Pred glasovanjem o izključitvi Grimsa se je na Evropsko ljudsko stranko s posebnim pismom obrnil tudi dr. Janez Juhant

In recent weeks, Slovenia has found itself at the center of intense political discourse, sparked by a series of high-profile statements and interventions from both cultural figures and public intellectuals. The debate has touched on fundamental issues of democracy, national identity, and the role of European institutions in shaping domestic policy. At the heart of this discussion is the work and public commentary of Mateja Koležnik, one of Slovenia’s most recognized theater directors, whose recent interview with Mladina has ignited conversations about the nature of European values and their application within the country.

Koležnik, who has built a successful career in international theater circles, spoke candidly about the perceived passivity and self-satisfaction among Europeans. She described them as “pasivni, samovšečni, razvajeni” — passive, self-satisfied, and well-developed. According to her, many Europeans take democratic principles, human rights, and freedoms for granted, failing to recognize the historical sacrifices made to secure these ideals. “We have forgotten that democracy, basic human rights, and freedom were fought for and won by our ancestors,” she said. “And I believe it is not far off that even developed Europeans will soon have to ask themselves, for what are we still willing to die and sacrifice.”

Her comments reflect a broader concern about the erosion of civic engagement and the growing detachment from the foundational values of Western democracies. Koležnik emphasized that while Slovenians have become adept at expressing dissatisfaction in informal settings—often over coffee—their voices remain muted when it comes to meaningful change. This contrast between vocal complaint and quiet compliance has been noted by many observers as a defining feature of contemporary Slovenian society.

The conversation around Koležnik's remarks was further amplified by a letter published in Dnevnik, which addressed the government and questioned its approach to democratic governance. The anonymous writer, who referred to the government as “spoštovana vlada” — respected government — pointed out a lack of understanding regarding the principles of democracy, human rights, and equality. They criticized the government’s handling of several controversial legislative proposals, including an omnibus intervention law, a parliamentary inquiry law, and changes to local elections. These measures, they argued, threatened constitutional balance and reflected a troubling shift toward authoritarian tendencies.

The letter also raised concerns about Slovenia’s stance on Israel and Palestine, questioning the rationale behind decisions that appeared to prioritize diplomatic relations with Israel despite widespread international condemnation of Israeli actions against Palestinians. The writer expressed frustration over the government’s apparent disregard for reports from international bodies such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, arguing that Slovenia should be more transparent and aligned with global standards of justice and human rights.

Meanwhile, another significant development emerged from within the European Parliament. Before a potential vote to expel Branko Grims, a member of the European People’s Party (EPP) group, his colleague Milan Zver called upon the party leadership to consider a written statement from Dr. Janez Juhant, a respected Slovenian academic and public intellectual. Juhant, a professor of philosophy at the University of Ljubljana and former dean of the Faculty of Theology, had written a letter supporting Grims’s continued membership in the group. He highlighted Grims’s longstanding commitment to Christian democratic values, human dignity, and the commemoration of victims of totalitarian violence. Juhant emphasized that Grims’s position aligned with the core principles of the EPP, particularly its tradition of advocating for remembrance, religious freedom, and the foundations of the European project.

Zver’s message underscored the importance of dialogue and internal clarification before taking drastic action. He stressed that expulsion from the EPP should be reserved for actions fundamentally incompatible with the group’s values, rather than for routine political differences or the maintenance of working relationships. His appeal resonated with many within the moderate-right political spectrum, reflecting a broader desire to preserve the integrity of democratic institutions and avoid unnecessary polarization.

These developments highlight the complex and often contentious landscape of Slovenian politics, where cultural figures, journalists, and politicians engage in debates that touch on deep-seated societal values. While Koležnik’s critique of European complacency and the anonymous writer’s call for greater transparency represent opposing perspectives, both underscore the need for renewed civic engagement and a reaffirmation of democratic principles. Meanwhile, the controversy surrounding Grims’s potential expulsion illustrates the challenges faced by political parties in maintaining unity while navigating diverse ideological landscapes.

As these discussions continue, the question remains whether Slovenia can reconcile its aspirations for European integration with the realities of its domestic political environment. Will there be a willingness to address the underlying tensions that fuel these debates, or will the nation continue to drift toward a more fragmented and polarized future? The coming months will likely provide some answers, but for now, the conversation remains open—and perhaps necessary—for the health of Slovenia’s democratic culture.