--- title: The right wing in Slovenia has no civil society date: 2026-11-11T05:42:52Z modified: 2026-11-11T05:45:03Z permalink: "https://www.had.si/blog/en/2026/11/11/the-right-has-no-civil-society-thats-why-jansa-would-silence-8-march/" type: post status: publish excerpt: "Slovenia's right has parties, youth wings and loyal media, but no independent civil society. That is why it wants to curb Institute 8 March's role in campaigns." wpid: 391243 categories: - Reflections tags: - Reflections - 8 March Institute - civil society - Janez Janša - Nika Kovač - non-governmental organisations - NSi - SDS - Viktor Orbán - english - pll_6af400a5dc69c language: - english post_translations: - pll_6af400a5dc69c featured_image: "https://www.had.si/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/hrcek.jpg" featured_image_alt: Hrcek timestamp: 2026-11-11T05:45:03Z --- The right has political parties. It has youth wings. It has media outlets that repeat party messages. It has loyal supporters ready to defend Janez Janša even when it would make far more sense for them to keep quiet. It even has its own civic initiatives. But it is clearly missing something: a civil society that does not need a party’s permission to say what it thinks. In other words, the right has no civil society. - [SDS, NSi, Democrats and Resnica would ban foreign money. 8 March told them to fuck off!](https://www.had.si/blog/2026/11/10/sds-nsi-demokrati-in-resnica-bi-prepovedovali-tuji-denar-8-marec-jim-je-pokazal-fakof/?output_format=md) - [The ban on covering faces is not just about burqas, but protesters too](https://www.had.si/blog/2026/11/03/prepoved-zakrivanja-obraza-ne-gre-samo-za-burke-ampak-tudi-za-protestnike/?output_format=md) - [The similarities between Vučić’s and Janša’s supporters](https://www.had.si/blog/2025/01/28/podobnost-med-vucicevimi-in-jansevimi-podporniki/?output_format=md) - [Rupar’s protests are essentially SDS protests](https://www.had.si/blog/2025/02/20/ruparjevi-protesti-so-v-bistvu-sds-protesti/?output_format=md) Remember the Yellow Vests. A few dozen people who emerged as a counterweight to the mass protests against Janša’s government. Remember Rupar’s pensioners, led by a former SDS MP, whose movement later became a political party. Of course, people with genuine problems and legitimate demands also attended their rallies. But it is difficult to overlook the political connection. On the right, civic initiative all too often ends where party headquarters begin. On the left, we have a civil society that is far more diverse, vocal and, above all, unpredictable. Environmentalists, trade unions, students, cultural workers, activists, NGOs and people who simply care. They do not agree on everything. But when it comes to shared values, they know how to stand together. Not because they received a text message from headquarters saying “share”, but because they understand the importance of solidarity. That is precisely Janez Janša’s biggest problem. People who do not jump on command. People you cannot silence through party discipline. People who do not need a leader to understand when those in power have crossed the line. Which is why we should ask why SDS, NSi, Democrats and Resnica are suddenly so concerned about civil society taking part in election and referendum campaigns. They are proposing a law under which organisations that have received money from abroad in the past five years would not be allowed to organise such campaigns. The explanation? Preventing foreign influence. It sounds good, until you look at who such a measure would hit hardest. Institute 8 March has repeatedly shown that it can mobilise people without having to ask a political party for permission. That it can bring different groups together and influence the outcome of a referendum. Remember the 2021 water referendum: 682,760 people, or 86.75% of valid votes, rejected the law, and Institute 8 March played an important role in the campaign. That is something Janez Janša clearly fears far more than any political rival. You can attack a political party in election debates. You can lie, mislead and distort the facts. For his supporters, everything Janez says is the truth. But you cannot simply replace or order an independent civil society you do not control to keep quiet. If you cannot defeat it, you try to change the rules of the game. We know this approach from Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, where the authorities spent years restricting independent NGOs and critical media through legislation, surveillance and pressure. Of course, Slovenia is not Hungary, and not every proposal to limit funding is authoritarianism. But the pattern is familiar enough that alarm bells should be ringing. First, you declare civil society an extension of foreign interests. Then you portray it as a danger to the country. Finally, you try to strip it, by law, of its ability to influence public decisions. The greatest irony is that the very people who never stop talking about patriotism apparently find it hardest to tolerate citizens who think for themselves. Their homeland is sacred. So are the people. As long as those people vote correctly, think correctly and obey the correct leader. My view is simple. This proposal is not merely about foreign funding. It is political revenge against Institute 8 March and an attempt to curb one of civil society’s strongest voices. We should not kid ourselves that this is only about Nika Kovač. Today, 8 March is the target. Tomorrow, it could be any organisation that dared to oppose those in power. No one should deceive themselves into thinking it will not happen sooner or later. Janez has simply become predictable, and his modus operandi is deja vu from the textbooks of other countries. Democracy is not a system in which the people may speak only once every four years and must remain silent in between. Civil society is not a decorative extra in a democracy. It is its corrective. Above all, civil society has no obligation to please whoever happens to be in power.