By: Sara Bertoncelj /Nova24tv
Lawyer Domen Gorenšek emphasised that the Levica Party – if the constitutional order of the Republic of Slovenia was complied with – should not be registered as a legal political party, as its programme and mode of operation violates the basic tenets and principles of the legal order of the Republic of Slovenia. In addition, it interferes with basic democratic principles through its programme content and mode of operation, which can also lead to a change in the social system. “This, of course, means a return to one-mindedness, to a one-party delegate system that has nothing to do with the modern naming of democracy and the legal order of the societies of Western civilisation,” he added.
Lawyer Domen Gorenšek emphasised that the Levica Party – if the constitutional order of the Republic of Slovenia was complied with – should not be registered as a legal political party. According to him, in part of its programme and mode of operation, Levica violates the basic principles and tenets of the legal order of the Republic of Slovenia. These include, inter alia, the right to private property (Article 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia), to entrepreneurship and, within this framework, to free economic initiative (Article 74 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia). To what extent do you write in the programme that “Private ownership of the means of production enables a minority of owners to appropriate the products of the work of all of us who are forced to sell our labour for a living. The dominance of social property is a way of ensuring that our joint productive action is directed towards the free development of all, and not towards the private goals of capitalists, managers or state bureaucrats”, there can be no doubt about violations of at least the mentioned articles of the Constitution. All the more so if the party’s programme envisages, among other things, workers’ management, social and community ownership of larger companies and financial institutions, abolition of capitalist exploitation, establishment of a system of workers’ management and abolition of capitalist management in companies, and transfer of ownership to the state and local communities, the establishment of workers’, farmers’ and consumers’ cooperatives, and the change of capital holders and the socialisation of profits.
Lawyer Gorenšek pointed out that this is not the content of the programme from the 1950s, but the current programme of the parliamentary party in the country, which is located in the heart of Europe and is a member of the European Union. Gorenšek also believes that the Levica, with its programme content and mode of operation, unconstitutionally interferes with basic democratic principles, including Article 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, which states that Slovenia is a democratic republic, and Article 43, which deals with the right to vote, which is general and equal. According to him, such a programme is about destroying the constitutional order of the Republic of Slovenia and trying to return the state to a one-party, delegate system within socialism, from which we emerged in 1991, when we finally, at least formally, replaced such misguided ideas with the values of the civilised world. At the same time, the programme, which sees in its implementation an “obstacle in the existing international, European and domestic rules and institutions”, also violates Article 3a of the Slovenian Constitution as well as Article 63 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, as it encourages intolerance towards certain social groups which, in the system which this party seeks to enforce, become class enemies again.
They are defending the system we already had, which is not in line with the Slovenian constitution
Some non-governmental organisations are also concerned about the state of democracy in our country. The president of the association for the promotion of traditional values, Urban Purgar, pointed out that the president of the National Assembly, Igor Zorčič, did not convene an extraordinary session despite the fact that he was obliged to in accordance with the rules of procedure. It should be emphasised that this is one of the key issues that could determine the future of Slovenia, as in the case of the programme and operation of the Levica Party, in their opinion, it is a strong constitutional dispute. The fact is that we already had such a system, which the Levica party advocates for in its programme, which turned out to be disastrous for our society both in terms of the constitutionally protected right to private property and the exclusion of all dissenters who otherwise advocate a different system. According to the president of this non-governmental organisation, it would therefore be a delegate system within the framework of only one ideology, namely socialism. This is in complete contradiction with the first article of the Constitution, which states that Slovenia is a democratic and legal state.
President of the National Assembly Igor Zorčič acted in clear violation of Article 85 of the Constitution
“We based our proposal for an extraordinary session on quotes from the Levica party’s programme, taken from their website,” Branko Grims responded to Matej T. Vatovec in the 24ur Zvečer show, saying that the SDS party had spread a forged document through its media network and committed several offenses, such as embezzlement – according to Vatovec, this also spread intolerance and endangered public order and peace. Of course, the Levica cannot and does not deny these quotations. Everything else should be discussed – this was also the purpose of the proposal for discussion in the National Assembly, Grims pointed out. However, President of the National Assembly Igor Zorčič acted in clear violation of Article 85 of the Constitution. “He is not a real ignorant person, he knows exactly that he should convene an extraordinary session under this article of the Constitution,” the MP warned. The Constitution does not give him the right to play a censor, so he is clearly and knowingly violating the Constitution. That is why, according to Grims, they are now in a position where they have to discuss an addition for which they themselves wrote in their material that was created elsewhere. They clearly wrote that the Levica had taken care of the translation, which the party in question denies. “So their complaint is clearly a deliberate act contrary to the Penal Code, which says that a guilty complaint is also a crime – for you, in the Levica party,” Grims stressed. Gorenšek also agrees that if at least a quarter of the MPs requested the convening of the session, Zorčič acted in contravention of Article 85 of the Constitution. At that time, there is no more discretion, as the Constitution explicitly states that a session must be convened in this case. In his opinion, this should be decided by the Constitutional Court, not by political opponents.
“We draw attention to the fact that the programme of the Levica in individual parts, when they talk about the fight against capitalism, about ecosocialism, which will be based on social property and so on, is in clear conflict with the Slovenian Constitution,” Grims repeated. They have not only the right to point this out, but also the duty, because the Constitution binds everyone and everything. “We all have a duty to make sure that the constitution is respected, no one, not even the Levica, is above the Constitution or the laws. This should also be debated in the National Assembly, where it also belongs,” Grims added, noting that Zorčič was clearly interested in moving the debate to the streets, which the SDS party did not agree with. “The space for debate is a democratic parliament,” the SDS MP pointed out. “If you want, go to the Constitutional Court, and let the Constitutional Court check whether our programme is in accordance with the Constitution or not,” said Vatovec, an MP from Levica, who said that they stand behind their programme and defend it. According to our information, these Vatovec’s words will come true, the programme of the Levica will sooner or later make a pilgrimage to the Constitutional Court, to the procedure for assessing constitutionality. However, Gorenšek wonders whether, given the current composition of the Constitutional Court, this would not be something impossible.
