Four referendums. Three advisory and one legislative. One with direct legal consequences, and three whose results are not binding on those in power. It was precisely in the one referendum that directly decided the fate of an adopted law that Janez Janša’s government suffered defeat. Quite an interesting outcome to referendum Sunday, isn’t it?
- I rant about Dars, while Marko Plahuta gathered the data and showed what is really going on
- Who will decide the future of education in Slovenia?
- How much do traffic jams cost Slovenia? More than €2 million a day
Janez Janša probably imagined a rather different evening. Four referendums, four victories, and proof that the people were behind him. Instead, he got three advisory results he can use for political propaganda, and the rejection of the parliamentary inquiry law. A law passed by his parliamentary majority.
That is the irony of the whole story. The three referendums through which those in power addressed voters on the RTV licence fee, social assistance and voting rights for foreigners were primarily political tools. Their results do express the will of the voters who took part, but they do not legally bind the government. The fourth referendum was an entirely different matter. It concerned a specific law that those in power wanted to put into force. We, the citizens, said no.
Of course, it will now be interesting to hear the interpretations. I’m certain we’ll hear about three victories and one defeat. Percentages, comparisons and explanations will emerge as to why referendum Sunday was actually a great success for the governing coalition. Everyone interprets results in whichever way suits them best. But one thing remains.
In the only legislative referendum, voters rejected a law passed by Janša’s coalition. To me, that is a political vote of no confidence in Janez Janša’s government. Not a formal vote of no confidence that would require the government to resign, but a message that a parliamentary majority is not automatically a majority among citizens when they decide directly on a specific law.
It is particularly interesting that, on the three advisory questions, a majority of voters came down on the side advocated by the coalition. That means the results cannot simply be interpreted as general opposition to everything proposed by Janša’s government. People distinguished between the questions. That is precisely why the rejection of the parliamentary inquiry law carries even greater political weight.
Perhaps this is also a lesson for all future governments. Referendums are not merely a handy tool for mobilising voters and generating political headlines. Once you give people the chance to decide, you also have to accept the possibility that they will decide differently from how you had imagined. If Janša’s government now wants to boast about three advisory victories, let it.
But it should not forget that, in the referendum concerning the actual enactment of a law, voters showed it a red card. Sunday evening therefore brought something the government camp probably had not planned for. Three results they can boast about, and one with direct consequences. It is the latter that will remain written into legislation. For now, the other three will remain political messages. Democracy can be rather ironic at times.
p.s. Thank you to everyone who fulfilled their civic duty and went to the polling station! Regardless of how they decided! As long as we still have the opportunity to decide, we need to use it.