[Statement of the day] Referendums have become tools of political struggle

In recent months, Slovenia has witnessed a surge in referendums, which have increasingly become tools of political conflict rather than instruments of direct democracy. Professor and political scientist Dr. Miro Haček has warned that the country has likely crossed the threshold of acceptable referendum usage, with the frequency and nature of such votes raising concerns over their legitimacy and impact. The upcoming autumn, marked by a proliferation of referendums, has sparked debate among experts about how these mechanisms are being manipulated to serve partisan agendas. Dr. Haček explained during an interview with Radio Ognjišče that while referendums were once viewed as a means of direct democracy, they have increasingly been used as political weapons. He noted that citizens are often asked to decide on complex legal or technical issues without sufficient knowledge, making informed voting difficult. For instance, he highlighted the referendum on parliamentary investigation, which he described as primarily a procedural and legal question best addressed by legal professionals. Similarly, the referendum on the intervention law presents challenges due to its inclusion of multiple unrelated topics, leading voters into confusion about exactly what they are being asked to approve. The issue of omnibus laws, which bundle several different provisions into one legislative package, further complicates matters. Voters must cast their vote on the entire bill, even though it covers diverse subjects. This can lead to decisions based on incomplete understanding, potentially undermining the democratic process. Haček emphasized that this trend reflects a broader shift toward using referendums as tools of political confrontation rather than genuine public engagement. The political landscape in Slovenia has become deeply polarized, according to Haček. He described the relationship between coalition parties and the opposition as catastrophic, noting that the situation has deteriorated significantly. He argued that the current state of affairs goes beyond typical ideological clashes, evolving into outright hostility. As a result, proposals from one party are often preemptively dismissed by another, creating an environment where constructive dialogue is rare. Haček attributed part of the blame to media outlets, which he claimed have increasingly taken on the role of political actors rather than neutral observers. While he acknowledged that media bias is not inherently problematic, he pointed to examples in the United States where certain values are clearly promoted, he criticized the lack of transparency in Slovenia. He observed that the distinction between objective and politically motivated media is largely illusory, with all media outlets being, to some extent, politically aligned. He suggested that greater openness about the values and orientations of media organizations would help restore public trust. Public broadcasters, he noted, should strive for higher standards of objectivity. However, he admitted that there is currently no clear third option to break the deadlock between the two main political factions. When asked how politics and media could reduce polarization, Haček humorously suggested that media might help by ignoring political discourse entirely, since politics without media attention loses much of its significance. He stressed that high levels of political polarization are particularly concerning because they alienate many citizens from engaging with political processes. Despite his concerns, he did not offer immediate solutions, acknowledging that the path forward remains uncertain.