The Slovene left would give the right to vote to more than 100,000 foreigners.
The article discusses a debate between members of Slovenia's political parties regarding the voting rights of foreign residents. Dan Juvan from the Left Party argues that legal immigrants, such as cleaners, caregivers, cooks, and delivery workers, contribute significantly to the economy and society, and that restricting their residency or family unification would harm both them and the country. He criticizes policies that differentiate between EU citizens and those from other countries, noting that many non-EU migrants come from former Yugoslav states. In contrast, Andrej Kosi from the SDS highlights statistical data showing a significant increase in the number of foreigners with local voting rights, rising from around 15,000 in 2002 to over 100,000 today. He warns that this growing demographic could influence local elections by increasing the political power of non-citizens. The discussion also includes perspectives from activists and experts who caution against populist measures that divide society and highlight potential long-term risks of ignoring demographic changes.
Slovenian leftist parties have proposed limiting voting rights for more than 100,000 foreigners, citing concerns over political influence. The debate has emerged amid discussions around work permits, family reunification, and language proficiency, with political figures presenting contrasting views. In a televised debate, Dan Juvan of the Left Party emphasized that many immigrants came to Slovenia legally, often because the country needed their labor. He argued that cleaners, caregivers, chefs, and delivery workers are essential to functioning systems and warned that tightening conditions for residency and family unification would harm both workers and the economy. Juvan noted that while EU citizens retain voting rights, non-EU nationals face stricter rules, which he claims disproportionately affect people from former Yugoslav countries. In contrast, Andrej Kosi of the SDS highlighted statistics showing that the number of foreigners with local voting rights increased from approximately 15,000 in 2002 to over 100,000 this year. He pointed out that the share of non-EU citizens among potential voters rose by nearly 35% since the last local elections, with their proportion reaching up to 14% of potential voters. Kosi stressed that as their numbers grow, so does their potential political influence, particularly in municipal councils and mayoral elections. The discussion expanded during a separate show, V središču, where Kosi debated with activist Aigul Hakimova, political commentator Bogdan Biščak, and lawyer Janez Pogorelec. Hakimova criticized fears over rising foreign worker numbers as exaggerated and called the withdrawal of voting rights a populist move that deepens societal divisions. Kosi maintained that the growing presence of foreigners increases their political impact, even as the relative influence of Slovenian citizens declines. Pogorelec raised broader demographic concerns, drawing comparisons to North Macedonia and Sweden. He warned that ignoring rapid demographic changes could lead to long-term political radicalization among locals. He also highlighted legal complications, noting that the law was enacted just days before the elections, despite recommendations from the Benes Commission to avoid changing key rules less than a year beforehand. Biščak expressed surprise at the Constitutional Court’s decision not to temporarily block the implementation of the amendment. The law took effect on September 2, meaning non-EU citizens will not be able to vote in upcoming local elections on November 11. A referendum on the issue will take place shortly after. The debate continues to blur two distinct concepts: employment and citizenship. While working hard, paying taxes, and performing quality work are vital for inclusion in society, these factors do not justify granting or denying voting rights. If one were to base voting rights solely on contribution, the question would quickly turn back: should the right be denied to unemployed citizens too? The answer, clearly, is no. Employment and political participation remain separate categories. European practice varies widely, with countries such as Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Poland, and Croatia offering different levels of voting rights to non-citizens.
Go to the primary sources (2)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
The article discusses a debate between members of Slovenia's political parties regarding the voting rights of foreign residents. Dan Juvan from the Left Party argues that legal immigrants, such as cleaners, caregivers, cooks, and delivery workers, contribute significantly to the economy and society, and that restricting their residency or family unification would harm both them and the country. He criticizes policies that differentiate between EU citizens and those from other countries, noting that many non-EU migrants come from former Yugoslav states. In contrast, Andrej Kosi from the SDS highlights statistical data showing a significant increase in the number of foreigners with local voting rights, rising from around 15,000 in 2002 to over 100,000 today. He warns that this growing demographic could influence local elections by increasing the political power of non-citizens. The discussion also includes perspectives from activists and experts who caution against populist measures that divide society and highlight potential long-term risks of ignoring demographic changes.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the issue through a focus on the numerical growth of non-citizen voters and potential political influence, emphasizing concerns about national identity and democratic integrity. It leans toward the right by highlighting fears of non-citizens' impact on local governance and using a
Why factuality (85): The article reports on a debate between political figures regarding the expansion of voting rights to non-EU citizens. It cites specific numbers from Andrej Kosi (SDS) about the increase in non-EU voters from 15,000 in 2002 to over 100,000 currently, which aligns with the cross-source consensus. How
Why objectivity (70): The tone leans slightly towards supporting the left-wing perspective, as it highlights Dan Juvan's concerns about the impact of restrictive policies on immigrant workers. While the article presents both sides of the argument, the emphasis on the potential negative effects of restricting voting right
On September 17, 2026, at 6:00 AM, a debate was held on Info360's program 'V Središču' ahead of a consultative referendum on a law amendment that would revoke voting rights for foreigners from third countries in November local elections. The discussion featured Ajgul Hakimova, a long-time activist who migrated from Kyrgyzstan to Slovenia over 20 years ago, former politician and political commentator Bogdan Biščak, MP of SDS Andrej Kosić, and legal expert Janez Pogorelec, member of NSi. The conversation included contentious discussions on whether revoking voting rights would lead to fewer foreign workers or support staff in Ljubljana's UKC. The interview was conducted by journalist Suzana Kos.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced discussion involving multiple stakeholders with differing perspectives on the proposed law amendment. While the topic is politically charged, the framing appears neutral, with participants representing various viewpoints without overt ideological slant. The focus is a
Why factuality (80): This article provides context around a referendum on revoking voting rights for non-EU citizens. It lists participants including an activist, a politician, a legal expert, and references the upcoming vote. While it does not provide detailed statistics like the previous article, it aligns with the br
Why objectivity (75): The article maintains a more neutral tone compared to the first, focusing on presenting different viewpoints through the inclusion of various stakeholders such as activists, politicians, and legal experts. It avoids taking a clear stance on the issue itself, though it frames the discussion around th
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
Slovenia
