historian Marek Mutor, speaking via video, warned of threats to democracy, particularly in light of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. He emphasised that our guiding principles should be Christian values and the legacy of classical antiquity. Andrej Umek, representing the Dr Anton Korošec Institute, stressed that democracy is under attack and that the public must be informed with unfiltered truth. Janez Remškar from Zbor za republiko also spoke out against restrictions on free speech.
How the West betrayed Ukraine
At the first roundtable discussion, former Slovenian Ambassador to the U.S. Tone Kajzer moderated a conversation with Janez Janša on the new geopolitical reality 35 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Janša began by stating that the world is as it is – not as we wish it to be. He also recalled Milan Kučan’s claim that the Berlin Wall collapsed on both sides. He encouraged attendees to purchase and read the book Why Ukraine Must Win, published by Nova obzorja. Janša argued that the biggest problem is that Russia never underwent a real transition after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Crimes went unpunished, and today, the country is led by a former high-ranking KGB officer backed by a powerful network. Additionally, Russia holds a veto power in the UN Security Council, and its aggression against Ukraine actually began in 2014. Since then, Ukraine has never received sufficient financial and military support from the West. He pointed out that in 2008, NATO had the opportunity to accept Ukraine and Georgia into its Membership Action Plan, but they were betrayed, despite both nations’ strong desire to join. If NATO does not expand, someone else will. Instead of integrating Ukraine and Georgia, the West continued appeasing Putin. Even though, NATO should have supported Ukraine as early as 1994, when the country gave up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for a guarantee of territorial integrity under the Budapest Memorandum. The consequences of these poor decisions could be catastrophic, including a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan or North Korean provocations in the Pacific. The current Slovenian government is also a problem, as it seeks to outmanoeuvre NATO regarding the increase in GDP percentage for defence funding, even publicly stating how they intend to deceive NATO.
Censors are paid with our money
The second roundtable focused on hate speech, featuring Jože Biščak (former editor of Demokracija), MEP Milan Zver, and Matevž Tomšič (president of the Association of Journalists and Publicists). Tomšič argued that European values are being exploited to push a woke agenda, control disinformation, and enforce political correctness – which, in reality, is just censorship under a different name. Zver claimed that the left suddenly became afraid of new media platforms and began imposing regulations under the guise of media freedom protection. However, the media belong to civil society, and not to the state. Censors are also very well paid with taxpayer money. All three speakers agreed that this situation represents a form of media Putinism and media control through a carrot-and-stick approach. Biščak shared his experience as the editor of Demokracija, describing the legal persecution he faced due to the publication of an article by Aleksander Škorc. He had been one of the first to address the issue of migration before taking on the editorial role. He was even convicted for insulting illegal migrants. In his view, the approach should be as American Vice President JD Vance recently stated in Munich: people should be allowed to express their views, even if you disagree with them. After all, freedom of speech is constitutionally guaranteed.
At the end of the symposium, the Pučnik Award was presented to Professor, Archbishop, and publicist Anton Stres.