By: I. K. (Nova24tv)
Opposition leader Janez Janša has advocated on the social network X for what he calls a “constitutional majority of reason.” This concept is even more ambitious than a simple electoral victory for the right. It is essentially a plebiscitary vision. By legal tradition, constitutional amendments are always undertaken “with a trembling hand,” since the constitution is the fundamental document of the state and its relationship to people and institutions. In Slovenia, the constitution can only be amended with a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly. Achieving a constitutional majority of reason would thus require 60 votes, a threshold even the current Golob coalition, which rose to power on a wave of post-COVID hysteria, is unable to meet. This is, therefore, an exceptionally ambitious project.
Janša says that Slovenia needs a constitutional majority of reason for several urgent amendments to the existing constitution, as well as for the protection of certain fundamental constitutional provisions that, according to him, have been seriously weakened by the leftist majority on the Constitutional Court with the help of left-wing governments.
As an example of the latter, he points to decisions of the Constitutional Court that directly ignore constitutional provisions regarding parenthood as a protected constitutional category, or the constitutional right of parents to the moral upbringing of their children. Urgent amendments are also needed, he says, to protect freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, the free disposal of private property, the right to private education, and above all, the family.
The current constitution offers protection, but…
As Janša points out, while the current constitution formally protects all these categories, it does so with minimal wording, since it was written in a time when, following democratisation, hard-won fundamental human rights and political freedoms were taken for granted, and concepts had a clear and universally understood meaning. Today, that is no longer the case.
Court rulings that change our lives
The crown ruling that, in Janša’s view, best illustrates the bias of the Constitutional Court is the decision that lifted the temporary suspension of the clearly unconstitutional Law on RTV Slovenia. This happened after two judges bizarrely changed their minds using highly questionable legal reasoning (one is even accused of conspiring with European Commissioner Věra Jourová). Meanwhile, the law is predictably stuck in a drawer at the Constitutional Court and will remain there indefinitely – effectively clearing the way for complete leftist control over the public broadcaster, where far-left NGOs aligned with the government have reorganised the programming to suit their agenda.
The Constitutional Court also backed a legal amendment allowing access to medically assisted reproduction for women in same-sex relationships and single women, declaring it not in conflict with the Constitution. This amendment followed the court’s November ruling that the previous legal arrangement, which denied such women access to assisted reproduction, was unconstitutional. Constitutional law expert Jan Zobec was extremely critical of the court’s position, saying the court was wrong to treat motherhood as a right of the mother, arguing instead that parenthood should be seen as a duty. He added that having a child is not a right to be demanded, but a responsibility to be undertaken. According to him, the court erred by declaring that having a child is a right, it is a responsibility to raise and care for a child.
Most constitutional judges also failed to strike down parts of the Animal Protection Act, under which NGOs without expert knowledge can inspect farms, confiscate animals from farmers for alleged neglect, and even profit by selling the confiscated animals. A notable example of this law in practice came before the law officially took effect, when farmer Timotej Možgan had his cows confiscated following a report and at the request of an inspector, allegedly because they were too dirty and neglected. The confiscation was eventually overturned, partly due to public outcry and media attention. This was one of the most egregious intrusions by NGOs into private property. When the Constitutional Court endorsed the law, it sent a signal to the radical left that the hunt for “greedy capitalists” was on.
The Constitutional Court also ruled that laws stating that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and that same-sex couples cannot jointly adopt children, violate the constitutional prohibition of discrimination. The court further ruled that until this unconstitutionality is corrected, marriage is to be understood as a union between two persons regardless of gender, and that same-sex couples may adopt children under the same conditions as heterosexual married couples. In doing so, the Constitutional Court overrode the will of the people, as expressed not once but in three referenda, in which Slovenians clearly stated that a family consists of a father, a mother, and a child. This is an attack on the very foundations of society.
There have been many such rulings, ones that harm the most vulnerable, deny children the right to both parents, undermine property rights, and dismiss the right to accurate information. This is clearly a systemic phenomenon. But why? What is really going on?
The predictability of the Constitutional Court
Over time, the Constitutional Court, like other institutions in Slovenia, has degenerated into a centre of political activism serving the interests of the political left. Leftist majorities in the National Assembly have installed their loyal operatives, on whom they can count when politically sensitive issues are at stake. In the U.S. Supreme Court, even with a conservative majority, the ruling government is always uneasy when the court deliberates important cases because the outcome is never predictable.
In Slovenia, there is no such unpredictability. In every politically sensitive case, we already know the result will be the now infamous six to three. Just under ten years ago, it was not like this, constitutional judges were respected experts who avoided political entanglement. Now, the court includes individuals who helped write the political programme of a leftist party, a former NGO director, a member of a law firm with ties to the political left… all the ingredients for a court that rules politically rather than professionally, wrapping leftist political positions in a veneer of legal formalism.
Janša is therefore calling for a new constitutional majority of reason, one that would break free from Kučan’s leftist political faction that currently controls Slovenia’s judiciary and redefine the Constitution in a way that would make it impossible for activist constitutional judges to violate fundamental human rights, even through creative interpretation.