The Duce in the Cupboard

For many years, a kind elderly couple of Italian descent lived in the house across from ours in Strasbourg. We weren’t particularly close, but we exchanged polite greetings and signed for each other’s registered letters and packages. Recently, both passed away—one shortly after the other, as often happens with longtime couples. Their children sold the house, but first organized a sale of the furniture and personal belongings. There was a lot of stuff, though little of real interest. Still, my wife and I found a beautiful Art Nouveau mirror, a pair of tasteful bedside lamps, and a charming glass trinket box with a tin lid adorned with tiny Bakelite roses.

Just before leaving, I glanced inside a dining room cabinet. There, among the dishes and cutlery, I noticed a small bust of Benito Mussolini. Evidently, the Duce only made it to the table on special holidays, when the whole family gathered for Sunday lunch and grandpa, or nono, after a few glasses of wine, would reminisce about the good old days when he was young.

My own nono was from Nabrežina near Trieste, and he too had dealings with Mussolini—albeit of a different nature. As a result, he was forced to flee in the mid-1920s to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. He ended up in Unec near Rakek—back then, the border was near Postojna. Many things happened to him there, but that’s material for another story.

History is a fascinating subject. It can teach us a lot—lessons that remain very useful today. Our grandfathers lived in strange times, but it seems we’ve learned very little from them. And we should have.

A few days ago, I attended a session of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in Luxembourg—a governmental organization of which Slovenia is a member. As part of the session, a panel was held on the distortion of history. It was a response to the increasingly frequent and less and less veiled attempts to manipulate, obscure, and lie about historical facts concerning the Holocaust and the era that led to the greatest crime in human history.

There was discussion not only of causes but also of possible responses to trends that seek to relativize or even deny the murder of over six million Jews and other victims of Nazi violence. Several interesting studies were cited, including those showing a connection between Holocaust distortion and right-wing populism, and even correlations with other types of denialism. Simply put: people who deny or relativize the Holocaust are more likely to deny climate change, oppose childhood vaccinations, and believe the Earth is flat

The correlation isn’t perfect, of course. People reject historical and scientific facts for different reasons. Many anti-vaxxers in the U.S. come from Orthodox Jewish communities, while on the other hand, there are surely vaccinated people who believe the Earth is not round.

Among the causes of the increasingly open and aggressive historical revisionism, participants pointed to the influence of social media and the growing societal and political tolerance of hate speech. Experts stressed that Holocaust distortion is also fuelled by attempts to excuse and glorify nationalist collaborators, and by the false equivalence of Nazi and communist crimes. No one, of course, denied the crimes committed in the name of communism, which deserve the strongest condemnation—but it was clear that such equivalencies are often efforts to divert attention or diminish responsibility for the atrocities committed by the Nazis and their accomplices.

All of this has important implications for the Slovenian context. I don’t have empirical data on the rise of antisemitism in Slovenia, but based on research linking it to far-right populism, it’s safe to say we shouldn’t feel completely at ease. And then there’s the anecdotal case of the failed European Parliament candidate—someone who hasn’t (yet) broken into the first league of European nationalist "patriots." This gentleman once claimed that “the German people are victims of Jewish indoctrination and brainwashing with so-called Holocaustology.” I don’t even want to imagine what he might have tucked away between the fine china in his cabinet.

Whether this was outright Holocaust denial or merely distortion is less important. I cite the statement mainly to highlight the unthinkable silence of those in positions of political and public responsibility who should have condemned such an outburst of hatred—but didn’t.

This speaks to a deep misunderstanding of freedom of expression in Slovenia, a point recently raised by the Council of Europe’s Commission against Racism and Intolerance. There is a difference between protecting this vital human right and political liberty, and excusing, legitimizing, or even endorsing the spread of intolerance and hatred.

Just days ago, the Secretary of State in the Prime Minister’s office tripped over this very issue. He tried to excuse some of his highly questionable past statements by invoking Slovenia’s supposedly strong protections for free speech. He even added—almost with pride—that he was never criminally prosecuted for them. Bravo, indeed. By spreading intolerance, he apparently considers himself a defender of our rights and freedoms.

The political system Slovenia chose with its independence is not value-neutral. This was never about left or right—the country was founded on the principles of liberal democracy, protected by the Constitution. Let me remind you what it says in Article 1: Slovenia is a democratic, legal, and social state. We dedicated an entire chapter of the Constitution to human rights and fundamental freedoms, which are enforceable directly under the Constitution or international treaties.

This constitutional framework—not some arithmetic midpoint between constitutional values and extremism, nor political opportunism—should guide elected officials in deciding when they can remain silent, and when they are obliged to speak out. In other words: when it comes to public statements and ideologies that run counter to constitutionally protected values and principles—statements or actions that deny the foundations of our state and society, such as democracy, human rights, and the rule of law—the highest state representatives have a duty to respond and condemn them.

The fact that such a statement may not meet the legal threshold for prosecution—which, in my view, must remain high in a democratic society—is not and cannot be an excuse for silence. This is not about prosecutorial intervention in free speech. It’s about political reaction and societal condemnation of hatred, nationalism, racism, and antisemitism.

And that applies to all constitutional principles—not just the ones named above. If nationalist populism distorts historical facts and relativizes the inviolability of our national borders, the answer cannot simply be “respect and cooperation.” Appeasement of the unacceptable—as the English call it—has never led to anything good in history. Churchill described appeasers as people who feed the crocodile, hoping it will eat them last.

Sometimes you need to slam your fist on the table and say: for heaven’s sake, enough.

Because once the Duce escapes from the cupboard—it’s very hard to put him back in.