Come On, Our Team

The reaction of part of the Slovenian public to the news that four migrants in Bela Krajina had allegedly abducted an elderly man, stuffed him into the boot of a car and driven him across half of Slovenia to the Italian border was very similar to the reaction of another part of the public to the recent fire at Notre-Dame in Paris. Suspicion, ridicule and conspiracy theories. You simply can’t cram an eighty-year-old into a car boot and drive him around Slovenia. Right, just as an eight-hundred-year-old oak beam can’t catch fire because of a short circuit. Believing only the truth that suits us emotionally, ideologically and politically is not peculiar to one (extreme) end of the political spectrum.

Such a reaction to the news of the alleged abduction does nothing for efforts to bring more humanity, solidarity, respect for human rights and human dignity into how we treat migrants. Concern for security does not threaten a humane migration policy; it makes it possible. Realism and responsibility on security issues give humanism credibility, without which it is all too easy to dismiss it as a luxury whim of urban elites who don’t know and don’t care what life is like for people near the border. Security is not only a value; it is also a right, and if we treat people who are worried with indifference and condescension, we ourselves push them into the arms of those who claim that security can be achieved only at the expense of our humanity, with hatred and razor wire.

This example is just one illustration of an increasingly fan-like way of reacting to social and political issues, in which we first choose a side and then select the facts that fit our ideological choice. Our world is black and white, with less and less room for principles, objectivity, facts and thinking for ourselves. We give all that up when we choose the team we support. We feverishly search the web for the most obscure sources of information that will confirm our preconceived beliefs. The internet has not lived up to expectations that it would tear down the communication barriers between people. Instead, social networks have created closed groups of like-minded parrots. Populism, whether left or right, encourages tribal allegiance and lives off it. The less people think, the less critical they are of the “truths” served to them, the easier it is to manipulate and govern them.

In a black-and-white understanding of the crisis in Venezuela, for example, some people reflexively see no faults in Maduro because they don’t like Guaidó. Of course we can justifiably be critical of Guaidó’s moves, which are increasingly desperate and increasingly dangerous, but why should that make us overlook the fact that Maduro’s authoritarianism, the massive violations of human rights and political freedoms, and the incompetence and corruption of his regime are in many ways what led to the tragic crisis in that country?

Some people in Slovenia have a similarly one-sided attitude to the Catalan question. On the one hand, from a human point of view, it is understandable that, given our own historical experience, we feel solidarity with the efforts of some Catalans for independence. Criticism of Madrid’s heavy-handedness on the Catalan question is also justified. On the other hand, the referendum was organized in great haste, on the basis of a law amended at the last minute to provide that independence could come about by a simple majority, with no minimum turnout threshold. The evident purpose was to neutralize the will and interests of almost half the population of Catalonia, who, according to opinion polls, did not favor independence. The Slovenian plebiscite and the Catalan referendum produced similar majorities, just over 90 percent of those voting, but in Slovenia this reflected the will of 88 percent of all eligible voters, while in Catalonia the share was half that, partly because of obstruction by the central authorities. Years ago, at the time of the Montenegrin independence referendum, the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe’s body for constitutional matters, recommended that for such far-reaching changes of constitutional status as a declaration of independence, the threshold should be set considerably higher. Caution is also warranted regarding superficial interpretations of the right to self-determination, a principle the United Nations formulated in the context of decolonization. But of course, when voters are split down the middle on independence, it is not only the appropriateness of hastily prepared referendums that is questionable, but also the legitimacy of blindly rejecting any change. A solution must be reached through negotiation and dialogue, not through party calculations, riding one nationalism or another, still less through repression. Catalonia is a typical case where black-and-white cheering for one side or the other can only do harm.

Part of the Slovenian public also has a very partisan attitude to the French yellow vest movement, which, out of deep loathing for President Macron, they are prepared to excuse for its increasingly obvious slide into reactionary conspiracy theories, authoritarian ambitions, support for the far right and even antisemitism. Whatever we think of Macron, he is a politician who defends the democratic institutions that allow the French to get rid of him at the next election if they so wish. Recently, on social networks, I came across enthusiasm from the left at the news that Marine Le Pen’s far right had overtaken Macron’s list in opinion polls ahead of the European elections. I don’t know why Molotov and Ribbentrop came to mind.

Finally, the attitude to Julian Assange is also a good example of ideological simplification and black-and-white polarization. While concern about the grounds of the American extradition request is justified, since it contains charges that could lead to the prosecution of established and legitimate forms of cooperation between journalists and their sources, this, in my view, is not enough to make Mr. Assange a tragic hero of freedom and democracy. It is particularly sad that many in his defense are prepared to ignore the rape allegations against him on the grounds that they were dismissed, which of course is not true. The proceedings were halted because, once Assange had taken refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, there were no practical conditions for continuing them. Confirmation came in recent days, when Swedish prosecutors reopened the case. Also because of his chumminess with Russian hackers in the attempt to influence the outcome of the last American presidential election, it might be better in this story to focus on defending democratic institutions and principles rather than on beatifying Assange. And on women’s right to be safe from sexual violence.

My message is by no means that I am trying to defend Guaidó and his playing with fire. I too have reservations about Madrid’s approach to the Catalan question. I think many criticisms of Macron’s policies are justified and legitimate, and in the end I too am worried about the consequences Assange’s extradition to the American authorities could have for media freedom. I am merely warning of the dangers of an “it doesn’t matter what he’s like, as long as he’s ours” attitude to the world. A society in which ideology is stronger than truth is not healthy and can be neither democratic nor free. Tribal fandom that is stronger than facts and principles prevents a rational and effective approach to solving complex social and international issues.

Politics is like football: reality is often different from the one we would emotionally like. For all the joy I felt at Olimpija’s recent magnificent victory at Ljudski vrt, I accepted calmly and, as far as possible, with dignity the fact that Maribor deservedly became national champions. If you support Olimpija, you have to get used to complex emotions and a critical attitude towards your own team. Facts are facts, however much I love green.