Information Commissioner with the inspection against Brejc, the opposition with the referendum initiative against Stevanovic

The Information Office has initiated an inspection procedure against Miha Brejc, the administrator of the website behind the petition “Stevo go home,” following multiple complaints about violations of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The office, led by Jelena Virant Burnik, stated that the administrator must properly inform signatories about how their data is processed, including who handles the information, the purpose of collection, storage duration, and individuals' rights such as the right to erasure. Although Brejc partially addressed these concerns, the website was later deactivated, reportedly due to “attacks from Israel and India.” Despite this, the Information Office will continue its investigation into the legality of data processing and further storage of collected information. Meanwhile, the opposition has launched a proposal for a consultative referendum regarding Zoran Stevanović, the current Speaker of the National Assembly. This follows the failure of a previous attempt, yet the desire to remove Stevanović from power remains undiminished. Three opposition parties have jointly submitted the referendum initiative, aiming to determine whether the public still supports having Stevanović lead the parliamentary house. Matej Grah, secretary of the Freedom Party, emphasized that the people should decide whether they want Stevanović removed, stating, “The people themselves will say whether they want the Speaker of the National Assembly to step down.” The opposition accuses Stevanović of violating integrity, particularly in connection with controversial MP Mijčić, and criticizes his leadership style. Asta Vrečko, another opposition figure, described his behavior as disrespectful toward members, failing to uphold democratic standards, and lacking the dignity required for the role. Stevanović, however, dismissed the referendum proposal as a farce, asserting that he will remain in office until April 2030. He clarified that the outcome of the referendum, regardless of participation, will not be binding. Commentators suggest that while the initial attempt to oust Stevanović through a petition failed, the idea persists and has shifted towards formal parliamentary channels. The opposition recognizes that it cannot directly remove Stevanović through such means, but believes it can exert pressure to undermine his credibility and legitimacy. They aim to position him similarly to former Speaker Pirc Musarjeva, whose credibility declined despite remaining in office. For Slovenian politics, removing the Speaker of the National Assembly represents a stronger political shift than removing the President of the Republic, as it could cause internal party fractures and weaken coalitions. The opposition's strategy involves creating public pressure on Stevanović, hoping to erode his support base. While the government may currently resist such efforts, analysts believe the opposition operates on a long-term agenda. Each accusation and public criticism aims to build momentum, even if immediate results are unlikely. The left-wing opposition, too, faces diminishing hope, as its influence wanes amid ongoing political tensions. In response to the opposition’s actions, the party Resni.č has criticized the move as hypocritical, accusing the opposition of staging a farce. On social media, a comment suggested that Stevanović’s resistance to the referendum contradicts the party’s own platform. Resni.č has denied accusations of hypocrisy, insisting it fully supports direct democracy and referendums. It argues that opposing such measures would allow arbitrary decisions, potentially leading to daily referendums on all officials, from politicians to business managers. The party warns that such a system could enable a totalitarian regime, where dissenters are removed from power. Legal experts have also condemned the proposed referendum as nonsensical. Former constitutional judge Jan Zobec noted that consultative referendums are meant to gauge public opinion on matters that can eventually be decided via direct vote, namely, laws. He argued that asking citizens about issues that cannot be resolved through legislation is illogical and sets a dangerous precedent. If allowed, such referendums could open the door to abuse, enabling frequent calls for votes on every member of the government. Similarly, legal scholar Dr. Andraž Teršek called the initiative a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of consultative referendums, describing it as absurd and undermining intellectual integrity. He likened the situation to “butalization”, a term used to describe the degradation of critical thinking.