EXCLUSIVO: Grandes juegos a puertas cerradas Lo que temen los palomas en octubre, lo que pueden perder los gansos en noviembre y lo que revelan las conversaciones internas (Safari Special)

The Supreme Court has ruled against a key provision of the parliamentary inquiry law proposed by Prime Minister Janez Janša’s government, while simultaneously affirming that the existing framework introduced by the previous government, Robert Golob’s, was appropriate and necessary. This decision comes ahead of a referendum scheduled for October 11, where voters will decide whether to approve the new law. The ruling marks a pivotal moment in Slovenia’s political landscape, with implications for the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. The current law, which was enacted by Janša's administration, seeks to remove safeguards previously established by Golob’s government to prevent abuse of parliamentary inquiries for political retaliation. Those safeguards allowed individuals affected by such inquiries, the accused, as well as certain state organs, to request a constitutional court review of the inquiry’s legality. The Supreme Court has now struck down this specific provision, arguing that requiring judicial approval before initiating an inquiry could hinder its effectiveness. However, the court has also confirmed that the system of external oversight over parliamentary inquiries, originally implemented by Golob’s government, remains valid and constitutionally sound. Under the previous law, a third of parliamentarians, the person being investigated, and relevant state bodies had the right to request a constitutional review of an inquiry. This meant that inquiries could only proceed if their purpose and scope were deemed consistent with the constitution. Parliamentarians were restricted to investigating matters of public interest, and could not probe into other issues without such approval. The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the requirement for prior judicial approval does not negate these protections, but it removes one mechanism designed to ensure accountability. The ruling has sparked debate among political analysts and lawmakers. While some argue that the removal of the requirement for judicial oversight undermines checks on executive power, others maintain that the existing safeguards remain intact and that the court’s decision preserves the integrity of parliamentary investigations. The court has left open questions regarding other provisions that were raised during a January session, indicating that further deliberations may take place before finalizing its stance. The upcoming referendum represents a critical juncture for both sides. Supporters of the new law claim it enhances transparency and reduces potential misuse of investigative powers, while opponents argue that it weakens democratic oversight and enables unchecked political maneuvering. The outcome of the vote could have far-reaching consequences for the functioning of Slovenia’s parliamentary system and the balance of power within its government. Behind the scenes, political tensions continue to mount. Internal discussions within both major parties suggest that the referendum is not merely a legal exercise but a strategic battleground. Some sources indicate that there are concerns about financial flows and conflicts of interest, particularly among influential figures who stand to gain or lose depending on the result. These tensions have led to increased scrutiny of political actors, including former leaders and members of the opposition. Meanwhile, the political climate remains polarized. Public sentiment appears largely unchanged since the last election, with the Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS) still leading in polls, followed by the Freedom Movement (Svoboda) and smaller parties. Analysts note that while the ruling party maintains a comfortable majority in parliament, the outcome of the referendum, and subsequent local elections, will depend heavily on voter turnout and mobilization efforts. Political strategists on both sides are preparing for different scenarios. Some suggest that if the new law passes, it could lead to a reshaping of the government, potentially involving cabinet changes or even a broader realignment of alliances. Others warn that a defeat could trigger internal divisions, especially within the ruling coalition, which has already shown signs of instability. As the country prepares for the referendum, the focus remains on the legal and procedural aspects of the law, with little attention given to the broader implications for governance and democracy. The Supreme Court’s ruling has clarified certain elements of the law, but many questions remain unanswered, leaving room for continued political maneuvering in the weeks ahead.