Janša is threatened with another referendum defeat?

Prime Minister Janez Janša has interpreted the recent referendum results regarding the abolition of mandatory payments for public broadcasting services (RTV-prispevki) as a mandate for individual choice. According to the results, the majority did not support the abolition of the compulsory payment, yet Janša concluded that some citizens would wish to pay while others would not, and thus each would be accommodated accordingly. The referendum question asked whether the mandatory payment should be abolished, with voters choosing either for or against it. The outcome does not reflect a clear majority in favor of abolishing the fee. The referendum took place on October 11, 2026, and was part of a broader set of four referendum questions. Voters rejected a proposed amendment to the law on parliamentary inquiry, which was the only legally binding result of the day. However, the more pressing issue for Janša’s government comes in December, when a new referendum on the so-called “intervention law” will take place. This law aims to introduce changes to the tax system, pensions, and healthcare. The proposal for this referendum was submitted by trade unions, who collected over 42,694 signatures to meet the legal threshold. The final decision on the date of the vote will be made by the National Assembly on Friday, with the planned voting date set for December 6. Political analysts have weighed in on the potential impact of this upcoming referendum. Dr. Miro Haček, a political scientist, argues that the government has never been a strong advocate for the intervention law and that the previous referendum results do not indicate a major shift in public sentiment. He notes that political factions remain roughly divided as they were during parliamentary elections, and he criticizes the lack of mobilization among supporters of the law during the campaign. Aljuš Pertinač, another analyst, agrees that the electorate remains split but emphasizes the importance of effective voter mobilization by both sides. She believes that the success of the referendum will depend largely on how well each side can bring their supporters to the polls. The content of the intervention law itself could create further divisions. Haček points out that the law includes a range of measures, allowing each side to highlight different aspects. The government plans to emphasize lower VAT rates on food and energy, better conditions for retired workers, and cost-effective public administration reforms. Opponents, however, argue that these benefits primarily benefit wealthier individuals and fail to address critical issues such as the sustainability of the pension system and the long-term financial health of the public healthcare sector. The inclusion of three additional advisory questions, lower VAT on food and energy, rationalizing public administration, and banning face concealment in public spaces, may complicate matters further. Haček warns that if the main law is rejected but the advisory questions receive support, its implementation could become problematic due to legal constraints on repeated decisions within a year. Pertinač doubts that these additional questions will significantly alter the balance of power, citing the previous referendum experience as evidence that a broad referendum package does not guarantee success on the central issue. The National Assembly's Finance Committee has approved the proposal for the referendum on the intervention law, with the National Assembly set to make a final decision on Friday. The deadline for referendum preparations is expected to begin on October 30. The referendum question will ask whether voters support the implementation of the intervention law passed by the National Assembly on May 11, 2026. Trade unions submitted the request for the referendum on October 9 with over 40,000 verified signatures. Supporters of the law argue that it promotes economic growth and development, offering benefits such as cheaper energy for heating and more affordable housing for young people. Opponents, including members of the opposition parties, warn of potential negative financial impacts and a lack of detailed calculations on the effects of the proposed measures. They argue that the law may disproportionately benefit the wealthy and could strain the public finances, particularly in areas such as long-term care and the stability of the public healthcare system. Both the governing coalition and the opposition have indicated their intention to actively participate in the referendum campaign, highlighting the significance of this upcoming vote in shaping the country’s future policies.