The B-Spot

I am closely following the efforts of the President of the Republic of Slovenia to calm passions in Slovenian politics and in this way perhaps contribute to the better and more effective functioning of political institutions in Slovenia. This is especially important at a time when we face such a serious health, economic and social crisis. On top of all that, we really don’t need political self-harm, which could leave our 30-year experience of democracy gasping for breath long after we have defeated the virus.

National unity is one of those notions that are noble in principle but elusive, which everyone talks about but almost everyone interprets in their own way. So, from the perspective of an engaged citizen, I offer the President a thought or two on the subject. In case it helps.

The first question is whether there exists that point of convergence and national consensus at which the centrifugal forces of political and personal interests are converted into an unstoppable common force that could irreversibly catapult Slovenian society into an ever brighter future, for ever and ever, amen. In recognition of the tireless courage and perseverance with which it is sought, I would call this point the Borut point. I apologize to the President for the informality, but I trust he will not hold it against me, as I know how fond he is of a relaxed style in communicating with his fellow citizens.

If the Borut point exists—and on that, as the Americans would say, the jury is still out—the next two questions are where to look for it and, should we happen to find it, what to do there.

Locating the zero coordinate of national consensus in political space in Slovenia most often relies on geometry. For many, point B is the midpoint between all the views, policies and ideologies advocated in Slovenia by at least one individual with a Twitter account. The appeal of equidistance from everything, expressed in the popular slogan “all different opinions must be respected,” lies in its simplicity. For people in public office who don’t care even about their own moral authority, it is comfortable, because it requires taking a position on nothing. The problem is that democracies are sometimes confronted with threats that cannot be overcome by comfort alone. The question arises of the content on which we are supposed to be united at all. Without any selection based on values, we find ourselves in a situation in which national consensus is built on the lowest common denominator. We must be united because we are Slovenians. The vacuum of values is, of course, only apparent. The void is always exploited and filled by the most aggressive and ruthless ideology. This is not the first instance of seeking national monolithic unity solely on the basis of ethnic belonging and territory, and history teaches us that excursions into this model of society have often ended tragically.

In a geometric understanding of politics, the center is defined by the extremes, so in it Pope Francis is an extreme leftist and the Neue Zürcher Zeitung a Swiss communist pamphlet. We get a different picture if we define our position in politics by content. In that case, the extremes are defined by their attitude to democratic values, not the other way round. I would suggest that the President look for point B on the same foundations on which we built our own state 30 years ago. There is no need to invent anything; it is all written down, from the principles of the rule of law and the welfare state to the separation of powers, judicial independence, media freedom, and the protection of human rights and civil liberties, to which we devoted an entire chapter. The Slovenian Constitution is neither left, nor right, nor center. It sets the framework for a functioning pluralist democracy, in which all political and ideological platforms that accept the constitutional and civilizational foundations on the basis of and in the name of which we became independent can be represented and advocated with complete legitimacy and on an equal footing. Those whose politics and discourse place them outside this constitutional framework, or who even undermine it, cannot demand that “their opinions be given equal consideration too” and moan that “unbalanced” media criticize them and most of the public dislikes them. If the President pulled off the big one and managed to unite the political forces in Slovenia in clear support for constitutional principles, and then also committed himself firmly to using his moral authority to help ensure that everyone, regardless of their different views, actually kept their commitments, he would truly deserve a place in history.

That is the unity that Slovenian democracy and its citizens need. It is not only about greater politeness in mutual relations. Political culture and political language in Slovenia really have gone to the dogs, but we won’t solve the problems we face simply by having those who undermine democracy smile while doing so instead of growling. Nor is it about unifying views so that everyone thinks more alike. A real democracy needs people who think not only differently but also diversely. Of course we have common goals, starting with defeating the pandemic, developing the economy, and the security and prosperity of citizens. There is no need to convene round tables for unity on these priorities. But this unity works only at a very high level of abstraction, because these are notions that each part of the political spectrum understands and pursues in its own way. And there is nothing wrong with that. That is the diversity of opinion we are otherwise so fond of talking about. Without pluralism there is no democracy. Each political platform offers its own path to a better future for its voters. If it wins a mandate in an election, it also gets the opportunity to prove the success of its program in practice. And to take responsibility if it fails. The danger arises when some politicians start invoking “broader social and national interests” and thereby try to place themselves above their political competitors and obtain a mandate to break democratic norms and depart from constitutional principles. What Slovenia needs, including in the fight against the virus, is not a unity empty of values but a consensus on the basic democratic rules. We need integrity, transparency, competence and democratic oversight. We need politics that is accountable and answers for what it does.

In today’s conditions and given the sorry state of political culture in Slovenia, the road to agreement on these goals will be neither comfortable nor simple. Point B will require a lot of courage, determination and commitment to democratic principles. Not only in words but also in practice. It won’t happen without ruffling feathers. The word will have to become flesh. Perhaps the President will find motivation in the fact that—at least judging by the latest surveys—Slovenian public opinion is nevertheless changing and beginning to lean towards politics that builds on moral authority, is faithful to its declared principles and, when necessary, is also prepared to say: this is not right.