A political debate has erupted in Slovenia over the term "political police," with activists pushing for a referendum against parliamentary investigative commissions being accused of misusing historical terminology. The campaign, which successfully gathered signatures for the proposed referendum, used the phrase "against political police" as its central slogan. However, critics argue that this rhetoric conflates modern parliamentary oversight mechanisms with the oppressive secret police forces of the past, such as the UDBA, KOS, and OZNA, which operated under authoritarian regimes. The controversy centers around the distinction between contemporary parliamentary investigative bodies and the clandestine security apparatuses of communist-era Yugoslavia. According to the activist group behind the referendum initiative, the term "political police" is being used to describe the work of parliamentary committees, which operate transparently and are subject to public scrutiny. This stands in stark contrast to the secretive operations of historical agencies like the UDBA, which were known for their lack of transparency, surveillance, and intimidation tactics. Critics, including Sara Stepanjan, daughter of a UDBA victim, have raised concerns about the misuse of the term. She emphasized that the UDBA was a true example of political police, operating without public accountability, capable of detaining individuals without due process, and using methods such as torture and fabricated charges. Her father, she explained, was sentenced to nine years in prison based on false accusations of terrorism and espionage. Such actions, she argued, represent the very essence of political police, unlike today's parliamentary commissions, which function within legal boundaries and are publicly accountable. The UDBA, established during the Yugoslav era, was responsible for monitoring internal opposition, religious institutions, and political dissidents. It employed a range of covert techniques, including surveillance through hidden microphones and cameras, infiltration of private spaces, and the use of registered informants who would provoke or spread disinformation. These methods were designed to maintain control and suppress dissent, often operating outside the bounds of legality and human rights. Historical records indicate that the UDBA played a role in numerous atrocities, including mass killings following World War II. While exact figures remain unknown due to the destruction of documentation, estimates suggest thousands of victims. The organization's legacy continues to haunt families and communities across former Yugoslavia, with many still seeking justice for the suffering endured during its operation. Supporters of the referendum argue that the current parliamentary investigative commissions should not be equated with the UDBA or similar entities. They claim that these commissions are necessary tools for ensuring transparency and holding officials accountable. However, opponents warn that using the term "political police" risks trivializing the real horrors of the past and could undermine efforts to address historical injustices. As the debate unfolds, calls for clarity and precision in language grow louder. Activists and historians alike stress the importance of distinguishing between legitimate democratic processes and the oppressive mechanisms of the past. The discussion highlights the need for careful consideration of terminology to avoid both historical revisionism and the potential erosion of public trust in modern governance structures.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.
Become a Supporter
Slovenia
