In Slovenia, when the right-wing at least partially takes over the government, power in propaganda becomes a problem. That’s when leftists get a special gleam in their eyes and furious frowning foreheads that ominously bent and snarl into microphones, megaphones and space. Of course, they are assisted by the dominant media, which have proven countless times whom they belong to. However, the media are not a part of the government, although they would like to belong to it as a kind of the fourth branch. It is a platitude that does not hold water. The honest media do not deal with power and political influence on the work of the government, but only observer and critique. Even though through honest critique, the government can be at least partially influenced, this it is not an act of power and it also should not be. It is even worse when criticism is not realistic, not objective, and malicious. Unfortunately, this does happen.
The internal factor of power
Whichever way we look at it, the media is influential, but they are an external factor. Today, I would like to touch upon the prosecution as an internal factor of power, which the prosecution certainly is. The State Attorney’s Office is an institution within the executive branch. It is supposed to be independent and committed exclusively to legality and constitutionality, thus acting in the interest of seeking a fair prosecution of the perpetrators. Unfortunately, in recent days, we are faced with the fact that this is not the case. The prosecution has once again proven to be a disruptive, chipped or not oiled cog in the mechanism of ensuring the rule of law, which has lately become such a beloved phrase.
When discussing The State Attorney’s Office, it is impossible to ignore the proposal of the government’s amendment to the State Prosecutor’s Office Act, which in Article 24 demands the co-signature of the head of the state prosecutor’s office to the decision to dismiss charges. Following the coalition amendment, the prosecutor will only give the draft act to the head of the prosecutor’s office for inspection before deciding to dismiss the complaint in a case of serious crimes.
This will be a relatively big change in the work and decision-making of the prosecution. Namely, prosecutors have in the past (too) often decided to dismiss complaints, which is a problem in itself, especially if there was a well-founded doubt in such decisions. The prosecutor’s decision is final and cannot be challenged. The complainant may then act as a subsidiary (substitute) prosecutor and thus continue the prosecution, but this rarely happens, as the procedure is demanding for an individual, and above all it is associated with high costs. In this way, prosecutions of many well-founded suspicions remain without a judicial epilogue.
There are also cases of the opposite extreme, when prosecutors decide to prosecute even in cases where there are not enough reasons for that. In these cases, a trial occurs, which is often lengthy and tedious for the accused. Some argue that the system nevertheless works if the innocent is eventually found innocent. Formally, this might be true if we do not imagine how someone innocent feels for years going through the proceedings, even though in the end it is found out the indictment had no legal basis. The defendant knows this firmly all the time, but it does not help him that there is a doubt in his guilt.
Such proceedings are most attention-grabbing when a politician is involved, but we know that they also happen to others. This is an unfair exercise of power, which traverses from the executive branch to the judiciary. In this respect, it is important that, in addition to fair treatment, proceedings take place within a reasonable time period. Next, I will focus on a case that has experienced indictment after fifteen years. From the fact that it has been presented in detail to the public several times, we can very reasonably conclude that it will end without the epilogue that the indictment promises. Unfortunately, we have before us a new case in which the indictment is on shaky grounds.
The case of Trenta
The Specialised State Prosecutor’s Office (SDT) announced last week that they had filed an indictment against three people for abusing their position and rights and abetting a crime. They are said to be the former president of the management board of Imos, Branko Kastelic, the former director of the company Eurogradnja, Klemen Gantar, and Janez Janša. It is alleged that Janez Janša made too much money between the purchase of the land, which dates back to the early 1990s, and the sale, which took place in 2005. You read right, someone on the free market in the real estate business, according to the prosecution, made too much money. The basis for the assessment, of course, is not an assessment of what is happening in the market, but the socialist mentality that selling something for more than buying it, is a sin. Proven and repeatedly presented to the public is the fact that the prices of all plots in that area were quite comparable to the price in Janša’s sale in 2005. But no, the prosecution claims that the Prime Minister, which was Janša at the time of the sale, should have sold the plot for a price lower than the market price. This would be the only credible proof for them that he did not use his influence and thus benefit from the sale. The prosecution is not interested in the fact that the same plot was sold twice after Janša’s sale, each time for a higher price than the previous one.
The pattern from 2013 is repeating
In 2020, the prosecution repeated the pattern of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption in 2013, when under the leadership of Goran Klemenčič it produced a hair-raising report on Prime Minister Janez Janša, which happened in the second term of his rule. At the time, the report, which turned out to be political, achieved its purpose. As the result, coalition partners withdrew from the coalition one after another, and the government disintegrated. The goal was achieved and we got Alenka Bratušek, Miro Cerar and Marjan Šarec. In the meantime, it took seven years for things to return to the will of the majority of the electorate.
This time, things are happening with the same purpose. They are taking place in the State Attorney’s Office, where there are serial rejections of charges, indictments without grounds, and where for years and years “cases” are being “packed” in court investigations waiting for a favourable moment to file charges against someone who proves to be a thorn in deep state’s side. Currently, as in 2013, the current government with its president is this thorn in the deep state’s side. In addition to the disputed content of the indictment, the time of filing this indictment is a clear indication that it is an orchestrated action aimed at overthrowing the government.
Unsuccessful previous attempts at overthrowing the current government
The attack on the coalition partner of Party of the Modern Center (SMC) and its president Zdravko Počivalšek in connection with the procurement of protective equipment did not do the job. Nor did it the attack on the party New Slovenia (NSi) and its president Matej Tonin, whom they tried to discredit in the same matter and so far no attempt has been successful in destabilisation of the Democratic Party of Pensioners (DeSUS), where a slightly different scenario has unfolded. Someone managed to trigger the situation within the party, which led to the replacement of President Aleksandra Pivec, who also left the party, but which currently does not affect the position of Desus within the coalition.
Now we can witness an attempt to discredit SDS and its president Janez Janša in order to create a new false impression, which would trigger a false reflex of moral and ethical behaviour in the coalition partners and force them to leave the coalition.
Even then, the measure was not the quality of work, but the background activities (deep state) that were relatively successful in the past. At that time (2013), the government of Janez Janša successfully dealt with the consequences of the economic and financial crisis that occurred during Pahor’s government, and this time the situation is similar. After the catastrophic rule under the leadership of Marjan Šarc, the government is successfully facing all current challenges, from curbing the epidemic and measures to prevent the consequences of COVID-19, to successful international integration.
Due to the quality of its operations, the government is more successful in building trust internationally than at home. It seems that Slovenian-type miners are not so successful there, although they are far from being less active. This testifies to how unfavourable the environment for successful operation is in Slovenia. It is mainly a problem of mentality and protection of the current situation, which is obviously not favourable for the development and creation of conditions for a better quality of life. Man has never been too keen on introducing change, but with the development of analytical and other tools, he has realised that change is often necessary. The pace of development is increasing, so the need for changes and adjustments is becoming more frequent. The sooner we fully realise this in Slovenia, the sooner we will be able to stand alongside the best even more confidently.
This time, coalition partners understand what is happening
Something in Slovenia nowadays is different than it was in 2013. Coalition partners all have some experiences with the operation of the deep state that uses the police, State Attorney’s Office and other levers, including the judiciary, for their own interests. In just a few months of the current government’s existence, many in the coalition have stated that they now understand what they were talking about in the Slovenian Democratic Party when they reproached political hearings in the police, State Attorney’s Office and courts. During this coalition, they themselves were directly confronted with the facts and felt them at least in part, even though the coalition has only existed for a short time.
Whether the use of the cavalry will be successful depends on the decision of the current coalition partners of the Janša’s government: will they prefer to be comfortably on the side of forces protecting the situation from the past or will they break free from the embrace that tries to keep us in the old clinch of the ring parterre of the proud heirs of the League of Communists?
The times have definitely changed. The coalition is solid and more and more people see the clearer picture, sharpened not only by the good work of this government, but also by the exposed incompetence of those who would like the exclusive right to power. Under the slogan “different” they impose on us old dusty models that never worked. Well, that has not changed.
