Dolančev sindrom: oblast kot dedna pravica tranzicijske levice

Stane Dolanc, secretary of the Executive Bureau of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, declared in Split on September 9, 1972, that communists held power in the state and that this situation would never change. He stated that if they were not in charge, it would imply someone else was, which he insisted was impossible and would remain so forever. This remark occurred after the crackdown on the Croatian Spring and immediately before the fall of the Slovenian liberals led by Stane Kavcic. Dolanc’s statement signaled the end of political liberalization and a return to strict party lines and the monopoly of the League of Communists over authority. Historically, these remarks marked the beginning of the leaden seventies, a period that concluded with the death of Yugoslav dictator Josip Broz Tito in Ljubljana on May 4, 1980. More than half a century later, political successors of the former party nomenclature appear to have internalized Dolanc’s words as a binding political command. According to Dr. Metod Berlec, even after formally leaving power during Slovenia’s democratization and independence process in 1991, these groups did not accept that long-term governance might belong to others. During the Demos government era from 1990 to 1992, there were constant attempts to undermine the first democratically elected authorities before they could complete the historic project of independence. Instead of unity during critical historical moments, many representatives of the transitional left focused on preserving their political, media, and economic positions. A similar pattern emerged in 2000 during the brief Bajuk government, when parts of the political and media public launched hysteria unlike anything previously seen in Slovenia. The phenomenon became more pronounced under all of Janez Janša’s governments, where political combat moved far beyond ordinary democratic competition of ideas and programs. Today, under the fourth Janša administration, similar responses are evident. Rather than debating specific measures and solutions, the leftist opposition, alongside non-governmental organizations, relies on a strategy of creating exceptional circumstances and street mobilization. This approach includes hysterical acts such as throwing business cards in the National Assembly. Leftist figures are predicting scenarios reminiscent of events currently unfolding in Western European countries, particularly France. The opposition party Resni.ca, which constructively supports the Janša government, has been targeted first. Increasingly, the coalition partner Democrats, led by Anze Logar, are also coming under attack. This represents a proven operational model for the transitional left and its political derivatives, who aim to topple legitimately elected governments by any means necessary. They operate under the belief that the state belongs to them as an ATM or hunting ground, viewing all others as targets of ideological madness. This mindset preserves the mental pattern explicitly expressed by the hardliner Stane Dolanc in 1972. His words remain ominous today because they serve as a warning that democracy is not self-evident, especially for ideological heirs of previous regimes. It requires respect for political pluralism and the legitimacy of those who think differently. The author notes that despite the passage of time, the core sentiment persists among certain political circles. The refusal to cede power permanently to alternative leaderships has characterized the behavior of former communist officials since the early 1990s. Their focus shifted from governing to retaining influence in media and economy during the transition. The current political climate reflects this continuity, with opposition tactics focusing on destabilization rather than policy debate. The comparison to French unrest highlights the severity of the predicted scenarios. The targeting of both supportive opposition parties and coalition partners indicates a broad campaign against the current executive. The underlying motivation described is a sense of entitlement to state resources and control, rejecting the democratic principle of alternating power. This perspective frames the current political conflict not merely as partisan rivalry but as a struggle over the fundamental nature of democratic legitimacy in post-communist society. The historical reference to Dolanc serves to contextualize modern actions within a longer trajectory of authoritarian habits.