SSatire

Not long ago, the very right wing weekly Demokracija published an article in which the author compared people of other races to vermin and weeds that need to be eradicated. If I draw a historical parallel—which is surely appropriate in this case—I would remind readers that Julius Streicher, editor-in-chief of the Nazi rag Der Stürmer, ended up before the Nuremberg Tribunal for similar writings. Whether Streicher also tried to convince the judges that it was just satire, I do not know. Whether the article in Demokracija meets the threshold for criminal prosecution for hate speech will be determined by prosecutors. In a democratic society, that threshold must remain high. But regardless of their decision, it is clear we are witnessing a new phase in the banalization of evil.

Comparing people to parasites and weeds represents a strategic, long-term approach to hatred. It dehumanizes potential victims in order to gradually erode society's inhibitions against intolerance or even violence toward them. The Holocaust, too, began with training people like hunting dogs—so they would slowly become accustomed to blood. By the time the crematorium ovens were lit, most “ordinary people” were already prepared to look away, if not outright participate.

If what appeared in Demokracija was satire, as some now claim, I suggest we start spelling that word differently.

In light of the seriousness of what happened, I was genuinely pleased and relieved that the ruling party—which also co-owns the publishing house behind Demokracija—distanced itself from the article. This is, to be sure, the bare minimum of political responsibility and decency when it comes to defending the most fundamental constitutional and civilizational values. The statement by the SDS party condemning the article offered a rare opportunity for political and public unity in Slovenia—an opportunity that, unfortunately, ultimately did not materialize. The spoiler was ironically the biggest advocate of such unity, the President of the Republic Borut Pahor, who, faced with this latest racist outburst (as so many times before), remained deafeningly silent.

But prez is just being prez. On the other hand, the SDS’s move was certainly valuable, but for that value to be effective, it requires consistency. And that's where things get complicated.

First, there must be consistency regarding the media. In its response, the party emphasized that although it co-owns the publisher of Demokracija, it “does not influence their editorial policy.” If they maintain such a hands-off stance toward media they co-own, it’s even more important that they refrain from interference and pressure on media—especially public ones—that neither the party nor the government has the right to claim as their ownership.

Ironically, it is often those who shout the loudest about the authoritarianism of the past who have the hardest time understanding that, in a democracy, the government is not the owner of the state, nor of its subsystems or public institutions. It is merely a manager, one whose role is limited by laws and the constitution, and contingent on a democratic mandate. This misunderstanding was painfully illustrated by a recent remark that STA (Slovenian Press Agency) and rapper Zlatko “must follow the rules” so long as they “live under our roof.” That remark reflects the ignorant arrogance of accidental power, catapulted from anonymity into parliament by our obsession with “new faces” and a shallow talent pool.

More consistency would also be welcome regarding behaviour within the ruling party’s own ranks—particularly among supporters and members who too often slip in their respect for basic constitutional values. To put it bluntly: if the SDS sincerely wants to distance itself from and condemn discrimination based on religion, race, gender, and sexual orientation, then they could, for instance, give a little slap on the wrist to the government’s National Security Twitter warrior for his vulgar finger gestures. Apparently, as the Americans would say, he missed the memo about the party’s distancing from racial intolerance.

The party should also more forcefully rebuke supporters who stir up hatred toward people from other parts of the former Yugoslavia, deny them civil rights, and tell them to “go home.” A political party that genuinely upholds non-discrimination and human dignity should support actors in civil society who work toward the realization and protection of these values—particularly NGOs—instead of stigmatizing them and making their work harder.

If the SDS and its leadership are truly serious about rejecting discrimination and racism—and I sincerely hope they are—then their communication must reflect that consistently and unequivocally. Twitter is not and cannot be an excuse for immature or irresponsible messaging.

A party that wants to distance itself from social pathologies we had hoped were defeated in Europe should also be concerned about the demonization of George Soros, which has become so normalized that we barely even notice it anymore. This is a deeply worrying sign of how discourses rooted in antisemitic tropes and conspiracies about international Jewish financiers have been mainstreamed.

One of the central antisemitic narratives in history is the claim that Jews form a global cabal that uses “dirty money” to secretly manipulate the world against good, honest non-Jews. In these messages, Jews are often not mentioned by name, but through code words and symbols.

How far this trivialization of antisemitism has gone was evident in an interview with Laura Towler, a British antisemite and white supremacist, published this September—where else but in Demokracija. In the interview, which was later also posted on the SDS’s official website, the deputy director of the organization Patriotic Alternative laments that “Jews dominate important positions in government and media, through which they promote open borders.” This is the dilemma that inconsistent principles create. A party that distances itself from one Demokracija article should also distance itself from another Demokracija article, as opposed to publishing it on its own website.

Incidentally, the SDS party president also recently took a jab at Soros, tweeting that the Jewish-American financier should “stay out of the EU and Europe,” because his “dirty money for so-called NGOs is a major source of conflict on the continent.” I would never claim that the party president is an antisemite or a white supremacist. But I would advise him to be more cautious and moderate in his public communication. Carelessly repeating problematic imported narratives about “Soros's global conspiracies” or “cultural Marxism” (the concept that inspired Anders Breivik’s killing spree on Utøya) risks giving the wrong impression—even unintentionally—especially to someone less informed. That is surely not a message someone who genuinely wants to distance themselves from racism and other such social pathologies would want to send.

In conclusion—despite some open questions and ongoing expectations—I want to commend the fact that, following the article in Demokracija, the SDS party did indeed condemn racial intolerance and all other forms of discrimination. That gives hope that, despite all our differences and disagreements—normal in a democracy—we might one day reach consensus in Slovenia on the core values that a modern, open, secure, and successful society both demands and requires.

That is why the SDS’s condemnation of racism is important and positive. As the wise Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu said, “The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” Given where we are today, I hope that every one of those miles will eventually be walked.