Godec: Opposition cannot accept that Stevanović is not in coalition with them

Godec accused opposition parties of failing to accept that Stevanović is not part of their coalition, highlighting a growing political tension within Slovenia’s parliamentary system. The remarks were made during a public statement by Jelka Godec, a seasoned member of parliament representing the Social Democracy Party (SDS). She described a week-long shift in narrative, starting with organized media efforts to frame the situation as a mass protest against the speaker of the National Assembly, followed by reports of attacks from India and Israel, and even references to the Black Cube. Ultimately, she criticized the absurd suggestion that a referendum should decide the fate of the speaker rather than the parliament itself. Godec emphasized that such actions undermine democratic processes and represent a misuse of constitutional procedures. During the holiday period, members of the Freedom Movement, the Slovenian Democratic Party (SD), and the Left have proposed the removal of Zoran Stevanović. Can they succeed? According to Godec, the arguments presented in the motion for his dismissal lack coherence and are based on unfounded claims. After reviewing the proposal, it became clear that no representative could support such a resolution. The motion was deemed nonsensical, with no logical basis for its inclusion in parliamentary proceedings. The Slovenian Press Agency and many other media outlets launched a one-day campaign supporting the initiative, daily publishing information about the number of signatures collected by Miha Brejc, who claimed to have gathered support from Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. However, Godec expressed skepticism, noting that these efforts did not convince her. In fact, they had the opposite effect. Over the past seven days, she observed a coordinated media effort to portray the issue as a grassroots movement against the speaker of the National Assembly. When it became evident that anyone could sign the petition multiple times, the credibility of the petition quickly deteriorated. Particularly notable was the persistent emphasis on Brejc's former membership in SDS. This tactic was often used when a former SDS member took action aligned with leftist politics, creating a link to the party. Despite Brejc having been a member of SDS for years and having left the party over fifteen years ago, this connection continued to be highlighted. Godec pointed out that the SDS did not organize the petition, and Brejc has not been a member of the party for a long time. Furthermore, Godec stressed that the speaker of the National Assembly cannot be removed through media campaigns or online petitions. The opposition must gather 46 votes to initiate a vote of no confidence, which is a fundamental aspect of democracy. It is not the number of signatures or the number of headlines that determines the outcome, but the votes cast by representatives. She noted that the opposition understands this well, yet they continue to apply pressure on the speaker, seemingly aiming to divert public attention away from more pressing issues. When the authenticity of Brejc’s signature collection was called into question, revealing that anyone could sign the petition multiple times, the narrative shifted once again. A new story emerged about an attack from abroad, including references to the Black Cube. Does Godec believe this? Her response was straightforward: show evidence. If there is no proof, then it is not a security issue but a political spin. She suggested that foreign intelligence services might find such statements amusing, given the lack of substance behind them. The Free Movement, led by Robert Golob, and others proposed an even more extreme measure, making Slovenia the first country in the world to remove a speaker of parliament via a non-binding advisory referendum. Is this the solution they advocate? Godec dismissed the idea as another absurd attempt to subvert democratic norms. She argued that this approach represents a deliberate dismantling of democratic processes and a misapplication of the constitutional category of an advisory referendum. This strategy was previously employed by the opposition during the previous mandate, leading to the dissolution of the Speaker of Parliament, authoritarian interventions, and decisions made by the previous Speaker of Parliament. Now, the opposition continues this pattern. What makes this scenario particularly intriguing is that the same political space, which previously engaged in such tactics, now finds itself in a position where it must confront the consequences of its actions. The implications remain unclear, but the underlying message is clear: the pursuit of power through unconventional means risks undermining the very principles upon which democratic governance is built.