[Video] Aljuš Pertinač: If Janša is passive, the opposition has problems (Echo weekly, 16 October 2026)
In this week's 'Echo of the Week' segment, journalist Vida Petrovčič interviewed political analyst Aljuš Pertinač, who analyzed the results of recent referendums. The governing coalition lost the constitutional referendum on parliamentary investigation but won advisory referendums on foreign citizens' voting rights at local elections and conditions for financial social assistance through community service. According to Pertinač, the opposition is not overly concerned about losing these two referendums because they are less ideologically significant compared to the referendum on parliamentary investigation and payment of the RTV contribution, which were largely votes for or against Janez Janša. Pertinač suggests that if Janša remains passive, the opposition faces greater challenges in mobilizing their voters. He criticizes the coalition's strategy of exhausting voters with numerous referendum questions and notes that the ruling side did not fully activate itself in the campaign, though it started from a weaker position due to competing against the opposition coalition supported by civil society activists. Pertinač also highlights the lack of clarity in the campaigns around the aboli
The government led by Prime Minister Janez Janša has blocked an emergency bill proposed by the opposition Freedom movement to provide immediate financial aid to farmers suffering from severe drought conditions this year. The National Assembly rejected the draft legislation after the cabinet determined it contained substantial legal, content, and implementation flaws. The proposal was prepared by Freedom, which is led by former Prime Minister Robert Golob, in cooperation with the shadow cabinet. Its primary objective was to accelerate access to funds for agricultural operations damaged by the prolonged dry spell and high temperatures. Under the rejected plan, the state would have paid out 30 percent of the estimated damage compensation to affected farms before the final assessment of losses was completed. For example, if a farm’s damages were initially assessed at 20,000 euros, the farmer could have received 6,000 euros upfront while administrative procedures continued. Proponents argued this liquidity was critical for continuing cultivation, purchasing feed, and mitigating the effects of the drought. Additional measures in the draft included waiving pension and disability insurance contributions for farmers, assisting with the purchase and transport of feed and seeds, helping secure water supplies, and canceling lease payments. The bill also envisioned investments to improve farm resilience against future droughts and restore permanent plantations damaged by adverse weather. Prime Minister Janša stated that the government supports the goal of aiding farmers quickly but found the specific legislative vehicle unsuitable for further processing due to its deficiencies. Agriculture Minister Janez Cigler Kralj presented a package of existing and planned measures worth over 21 million euros in late September. This funding covers impacts from this year's drought, as well as last year's drought and frost, alongside rising production costs. Cigler Kralj noted that some livestock farmers face such significant feed shortages that they are considering reducing herds or abandoning farming altogether. He assured them that the government aims to support their work and help maintain agricultural production as swiftly as possible. Data regarding previous drought impacts illustrates the scale of potential losses. According to ministry records, the state paid out a total of 8.45 million euros to 3,781 victims following the 2025 drought. Financial assistance was granted to farms where crop yields dropped by more than 30 percent below normal levels. Additionally, the Agricultural Land and Forest Fund waived or reduced lease payments on the hardest-hit areas by more than half a million euros. Authorities conducted a new damage survey for the current season, with data collection scheduled to conclude at the end of September. Entries into the national application system were due by October 9. These data will serve as the basis for decisions on additional measures. The ministry indicated it seeks to secure extra funds primarily for farms suffering the greatest damage from the long-term drought. It is also exploring partial prepayments for regions with limited farming factors and preparing measures to mitigate high energy and fertilizer costs. Long-term strategies include simplifying procedures for building irrigation systems and retention basins. In a separate parliamentary session, Prime Minister Janša addressed other economic proposals, expressing enthusiasm for a tax relief bill submitted by the Freedom movement. When asked by MP Iva Dimic whether the government was preparing measures to increase net wages, particularly through income tax reductions, Janša confirmed such preparations were underway. He specifically highlighted the Freedom party's proposal, stating, "Hallelujah and thank God." Janša recalled that his previous government's tax reform had been halted halfway, resulting in an estimated loss of 2,500 euros for employees with average salaries. He suggested the government might supplement the opposition's proposal with its own solutions, though specific figures and timelines remain undisclosed as the strategic council prepares recommendations. The Freedom movement proposes raising the general income tax allowance from approximately 5,552 euros to 6,500 euros. This allowance represents the portion of annual income exempt from income tax. The proposal also modifies tax brackets, setting the top 50 percent rate to apply only to taxable bases exceeding 150,000 euros, compared to the current threshold slightly above 82,000 euros. Changes would take effect in 2027. Notably, the Freedom movement previously led a government that stopped the gradual increase of this allowance under a 2022 law passed by Janša's administration, which aimed to raise it to 7,500 euros by 2025. The allowance was fixed at 5,000 euros for 2023 and has since adjusted for inflation to its current level. Tax expert and former tax authority director Ivan Simic defended the broader interventionist law currently facing a referendum vote scheduled for December 6. The law includes higher pensions, lower VAT on food and energy, reduced taxation on rents, and improved healthcare. Simic criticized opponents for lacking logic in their arguments. He noted that allowing retirees who continue working to receive full pensions does not increase budget costs significantly, as the pension cost exists regardless of employment status. He pointed out that 26 European countries permit this practice. Regarding the social cap, which limits social security contributions on gross salaries above 7,500 euros, Simic argued it enhances Slovenia's competitiveness by preventing the exodus of highly educated professionals to neighboring countries with lower labor costs. He dismissed concerns that retailers would offset lower VAT rates by raising prices, asserting that food and fuel would become cheaper despite market dynamics. Critics from the opposition and unions argue the interventionist law benefits the wealthy disproportionately and creates a fiscal deficit. They contend that lowering taxes and contributions reduces state revenue without adequate offsets. However, supporters counter that the money saved by individuals and businesses stays within the economy. The political landscape remains sharply divided, with the ruling coalition focused on reversing policies implemented during the Golob government era, including the halting of the tax reform. The upcoming referendum will determine the fate of these contentious measures, including the tax changes and social provisions outlined in the interventionist framework.
A proposed emergency law intended to provide rapid financial aid to Slovenian farmers affected by severe drought was rejected by the National Assembly due to opposition from the government led by Prime Minister Janez Janša. The bill, drafted by the opposition party SLOVENIJA (Svoboda) in cooperation with the shadow government led by Robert Golob, aimed to allow farmers to receive 30% of their estimated damages before final assessments were completed, facilitating quicker access to funds for feed, seeds, and water. Additional measures included waiving pension contributions, assisting with land leases, and funding investments to improve farm resilience against future climate impacts. The government argued that while the goal of faster assistance was valid, the proposal contained significant legal, substantive, and implementation flaws that made it unsuitable for further processing. Agriculture Minister Janez Cigler Kralj highlighted that existing and planned state measures already amount to over 21 million euros in support, covering both current drought issues and previous years' adverse weather conditions.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the rejection of the opposition's bill primarily through the lens of the incumbent government's justification, citing 'numerous deficiencies' and 'legal flaws' as the decisive factors. While it presents the opposition's intent to help farmers, the narrative structure emphasizes PM
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reflects the standard political narrative regarding this legislative failure. It correctly identifies the actors (Janša government vs. Golob-led shadow government/Svoboda party) and the specific mechanism proposed (30% advance payment before final damage assessment). The detai
Why objectivity (90): The tone is largely neutral and journalistic. While the headline uses strong verbs ('blokirala' - blocked), the body text presents both sides: the opposition's rationale (slow response, need for quick cash) and the government's counter-argument (flaws in the law). It avoids emotional adjectives and
Prime Minister Janez Janša praised the tax proposal by the opposition party Freedom (Gibanje Svoboda) during a session of the National Assembly, where he was answering parliamentary questions. The proposal aims to increase the general income tax exemption from approximately €5,552 to €6,500, which would reduce the amount of taxes paid by employees and leave more money in their pockets. This comes after the previous government led by Robert Golob halted the gradual increase of this exemption, which had been part of Janša’s earlier tax reform plan. Janša acknowledged the Freedom Party’s initiative and indicated that his government might support or complement it, though specific figures and timelines for implementation have not yet been announced. The proposed changes also include adjustments to income tax brackets, with the highest rate applying only to portions of annual taxable income above €150,000.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both the Prime Minister's acknowledgment of the opposition's proposal and provides background on the historical context of the tax reforms. It does not exhibit clear bias toward either side but rather reports on the political dynamics and potential future actions of the current閣
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports Premier Janez Janša's comments during a parliamentary session regarding the tax proposal by the opposition party Freedom. It includes direct quotes from Janša and provides context about the previous government's tax reforms. However, it does not provide specific data t
Why objectivity (75): The article maintains a relatively neutral tone but shows some bias through phrases like 'aleluja in hvala Bogu,' which convey approval of the opposition's proposal. The framing suggests a positive view of the Freedom party's initiative without presenting counterarguments or alternative perspectives
In this week's 'Echo of the Week' segment, journalist Vida Petrovčič interviewed political analyst Aljuš Pertinač, who analyzed the results of recent referendums. The governing coalition lost the constitutional referendum on parliamentary investigation but won advisory referendums on foreign citizens' voting rights at local elections and conditions for financial social assistance through community service. According to Pertinač, the opposition is not overly concerned about losing these two referendums because they are less ideologically significant compared to the referendum on parliamentary investigation and payment of the RTV contribution, which were largely votes for or against Janez Janša. Pertinač suggests that if Janša remains passive, the opposition faces greater challenges in mobilizing their voters. He criticizes the coalition's strategy of exhausting voters with numerous referendum questions and notes that the ruling side did not fully activate itself in the campaign, though it started from a weaker position due to competing against the opposition coalition supported by civil society activists. Pertinač also highlights the lack of clarity in the campaigns around the aboli
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced analysis of referendum outcomes and political strategies without overtly favoring any side. It includes critical perspectives on both the governing coalition and the opposition, highlighting concerns about voter exhaustion and campaign tactics.
Why factuality (85): The article gives an overview of the referendum and mentions the political implications but lacks detailed specifics about the law itself. It accurately reports the political positions of different groups.
Why objectivity (75): The article has a clear ideological bias, focusing on the challenges faced by the opposition and implying criticism of the government strategy without providing balanced perspectives.
The article discusses Slovenia's upcoming referendum on the Intervention Law, which aims to increase pensions, reduce VAT on food and energy, lower property taxes, and improve healthcare. The law allows retirees who continue working to receive their full pension alongside their salary, a provision opposed by unions and the opposition. Magister Ivan Simič, a tax expert and former director of Fursa, supports the law, arguing that it benefits the economy and makes Slovenia more competitive by reducing the burden on high-income earners through a 'social cap' on contributions. He criticizes opponents for claiming the law favors the wealthy, stating that 26 European countries already allow retirees to work while receiving full pensions. The law also seeks to lower food and fuel prices, though the opposition argues this could lead to higher retail prices.
Bias read (Conservative): The article presents a strong endorsement of the Intervention Law by a pro-government tax expert, emphasizing economic benefits and competitiveness, while criticizing opposition claims as illogical. It frames the law as beneficial to all citizens and dismisses concerns raised by unions and the left.
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports the content of Ivan Simič's comments on the intervention law, including his arguments about pensioners working while receiving full pensions and the six European countries that allow this. It also references the constitutional court allowing the referendum and the oppo
Why objectivity (55): The article presents Simič’s views in a largely favorable light, using phrases like 'odločno podprl' (decisively supported) and quotes him criticizing opponents as lacking logic. The tone leans toward supporting the intervention law and dismisses opposition concerns as unfounded, showing bias rather
The article discusses the lead-up to Sunday's referendum, focusing on the technological aspects of Prime Minister Janez Janša's governance. On Friday, October 9th, representatives of affiliated unions presented 42,694 signatures to parliament for a legally binding referendum on the law regarding intervention measures for Slovenia's development. The piece highlights the procedural steps taken by union groups to push for this referendum, emphasizing their efforts to gather sufficient support.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about the collection of signatures for a referendum without overtly favoring any side. It describes the actions of union representatives and mentions the legal process involved but does not include biased language or one-sided sourcing.
Why factuality (80): The article accurately describes the approval of the referendum proposal by the Finance Committee and the planned date of the referendum. It also quotes officials and highlights the debate around the content of the law. However, it omits some of the more detailed economic arguments made by both side
Why objectivity (65): The article contains some biased language, particularly when describing the opposition’s view of the law as being 'for the rich.' This framing may influence reader perception and suggests a slight leaning toward the opposing viewpoint.
The article discusses how Slovenia has effectively split into two factions following recent referendum results and the reactions of leading governing and opposition politicians after the closure of polling stations. One faction consists of a coalition of parties that ran in the spring parliamentary elections to form a government with Robert Golob. This coalition elected both the president of the National Assembly and the prime minister. The other faction includes a more cohesive group composed primarily of parties that lost power in this year’s parliamentary elections, along with segments of civil society characterized by political activism supporting transitional or transactional leftist centers. These groups are heavily funded by foreign and domestic private sources and receive support from a media cartel owned by tycoons and national public television, as well as increasingly from unions in both the public and private sectors. All these groups expected the fourth government under Janez Janša to be highly combative.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the political landscape in terms of a struggle between a pro-Golob coalition and a more unified opposition, including civil society groups described as supporting 'transitional or transactional leftist' ideologies. It criticizes the ruling coalition for underestimating the closess
Why factuality (65): The article provides some factual background on the political divisions in Slovenia but includes speculative and potentially inaccurate statements about the motivations of certain groups. It lacks concrete evidence to back up some of its claims.
Why objectivity (55): The tone is strongly biased against the government and the ruling coalition, using terms like 'antijanšizma' and suggesting conspiracy-like motives behind the political actions. It lacks neutrality and balance.
DomovinaIndependentProgressiveFactual: no official source document/info detectedObjective 75
The first referendum under the fourth Janez Janša government has concluded successfully. Despite narrow results on two key referendum questions, the message from voters, who participated in record numbers, is clear. Anti-Janša sentiment remains strong, indicating continued public dissatisfaction with his leadership.
Bias read (Progressive): The article emphasizes anti-Janša sentiment and implies criticism of his leadership, suggesting a framing that aligns with opposition views rather than neutrality. The tone highlights voter dissatisfaction, which leans toward a leftward interpretation of the political climate in Slovenia.
Why factuality: no official source document/info detected
Why objectivity (75): The article exhibits a clear ideological bias, emphasizing anti-Janša sentiments and suggesting a stronger opposition presence without adequately representing the government's perspective.
The article discusses Uroš Esih's commentary on a new potential referendum battle, referencing his piece titled 'December Poker with the Intervention Law.' Esih argues that the strategy used in the previous referendum was unsuccessful, which is why the coalition is hesitant to pursue another referendum. He suggests that Prime Minister Janez Janša should focus solely on a legislative referendum and include interested stakeholders.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced discussion of differing viewpoints regarding referendum strategies without overtly favoring any side. It references a commentator's opinion but does not exhibit clear bias toward one political stance over another.
Why factuality: no official source document/info detected
Why objectivity (70): The article presents a somewhat neutral perspective by quoting Uroš Esih’s analysis but leans slightly toward the government’s position by suggesting that Prime Minister Janez Janša should focus on legislative referendums. The tone remains mostly objective but shows a subtle bias in favor of the rul
DemokracijaParty-alignedConservativeFactual: no official source document/info detectedObjective 20
The article criticizes the current opposition parties, specifically Freedom and Left, for allegedly spreading contradictory claims regarding the government's emergency law for Slovenia's development. The author argues that the opposition simultaneously warns of a massive budget deficit caused by tax cuts while claiming ordinary citizens will benefit little from the legislation. The piece asserts that measures such as reducing VAT on basic goods, lowering contributions for self-employed individuals, and adjusting pension rules directly transfer money back to the population, making the opposition's dual narrative logically inconsistent. It further notes that these same opposition members previously blocked income tax reforms under the previous Janša government, which resulted in lower net wages for employees. Premier Janez Janša is quoted emphasizing the importance of reducing labor burdens for economic competitiveness, while tax expert Ivan Simich states that the current government has taken the most significant steps and lost its compass, predicting voters will decide via referendum.
Bias read (Conservative): The article exhibits strong right-leaning framing through explicit criticism of left-wing opposition parties (Freedom and Left), labeling their arguments as 'lies' and stating they have 'lost their compass.' It defends the policies of the center-right government led by Janez Janša, highlighting the
Why factuality: no official source document/info detected
Why objectivity (20): Highly biased and inflammatory. The author uses emotionally charged language like 'lies,' 'lost their compass,' and 'shouting.' The piece frames the opposition entirely negatively and presents the government's position as the only logical reality, lacking any balance or neutral reporting.
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.
![[Video] Aljuš Pertinač: If Janša is passive, the opposition has problems (Echo weekly, 16 October 2026)](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=slovenskenovice.delo.si%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F20261021%2F3754253.width-660.format-webp.webp&w=3840&q=75&output=webp&we)
Slovenia
