Tomorrow, Slovenia will once again elect mayors and municipal councillors. We have 212 municipalities and just as many mayors. For just over 2.1 million people. In 1994, we had 147 municipalities. Today, we have 212. Clearly, over the years we decided we needed considerably more municipalities. Or did we simply decide we needed more mayors? The figures for Slovenia’s ten smallest municipalities are even more interesting.
- Ljubljana mayoral election 2026: will Janković win for the seventh time?
- I don’t want to pay for this government / Janez has invented the subscription state
- How much do traffic jams cost Slovenia? More than €2 million a day
Osilnica has 326 residents, Hodoš 335, Solčava 493, Kobilje 502, Kostel 604, Jezersko 679, Dobje 965, Ribnica na Pohorju 1,071, Sveti Andraž v Slovenskih goricah 1,191 and Dobrovnik 1,217. That is 7,383 residents in total. Fewer than in some larger neighbourhoods in Ljubljana.
These ten municipalities have ten mayors, ten municipal councils, ten supervisory committees and their own municipal administrations or joint services. For fewer than 7,400 people. Incidentally, the law generally requires a minimum population of 5,000 to establish a municipality, though it allows exceptions. More than half of Slovenia’s municipalities now have fewer than 5,000 residents.
What is the point of having so many municipalities? A better life for residents? Faster rural development? Greater access to public services? Or have we mainly spent decades creating a system of local political posts that need funding?
Slovenian municipalities spent around €3.4 billion in 2025, including roughly €1.21 billion on investment. Of course, that money did not go solely on municipal bureaucracy. Roads are built, nurseries are funded and infrastructure is maintained. But we also have 212 mayoral posts and 212 municipal councils. All of that costs money. The fact that certain tasks can be carried out jointly is already demonstrated by the 203 municipalities involved in joint municipal administrations. So they themselves recognise that it makes no sense to do everything separately.
I have no problem with people in rural areas having their own local government. Quite the opposite. In many places, small municipalities have enabled the development of communities that larger municipalities had forgotten about. But do we really need 212 municipalities for that? Could we have fewer municipal administrations, less duplication of work and more money for what residents actually need?
As a starting point, it might be interesting to publicly compare how much each municipality spends per resident on its mayor, municipal council and administration, and how much money is then left for development. Because if a municipality has 326 residents and its own mayor, I think it is entirely legitimate to ask whether this model of organising local government really makes sense.
This is not about taking away small communities’ voice. The question is whether we need 212 separate municipalities for that voice to be heard at all. If the answer is yes, it would be nice if someone explained it to us with figures too.