The Shallow Waters of Empty Political Broadness

For decades, Slovenians complained that we all had to think the same. Now we’ve been complaining for years because we don’t all think the same. In our collective relationship with democracy, it often seems like we don’t know what we want. Before independence, there was widespread support for political changes that would put an end to ideological uniformity. But now that we’ve finally—at least formally—established a system allowing for democratic competition of opinions, ideas, and ideologies, we suddenly feel fed up and yearn for politics devoid of ideological differences and division.

At first glance, this may seem like a paradox. On closer inspection, less so. The key to understanding this fatigue with the democratic experience lies in dissatisfaction with the quality of democracy being served up by our political class. We wanted a system that would protect and encourage a diversity of views. Instead, we’re increasingly faced with political tribalism marked by rising emotion—mainly the worst kinds—and a dramatic lack of ideas. So it’s entirely logical that people are tired of it and are seeking alternatives to what is often—but in my view wrongly—labeled “ideological division.”

In this situation, it’s both logical and legitimate for politics to recognize and respond to this frustration with new offerings and ideas that aim to restore trust in democracy and its institutions. But political marketing is like teleshopping on RTV Slovenia—just as not every of Madam Herta’s tonics will cleanse your liver, not every new platform will clean out the Augean stable of accumulated political sins, errors, and delusions. The risk of hastily and carelessly chasing the transcendence of differences is ending up in a society where differences no longer exist—or worse, must not exist. Where once again, united and undivided, we all think and are required to think alike. Back to the future. Forward into the past.

One increasingly popular idea is that the country should be run by managers, since politicians supposedly just bicker and cause confusion. Last time, I compared this notion—voiced by the president of the Slovenian Business Club—to ideas from nearly a century ago. This time, I offer a fresher comparison. If anyone has taken the concept of a managerial takeover of the state to its logical conclusion, it’s Georgian billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili. His wealth equals a third of Georgia’s GDP, and he governs—like a feudal lord from his castle—out of a palace on the hills above Tbilisi.

To be fair, Ivanishvili hasn’t entirely abandoned politicians—Georgia still nominally has a prime minister. But there's no doubt who the real boss is. As Politico reported, when current nominal PM Irakli Kobakhidze took office this February, he paused momentarily before Ivanishvili’s seat, as if asking permission to proceed to the podium. Though over three-quarters of Georgians want EU membership, the government is doing everything it can to derail that goal—clearly not in the interest of the supreme manager, who made his fortune largely in neighboring Russia. Business is business. Running a country is more of a managerial job than a political one, as the Slovenian Business Club president might say. Georgians held parliamentary elections on Saturday, and at the time of writing, it appears the results will be exactly what one would expect in a managerially run democracy.

A second recent political offering in Slovenia doesn’t aim to abolish politics but proposes reconciliation and broadness as a cure for ideological division and infighting. At first glance, this seems nice. As my late grandmother Maca often said, “Kids, stop arguing.” The outlines of this new political option seem to address many of the unpleasant symptoms of the current state of democracy in Slovenia—personal attacks, exclusion, lack of dialogue, and the intolerance of political discourse. Great. I sign on. In principle. Because while that’s all very good, it’s not enough for a qualitative leap toward better democracy.

To achieve that, we must go beyond addressing symptoms and start tackling the deeper causes of our current situation. The main problem with the proponents of political broadness is the superficiality with which they diagnose the reasons for Slovenia’s exhausted democracy. The issue, they claim, is that politicians don’t agree with one another. If we’d all just stop arguing, everything would be fine. As Grandma Maca would say. But—and forgive the repetition—we’ve already lived in a society where everyone had to agree. People have different interests and different worldviews. There’s nothing wrong with that.

The point, the goal, and the foundation of democratic society is the civilized organization of disagreement. The idea of overcoming ideological differences is, at its core, deeply undemocratic. Instead of presenting clear political programs for voters to evaluate, parties offer content-free slogans about cooperation and third ways. These serve as alibis for doing whatever they please “in the national interest.”

All of it rests on a fiction: that the people’s interests are homogeneous and can only be properly understood, interpreted, and implemented by an enlightened, “non-ideological” leader who thus rises above all political competition. This, dear readers, is literally the definition of populism.

This doesn’t mean we can’t talk about common interests. Of course, we all want security, health, jobs, housing, high living standards, and economic development. But the doctrine of transcending ideological differences ignores the fact that we don’t all see or understand these shared goals in the same way—and that multiple paths can lead to each of them, not all of which end in the same place. And these paths are always ideological. A social democrat, a liberal, and a conservative may all agree we need a well-functioning healthcare system, but they will rarely agree on how it should be structured, operated, or funded.

Democracy has a framework that defines and limits the legitimate ideological space for political action. That framework is the constitution. While not all Slovenians agree on every article, the constitution remains our best approximation and expression of common values, adopted by broad consensus under strict democratic procedures. It forms the basis for the civilized organization of disagreement, necessary for democratic governance—from election to election, through competition of ideas and programs, via democratically obtained mandates, whether independently or in coalitions, with accountability and oversight from democratic institutions.

What concerns me about this political broadness platform is the lack of content—like buying a pig in a poke. To paraphrase Deng Xiaoping, they won’t say how they plan to catch the mice—they just promise that all cats will be the same color.

Such an initiative might make sense if grounded in the constitutional framework. Slovenia’s constitution enshrines values like the welfare state and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms regardless of nationality, race, gender, language, religion, political or other beliefs, economic status, birth, education, social position, disability, or other personal circumstances. The proposed platform of broad cooperation doesn’t mention these values, much less make them a precondition for political cooperation. If it did, the possible alliances would look very different from what is currently being suggested.

And that’s a serious problem. On the one hand, because the erosion of the welfare state—constitutionally protected—is the biggest generator of dissatisfaction and democratic distrust. On the other hand, because parts of the political scene are fueling this dissatisfaction to attack other foundational democratic values: human rights and the rule of law.

This is where the real causes of our much-maligned polarization lie. It stems from a political paradigm that thrives on “us vs. them” divisions, fear, and intolerance; that denies facts; that rejects solidarity and empathy; that disrespects human dignity; that distorts history; that embraces homophobia; that questions women’s right to bodily autonomy; that champions nationalism and tribal chauvinism. In short, it undermines all the values we chose to enshrine in our constitution as the foundation of our shared state.

Any expansion or alliance that doesn’t build on and respect core democratic values doesn’t resolve polarization—it deepens and legitimizes it by empowering its chief perpetrators. Whether that’s done knowingly or not ultimately doesn’t matter. The result is the same either way.