Uncertain Path: Democratic Transition and Consolidation in Slovenia

2. The Emergence of Political Pluralism

No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. Winston Churchill, 1947 CHAPTER 2 The Emergence of Political Pluralism A fter Tito’s death in 1980, the ideology and power of the political center (Belgrade) gradually weakened and eventually collapsed. The system remained largely unchanged until 1987, but even before then, legislation and other political decisions coming from the center were often challenged and ignored if they threatened the “vital” interests of the concerned republics. The emergence of Greater Serbian nationalism, as well as the associated attempts to recentralize Yugoslavia , had the unintended effect of pushing first Slovenia, then Croatia, and later Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina into taking the first steps toward democracy and then political pluralism. No other republic was willing to accept the autocratic and expansionist policies of Serbian leader Slobodan Milošević. These moves toward democracy were not only of an endogenous nature but also mirrored the earlier collapse of the authoritarian systems in Southern Europe and the dramatic crises of Communist systems elsewhere in East-Central Europe.1 It is important to note that the Slovenes initiated democratic change by using nonnationalistic politics and only later became aware that sovereignty over their historically and culturally distinct and framed territory would Emergence of Political Pluralism | 51 logically precede democracy, if one follows Thomas Hobbes and the pattern of Western historical trajectory in this regard. Although many political scientists discerned the first, most visible step toward limited pluralism in the gradual installment of “one-party pluralism” in the late 1980s, it is more accurate to identify the initial processes of pluralization in the subcultural domain in the second half of the 1970s, with the emergence of “punk” being the first new social movement.2 Punk emerged in Slovenia as early as 1977, about two years after it appeared in Great Britain. At first punk was part of the youth culture only and played a marginal role in society. Although not invented in Slovenia, punk was nonetheless rooted in specific Slovene social and ideological circumstances. The protagonists of punk, according to Tomaž Mastnak (1994, 93–95), represented the first postwar generation free from the ruling Socialist (Communist) ideology that dominated the whole of society at that time. This generation was extremely innovative —and provocative as well—in renaming the world around them using alternative cultural codes. It was not the music itself that irritated the rulers, but rather the lifestyle of the punk performers and their followers. The young reformers simply did not allow themselves to be socialized into socialism. The punk scene itself was very pluralistic: its range consisted of an annual gay scene (the Lilith group, for example, and others) to the internationally famous musical group Laibach. This last group was in particular provocative and challenging to the authoritarian regime by parodying all totalitarian ideologies from communism to Nazi-fascism (Tomc 2003). For a limited time the regime denounced the Laibach group as state enemy number 1 and eventually issued a decree forbidding them to use their name (a translation of the Slovenian name of Ljubljana to German, Laibach!) and to have concerts on the territory of the Republic of Slovenia. Former partisans even accused them as Nazis. However, it should be noted that in general the repression against dissident culturally profiled civil society was not unanimous: dogmatics in the party demanded their complete banning from the public, but the more liberal, who eventually won, defended them and asked for their full legalization. Both Laibach and other dissident activities present at the time of liberalized (but still one-party) rule acquired more or less similar status as such groups enjoy in the West. Gantar (1994, 361) draws an interesting parallel between the punk generation and the rebellious student generation of 1968–72. While the 52 | Nation and Political Pluralism students were still caught up in socialism, criticizing Socialist society for its “deviations,” and demanding socialism with “a human face” (that is, “real socialism”), the punk generation had already gone beyond socialism. The party eventually recognized the students as “their own kind,” which was never the case with the punks, who had socialized themselves in a punk way before Socialist indoctrination could reach them.3 Although what they did was rather a reform of the existing society...