CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikaciji Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana

94(497.4)«1991/2011«(082)

DVAJSET let samostojne Slovenije = Twenty Years of Independent Slovenia / [avtorji prispevkov Lojze Peterle ... [et al.] ; uredil Milan Zver]. - Ljubljana : Inštitut dr. Jožeta Pučnika : Inštitut dr. Janeza Evangelista Kreka ; Bruselj : Evropska ljudska stranka, 2011

ISBN 978-961-6689-10-6 (Inštitut dr. Jožeta Pučnika) 1. Vzp. stv. nasl. 2. Peterle, Lojze 3. Zver, Milan

256272896 Dvajset let samostojne Slovenije Twenty Years of Independent Slovenia

Vsebina / Contents

dr. Milan Zver Dvajset let samostojne Slovenije: Ob dvajseti obletnici osamosvojitve Slovenije 9 (Urednikova beseda) Twenty Years of Independent Slovenia: Upon the Twentieth Anniversary of Slovenia’s Independence 17 (A Note from the Editor)

Lojze Peterle Dvajset let osamosvojitve Slovenije 27 Twenty Years of Slovenia's Independence 37

Janez Janša Slovenski danes se je začel obetavno 49 Today’s Slovenia Had a Promising Start 69

– 5 – dr. Dimitrij Rupel Najboljši dosežek v zgodovini 91 The Best Achievement in History 113

Igor Bavčar Dvajset let po tem 139 Twenty Years After 146

Ivan Oman Dvajset let 155 Twenty Years 158 dr. Romana Jordan Cizelj Epilog: Vrednote na svojem ozemlju moramo vzpostaviti sami 163 Epilogue: We Ourselves Must Establish the Values in Our Country 172

Slovenska pomlad in nastajanje slovenske države v slikah 183 Slovenian spring and independence in pictures 183

Predstavitev avtorjev 203 About the authors 210

Seznam uporabljenih kratic 219 List of abbreviations 221

– 7 – dr. Milan Zver

Dvajset let samostojne Slovenije Ob dvajseti obletnici osamosvojitve Slovenije

Urednikova beseda

Slovenci v novejši zgodovini nismo imeli svoje države. V različnih državnih okvirih smo si priborili več ali manj upravne, kulturne in politične avtonomije. Hotenja po neodvisnosti, živa pri številnih generacijah, so se okrepila v osemdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja, ko je postalo vse bolj jasno, da jugoslovanski okvir duši razvojne ­potenciale Slovenije. Poleg tega sta razpadajočo skupno državo ­zaznamovala nedemokratični režim in vse večja represija. Z vpe­ ljavo demokracije v Sloveniji aprila 1990, takrat še znotraj totali­ tarne Jugoslavije, je osamosvojitev dobila zadostno politično podla­ go in je bila prva prioriteta nove Demosove vlade, ki je dobila tudi veliko podporo na plebiscitu o samostojnosti. 25. junija 1991 ob 19. uri je slovenska skupščina razglasila samostojnost. Sprejela in raz­ glasila je temeljno ustavno listino, ustavni zakon in deklaracijo o neodvisnosti. Pred skupščinsko palačo je sledila slovesnost in nepo­

– 9 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE pisno slavje. Težko bi ubesedili tiste občutke radosti. Nekje globoko v vseh nas pa je ostajala bojazen, da vse le ne bo šlo tako gladko. In res, jugoslovanska armada je nemudoma začela s tankovskim po­ hodom in široko zastavljenimi bojnimi aktivnostmi. Pri tem je pod­cenjevala pripravljenost in odločnost slovenske vojske in policije. Sledila je veličastna zmaga v vojni za Slovenijo.

Evropska ljudska stranka, najmočnejša politična sila v Evrop­ skem parlamentu, podpira svoje članice, ki v Evropskem parla­ mentu na različne načine zaznamujejo pomembne mejnike svojega razvoja, še posebej tiste izpred dveh desetletij, ko je pa­ del Berlinski zid in z njim nedemokratični imperiji na vzhodu in jugu Evrope. Podpira nas tudi tokrat, ko smo skupaj z Inšti­ tutom dr. Jožeta Pučnika in Inštitutom dr. Janeza Evangelista Kreka k sodelovanju pri izdaji tega zbornika povabili nekatere ključne akterje slovenskega osamosvajanja, da z dvajsetletne ča­ sovne distance ocenijo tisti čas in prehojeno pot: Lojzeta Pe­ terleta, tedanjega predsednika slovenske vlade, Janeza Janšo, te­ danjega obrambnega ministra, Igorja Bavčarja, tedanjega notranjega ministra, dr. Dimitrija Rupla, tedanjega zunanjega ministra in Ivana Omana, tedanjega člana predsedstva Repu­ blike Slovenije. S kolegico dr. Romano Jordan Cizelj sva zbor­ nik na pot pospremila z urednikovim uvodom in epilogom.

Na žalost je na slovenskih knjižnih policah še premalo čtiva, s katerim bi lahko krepili našo zgodovinsko zavest in kolektivni spomin. Osamosvojitev, ki je zagotovo vrhunec v razvoju slo­ venskega naroda, je zelo površno in neustrezno predstavljena

– 10 – Milan Zver – Dvajset let samostojne Slovenije tudi v mednarodnem okolju, od koder sicer prihajajo številne obsežne analize osamosvojitvenih procesov tega časa. Tuji ra­ ziskovalci težko pridejo do slovenskih primarnih zgodovinskih virov, vse bolj očitno pa postaja, da pričakovane vloge v medna­ rodnem merilu ni opravila niti slovenska družboslovna zna­ nost, ki bi morala postreči tuji znanstveni srenji z ustreznimi podatkovnimi bazami in analizami, ki bi jih nato le-ta lahko vključila v svoje raziskave. Upamo, da bo pričujoči zbornik pri­ čevanj, ki je dvojezičen, vsaj deloma zapolnil tudi to vrzel.

A največji primanjkljaj občutimo doma. Zlasti mladi so pri­ krajšani za možnost, da bi lahko v izobraževalnem sistemu kaj zvedeli o teh prelomnih časih, ki jih niso doživeli. Premiki na kurikularnem področju, ki so bili napravljeni v času Janševe vlade (2004–2008) , so bili nato zaustavljeni. Tako je tudi naj­ novejša zgodovina – ki je v primeru osamosvojitve, kot ugota­ vlja v tem zborniku Peterle v prispevku 'Dvajset let osamosvo­ jitve Slovenije', poenotila slovenske državljanke in državljane – postala predmet politične manipulacije.

Res je vojna za Slovenijo sinergično učinkovala na slovensko politično sceno. Ta ugotovitev pa v celoti ne velja za priprave na osamosvojitev, saj je del politične nomenklature poskušal pre­ prečiti ali vsaj otežiti osamosvojitev. Spomnimo naj na razoro­ žitev slovenske Teritorialne obrambe s strani jugoslovanske ­armade takoj po demokratični spremembi oblasti v Sloveniji. V razorožitev je bil vpleten del vrha slovenske politike in obramb­ nih struktur. Tudi obveščevalna služba je bila v močni spregi z

– 11 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE jugoslovansko vojaško in kontraobveščevalno službo, o čemer piše Igor Bavčar v prispevku z naslovom 'Dvajset let potem'. Poleg tega je del politike skušal preprečiti sprejem zakonodaje, ki je vzpostavljala neodvisen obrambni sistem. V času najpo­ membnejših priprav na osamosvojitev so mnogi, vključno s čla­ ni državnega predsedstva, hoteli demilitarizirano Slovenijo. Edini, ki je nasprotoval taki politiki, je bil Ivan Oman, o čemer piše tudi Janez Janša v prispevku 'Slovenski danes se je začel obetavno'. V takih razmerah so nove policijske in vojaške obrambne strukture imele veliko težav s pripravo na realno za­ ščito osamosvojitvenih ukrepov, ki jih je legalno izvajala De­ mosova vlada in njegova parlamentarna večina. Vsi ti ukrepi so bili utemeljeni na visoki legitimnosti in na visoki podpori v jav­ nem mnenju. Ljudje so bili prepričani, da se bo Slovenija naj­ bolje razvijala, če bo prosta jugoslovanskih totalitarnih in re­ presivnih okvirov. Razvojna cena, ki jo je slovenski narod plačal zaradi nekaj desetletij trajajočega bivanja v tem 'eksperimentu nenormalnosti' ( Janez Janša), je bila in je še vedno ogromna. Na vseh področjih, od gospodarskega, političnega do kulturne­ ga.

Vprašanje zaslug za uspešno zgodbo je vselej kontroverzno vprašanje, zlasti v politiki. A vprašanje, kdo so bili pobudniki, glavni načrtovalci in izvrševalci, se pravi dejanski akterji osa­ mosvojitvenih procesov, pa si vendarle velja postavljati. Ne­ sporno zgodovinsko dejstvo je, da je potrebno na prvem mestu omeniti novo oblast, to je Demosovo vlado in njene najbolj iz­ postavljene člane ter oborožene strukture, ki so ustrezno pri­

– 12 – Milan Zver – Dvajset let samostojne Slovenije pravile ter smotrno in učinkovito organizirale obrambno vojno proti agresorju. A ker so v vojni za Slovenijo – tako kot še v no­ benem dogodku v slovenski zgodovini – pod enim praporom nastopile vse omembe vredne politične grupacije, nosijo tudi te zasluge za zmago. A celovita ocena dejanske drže posameznih akterjev v osamosvojitvenih procesih bo morala šele nastati. Nekaj pa je gotovo: če glavni akterji takratnega osamosvojitve­ nega procesa ne bi imeli tako visoke podpore pri državljankah in državljanih, bi Slovenija težko prišla do svojega 'najboljšega dosežka v zgodovini', kot v zborniku z istoimenskim naslovom označuje osamosvojitev dr. Dimitrij Rupel.

V Sloveniji pa ne bi bilo ne demokracije ne osamosvojitve, če ne bi bilo t.i. slovenske pomladi, demokratičnega kulturnega in političnega gibanja, iz katerega je rasla volja po svobodi: po svobodi posameznika in naroda. Oba emancipacijska procesa sta bila neločljivo povezana. S težnjo po demokraciji je rasla tudi zahteva po nacionalni svobodi. Iz te nove politične javno­ sti je zrasla tudi nova generacija politikov, ki je pogumno pre­ vzela odgovornost za najtežje odločitve. Naj spomnim na po­ menljiv dogodek tik pred osamosvojitvijo spomladi 1991 na Brdu pri Kranju. Predsednik Demosa dr. Jože Pučnik, ki ga imajo mnogi upravičeno za očeta slovenske pomladi, je takrat od ključnih politikov zahteval, da se posamično eksplicitno iz­ rečejo, ali so pripravljeni prevzeti breme osebnega tveganja v tem velikem, a tudi nevarnem in negotovem projektu. Popoln angažma in pripravljenost ključnih ljudi, da sprejmejo tudi od­ govornost ne glede na posledice svojih odločitev, sta pri ljudeh

– 13 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE vzbujala optimizem in gotovost. Spominjamo se tiskovnih konferenc, na katerih so predsednik Vlade Lojze Peterle, ob­ rambni in notranji minister Janez Janša in Igor Bavčar ter mi­ nister za informiranje Jelko Kacin in drugi ministri v najtežjih trenutkih vojne vlivala pogum in optimizem slovenskim držav­ ljankam in državljanom.

Torej brez izjemnega osebnega poguma, zavzetosti in tveganja nekaterih posameznikov ne bi šlo niti pri uvajanju demokraci­ je. Demokratični val, ki je tedaj preplavil vzhodno in južno Evropo, bi lahko obšel Slovenijo in najverjetneje še koga, če ne bi bilo poguma in pripravljenosti Slovenk in Slovencev za zgo­ dovinske premike. Tudi zato teze, da se je Slovenija demokra­ tizirala po modelih, ki so bili pripravljeni v tujini, ne držijo. Slovencem ni nihče podaril ne svobode ne demokracije. Še več. Takratni zgodovinski premiki pri nas v tujini niti niso vzbujali ustrezne pozornosti, mnogokrat so celo ostali neopaženi. Če bi jih primerjali z današnjim demokratizacijskim valom, ki je zajel Severno Afriko, bi lahko opazili veliko razliko glede intenziv­ nosti angažmaja evropske in svetovne politike. Pred dvajsetimi leti je bilo drugače. Nekatere največje sile so v začetku naspro­ tovale osamosvojitvi Slovenije. Priznanje je prišlo šele, ko smo stvari pripeljali tako daleč, da povratek ni bil več mogoč. Kolik­ šne pozornosti je bila deležna demokratizacija, nazorno kaže naslednja prilika: ko je 12. februarja 1989 nastala neodvisna Socialdemokratska zveza Slovenije, so nemški socialdemokrati odšli na srečanje k prijateljem v Beograd, namesto da bi pod­ prli prve lastovke demokracije v Sloveniji (!?). Pa še bi lahko

– 14 – Milan Zver – Dvajset let samostojne Slovenije naštevali, da bi utrdili prepričanje, da se je Slovenija v sicer ugodnih mednarodnih razmerah predvsem sama demokratizi­ rala in sama osamosvojila! Seveda pa drži, da so nekateri glo­ balni igralci ustvarili okoliščine, ki so omogočili velike spre­ membe tudi majhnim. Vsaj za Slovenijo so bili pomembni Helmut Kohl, Alois Mock, Wilfried Martens, Jacques Santer, Hans–Dietrich Genscher itd. Posebno mesto ima zagotovo tu­ di papež Janez Pavel II, ki je vse do smrti ostal velik prijatelj Slovenije.

Prelomni dosežki torej niso prišli sami od sebe, niti niso bili uvoženi iz tujine. Ta stališča smo zavrnili že na lanski konfe­ renci ob dvajseti obletnici prvih demokratičnih volitev v Slove­ niji, ki smo jo organizirali v Evropskem parlamentu. Bilanca dvajsetih let je vsekakor pozitivna. Slovenija je zmanjšala raz­ vojni zaostanek, močno se je povečala blaginja. Z novo ustavo je svobodo posameznika, se pravi človekove pravice in svobo­ ščine, postavila v središče sistema. Kot država je bila kmalu po vojni mednarodno priznana, vključila se je v Nato in Evropsko unijo, ki ji je v letu 2008 v času Janševe vlade celo predsedovala. Dosežki, o katerih smo še v drugi polovici osemdesetih lahko le sanjali. Toda ključno vprašanje, ki si ga moramo postaviti po dvajsetih letih, je, ali smo optimalno izrabili razvojne vire, ki smo jih imeli? Odgovor je: ne, nismo!

Grenak priokus, da nismo uspeli izkoristiti vseh priložnosti, lahko zaznamo tudi iz prispevkov Janeza Janše, Lojzeta Peter­ leta, Ivana Omana in Dimitrija Rupla. Slovenija je pred dvaj­

– 15 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE setimi leti sebi in svetovni javnosti pokazala, da je sposobna obstati kot samostojna država. Imela je talent in ga tudi udeja­ njila. A ga je v tranzicijskem obdobju nekoliko izgubila, še po­ sebej v zadnjih treh letih, ko močno drvi navzdol. Upamo lah­ ko, da nikoli ne bo več praznovala obletnice samostojnosti v taki krizi gospodarstva, politike in duha.

Naj se ob koncu vrnem k veličastni razglasitvi samostojnosti, ki je jo Slovenija morala zavarovati z obrambno vojno. Tudi ta je bila nekaj posebnega, ker je bilo malo smrtnih žrtev, ker so bili ranjenci in ujetniki humano tretirani, ker je bilo uničene rela­ tivno malo gospodarske, prometne in civilne infrastrukture, ker vojaški spopad med jugoslovansko in slovensko vojsko ni pre­ rasel v etnične spopade in sovraštvo, ker je za isti cilj združila večino naroda, ker je bila kratka in učinkovita... Vojna, ki nam je zagotovila svobodo, demokracijo in državo.

Zavedati se moramo, da države niso 'ad hoc' skupnosti, v svo­ jem bistvu težijo k trajnosti, a nikakor niso večne. Nihče ne bo bolje zagotovil obstoja in razvoja slovenske države kot mi sami: če bomo skrbeli zanjo, se z njo ponosno istovetili.

– 16 – Dr Milan Zver

Twenty Years of Independent Slovenia Upon the Twentieth Anniversary of Slovenia’s Independence

A Note from the Editor

We Slovenes have not had our own country in recent history. We achieved varying levels of administrative, cultural and political autonomy under various state structures. Our desire for independ­ ence, alive for many generations, escalated during the nineteen eighties when it became increasingly clear that the Yugoslavian framework was choking Slovenia’s development potential. Further­ more, the collapsing federal state was characterised by a non-demo­ cratic regime and increasing repression. With the introduction of democracy to Slovenia in April of 1990, at the time still a part of totalitarian Yugoslavia, independence gained sufficient political ground and was the first priority of the new government of the Demos coalition, which also obtained a huge amount of support in the plebiscite on independence. The Slovenian Assembly proclaimed

– 17 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA independence at 7 pm on June 25, 1991. It adopted and promul­ gated a basic constitutional charter, constitutional law and a decla­ ration of independence. A spontaneous celebration and indescribable festivities erupted in front of the Assembly building. It is difficult to put those feelings of joy into words. But somewhere deep inside all of us the fear arose that not everything would go so smoothly. And in fact the Yugoslav Army immediately began a tank campaign and wide-ranging military activities. However, they had underes­ timated the preparedness and decisiveness of the Slovenian Army and Police. What followed was a great victory in the War for Slo­ venia.

The European People’s Party, the largest and most influential party in the European Parliament, supports its members, who mark important milestones in their development in the Euro­ pean Parliament in various ways, particularly those twenty years ago when the Berlin Wall fell and with it the undemo­ cratic empires in the east and south of Europe. It is also sup­ porting us now, when in co-operation with the Jože Pučnik Institute and the Janez Evangelist Krek Institute we invited certain key figures of Slovenian independence to work with us on this anthology and at twenty years’ remove evaluate those times and the distance we have come since then: Lojze Peterle, the Slovenian prime minister at that time, Janez Janša, then the minister of defence, Igor Bavčar, then the minister of the inte­ rior, Dr Dimitrij Rupel, then the foreign minister, and Ivan Oman, then a member of the Presidium of the Republic of Slovenia. My colleague Dr Romana Jordan Cizelj and I will

– 18 – Milan Zver – Twenty Years of Independent Slovenia begin the anthology with an editor’s introduction and finish it with an epilogue.

Unfortunately, the Slovenian book-shelves still contain too lit­ tle reading material with which to fortify our historical con­ sciousness and collective memory. Slovenia’s independence, which is undoubtedly the pinnacle of the development of the Slovenian nation, is also presented on the international stage in a very cursory and inappropriate manner, although one can find numerous lengthy analyses of the other independence processes of the time. It is difficult for foreign researchers to access primary Slovenian historical sources, and it is becoming increasingly obvious that even Slovenian social science is not performing its expected role at the international level, by pro­ viding the foreign scientific community with suitable databas­ es and analyses that they could use in their research. We hope that this bilingual anthology will at least partially fill this gap.

But we feel the greatest deficiencies at home. The youth in par­ ticular are limited in their opportunity to learn in the educa­ tional system about these crucial times that they did not expe­ rience. Changes in curricula that were initiated during the government of Janez Janša (2004-2008) have been abandoned. So even recent history – which in the case of independence, as established in this anthology by Lojze Peterle in his article ‘Twenty Years of Slovenia’s Independence’, united the Sloveni­ an citizens – became subject to political manipulation.

– 19 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

The War for Slovenia had a synergetic effect on the Slovenian political scene. However, this observation is entirely untrue of the preparations for independence, as part of the political es­ tablishment attempted to prevent or at least obstruct the inde­ pendence movement. We should recall the disarming of the Slovenian Territorial Defence Forces by the Yugoslav Army immediately after the democratic transfer of authority in Slov­ enia. Various leading Slovenian politicians and defence person­ nel were involved in the disarmament. The intelligence service was also closely aligned with the Yugoslav Army and the coun­ terintelligence service, as Igor Bavčar describes in his essay, ‘Twenty Years After’. Furthermore, some politicians attempted to prevent the adoption of the legislation which established an independent defence system. During the time of the most im­ portant preparations for independence, many people, including members of the national Presidium, wanted to demilitarise Slovenia. The only one who opposed this policy was Ivan Oman, as Janez Janša describes in his essay, ‘Today’s Slovenia Had a Promising Start’. In these circumstances the new police and military defence structures had a lot of problems preparing for real protection of the independence measures that had been introduced by the Demos government and its parliamentary majority. All of these measures were based on a high degree of legitimacy and massive support among the public. The people believed that Slovenia’s best chance for development was to be free of the totalitarian and repressive Yugoslavian frameworks. The developmental price paid by Slovenia for its decades-long participation in this ‘experiment in abnormality’ ( Janez Janša)

– 20 – Milan Zver – Twenty Years of Independent Slovenia was and continues to be enormous, in all fields, from the eco­ nomic and political to the cultural.

The question of who deserves the credit for the success is al­ ways a controversial one, particularly in politics. But the ques­ tion of who were the instigators, the chief architects and ex­ ecutors, i.e. the actual driving forces behind the independence processes is nevertheless worth asking. It is an indisputable historical fact that first of all we have to acknowledge the new authority, the Demos government and its most exposed mem­ bers and armed structures, which made suitable preparations and systematically and effectively waged a defensive war against the aggressor. But since in the War for Slovenia – as in no oth­ er event in Slovenian history – all of the noteworthy political groups fought under one flag, they also deserve credit for the victory. However, a comprehensive assessment of the actual stances of the actors in the independence processes remains to be made. One thing is certain: if the principal actors of those independence processes had not enjoyed such enormous sup­ port from the citizenry, Slovenia would have had a difficult time achieving its ‘best historical accomplishment’, as described in his similarly titled essay in this anthology by Dr Dimitrij Rupel.

There would be no democracy and no independence in Slove­ nia without the so-called Slovenian Spring, the democratic cultural and political movement from which grew the will to freedom: the freedom of the individual and the nation. These

– 21 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA two processes of emancipation were inseparably connected. The democratic trend was accompanied by a demand for na­ tional liberation. And from these new political bases sprang a new generation of politicians, who courageously assumed the responsibility for the most difficult decisions. Let us remember the momentous event just before independence in the spring of 1991 at Brdo near Kranj. At that time the president of the Demos coalition Dr Jože Pučnik, justifiably considered by many the father of the Slovenian Spring, demanded that key politicians explicitly declare whether they were prepared to bear the burden of personal risk in this great but also danger­ ous and uncertain project. The absolute dedication and prepar­ edness of the key figures to accept this responsibility regardless of the consequences of their decisions aroused optimism and certainty among the people. We remember the press confer­ ences at which Prime Minister Lojze Peterle, the defence and interior ministers Janez Janša and Igor Bavčar as well as the minister of communication Jelko Kacin infused the Slovenian citizens with courage at the most difficult moments of the war.

Thus the introduction of democracy would not even have oc­ curred without the exceptional personal bravery, commitment and risk of certain individuals. The wave of democracy which was flooding eastern and southern Europe at that time might have passed over Slovenia and perhaps others as well if not for the courage and preparedness of Slovenes for historical under­ takings. For this reason as well, the hypotheses that Slovenia

– 22 – Milan Zver – Twenty Years of Independent Slovenia was democratised following models developed abroad do not hold up. Nobody gave the Slovenes either freedom or democ­ racy. In fact, the historical events occurring in Slovenia at the time did not generate sufficient attention abroad, and often even went unnoticed. If we were to compare them with the current wave of democracy sweeping northern Africa, we would observe a huge difference with respect to the intensity of the involvement of European and world politicians. Twenty years ago it was a different story. Some of the greatest powers were initially opposed to Slovenia's independence. Recognition came only when things had gone past the point of no return. The amount of attention received by the democratisation proc­ esses is clearly underscored by the following anecdote: when the independent Social-Democratic Alliance of Slovenia was founded on 12 February 1989, the German social democrats went to meet with their friends in Belgrade instead of support­ ing the first harbingers of democracy in Slovenia (!?). And we could present more evidence in order to cement the conviction that Slovenia in otherwise favourable international circum­ stances became a democracy and attained independence by it­ self! Of course it is true that certain global figures created the circumstances which allowed minor figures to undergo major changes. Helmut Kohl, Alois Mock, Wilfried Martens, Jacques Santer, Hans-Dietrich Genscher etc. were important at least for Slovenia. And a special place is undoubtedly also held by Pope John Paul II, who remained a great friend of Slovenia for the rest of his life.

– 23 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

These momentous achievements therefore did not just happen on their own account, nor were they imported from abroad. We refuted these viewpoints at last year’s conference on the twentieth anniversary of the first democratic elections in Slov­ enia, which we held at the European Parliament. The outcome of these twenty years is by all means positive. Slovenia has re­ duced its development deficit, and its prosperity has increased significantly. With its new Constitution, the freedom of the individual, i.e. human rights and fundamental freedoms, has been placed at the centre of the system. Its statehood was rec­ ognised internationally soon after the war, it has become a member of NATO and the European Union, and in 2008 it even assumed the presidency of the European Union during the time of the Janša government. These are achievements which we could only have dreamed of in the second half of the eighties. But the key question that we have to ask after twenty years is whether we have made optimal use of the development resources that we had at our disposal. The answer is: no, we have not!

One can detect a note of bitterness in the essays by Janez Janša, Lojze Peterle, Ivan Oman and Dr Dimitrij Rupel that we did not succeed in taking advantage of all of the opportunities. Twenty years ago, Slovenia showed itself and the world that it was able to exist as an independent state. It had talent and it used it. But in the transition period something was lost, par­ ticularly in the last three years when it has slid significantly downwards. We can hope that it shall never again celebrate its

– 24 – Milan Zver – Twenty Years of Independent Slovenia independence in such a crisis of the economy, politics and the spirit.

At the end I should return to the glorious proclamation of in­ dependence, which Slovenia was forced to secure with a defen­ sive war. This too was something special, because there were few casualties, because the wounded and captives were treated humanely, because relatively little of the economic, traffic and civil infrastructure was destroyed, because the military conflict between the Yugoslav and Slovenian armies did not erupt into ethnic conflicts and hatred, because a great majority of the na­ tion was joined in the same cause, because it was brief and ef­ ficient … A war which gave us freedom, democracy and a state.

We have to remember that states are not ‘ad hoc’ communities; in their essence they tend towards permanence, but they are never eternal. No one will provide for its existence and devel­ opment better than we ourselves: if we take care of it, proudly identify with it and commit ourselves to it.

– 25 –

Lojze Peterle

Dvajset let osamosvojitve Slovenije

Dvajset let po uresničitvi dolgo sanjanih sanj o lastni slovenski državi sem najprej hvaležen, da pripadam generaciji, ki je ta nas­meh zgodovine doživela in ga soustvarjala. Ob spominu na ta epohalni dosežek čutim globoko hvaležnost še posebej do tistih, ki so dali življenja za našo svobodo, kot tudi do vseh, ki so doma ali po svetu kakorkoli pripravljali pot do nje.

Posebno hvaležnost čutim do tistih, ki so zaupali politično ve­ čino strankam slovenske pomladi, s katero smo lahko projekt osamosvojitve z Demosovo večino v takratni slovenski skupšči­ ni in z enotno Demosovo vlado operativno izvedli.

Prav tako izražam iskreno hvaležnost našim zunanjim podpor­ nikom z nekdanjim predsednikom CDU in nemškim kanc­ lerjem Helmutom Kohlom na čelu, takratnemu avstrijskemu zunanjemu ministru in predsedniku Evropske demokratične zveze dr. Aloisu Mocku, papežu Janezu Pavlu II., takratnemu

– 27 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE predsedniku belgijske vlade in predsedniku Evropske ljudske stranke dr. Wilfriedu Martensu, predsedniku luksemburške vlade in nekdanjemu predsedniku Evropske komisije Jacquesu Santerju, avstrijskemu podkanclerju dr. Erhardu Busku, takrat­ nemu predsedniku Evropskega parlamenta Egonu Klepschu, evropskemu poslancu Ottu von Habsburgu in drugim evrop­ skim poslankam in poslancem, bivši premierki Združenega kraljestva Margaret Thatcher, Allainu Lamassourju in Pierru Lequillerju, da sta prinesla v Slovenijo prvi dve zastavi Evrop­ ske zveze, takratnemu dunajskemu županu Helmutu Zilku, pr­ vim možem sosednjih pokrajin dr. Josephu Krainerju, Alfredu Biasuttiju, Stephanu Zernattu in drugim, ki so med prvimi po­ kazali razumevanje in podporo našim političnim ciljem.

Za nami je torej dvajset let.

Danes se zdi skoraj samoumevno, da smo uspeli. Skoraj mitič­ no in idealizirano se govori o enotnosti, ki je takrat tudi v ča­ su med plebiscitom in proglasitvijo samostojnosti, tako rekoč tik pred napadom na Slovenijo nismo čutili tako, kot se jo da­ nes predstavlja. Govori se, da smo imeli srečo. Tudi srečo smo imeli, vendar sama sreča ni bila dovolj, potrebno je bilo veliko več. Potrebna je bila vizija, program, zaupanje in podpora, pre­ vzem oblasti, zakonodajna in izvršna operativnost, potreben je bil tudi pogum.

25. junija 1991 – na dan proglasitve države smo stali na Trgu republike sami z našimi ljudmi, brez tujih državnikov in diplo­

– 28 – Lojze Peterle – Dvajset let osamosvojitve Slovenije matov, praznično solidarnost je pokazalo samo nekaj prvih mož sosednjih pokrajin. Igro je obrnilo šele naše dejanje in zmaga v obrambni vojni za Slovenijo.

Ob dosedanjih okroglih obletnicah osamosvojitve smo že več­ krat jasno, utemeljeno in resnicoljubno povedali, da osamosvo­ jitev Slovenije v slovenski zgodovini nima primere, da je to največji narodnopolitični dosežek slovenskega naroda.

Ob tem pa številni vse bolj delimo vtis, da stare politične sile sistematično relativizirajo pomen osamosvojitve in zameglju­ jejo zgodovinski spomin s potiskanjem tega dosežka v polje političnih interesov, ki izhajajo iz duha in pridobitev komunis­ tične revolucije. Današnja šolska mladina, rojena v svobodni in demokratični Sloveniji, v šoli ne izve jasno, za kaj je šlo leta 1990 in 1991, kaj in zakaj se je zgodilo. Zameglitvi spomina na drugo svetovno vojno je sledila tudi zameglitev spomina na osamosvojitev. Zakaj smo uspeli in kaj se je zgodilo?

Uspeli smo, ker:

– so posamezni in skupinski izrazi volje po samostojni in de­ mokratični slovenski državi prerasli v močno politično orga­ nizirano gibanje; – smo razumeli zgodovinsko priložnost; – smo projekt osamosvojitve in demokratizacije opredelili kot ključno programsko točko strank slovenske pomladi;

– 29 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE

– je stara politika pod pritiskom novih demokratičnih sil pri­ stala na uvedbo pretežno demokratičnih volitev (Zbor zdru­ ženega dela ni bil voljen demokratično); – so se stranke slovenske pomladi povezale v predvolilno ko­ alicijo DEMOS; – je DEMOS na prvih demokratičnih volitvah zmagal in pre­ vzel oblast; – je začela vlada takoj po izvolitvi z obrambnimi in drugimi pripravami na osamosvojitev; – sta bila DEMOS kot temeljni politični nosilec državotvorne ideje in opozicija sposobni skleniti politični sporazum o iz­ vedbi plebiscita; – smo projekt osamosvojitve plebiscitarno podprli; – smo bili sposobni odbiti grožnje jugoslovanske, Markoviće­ ve vlade, odkrito nasprotovanje in omalovaževanje priprav na osamosvojitev s strani dela takratne opozicije in široko stavko v sklepnem delu priprav na osamosvojitev; – smo bili pripravljeni ob napadu na komaj razglašeno lastno državo na njeno obrambo, v kateri so se z ramo ob rami bo­ rili slovenski vojaki in slovenski policisti v sodelovanju z ne­ oboroženimi akterji ter široko ljudsko podporo; – smo bili tudi sicer pripravljeni na delovanje v vojnih pogo­ jih; – smo v vojni za Slovenijo premagali komunistično in centra­ listično Jugoslovansko ljudsko armado; – smo se pripravili na monetarno osamosvojitev; – smo izpolnili pogoje za mednarodno priznanje; – smo pridobili zunanje zaveznike.

– 30 – Lojze Peterle – Dvajset let osamosvojitve Slovenije

Kaj se je zgodilo?

– Postavili smo lastno, samostojno in demokratično državo. – Prelomili smo z nedemokratičnim, totalitarnim komunistič­ nim režimom, katerega moč se je vzpostavila s prevaro, kra­ jo in umori med drugo svetovno vojno in po njej. – Zase in za združeno Evropo smo podrli 600 km železne za­ vese – osvobodili smo večino slovenskega dela Evrope. – Šele to dejanje je prineslo Sloveniji resnično svobodo (Ustav­ no sodišče...). – Podprli smo neideološko, resnicoljubno in v spravo odprto raziskovanje preteklosti. – Izpeljali smo številne demokratične reforme na gospodar­ skem, družbenem in drugih področjih. – Politiko, vojsko in policijo smo vrnili v službo skupnemu dobremu. – Sloveniji smo omogočili umestitev na politični zemljevid sveta in temeljno izhodišče za pot v Evropsko zvezo in NA­ TO. – Bodočim rodovom smo omogočili nove možnosti za ustvar­ janje. – V težkih pogojih smo ustavili gospodarsko padanje, podprli prestrukturiranje v smeri zahodnih poslovnih in ekoloških standardov in v dveh letih z novimi okvirnimi pogoji sou­ stvarili podlage za novo gospodarsko rast. – V času Demosa smo imeli najnižjo javno porabo doslej.

– 31 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE

To, kar smo delali takrat, smo delali v dobro vseh. Vojna za Slovenijo je državljanke in državljane Slovenije poenotila. Po njej smo imeli svobodo za vse. Do nosilcev totalitarne oblasti nismo bili revanšistični.

Dvajset let po osamosvojitvi kliče po bilanci.

Pod generalno črto je v grobem gledano rezultat pozitiven. Ni nam uspel samo zgodovinski preboj v samostojno državnost in demokracijo, polnopravna članstva v EZ, OZN, NATO itd. Doživeli smo leta neprekinjene gospodarske rasti, poživ­ljeno ustvarjalnost na številnih področjih. Vrsto let smo bili najbolj napredujoča država kandidatka oziroma država članica. Ne­ katerim smo bili za zgled. Napredovali smo na evropski rang lestvici.

Udarec krize pa je razkril, da smo ujetniki nedokončane tran­ zicije. Na nakaterih področjih se je Slovenija samo taktično prilagodila evropskim načelom in standardom. Menedžerska privatizacija je eden od očitnejših pokazateljev, da pri nas še deluje Kardeljeva dogovorna ekonomija, katere ključni del so državna oziroma paradržavno upravljana podjetja. Ta privati­ zacija ni samo oslabila bank, ampak je razvojno zavrla celotno gospodarstvo. Obsedenost z lastnino je pri nas nevarno zasen­ čila vrednoto kakovostnega in odgovornega upravljanja. Tekma za udeležbo v blagostanju se dogaja veliko bolj s špekulativ­ nim prometom vrednostnih papirjev, kot z rastjo konkurenč­ nosti naprednih proizvodenj. Ob tem ne čudi, da naš šolski

– 32 – Lojze Peterle – Dvajset let osamosvojitve Slovenije sistem s preštevilnimi univerzami proizvaja velike presežke raz­ lagalcev in urejevalcev sveta, malo pa tehničnih poklicev, ki bi zagotavljali nove, kakovostne proizvode.

Vsaj tako pomembno kot gospodarsko stanje je stanje na po­ dročju pravne države. Pravosodje je slabo učinkovito. Zaupanje ljudi pada.

V odnosu do preteklosti ostaja Slovenija neevropska. Pri nas doslej ni bila možna parlamentarna obsodba zločinov komu­ nizma, niti spravno ravnanje v duhu priporočil Parlamentarne skupščine Sveta Evrope. Mi nismo samo različni, mi smo še naprej razdeljeni. Bolj kot kakovost ideje ali kompetenca neko­ ga deluje pri nas politični rodovnik. Nismo še povsem presegli kulture ideološkega izločanja in onemogočanja, ki povzroča krivične socialne razlike.

V zadnjih letih Slovenija izgublja pozicije na pomembnih rang lestvicah. Strma rast zadolževanja brez pravih strateških ciljev zadolžuje bodoče generacije. Večletna nesposobnost za nujne reforme Slovenijo potiska med reformno mlačne in ne­ učinkovite države. Politična borba je usmerjena v ohranjanje statusa quo, ne v spremembe, zato cena za spremembe raste, denarja pa zmanjkuje.

Prvih dvajset let pomeni še vedno premalo distance do tiste prelomne dobe in tisti, ki smo pri tem sodelovali, imamo še po­ sebne omejitve.

– 33 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE

Vsekakor pa imamo priliko in odgovornost, da odgovorimo na vprašanje: »Ali smo se za to borili?«.

Moj iskren odgovor je tak:

Za Slovenijo na tleh se nismo borili.

Kaže, da smo se pred dvajsetimi leti na zunaj osamosvojili, a nam do notranje osvoboditve še precej manjka. Pomladne sile so vladale komaj tretjino časa slovenske demokracije. Zato so tudi same krive, ker so s samorazpustom odprle vladanje drugi politični opciji.

Demos je vedno pokal po šivih, ko je šlo za poskus spreminja­ nja z revolucionarnimi sredstvi pridobljene strukture moči. Te­ žave so bile že z zakonoma o zadrugah in o denacionalizaciji, ob zakonu o lastninjenju pa se je razšel. Vladati je mogoče, sa­ mo dokler delujejo skupni imenovalci.

Mene načelno kot demokrata druga opcija ne moti, moti pa me politika, ki se očitno navdihuje v preživelih jugoslovanskih oziroma partijskih konceptih. To je politika, ki jo bolj zanima prerazdeljevanje sredstev kot pa ustvarjanje novega. Jugoslavija je funkcionirala, dokler se je hranila s tujimi krediti in inflacijo. Ko so tuje milijarde pošle, ni pomagala ideologija, ne CK, ne reforme.

– 34 – Lojze Peterle – Dvajset let osamosvojitve Slovenije

Dvajset let pozneje je stvarno stanje v Sloveniji v marsičem podobno razmeram ob prelomu z Jugoslavijo. Slovenija se us­ tav­lja. Razlika je v tem, da je bil takrat projekt rešitve jasen in široko podprt. Vedeli smo, da bo treba tvegati in tudi kaj žrtvo­ vati. Odločili smo se in uspelo nam je.

Gotovo se nismo borili za to, da bi predsednik Republike Slo­ venije odlikoval z visokim državnim odlikovanjem enega od najbolj simboličnih in operativnih nosilcev starega režima. Tu­ di ne za to, da bi z neosamosvojitvenimi barvami delili veteran­ ske organizacije in jih instrumentalizirali za namene, ki nimajo nič z vrednotami osamosvojitve.

Tudi se nismo borili za to, da bi postala osamosvojitev pod ge­ slom »stisnimo roko v pest« dodatek praznovanju neke obletni­ ce OF. Spet zavajanje in prisvajanje.

Danes ne vidim odločnosti, pač pa veliko taktiziranja, nejasno­ sti, leporečja in bojev znotraj iste koalicije. Ob tem pa v težkih in demagogiji naklonjenih časih na fin način širijo med lju­ di propagando, da so vsi enaki.

Če bi bili vsi enaki, ne bi v letih od 1990 do 1992, niti kasne­ je, nič epohalnega dosegli. Ne predstavljam si, ali pač, kako bi bilo, če bi Slovenija ostala ena od jugoslovanskih republik, ki bi gledala, kako se krade iz državne blagajne ali kako se financira kakšna vojna, v kateri bi spet za tuje interese padali slovenski vojaki.

– 35 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE

Naj sklenem. Delo za osvoboditev Slovenije bo treba nadalje­ vati. Boljšega navdiha za to, kot ga je dal duh osamosvajanja, ne vidim. Ta duh pomeni nedvomno uvajanje evropskih vrednot in načel, ne samo na področju gospodarstva in sociale, ampak zajema tudi jasen in odklonilen odnos do vseh totalitarizmov. Mi se moramo osvoboditi ideološkega svinca preteklosti in konceptov, ki ne vodijo v rast in sožitje.

Prepričan sem, da je med nami dovolj potencialov, ki hočejo in tudi bodo ustvarili drugačno Slovenijo. Slovenijo, iz katere ne bodo odhajali mladi ljudje, intelektualci in podjetniki. Sloveni­ jo, na katero bomo ponosni in bo krepila našo samozavest. Dr­ žavo in družbo, v kateri bo človek v sredini in daleč nad profi­ tom.

Vse najboljše, Slovenija, in na mnoga leta!

– 36 – Lojze Peterle

Twenty Years of Slovenia's Independence

Twenty years after the long yearned dream of an independent Slovene state came true, I am thankful for belonging to the generation which experienced and co-shaped the smile his­ tory bestowed upon this nation. Whenever memories take me back to this epoch-making achievement, I feel deep gratitude towards all those who gave their lives for our freedom, as well as to those who, be it in Slovenia or elsewhere around the world, paved the way towards our freedom and indepen­ dence.

I am sincerely grateful to those who entrusted their vote to the political parties of the Slovene Spring, for they made the inde­ pendence project feasible for the Demos (the Democratic Op­ position of Slovenia) government and the Demos majority in the then National Assembly.

– 37 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

My heartfelt thanks go to our supporters from other co­unt­ ries, headed by the then CDU (the Christian Democratic ­Union) president and the Chancellor of Germany Helmut Kohl, the Austrian Foreign Minister and the president of EDU (the European Democrat Union) Dr Alois Mock, Pope John Paul II, the Belgian Prime Minister and the president of the European People’s Party Dr Wilfried Martens, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg and the president of the European Commission Jacques Santer, the Austrian Vice Chancellor Dr Erhard Busek, the president of the European Parliament Egon Klepsch, Otto von Habsburg, a member of the Euro­ pean Parliament, as well as other MEPs, the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Allain Lamassoure and Pierre Lequiller who brought the first two European Union flags into Slovenia, the Mayor of Vienna Helmut Zilk, the governors of the neighbouring regions Dr Joseph Krainer, Al­ fredo Biasutti and Stephan Zernatto, as well as all those who expressed their understanding and support to our political goals.

Twenty years have passed.

Today our success is almost taken for granted. The truth, how­ ever, is quite different from the idealised myth about unity dur­ ing the period marked by the plebiscite and the declaration of independence. Back then, when the military attack on Slovenia was imminent, we felt far from united. There are those who claim that we were fortunate. True, fortune was on our side, but

– 38 – Lojze Peterle – Twenty Years of Slovenia's Independence much more than fortune was needed for success. What was needed was a vision, a programme, trust, support, the govern­ ment take-over, legislative and executive operativeness, what was needed was courage.

On 25 June 1991, on the day of the declaration of statehood, we stood in the Republic Square (Trg republike) alone, sup­ ported by our own people, without foreign statesmen and dip­ lomats and with but a handful of governors of neighbouring regions expressing their festive solidarity. This particular act and the following victory in the defence war for Slovenia changed the course of history.

At previous round-number anniversaries of independence, it was clearly and veraciously said that the gaining of indepen­ dence is, without comparison, the greatest political achieve­ ment of the Slovene nation.

Yet, many are more and more under the impression that old political forces have been systemically relativising the impor­ tance of independence, pushing this triumph into the realm of political interests stemming from the spirit and achievements of the communist revolution. Present-day schoolgoers, all born in a free and democratic Slovenia, are never explained in clear terms what 1990 and 1991 were all about, what happened then and why. The obscurement of the historical memory on the Second World War has thus been coupled by the obscurement of the independence process.

– 39 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

Why did we succeed, what truly happened?

We succeeded because:

– of the will to establish an independent and democratic Slo­ vene state, expressed by individuals and groups, outgrew in­ to a strong and well-organised political movement, – we grasped a historic opportunity, – we saw the independence and democratisation process as the key items on the agenda of all the political parties per­ taining to the Slovene Spring, – former political leaders succumbed to the pressure exerted by the new democratic forces and agreed to hold mostly democratic elections (The then Chamber of Associated Work was not elected democratically.), – the Slovene Spring political parties decided to join their forces in the Demos pre-election coalition, – Demos won the first democratic elections and thus came into power, – Demos as the political promoter of the idea of forming an independent state and the opposition reached a political agreement on the plebiscite, – the plebiscite supported the independence project, – we were capable of withstanding the threats of the Yugoslav government headed by Ante Marković, the open disappro­ val and belittling of our efforts by the opposition, as well as a general strike when the preparations were coming to a close,

– 40 – Lojze Peterle – Twenty Years of Slovenia's Independence

– we were capable of parrying the military attack on a newly proclaimed state, with Slovene soldiers and police officers, as well as unarmed citizens fighting side by side, all with a large support of the general public, – we were well prepared to operate in war conditions, – the war for Slovenia brought about the victory over the communist and centralistic Yugoslav National Army, – we had successfully prepared for monetary independence, – we met all the requirements for international recognition and – we had gained international allies.

What happened?

– We established our own independent and democratic state. – We made a clear cut with the non-democratic and totalitar­ ian communist regime which seized power by way of deceit, theft and murder during and after the Second World War. – We brought down 600 kilometres of the Iron Curtain – for our own sake and for the united Europe, thus freeing most of Slovene Europe. – By doing so, we made Slovenia truly free (the Constitutio­ nal Court). – We expressed our support for unbiased and veracious re­ search of Slovene history with the aim of national recon­ ciliation. – We implemented numerous democratic economic, social and other reforms.

– 41 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

– We made sure that politics, the army and the police once again serve our common good. – We put Slovenia on the political world map. In this way, Slovenia could start paving its way into the European Uni­ on and NATO. – Future generations have thus been offered new creative op­ portunities. – In spite of difficult conditions, we managed to bring eco­ nomic downturn to a halt by supporting restructuring and promoting the introduction of Western business and envi­ ronmental standards. Hence, in merely two years, we created the basis for economic growth. – The Demos government had the lowest public spending in the history of the Republic of Slovenia.

What we did, was done for the benefit of us all. The war for Slovenia successfully unified Slovene citizens. It brought about freedom, for everyone. No revanchist action was taken against the representatives of the former totalitarian regime.

Twenty years down the road, however, a balanced assessment is called for.

All in all, the outcome can be described as positive. Not only we have had a historic breakthrough and established our own independent state and democracy, Slovenia has also become a fully-fledged member of the European Union, the United Na­ tions, NATO, etc. Years of continuous economic growth and

– 42 – Lojze Peterle – Twenty Years of Slovenia's Independence revitalised creativity followed. For years, we were regarded by the European Union as the most successful candidate country and later as a well developing member state. Some saw us as a role model. We were on our way to the top.

The economic and financial crisis, however, has revealed that we are hostages of an uncompleted transition process. There are areas where Slovenia tactically adapted to European prin­ ciples and standards. Managerial privatisation evidently shows that Slovenia still functions within the frame of Kardelj’s cartel economics giving the most prominent role to state-owned or para state-managed companies. Such privatisation has not on­ ly weakened banks, it has stalled the development of the entire economy. Property obsession has dangerously eclipsed the val­ ue of quality and responsible management. The race for pros­ perity has abandoned the competitiveness game circuit focus­ ing on advanced technologies and products and has moved to the speculative securities markets. No wonder that the Slovene education system is overflowing with universities producing an enormous surplus of those who wish to regulate the world and an allarming deficit of technical professionals capable of devel­ oping and producing new quality products.

The state of affairs is equally allarming when it comes to the rule of law. The administration of justice is poorly efficient. Citizens are gradually losing their trust.

– 43 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

Even when it comes to history, Slovenia has not followed a European path. So far, it has been impossible to obtain a par­ liamentary condemnation of the crimes committed by the communist regime. Acting in line with the recommendations adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Eu­ rope in order to reach reconciliation has also proven to be im­ possible. The Slovenes are not only different, we remain divid­ ed. Great ideas, competences and skills have no bearing, all that matters is a person’s political pedigree. We have not man­ aged to transform the mentality of ideology-based removal and elimination causing unjust social differences.

Over the last years, Slovenia has been losing its important rankings. A severe increase in public borrowing without pro­ per strategic goals is placing the burden of debt on our future generations. For several years, Slovenia has proven to be unable to implement urgently needed reforms and has therefore slided among countries opting for tepid or utterly inefficient reforms. The fight for political power aims at preserving the status quo rather than heading for change. The price of change is there­ fore becoming higher and higher, while the money is running out.

Twenty years is still not enough to look back at those mile­ stone events with the necessary detachment. Even more so if one has actively participated in them.

– 44 – Lojze Peterle – Twenty Years of Slovenia's Independence

Nevertheless, it is our responsibility to seize this opportunity and answer the following question: “Is this what we fought for?”

Here is my sincere answer:

We did not fight for a Slovenia brought down on her knees.

It seems as if twenty years ago we obtained external freedom, yet, much is still missing before we can obtain inner freedom. The forces of the Slovene Spring were in power for only one third of the existence of democracy in Slovenia. They have partly themselves to blame, for their dissolution opened the gate to a different political option.

Demos had always been bursting at the seams when attempts at changing the acquired power structure saw the involvement of revolutionary means. It stumbled over the Cooperatives Act and the Denationalisation Act and completely dissolved over the Privatisation Act. After all, it is only possible to govern while there are common denominators.

As a democrat at heart, I am, in principle, not bothered by the other option. I am, however, severly disturbed by politics which obviously gets its inspiration in obsolete Yugoslav and/or Com­ munist Party concepts, for this has always been the politics of redistribution of means rather than of creation of something new. Yugoslavia remained operational as long as it could feed

– 45 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA itself with foreign loans and inflation. When billions from abroad were gone, neither ideology and the Communist Party nor the reforms could help.

Twenty years down the road, the conditions resemble signifi­ cantly those occuring after the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Slov­ enia is coming to a halt. There is one huge difference though. Back then, the solution was clear and it had an overwhelming support. We knew there would be risks, we knew there would be sacrifice. Yet, we took our decision and we succeeded.

We definitely didn’t fight so that the President of the Republic of Slovenia would confer a high state decoration on one of the most symbolic operatives of the old regime. Nor did we fight to share our veteran organisations with those who fought against independence, with those exploiting these very organisations in the name of values entirely unrelated to independence.

Nor did we fight so that independence could be celebrated un­ der the slogan “Let us clench our hands into fists” as part of the celebration of an unimportant anniversary of the Liberation Front. Yet another example of usurping and deceit.

Today, I can see no example of determination. What I see is stalling with manouvres, fuzzy sweet talk and conflicts within the governing coalition. This difficult times when the ground is very much fertile for demagogical attempts are perfect for false propaganda convincing citizens that we are all the same.

– 46 – Lojze Peterle – Twenty Years of Slovenia's Independence

If we truly were all the same, we would not have achieved any­ thing epoch-making between 1990 and 1992 or later for that matter. I cannot imagine what would have happened – well, perhaps I can – if Slovenia remained one of the Yugoslav re­ publics watching how the treasury was being emptied or how wars in which Slovene soldiers would be losing their lives over foreign interests were financed.

In conclusion, we need to continue working for the liberation of Slovenia. And I can see no better inspiration than the spirit of the independence period. This spirit undoubtedly calls for an introduction of European values and principles in more than just economy and social policies, this spirit insists on re­ buffing all forms of totalitarian regimes. At long last, we need to break free from the ideological lead of the past and from concepts that cannot possibly lead us to growth and coexist­ ence.

I am convinced that there is enough potential wishing for and perfectly capable of creating a different Slovenia. A Slovenia without the brain drain of the young people, intellectuals and entrepreneurs. A Slovenia that we can all be proud of. A Slov­ enia that will build up our self-confidence. A state and society which will place human beings at the centre and far above profit.

Happy birthday, Slovenia, and many happy returns of the day.

– 47 –

Janez Janša

Slovenski danes se je začel obetavno

Slovenija obhaja dvajseto obletnico osamosvojitve, enaindvaj­ seto obletnico demokratizacije, a razprave o tem so zelo redke. Slovenci smo narod, ki se bolj spominja stvari, ki so nas delile, kot pa tistih, ki so nas združevale. In bolj tistih, od katerih je bilo več škode kot koristi, kot pa tistih, od katerih danes ima­ mo to, kar imamo kot narod in tudi kot država. In tudi to, da imamo svojo državo, je pravzaprav milost, kajti veliko je naro­ dov po svetu, ki so večji od nas, pa svoje države nimajo.

Slovenija včeraj, pred demokratizacijo in pred osamosvojitvijo, je bila, zlasti če govorimo o drugi polovici 20. stoletja, čas, v ka­ terem smo zašli v slepo ulico. Oziroma čas, v katerem je, kot je dejal neki zgodovinar, normalen zgodovinski razvoj dogodkov zaspal. Temu bi dejal, da je bil to čas, ko je bila odsotna normal­ nost. Skušalo se je ustvarjati svet, odnose in razmere, ki eno­ stavno niso bili normalni. Zato ta eksperiment tudi ni deloval in je propadel v svoji zgodovinski dimenziji, v Sovjetski zvezi in

– 49 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE v Srednji Evropi, danes pa v tisti pravi obliki životari samo še v Severni Koreji, kjer milijoni stradajo, deloma na Kubi in de­ loma na Kitajskem. Sicer pa tudi tam v svoji izvorni obliki ta eksperiment nenormalnosti nima nikakršne zgodovinske per­ spektive. Za to nenormalnost lahko navedemo tisoč dokazov s področja gospodarstva, javnega sektorja, šolstva, vrednot …

Govorimo lahko o ovinkih stran od normalnosti, ki so tudi Slovenijo pripeljali v velike razvojne zaostanke. Če navedemo samo en statistični podatek, ki to trditev na ekonomski ravni dokazuje, potem lahko vzamemo primerjavo med tem, kje je bila Slovenija po razvitosti pred tem komunističnim eksperi­ mentom in kje je bila ob njegovem koncu. Poglejmo leto 1938, ko je bila Slovenija del takratne Kraljevine Jugoslavije, ki tudi ni bila ravno vzorna demokratična država, ampak vseeno bi­ stveno bolj normalna od tega, kar je sledilo. Takrat je bila pov­ prečna plača v Sloveniji približno 80 % povprečne avstrijske plače. Ekonomija je bil nekje na 80 % razvitosti sosedov. Leta 1990 pred prvimi svobodnimi volitvami je bila povprečna plača v Sloveniji slaba četrtina povprečne plače v Avstriji in tudi zdaj po dvajsetih letih nismo prišli daleč čez polovico. In to ob dej­ stvu, da naj bi bili na strani zmagovalcev velikega spopada v II. svetovni vojni, Avstrijci pa na strani poražencev. Kot da bi to samo po sebi delovalo na uspešnost, na razvoj in na blaginjo ljudi.

Ko smo pred kratkim v Arhivu Slovenije še enkrat pregledova­ li zaprašene fascikle nekdanje Socialistične zveze delovnega

– 50 – Janez Janša – Slovenski danes se je začel obetavno ljudstva, smo zasledili tudi predavanje takratnega predsednika te zveze, v katerem je Mitja Ribičič podal analizo tistega časa. Če se ne motim, je bil ta nastop leta 1977 ali 1978, skratka v sedemdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja. Mitja Ribičič takrat pra­ vi, da je edina resna nevarnost za režim v Sloveniji katoliška cerkev. Da sicer obstajajo posamični otoki odpora oziroma, kot je dejal, nastavki možne kontrarevolucije, ampak tukaj gre za posameznike, ne za kakšne močne organizacije. Edina organi­ zacija, ki je izven totalnega nadzora, delen nadzor je seveda ob­ stajal, naj bi bila cerkev. Če to prevedemo v normalen jezik, potem lahko rečemo, da je bila cerkev otok normalnosti v tis­ tem nenormalnem svetu. Potem so obstajali taki otoki nor­ malnosti in neke normalne presoje stvarnosti v različnih manj­ ših intelektualnih krogih, iz katerih so nastale razne revije in druge iniciative. Takšni otoki normalnosti so bili med našimi rojaki v zamejstvu in po svetu. Takšen malo večji otok normal­ nosti je bil tudi med slovenskim kmečkim življem, ki je ohranil vsaj delno neodvisnost od situacije in od okolja, ki sta se skuša­ la na vseh ravneh uresničevati v smer, ki ni bila normalna. Zato ni naključje, da je bila prva stanovsko politična organizacija, ki je bila pretežno ali pa v veliki meri neodvisna od takratnega re­ žima, ravno Slovenska kmečka zveza. Samo v tem delčku se je ohranilo toliko avtonomnosti in normalnosti, da se je lahko pr­ vi organiziral v smislu množičnosti in tudi realne politične al­ ternative.

Potem je prišlo do preloma. Slovenija ni bila osamljen otok teh sprememb. Do sprememb je prihajalo v celotnem komunistič­

– 51 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE nem svetu. Pred kratkim je Poljska proslavljala obletnico soli­ darnosti pod geslom »Začelo se je na Poljskem«. Veliko stvari se je dejansko najprej zgodilo na Poljskem, v začetku osemde­ setih let s Solidarnostjo, z obiskom papeža, pa potem tudi pri­ hodom Gorbačova na oblast v Sovjetski zvezi in na koncu s padcem Berlinskega zidu. Slovenija je bila z začetki demokra­ tizacije na vrhovih valov sprememb in ni bila zamudnica. Tudi leta 1990 in 1991, ko je Slovenija kot prva v takratni Jugosla­ viji potegnila odločilne korake, najprej k demokratizaciji, po­ tem pa tudi k samostojnosti, je orala ledino. Nikogar ni bilo, ki bi bil v enakem položaju in ki bi ga bilo moč posnemati. Slo­ venija je morala iskati lastne izvirne rešitve. Ko so bile v takrat­ ni Jugoslaviji prve svobodne volitve, je bilo to za celotno Evro­ po velik eksperiment. Naenkrat so dobili državo v mednarodno priznanih mejah, v kateri pa so obstajali različni politični siste­ mi. Slovenija in za njo Hrvaška sta izvedli demokratične volit­ ve, drugi ne. Vedelo se je, da to dolgo ne bo moglo trajati. Slo­ venija je izbrala zelo izviren način osamosvojitve z glasovanjem na referendumu in šestmesečnim moratorijem na uresničevanje te odločitve, ker pač ni bila pripravljena in ker je ta čas potre­ bovala tudi za mehčanje trdih mednarodnih in tudi jugoslo­ vanskih stališč. Nismo jih veliko zmehčali v tistih šestih mese­ cih, smo se pa bolje pripravili na tisto, kar je neizogibno sledilo. Ta prehod je nekaj, kar je uspelo prvič v slovenski zgodovini in kar zagotovo sodi v bistvo in vrednostno središče slovenskega naroda. Takrat smo zmogli tudi dovolj enotnosti, da notranja razklanost ni preprečila tega odločilnega koraka.

– 52 – Janez Janša – Slovenski danes se je začel obetavno

Spominjam se časa skoraj natančno pred dvajsetimi leti, ko je Slovenija že imela za sabo plebiscitno odločitev, vendar pa še ne tistega končnega dejanja, to je razglasitve samostojne drža­ ve. To ni bil čas enotnega izpolnjevanja plebiscitne volje, am­ pak čas silnega napora, da se v šestih mesecih, kolikor je bilo na voljo za uresničevanje plebiscitne odločitve, zagotovi uresniči­ tev te odločitve, pa tudi njeno obrambo, če bi jo kdo skušal ogrožati. To je bil čas trdega dela, pa tudi odmetavanja polen, ki so nam jih številni metali pod noge.

Takrat smo organizirali vajo slovenske Teritorialne obrambe, v kateri se je prvič v zgodovini TO neka enota iz Primorske pre­ maknila na Dolenjsko. Teritorialna obramba je bila prvenstve­ no organizirana za obrambo teritorija in ne, da bi bila vojska, ki je sposobna tudi manevra in premika. Zato je omenjena vaja, čeprav se danes zdi povsem samoumevno, izzvala veliko nego­ dovanja v takratnem predsedstvu republike. Po takratni ustavi, republiški ustavi in zakonodaji je bilo predsedstvo kolektivni poveljnik obrambnih sil. Edini član predsedstva, ki je bil pri­ pravljen priti na vajo in pozdraviti slovenske vojake, je bil Ivan Oman. Predsednik predsedstva Milan Kučan in drugi trije čla­ ni niso bili pripravljeni niti slišati o tem. Tudi decembra, tik pred plebiscitom, ko smo v Kočevski Reki postrojili zaščitno brigado, takrat najmočnejšo enoto slovenske Teritorialne obrambe, tam ni bilo nobenega člana predsedstva, ker so imeli to za nepotrebno dejanje. In dva meseca kasneje so štirje člani tega istega predsedstva podpisali t.i. deklaracijo za mir, v kateri je pisalo, da Slovenija ne potrebuje vojske. Bili smo tik pred

– 53 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE razglasitvijo samostojnosti, pred tem da izpolnimo plebiscitno odločitev. Vedeli smo, da Beograd tega ne bo mirno sprejel. Vse je bilo odvisno od tega, ali se bomo uspeli obraniti, ali ne. Pa so štirje člani vrhovnega poveljstva podpisali deklaracijo, v kateri je pisalo, da Slovenija ne potrebuje lastne vojske. Ni jih motilo, da smo imeli na svojem ozemlju močne enote jugoslovanske armade. Motila jih je lastna vojska. Ivan Oman je bil ponovno častna izjema. In nekakšen jeziček na tehtnici, ki je takrat pre­ vesil, da se je sploh lahko šlo v resne obrambne priprave. Kajti tudi obrambni proračun smo potem v parlamentu, čeprav da­ nes govorijo, da so bili vsi za, sprejeli z enim glasom večine, za­ kon o obrambi z dvema glasovoma večine in zakon o vojaški dolžnosti z enim glasom večine.

Ko smo začeli z vojaškim usposabljanjem v Pekrah pri Maribo­ ru, je predsednik takratne Liberalne demokracije Jožef Školč pisal pismo predsedstvu, da moramo učne centre takoj razpus­ titi. In bilo je veliko podobnih naporov, ki bi, če bi doživeli v takratnem parlamentu še kakšen dodaten glas podpore, povzro­ čili, da bi Slovenija dejansko lahko 25. junija 1991 razglasila samostojnost, vendar se ne bi osamosvojila, ker bi nam to pre­ prečili. Vse bi se lahko končalo tako, kot se je končalo pozneje­ v Bosni z veliko ceno, ki so jo za to plačali, s 100.000 mrt­vimi, begunci in razdejanjem ter še zdaj nezaceljenimi ranami. Vlogo Ivana Omana poudarjam zato, ker je bilo za ljudi, ki smo jih takrat klicali v TO, za tiste, ki so morali pustiti vse, družino, de­ lo in svoj prosti čas in se udeleževati vojaških usposabljanj, zelo pomembno, da je vendarle prišel član vrhovnega poveljstva in

– 54 – Janez Janša – Slovenski danes se je začel obetavno jih pozdravil. To je bil zanje dokaz, da delajo nekaj legitimnega, nekaj, za kar jih ne bo nekdo kasneje klical na odgovornost in jih morda celo postavljal pred sodišče. To je bilo zelo pomemb­ no v dneh, ko nihče ni vedel, kako se bodo stvari odvijale.

Pred dvajsetimi leti so bile sanje o tem, kakšna bo Slovenija čez dve desetletji, najbrž precej drugačne od tega, kar je danes real­ nost. Verjetno si pred dvajsetimi leti ni nihče predstavljal, da bo Slovenija po osamosvojitvi gospodarsko relativno dobro napre­ dovala, da bo postala članica Evropske unije, zveze NATO, OECD-ja, Organizacije za varnost in sodelovanje v Evropi, da bo celo vodila ti dve organizaciji, da bo enkrat tudi postala ne­ stalna članica Varnostnega sveta. Skratka, da bo dvomilijonski narod s komaj pridobljeno državo postal formalno enakopra­ ven narodom, ki imajo države že stoletja in so krojili usodo Evrope v vsej moderni zgodovini. Vendar se je vse to zgodilo bolj optimistično, kot je večina pričakovala. S prehojeno potjo, če pogledamo statistiko, rezultate in uspehe, bi bili težko neza­ dovoljni.

Ko je Slovenija stopala v samostojno življenje po prvih volitvah in po osamosvojitvi, je še posebej tiste prve dni, ko smo bili na­ padeni, ostala sama. V tistih dneh, 26., 27. in 28. junija 1991, nas ni priznala nobena država, noben svetovni politik nas ni podprl, vsi so govorili, da je to notranja stvar Jugoslavije, naj to Jugoslovani rešijo med sabo. Vsi so pričakovali, da bo jugoslo­ vanska vojska hitro opravila z »operetnim« poskusom in da bo Jugoslavija ostala taka, kot je bila. Takrat smo se počutili izdani.

– 55 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE

Verjeli smo, da imamo pravico do samoodločbe, ki je bila prav­ zaprav zapisana tudi v takratni jugoslovanski ustavi. To pome­ ni, da je bila naša odločitev ne samo legitimna, pač pa tudi le­ galna glede na takratno zakonodajo. Izvedli smo plebiscit. Nikogar nismo ogrožali. Ponujali smo dolga obdobja za umik jugoslovanske armade itn. Kljub temu so nas skušali zaustavlja­ ti s silo. Ampak v tistih prvih dneh smo, ne glede na ta dejstva, ostali sami. Sporočilo, ki je prihajalo iz sveta, je bilo: »To je nji­ hova notranja zadeva.«

Situacija se je spremenila potem, ko smo se ubranili, prišlo je tudi mednarodno priznanje in svetovni politiki so spremenili svoja stališča. Pri tem je zelo veliko vlogo odigrala takratna evropska krščanska demokracija, Evropska ljudska stranka, ta­ kratni nemški kancler Kohl, ki je bil verjetno ključna evropska osebnost za spremembo teh stališč, in seveda Vatikan, ki je bil država ali pa entiteta z velikansko moralno avtoriteto in je Slo­ venijo priznal med prvimi.

Potem smo spremljali dogajanje na Hrvaškem in v Bosni. Tudi ko je šlo za obračun Miloševićeve armade z Bosno in tamkaj­ šnjimi ljudmi, ki so bili goli in bosi, je mednarodna skupnost uvedla še embargo. Na eni strani je bila Miloševićeva, ali pa Mladićeva armada, kakorkoli se je že formalno imenovala, obo­ rožena do zob, na drugi strani pa Bosanci, ki pa jim je medna­ rodna skupnost preprečila samoobrambo s tem, da je uvedla embargo na uvoz orožja. To je seveda pomenilo, da je imel tisti, ki je imel orožje, velikansko prednost. Mednarodna skupnost

– 56 – Janez Janša – Slovenski danes se je začel obetavno se je nekaj let pogovarjala o tem, ali intervenirati ali ne interve­ nirati. Slovenija je bila takrat dokaj enotno na strani tistih, ki so bili napadeni. Okusili smo tudi neposredne posledice tega, saj je bilo na našem ozemlju 70.000 beguncev iz Bosne. To je bilo za nas tudi veliko ekonomsko breme. Vendar ko je šlo za vprašanje odnosa do njihove pravice, da se branijo, ko je šlo za odnos do tega, kaj ima prednost, kalkulacija o tem, ali bo neka država ostala cela ali pa bomo zaščitili življenja ljudi in njihovo pravico do svobode ter dostojanstva in spoštovanja človekovih pravic, je bila Slovenija v letih 1992, 1993 in 1994 dokaj eno­ tna. Zagovarjali smo šibkejšo stran v Bosni in naredili veliko, da je mednarodna skupnost končno intervenirala in je prišlo do Daytonskih sporazumov.

Lahko rečemo, da se je slovenski danes začel zelo obetavno. Koraki so bili narejeni pravočasno, bili so pravilno odmerjeni, za te korake smo dobili odobravanje celotnega svobodnega sve­ ta in potem je prišlo tudi mednarodno priznanje. Na podlagi tega, kar je naredila Slovenija, ali pa iz kapitala, ki ga je takrat ob osamosvojitvi zbrala Slovenija, se je v veliki meri plačalo tu­ di hrvaško samostojnost pa mednarodno priznanje BiH in po­ tem tudi mednarodno priznanje Makedonije. Kajti kapital, ki smo ga nabrali mi, je na neki način prepričal tudi mednarodno javnost, da je to prava pot. Ni se povsod izteklo tako srečno kot pri nas. Tako kot je mednarodna skupnost podcenila slovenske sposobnosti za te korake, jih je precenila v nekaterih drugih primerih na ozemlju nekdanje Jugoslavije. Zaradi tega je prišlo do številnih napačnih potez in ravnanj, ki so bila plačana s ti­

– 57 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE soči in deset tisočimi življenj in s sto tisoč begunci ter ogromno škodo in posledicami, ki se v primeru Bosne še vedno niso sa­ nirale in se še dolgo ne bodo.

Če govorimo o Sloveniji, lahko rečemo, da je bil to zelo obeta­ ven čas. Žal je trajal zelo kratko. Ko smo sprejeli prvo ustavo decembra 1991, nismo bili še niti mednarodno priznani. Med­ narodno priznanje je bilo obljubljeno, vendar je prišlo šele ne­ kaj tednov kasneje. Sprejeli smo družbeno pogodbo, na podla­ gi katere smo pričakovali, ali pa je velika večina pričakovala, da bomo ta zalet osamosvojitve in demokratizacije, ta zalet, prido­ bljen v izhodu iz nekega nenormalnega časa in okolja, izkori­ stili tudi za hitrejše potovanje v obdobje normalnosti. Še pose­ bej, ker smo upali, da bo zunanje okolje, ki bo odslej naše okolje, se pravi evropsko okolje, do Slovenije bistveno bolj pri­ jazno, kot pa je bilo sosedstvo do nas prijazno kadarkoli v naši znani zgodovini.

To zadnje upanje se je uresničilo. Od sprejetja naše ustave in od mednarodnega priznanja naprej, se je odnos okolja do Slovenije spreminjal samo na bolje. Slovenija je postala mednarodno pri­ znana država, Slovenci smo postali mednarodno priznan subjekt z veliko kredita za korak, na podlagi katerega smo se osamosvo­ jili in demokratizirali. Postali smo člani različnih mednarodnih asociacij, formalno enakopravni s stokrat večjimi narodi. Postali smo tudi člani Evropske zveze, zavarovali svojo prihodnost v Natu, menjali smo valuto in prevzeli evro oziroma vstopili v evropsko monetarno zvezo. Na koncu smo postali tudi člani

– 58 – Janez Janša – Slovenski danes se je začel obetavno

OECD-ja, to je organizacije najbolj razvitih držav na svetu, ki naj bi spoštovale oziroma upoštevale, vsaj ko gre za ekonomski razvoj, visoko zahtevne standarde. Pred dvajsetimi leti si najbrž nihče ni upal niti sanjati, da se bo vse to zgodilo in to v tako ugodnem smislu in poteku, kot se je dejansko zgodilo. Tudi sam si vsega tega nisem znal predstavljati. Če naredimo pri­ merjavo glede ekonomske situacije, upoštevaje dejstvo, da smo bili na začetku teh korakov na četrtini avstrijske plače, z današ­ njim stanjem, je Slovenija napredovala. Konec leta 2008 smo po takrat dostopnih statističnih podatkih dosegli 91 % evrop­ skega povprečja, pred dvajsetimi leti smo bili pod petdesetimi odstotki. V teh letih smo naredili velike razvojne korake. Žal smo zadnji dve leti zdrsnili pod 90 odstotkov, vendar na srečo ta zdrs ni bil, vsaj zaenkrat še ne, zgodovinsko nepopravljiv.

Če pa pogledamo, kako se je Slovenija notranje razvijala v sme­ ri neke normalne družbe, pa je slika drugačna. Ni tako bela, ni tako optimistična. Ta slika kaže številne zamujene priložnosti, kaže številne povratke nazaj. Kaže, da je marsikaj spet postalo takšno, kot je bilo včeraj. Ob prehodu v normalno stanje ali pa vsaj formalno normalnost se je zdelo, da se nekatere stvari ne bodo nikoli več vrnile. Vendar se danes to dogaja, Evropi nav­ kljub, Natu navkljub, celotnemu zunanjemu okolju navkljub. Pred dvajsetimi leti so se nekatere ulice v slovenskih mestih znebile starih imen, dobile nazaj originalna imena, kakršna so imela desetletja ali stoletja, preden jih je komunizem preime­ noval. Danes smo ponovno retrogradno na točki, ko se ta ime­ na vračajo. Če omenim samo ponovno poimenovanje oziroma

– 59 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE vrnitev Titove ulice v Ljubljano. Pred dvajsetimi leti si ni nihče predstavljal, da bo Slovenska centralna banka, ob soglasju vla­ de, na evrski kovanec, ki ga krasijo Marijine zvezde, ki so ­simbol Evrope, »prešvercala« komunistično zvezdo, Evropi navkljub. Pred dvajsetimi leti je bilo to nepredstavljivo. Ne­ predstavljivo je bilo že to, da bomo imeli čez dvajset let evrop­ sko valuto. Da pa bo na njej zvezda, ki smo se je takrat komaj znebili, le nekaj dni pred osamosvojitvijo, s težkimi pogajanji v parlamentu, da smo dosegli dvotretjinsko večino, tega pa si ni nihče predstavljal, niti v najbolj morastih sanjah. In vendar se je to zgodilo. Pa boste dejali, samo po sebi to ni pomembno, to ne vpliva na blaginjo ljudi, zaradi tega niso plače nič višje, nič manjši niso zneski na položnicah, bencin ni cenejši.

Takšno sklepanje je napačno. Kajti nenormalnost vodi v kaos, ki je glavni nasprotnik blaginje in normalnega razvoja. Sistem, ki je vladal včeraj, je bil izjemno sposoben na nekaterih podro­ čjih. Na področju propagande je bil nenadkriljiv. Ni bilo režima v znani zgodovini, ki bi bil boljši na področju propagande, pra­ nja možganov, sprevračanja resnice, propagiranju laži. Sistem, ki je vladal včeraj, je bil izjemno dober pri nadzorovanju ljudi. Če imate čas, pojdite v Arhiv Slovenije, dokler ga spet popol­ noma ne zaprejo, in se sprehodite čez tisto, kar je še ostalo od arhivov prejšnjega časa in nekdanje tajne službe. Tam boste na­ šli na tisoče dokazov, kaj vse je počel režim, da bi nadzoroval ljudi in bil pri tem, gledano z njihovega vidika, izjemno uspe­ šen. Tisto, česar režim včeraj ni znal, pa je vodenje normalnih opravil. Dopuščanje okolja, svobode oziroma svobodne člove­

– 60 – Janez Janša – Slovenski danes se je začel obetavno kove volje, da se razvije podjetniški potencial, da posameznik razvija lastne osebne potenciale za lastno in skupno dobro. Te­ ga okolja pa režim, ki je vladal včeraj, ni znal oblikovati.

V Sloveniji je še sredi devetdesetih let obstajal osnoven obču­ tek, kaj je prav in kaj ni prav, tudi ko gre za druge. Potem pa je prišlo leto 2011 in čas, ki ga danes živimo. Zgodile so se, bi lahko rekli, demokratične revolucije v severni Afriki in na Bli­ žnjem vzhodu. Slovenska uradna politika je objavila sporočilo, ki je bilo enako sporočilu, ki ga je dala mednarodna politika o nas, takrat ko smo bili napadeni. Naš predsednik države in zu­ nanji minister sta dejala, da sta proti temu, da mednarodna skupnost posreduje v Libiji. To je njihova notranja zadeva. Na eni strani imamo Gadafija z vso vojsko in z vsemi arzenali orožja in močjo, na drugi strani pa upornike, ki so bolj ali manj goli in bosi, ter položaj, v kakršnem smo bili mi ali Bošnjaki v Bosni. Slovenska uradna politika pa razglasi, da je to notranja zadeva Libije, če Gadafi pobija slabo oborožene upornike, smo proti temu, da mednarodna skupnost posreduje. Čez dva dni je bila sprejeta Resolucija Varnostnega sveta Združenih narodov. Hvala Bogu, drugi niso razmišljali enako.

Toda sedaj ne govorim o Libiji, govorim o Sloveniji. Kako je možno, da po dvajsetih letih ne postavljamo več v ospredje ti­ stih vrednot, zaradi katerih smo nastali kot država in nacija. In drugim ne priznavamo pravic, ki smo si jih končno sami vzeli. Namesto, da bi zagovarjali te vrednote, govorimo enako, kot so govorili tisti, ki so nas hoteli prepustiti jugoslovanski vojski. Tu

– 61 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE smo šli v napačno smer. To je v temelju narobe. Če bi vsi tako ravnali, potem bi bilo danes na svetu bistveno več diktatur, za­ tiranja človekovih pravic, več bi bilo beguncev in bil bi popoln kaos.

Slovenci smo tudi edini narod, ki se ima za civiliziranega in že dvajset let ni sposoben pokopati svojih mrtvih. Nobenega dru­ gega naroda ni in nobene druge države, ki bi imela takšen od­ nos do mrtvih. Ne glede na to, kaj kdo misli o tem, zakaj je bil kdo ubit, zakaj je kdo umrl. Že pred tisočletji so narodi ali ljud­ stva vedeli, da je treba mrtve pokopati in da gre tu za vprašanje osnovne pietete do umrlih. Niso govorili o tem, da se premeta­ va kosti, ali pa da se s tem, ko se zahteva spoštovanje temeljnih civilizacijskih vrednot, odpira kulturni boj, ki nas samo odvrača od izzivov prihodnosti.

Pred dvajsetimi leti takšen odnos ne bi bil možen, razen morda pri redkih posameznikih. Danes je to na neki način bistveno širše sprejeto in to je v temelju narobe. Ni mogoče graditi str­ pne družbe in normalne skupnosti brez spoštovanja temeljnih vrednot, ki so obstajale, še preden je nastala Listina o temeljnih človekovih pravicah.

Akademik Niko Grafenauer je v svojem govoru na letošnjih Pučnikovih dnevih, ki jih je pripravil Inštitut dr. Jožeta Pučni­ ka in so bili tudi posvečeni dvajseti obletnici slovenske samos­ tojnosti, dejal, da lahko družba oziroma država sprejme kakr­ šnekoli pogodbe, ki ne veljajo nič, če ni nekega temeljnega

– 62 – Janez Janša – Slovenski danes se je začel obetavno etičnega imperativa. Da je treba spoštovati dano besedo. Da je treba ravnati prav. Pa nič ne drži. Če danes govorimo o tem, kakšna bo Slovenija čez dvajset let, kakšna bo njena demokra­ cija, kako bomo v njej živeli, kakšen bo naš razvoj, so to bistve­ na vprašanja. Pomembno je, da gospodarsko napredujemo in da namesto 2 % dajemo za raziskave in razvoj 4 %. Pomembno je, da imamo gospodarsko rast, da ustvarimo dovolj tudi za tis­ te, ki si sami ne morejo omogočiti dostojnega življenja itn. Da smo solidarni. Ampak nič od tega ni možno v normalnih okvi­ rih, če ni nekega temeljnega vedenja, kaj je prav in kaj je naro­ be. In če pravila ne veljajo za vse enako. To so bistvene stvari. Na teh osnovah potem temeljita tako normalen gospodarski razvoj kot normalen družbeni razvoj. Na teh osnovah lahko mlade generacije odraščajo v zdravem okolju, drugače je pa vse nekakšna džungla. In to, kar se dogaja, stanje, do katerega smo prišli, ni slučaj. To se je dogajalo načrtovano.

Takoj po volitvah leta 1990 je z najvišjega mesta v Sloveniji prišla teza, da obstaja več resnic. Tisti, ki so prej laž prodajali za edino zveličavno resnico, so kar na enkrat začeli govoriti o tem, kako obstaja več resnic. To je temeljna neumnost. Ampak to je bilo v Sloveniji razglašeno z najvišjega mesta. Izpeljanka iz tega je bila, da če je več resnic, potem na koncu prevlada tista, ki je povedana skozi močnejše zvočnike, ki ima za sabo močnejšo propagando, ki je večkrat skopirana. Tako se je ravnalo dvajset let. In zaradi tega smo na številnih področjih danes zašli dlje v napačno smer, kot pa pred dvajsetimi leti.

– 63 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE

Druga teza, ki je bila lansirana na samem začetku slovenske demokracije, je bila teza, da se je Berlinski zid podrl na obe strani. Tudi ta teza je bila razglašena z najvišjega mesta v takrat­ ni komaj demokratizirani Sloveniji. Mišljeno je bilo, da se je Berlinski zid sicer podrl, ampak na obe strani. To ne pomeni, da so prevladale vrednote zahodne demokracije, svobode in spoštovanja človekovih pravic, tržnega gospodarstva, ampak da je zdaj to neka mešanica, opeke so padale na obe strani in šele videlo se bo, kdo je zmagal. Slovenija je edina država, kjer je lahko nekdo z najvišje funkcije v državi govoril takšne neu­ mnosti in se je takšno stališče kar širilo, o njem se je diskutira­ lo, celo simpoziji so bili organizirani na to temo. Ko je v Nem­ čiji leva stranka, ki je naslednica nekdanje vzhodnonemške komunistične partije, tudi nastopila s to tezo, je nemška inte­ lektualna sfera to osmešila do skrajnosti. V Sloveniji je bilo pa ravno obratno. Po dvajsetih letih ravnanja na podlagi takšnih paradigem sploh ni čudno, da smo na nekaterih področjih tam, kjer smo. Zaradi propagandne mašinerije, ki je izjemno močna, se lahko v nekaj tednih neko dejstvo popolnoma obrne.

Demokracija, če o njej govorimo, predpostavlja, da imajo tisti, ki se potegujejo za naklonjenost volivcev, približno enake mo­ žnosti, da predstavijo svoje programe in da volivci izbirajo in presojajo na podlagi realnih dejstev. Pri nas je vedno pred voli­ tvami v ospredju tema, ki nima niti najmanjše zveze s tem, kar je dejansko pomembno za slovensko prihodnost. Takšnim te­ mam običajno rečemo afera. In ljudje so vedno prikrajšani za plodno razpravo o tem, kako naj se stvari odvijajo v naslednjih

– 64 – Janez Janša – Slovenski danes se je začel obetavno

štirih letih in kaj lahko pričakujejo od tistih, ki bodo upravljali z državo. Takšnih razprav pri nas pravzaprav ni bilo še nikoli. Morda še največ pred prvimi demokratičnimi volitvami aprila 1990. Potem pa je bilo vse zamegljeno. To tudi vpliva na 40 % volilnega telesa, ki ne gre na volitve, ker si misli, če je edina di­ lema neka nepomembna stvar, ki se takrat predstavlja kot glav­ na tema soočenj in prevladuje v časopisih, potem je pa popol­ noma vseeno, kakšen bo rezultat.

Glede na to, da se številne zadeve spet vračajo, imamo tudi na področjih, na katerih bi si lahko na prvi pogled mislili, da ni­ majo nobene zveze z zgodovino, na primer zvezda na evrskem kovancu, stanje, za opis katerega bi porabili preveč časa, če bi šli v detajle. Lahko pa navedem nekaj podatkov. Slovenija se niko­ li doslej v zgodovini, razen neposredno ob prehodu v nov eko­ nomski sistem, ni srečevala s tolikšnim številom brezposelnih, kot jih imamo danes oziroma kot jih je napovedanih do konca letošnjega leta. V Sloveniji nikoli doslej nismo plačevali draž­ jega bencina, čeprav je bila pred dvema, tremi leti surova nafta bistveno dražja, kot je danes. Decembra 2008 ste za liter ben­ cina dali nekaj več kot 80 centov, danes je cena za liter 68 % višja. Ob tem, da je nafta na mednarodnih trgih cenejša, kot je bila leta 2008. Torej imamo neki približek ali neki skoraj po­ poln obrat, povratek v stanje, kakršno je vladalo včeraj, za kate­ rega je bilo značilno, da so bili tisti, ki so vladali, genialni v pro­ pagandi, v nadzoru, v obračanju stvari, v zagovarjanju teze, da obstaja več resnic in da zmaga tista, ki jo glasneje propagiraš in ki ima glasnejše zvočnike. Niso pa znali voditi ekonomije. Niso

– 65 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE znali poskrbeti za normalen tek stvari. Niso znali in tudi danes ne znajo odstraniti cestninskih postaj na cestah, čeprav vinjete za plačilo avtoceste veljajo že nekaj let. Ta detajl je, boste rekli, nepomemben, je pa zelo značilen. Na milijone Slovencev pa tudi tistih, ki gredo v tranzitu skozi Slovenijo, mora na vseh cestninskih postajah voziti 30 oziroma 40 kilometrov na uro. Zaradi tega porabimo na tisoče ton bencina na leto več in one­ snažujemo okolje. Zaradi omejitev hitrosti na cestninskih po­ stajah prihaja do nesreč, zdaj so tam namestili še radarje, da pobirajo kazni za prekrške, in to je popolnoma brez pomena. Vrnili smo se v čas, ko niso znali rešiti najbolj osnovnih težav, bili pa so genialni na nekaterih drugih področjih, s čimer so si zagotavljali obstanek na oblasti.

Za zaključek se je treba vprašati, ali bodo te stvari še naprej šle v napačno smer, ali se smer lahko obrne. Odgovora na to vpra­ šanje ni. Dali ga bomo vsi skupaj. Ne samo na prihodnjih vo­ litvah, ker če so stvari zelo zavožene, potem volitve bolj malo rešujejo, ampak tudi v vsakdanjem ravnanju. Od vsakega posa­ meznika je odvisno, ali ima dovolj poguma, da stvari poimenu­ je s pravim imenom. Da se ne boji, da bo, če se zavzema za pi­ etetni pokop mrtvih, obtožen, da premetava kosti in se ukvarja s preteklostjo ter da to nikogar ne zanima. Od vseh nas je od­ visno, ali bomo videli, da je cesar gol, ali si bomo to upali pove­ dati, ali pa bomo oportunistično molčali. To je tisto ključno, od česar je odvisno, ali se bodo stvari začele spreminjati in ali se bomo obrnili v tisto smer, v katero se je Slovenija obračala ob demokratizaciji in osamosvojitvi.

– 66 – Janez Janša – Slovenski danes se je začel obetavno

Priložnost za to ni samo vsaka štiri leta, ampak vsak dan. To je tista moč, ki jo imamo danes. To je tista razlika, ki jo je prine­ sel čas osamosvojitve in demokratizacije. Moč posameznika, moč njegovega glasu. Vendar pa ta moč deluje samo, če jo uporabimo. Če ne uporabimo tistega, kar imamo, potem na­ mesto nas odločajo drugi in lahko gremo vsi skupaj v napačno smer.

Kar zadeva vprašanje, kam bomo šli v naslednjih dvajsetih le­ tih, je najbolj temeljno, ali bomo sposobni vzpostaviti družbo oziroma skupnost, v kateri se bo jasno vedelo, kaj je prav in kaj ni. Družbo, v kateri bodo zakoni in pravila veljali za vse enako. Že to, da začnemo vzpostavljati tako družbo in takšno sku­ pnost, bo postavilo vse drugo na svoje mesto. V vsaki skupnosti, kjer pravila veljajo za vse enako, se začnejo stvari urejati. Sku­ pnost, v kateri gospodarstvo lahko normalno napreduje, je na­ mreč tudi skupnost, v kateri imajo mladi perspektivo. V takšnih okoljih ni prepirov o tem, kakšen je končni cilj. Te razprave za­ dnjih dvajset let v Sloveniji praktično ni bilo. Priti smo morali v to situacijo, da se je sploh začela, pa še sedaj je omejena na nekatere medije, na tiste, ki odpirajo prostor za takšno raz­ pravo, in zavedanje se počasi širi. Na simpoziju Slovenija 2.0 v okviru letošnjih Pučnikovih dnevov smo slišali tudi, da se bodo stvari v prihodnjih mesecih zelo hitro spreminjale zaradi enega razloga. In ta razlog je, da bo zmanjkalo denarja. Zadolževati se ne bo več dalo. Vsi bomo pred problemom, ki si ga ne bo mo­ goče tajiti. Zaradi tega vzroka je propadla nekdanja Sovjetska zveza, zaradi tega je propadla ­Jugoslavija in tudi Slovenijo bo

– 67 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE streznilo. Vendar to ne bo mehak pristanek in čas je tu zelo va­ žna komponenta.

Kakšna naj bo Slovenija jutri oziroma kaj večina Slovencev pri­ čakuje od Slovenije jutri? Če pričakovanja strnemo v en stavek, potem lahko rečemo, da pričakujemo, da bo Slovenija jutri bolj normalna od tega, kar je bilo včeraj in bolj normalna od tega, kar je danes. Prehod še ni končan. Če bi se izrazili s svetopi­ semsko prispodobo, bi lahko rekli, da prehod čez Rdeče morje še vedno traja. Da včasih ti stebri vode na levi in na desni po­ stajajo čedalje višji in da se lahko tudi razlijejo na ljudstvo, ki hoče nazaj v svojo domovino. Prihodnost ni zagotovljena. Od tega, kako hitro bomo prišli v normalnost, je tudi odvisno, ka­ kšna bo cena. Dlje časa ko bomo hodili, višja bo cena.

Odgovor tudi ni v naključjih ali usodi, v tem, kaj se bo zgodilo, če se bo zgodilo. Odgovor je v nas samih. Slovenija je uspela narediti formalni preboj v demokracijo in v lastno državnost in samostojnost zato, ker je veliko ljudi to želelo in si je za to tudi prizadevalo. Na začetku posamezniki, potem pa vedno več. In ko se je nabralo dovolj energije, se je jez porušil in je voda šla naprej. Enako se mora zgoditi tudi za prehod v normalno sta­ nje. Zunanje okolje tega namesto nas ne bo naredilo. Zunanje okolje tudi stisne zobe, če vidi komunistično zvezdo na evr­ skem kovancu, ker to zanje ni osrednji problem. To je naš prob­ lem. Mi ga moramo rešiti. Več ko se nas bo tega zavedalo, prej bo nastopilo obdobje normalnosti.

– 68 – Janez Janša

Today’s Slovenia Had a Promising Start

Slovenia is celebrating its 20th anniversary of independence, and the 21st anniversary of its democratisation, yet discussion of this is quite rare. The Slovenes are a nation that remembers more the things that have divided us than the things that have brought us together. And more the things that have brought greater harm and less benefit, than those things that have given us what we have as a nation and as a state today. And even the fact that we have our own state is actually a blessing, since there are many nations in the world that are bigger than us but do not have their own state.

Slovenia’s yesterday, before democratisation and independence, was, especially if we are talking about the second half of the 20th century, a period when we wandered into a blind alley. Or a period when, as some historian put it, the normal historical development of events fell asleep. To this I would add that it was a time when normality was absent. An attempt was made

– 69 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA to create a world, relations and conditions that were simply not normal. This experiment therefore did not work, and collapsed in its historical dimension, in the Soviet Union and Central Europe, while it continues to eke out an existence in its true form only in North Korea, where millions are starving, and also partly in Cuba and China. There, too, in that original form the experiment with abnormality has no kind of historical prospects. For this abnormality we can cite thousands of in­ stances of evidence in the area of the economy, the public sec­ tor, education, values and more.

We can talk about deviations from normality, which have also led Slovenia to great developmental lags. If we were to give just one statistic demonstrating this assertion on the economic lev­ el, then we can take a comparison between where Slovenia stood in terms of development prior to this communist exper­ iment and where it was at its end. Let us look at the year 1938, when Slovenia was part of the then Kingdom of Yugoslavia, which itself was not exactly a model democratic state, but was still significantly more normal than what followed. At that time the average wage in Slovenia was around 80% of the aver­ age Austrian wage. The economy stood at something around 80% of the development level of its neighbours. In 1990, prior to the first free elections, the average wage in Slovenia was less than a quarter of the average wage in Austria, and even now, after 20 years, we have still not come much past half of it. And add to this the fact that we were supposedly on the winning side in the great conflict of the Second World War, and the

– 70 – Janez Janša – Today's Slovenia Had a Promising Start

Austrians on the defeated side. As if this on its own might contribute to the success, development and prosperity of the people.

When we recently perused once again the dusty files of the former Socialist Alliance of Working People in the Archives of Slovenia, we came across the lecture given by the then presi­ dent of that alliance Mitja Ribičič, in which he offered an anal­ ysis of those times. If I am not mistaken, that speech was held in 1977 or 1978, in other words back in the seventies. At that time Mitja Ribičič says that the only true danger to the regime in Slovenia was the Catholic Church. There were individual islands of resistance, or as he put it, accessories to possible counter-revolution, but they involved individuals, and not some powerful organisations. Supposedly the only organisation be­ yond total control, although there was partial control, was the Church. Translated into normal language, this means we can say that the Church was an island of normality in that abnor­ mal world. Then there were such islands of normality and some normal assessments of reality in various small intellectual cir­ cles, which gave rise to a variety of magazines and other initia­ tives. Such islands of normality existed among our compatriots abroad and around the world. One of these slightly larger is­ lands of normality existed among Slovenia’s farming commu­ nity, which had retained at least partial independence from a situation and environment that attempted on every level to find fulfilment in a direction that was not normal. It is there­ fore no coincidence that the first peer political organisation

– 71 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA that was largely or mainly independent of the then regime, was in fact the Slovene Farmers Federation. It was only in this cor­ ner that sufficient autonomy and normality was preserved to enable the first organisation in terms of serious numbers and a realistic political alternative.

Then came the breaking point. Slovenia was not an isolated is­ land of these changes. Change came throughout the commu­ nist world. Recently Poland celebrated the anniversary of Soli­ darity under the slogan “It all started in Poland”. Many things did indeed take place first in Poland, at the beginning of the eighties with Solidarity and the visit by the Pope, then Gor­ bachev came to power in the Soviet Union and finally the Ber­ lin Wall came down. With its incipient democratisation, Slov­ enia was riding on top of these waves of change, and was not a latecomer. In 1990 and 1991, when Slovenia was the first in the then Yugoslavia to embark on decisive steps, first towards democracy, and then towards independence, it was breaking new ground. There was no one in the same position, no one who Slovenia could imitate in this. Slovenia had to seek its own original solutions. When the first free elections were held in the then Yugoslavia, this was a great experiment for the whole of Europe. Suddenly there was a state within interna­ tionally recognised borders where different political systems existed. Slovenia, and with it Croatia, held democratic elec­ tions, while the others did not. Everyone knew that this could not last long. Slovenia chose a very original way of gaining in­ dependence, by voting in a referendum and holding a six-

– 72 – Janez Janša – Today's Slovenia Had a Promising Start month moratorium on the fulfilment of the resulting decision, since it was not actually ready, and since it needed that time to soften the hard international and Yugoslav stances. We did not soften them much in those six months, but we got better pre­ pared for what inevitably ensued. That transition is something that succeeded for the first time in Slovene history, and which undoubtedly forms part of the essence of the Slovene nation and the focal point of its values. At that time we also possessed sufficient unity for the internal fissures not to preclude that de­ cisive step.

I remember the time almost exactly 20 years ago, when Slov­ enia already had the plebiscite decision behind it, but not yet that final act, the declaration of an independent state. This was not a time of united fulfilment of the plebiscite will, but a time of urgent effort to ensure the fulfilment of that decision within the six months available for fulfilling the plebiscite, and also to defend it, if anyone tried to threaten it. This was a time of hard work, and also of extracting the spanners that many people were throwing in the works.

At that time we organised exercises for the Slovene Territorial Defence (TD), in which for the first time in the history of the TD a unit from Primorska moved to Dolenjska. The Territo­ rial Defence was organised primarily for the defence of terri­ tory, and not to be an army capable of manoeuvres and move­ ments. For this reason the exercise in question, while it seems quite obvious to us today, aroused a lot of discomfort in the

– 73 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA then Presidency of the republic. Although according to the then federal constitution, republic constitution and legislation, the Presidency was the collective commander of the defence forces, the only member of the Presidency prepared to come to the exercise and greet the Slovene soldiers was Ivan Oman. The President of the Presidency, Milan Kučan, and the other three members were not even willing to hear about it. In December, too, just before the plebiscite, when we put together the defen­ sive brigade in Kočevska Reka, then the strongest unit of the Slovene Territorial Defence, not a single member of the Presi­ dency came, because they considered it to be an unnecessary act. And two months later, four members of the same Presi­ dency signed the so-called peace declaration, which stated that Slovenia did not need an army. We were just about to declare independence, and just about to fulfil the plebiscite decision. We knew that Belgrade would not accept it calmly. Everything depended on whether we would manage to defend ourselves or not. Yet four members of the supreme command signed a dec­ laration, which stated that Slovenia did not need its own army. It did not bother them that there were powerful units of the Yugoslav Army in our territory. They were bothered by their own army. Ivan Oman was again the honourable exception. And he also managed somehow to tip the scales in favour of us actually being able to pursue serious defence preparations. For at that time even the defence budget – despite the fact that nowadays we hear everyone was for it – was only adopted with a one-vote majority, the defence act with a two-vote majority and the military service act with a one-vote majority.

– 74 – Janez Janša – Today's Slovenia Had a Promising Start

When we began military training at Pekre near Maribor, the president of the then Liberal Democracy party, Jožef Školč, wrote to the Presidency saying that we should immediately disband the training centres. And there were plenty of similar efforts, which if they had garnered an additional vote or two of support in parliament, would have meant that Slovenia would indeed have declared independence on 25 June 1991, but would not actually have become independent, because we would have been prevented. It could all have ended the way it did in Bos­ nia, with the great price they paid, including 100,000 dead, refugees and devastation, and still unhealed wounds. I stress the role of Ivan Oman because for the people we called up at that time to the TD, for those who had to leave everything – family, work and free time – and take part in military training, it was very important that a member of the supreme command did actually come and greet them. For them this was proof that they were doing something legitimate, something for which no one would later hold them accountable and perhaps even bring them before the courts. This was very important in those days when no one knew how things would unfold.

Twenty years ago the dreams of what Slovenia would be like two decades later are probably quite different from the reality today. Twenty years ago there was probably no one who imag­ ined that after independence, Slovenia would progress rela­ tively well economically, that it would become a member of the European Union, the NATO alliance, OECD, the Organisa­ tion for Security and Cooperation in Europe and would even

– 75 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA head these two organisations, and that at one time it would also become a non-permanent member of the Security Coun­ cil. In short, that a nation of two million with a barely estab­ lished state would become formally equal to nations that have had their own state for centuries and have forged the fate of Europe throughout its modern history. Yet all this took place more optimistically than the majority anticipated. If we look at the statistics, results and performance, we would be hardly dis­ appointed in the path we have taken.

When Slovenia embarked on its independent life after the first elections and independence, it was alone, especially during those first few days, when we were attacked. Over those days, 26, 27 and 28 June 1991, no other country had recognised us, no world politician supported us, and everyone was saying that this was an internal Yugoslav affair, and the Yugoslavs should solve it among themselves. Everyone expected the Yugoslav Army to deal quickly with this piece of “theatrics”, and that ­Yugoslavia would remain as it was. At that time we felt be­ trayed. We believed that we had the right to self-determination, which was even in fact written into the then Yugoslav constitu­ tion. This meant that our decision was not just legitimate, but also legal in terms of the existing legislation. We held a plebi­ scite. We threatened no one. We offered a long period of time for the withdrawal of the Yugoslav Army, and so on. Neverthe­ less, they tried to stop us with force. Yet in those first few days, regardless of those facts, we were on our own. The message that came from around the world was: “It’s their internal affair.”

– 76 – Janez Janša – Today's Slovenia Had a Promising Start

The situation changed once we defended ourselves; interna­ tional recognition came and world politicians changed their views. Here a major role was played by the then European Christian Democracy, the European People’s Party, the then German Chancellor Kohl, who was probably the key Euro­ pean figure in the changing of those views, and of course the Vatican, which was a state or entity with enormous moral au­ thority, and was among the first to recognise Slovenia.

We then followed events in Croatia and Bosnia. Even when Milošević’s army was settling its score with Bosnia and the people there, who were naked and barefoot, the international community kept up the embargo. On one side there was Milošević’s or indeed Mladić’s army, whatever its formal title, armed to the teeth, and on the other side the Bosnians, whom the international community had prevented from exercising self-defence by imposing an embargo on new arms imports. This of course meant that whoever had weapons had an enor­ mous advantage. For several years the international commu­ nity talked about whether to intervene or not. At that time Slovenia was quite solidly on the side of those that had been attacked. We also experienced the direct consequences of that, with 70,000 refugees from Bosnia in our territory. This was also a major economic burden for us. Nevertheless, on the question of the attitude to their right to defend themselves, the attitude to what took priority – a calculation of whether a par­ ticular state would remain whole, or whether we would protect people’s lives and their right to freedom and dignity and the

– 77 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA respect of human rights – in 1992, 1993 and 1994 Slovenia was pretty much united. We advocated for the weaker side in Bosnia and did a great deal to get the international commu­ nity finally to intervene, and then came the Dayton Agree­ ment.

We could say that Slovenia’s present-day started quite pro­ misingly. Steps were taken in good time, they were properly ­apportioned, we gained the approval of the entire free world for those steps, and then we also gained international recogni­ tion. Based on what Slovenia had done, or based on the capital garnered by Slovenia at that time of independence, there was a considerable payback for Croatian independence and the in­ ternational recognition of Bosnia-Herzegovina and then also of Macedonia. For indeed the capital we had garnered in some way convinced the international public that this was the right path. Things did not turn out everywhere as fortunately as in Slovenia. Just as the international community underestimated Slovenia’s capacity for these steps, it overestimated the capac­ ity in other cases in the former Yugoslav territories. This caused numerous false moves and actions, which were paid for in thousands and tens of thousands of lives and in a hundred thousand refugees, as well as vast damage and consequences which, in the case of Bosnia, have still not been remedied and will not be for a long time.

If we are talking about Slovenia, we can say that it was a very promising time. Sadly it lasted a very short time. When we

– 78 – Janez Janša – Today's Slovenia Had a Promising Start adopted the first constitution in December 1991, we were not even recognised internationally. International recognition was promised, but it only came several weeks later. We adopted a social contract, on the basis of which we expected, or the great majority expected, that we would take advantage of this mo­ mentum of independence and democratisation, this momen­ tum gained in the exit from some abnormal period and envi­ ronment, to effect a more rapid shift to a period of normality. Especially since we hoped that the external environment, which henceforth would be our own environment, in other words the European environment, would be significantly more friendly towards Slovenia than our neighbourhood had been at any other time in our history.

This last hope was fulfilled. Since the adoption of our constitu­ tion and ever since international recognition, the attitude to Slovenia from those around us has changed only for the better. Slovenia has become an internationally recognised country, and the Slovenes have become an internationally recognised entity with great credit for the step that took us to independ­ ence and democratisation. We became members of various in­ ternational associations, and formally equal to nations hun­ dreds of times bigger. We became a member of the European Union, we secured our future in NATO, we changed our cur­ rency and adopted the euro, entering the European monetary union. In the end we also became a member of the OECD, the organisation of the most developed countries in the world, which supposedly adheres to or observes, at least where it in­

– 79 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA volves economic development, highly demanding standards. Twenty years ago, no doubt no one dared even dream that all this would happen, and under terms and progress that really were so favourable. I, too, could not imagine all of this. If we make a comparison regarding the economic situation, then given the fact that at the beginning of these steps we were earning a quarter of the Austrian wage, today’s situation shows that Slovenia has made progress. At the end of 2008, according to statistical data available at that time, we attained 91% of the European average, while 20 years ago we were below 50%. In these years we have made great developmental strides. Unfor­ tunately in the last two years we have slipped below 90%, but fortunately this slide has not, at least not yet, been historically irreversible.

Yet if we look at how Slovenia has developed internally in the direction of some normal society, the picture is of course differ­ ent. Not quite so bright or optimistic. This picture points to numerous wasted opportunities and plenty of backtracking. It points to a lot of things once again being as they were yester­ day. On the transition to a normal state of affairs or at least to formal normality, it seemed that some things would never re­ turn. But that is happening today, despite Europe, despite NATO, and despite everything else that surrounds us exter­ nally. Twenty years ago, some streets in Slovene towns and cit­ ies shed their old names, and got back the original names they had decades or centuries earlier, before communism renamed them. Today we are once again retrograde on the point where

– 80 – Janez Janša – Today's Slovenia Had a Promising Start these names are returning. If I can mention just the renaming or the return of Tito Street (Titova ulica) in Ljubljana. Twenty years ago, no one imagined that the Slovene central bank, with the agreement of the government, would “smuggle” the com­ munist star – despite Europe – onto a euro coin adorned with Mary’s Crown of Stars, which are the symbol of Europe. Twen­ ty years ago this was unimaginable. It was itself unimaginable that in twenty years we would have the European currency. But that it would bear a star, which we had then barely cast off, just a few days before independence, through tough negotiations in parliament to reach a two-thirds majority, was something no one could imagine, not in their worst nightmare. Yet this hap­ pened. Still, you will say that in itself this is not important, it doesn’t affect people’s prosperity, it doesn’t increase wages a bit nor reduce our bills, and petrol is no cheaper.

But this kind of thinking is wrong. Abnormality leads to chaos, which is the main opponent of prosperity and normal develop­ ment. The system that ruled yesterday was extremely capable in certain areas. In the area of propaganda it was unsurpassed. There was no regime in known history that was better at prop­ aganda, at brain-washing, at twisting the truth and propagat­ ing lies. The system that ruled yesterday was extremely good at controlling people. If you have the time, go to the Archives of Slovenia, while it is still at least partly open, and have a wander through what remains of the archives of that earlier period and the former secret service. There you can find thousands of piec­ es of evidence about what the regime did to control people,

– 81 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA and in this, seen in their terms, it was highly successful. But what the regime of yesterday did not know how to do was to manage normal things. Allowing the milieu and freedom or free human will to develop its entrepreneurial potential, the individual to develop his own personal potential for his own and the common good. The regime that ruled yesterday did not know how to create such a milieu.

In Slovenia in the middle of the nineties there was still a basic feeling of what was right and not right, including where it in­ volved others. Then came 2011 and the time we are living to­ day. What we could call democratic revolutions have taken place in North Africa and the Middle East. Slovenia’s official political leadership issued a message that was the same as the message given by the international community about us, when we were attacked. Our national president and foreign minister stated that they were against the international community in­ tervening in Libya. It is their internal affair. On the one hand we have Gadafi, with the entire army and arsenals of weapons and power, and on the other hand rebels who are more or less naked and barefoot, and the situation that was presented to us or to the Bosniaks in Bosnia. Slovenia’s official political leader­ ship meanwhile has declared that it is an internal matter for Libya if Gadafi kills poorly armed rebels. We are against the international community intervening. Of course in a couple of days a UN Security Council Resolution was passed. Thank God others were not thinking in the same way.

– 82 – Janez Janša – Today's Slovenia Had a Promising Start

But right now I am not talking about Libya, but about Slove­ nia. How is it possible that after 20 years we are not placing at the forefront those values for which we emerged as a state and a nation. And we are not acknowledging other people the rights that we eventually took for ourselves. Instead of advo­ cating these values, we are talking in the same way as those who wanted to abandon us to the Yugoslav Army. As far as this path is concerned, we have taken the wrong direction. It is wrong in its very foundations. If we all acted in this way, then today the world would be witnessing many more dictatorships and more suppression of human rights, there would be more refugees and there would be complete chaos.

We Slovenes are also the only nation that considers itself civi­ lised yet has not been able to bury its dead for 20 years. There is no other nation and no other country that would have such an attitude to the dead. Regardless of what anyone thinks about why anyone was killed, and why they died. Even thousands of years ago nations or peoples knew that the dead needed to be buried and this was a question of basic reverence for the dead. They did not talk about people rummaging through bones, or when faced with the demand for respect of basic civilised val­ ues, start up a cultural battle that simply distracts us from the challenges of the future.

Twenty years ago such an attitude was not possible, except per­ haps among some rare individuals. Today in some way this is considerably more widely accepted, and it is wrong in its es­

– 83 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA sence. You cannot build a tolerant society and a normal com­ munity without respect of the fundamental values that existed even before our Charter of Fundamental Human Rights.

In his speech at this year’s Pučnik Days, organised by the Jože Pučnik Institute and also dedicated to the 20th anniversary of Slovene independence, Academician Niko Grafenauer said that society or the state can adopt any kind of treaty, but it is worthless if there is no fundamental ethical imperative. The word you give must be honoured. You have to do the right thing. But none of this applies. If we talk today about what Slovenia will be like in 20 years, what its democracy will be like, how we will be living in it, how we will develop, these are vital issues. It is important for us to make economic progress, and instead of 2% we should be giving 4% for research and de­ velopment. It is important for us to have economic growth, to create sufficient for those who cannot provide for themselves a decent life and so on. For us to show solidarity. But none of this is possible in the normal framework, if there is not some fundamental awareness of what is right and what is wrong. And if the rules do not apply equally for all. These are the es­ sential things. These then provide the foundations both for normal economic development and normal social develop­ ment. On this foundation, younger generations can grow up in a healthy environment, otherwise everything is a kind of jun­ gle. What is happening, and the situation we are in now, is no coincidence. It has been deliberate.

– 84 – Janez Janša – Today's Slovenia Had a Promising Start

Right after the elections in 1990, we heard from the highest position in Slovenia the contention that there exist several truths. Those who previously had peddled the lie of a single grandiose truth, suddenly started talking about how several truths existed. This is fundamental nonsense. Yet in Slovenia this was declared from the highest authority. The logical con­ clusion of this was that if there are several truths, then in the end the dominant one is the one told through the most power­ ful loudspeakers, the one backed up by the strongest propa­ ganda and duplicated. That was how it was done for 20 years. And for this reason in numerous areas today we have strayed further in the wrong direction than 20 years ago.

The other contention offered up right at the beginning of Slov­ enia’s democracy was that the Berlin Wall had come down on both sides. This notion was also promulgated from the highest authority in the then barely democratised Slovenia. The think­ ing was that yes, the Berlin Wall had been brought down, but on both sides. This does not mean that it was the values of Western democracy, freedom and respect of human rights as well as market economy that prevailed, but that now there was some kind of mixture, the bricks had fallen down on both sides and it was still to be seen who had won. Slovenia is the only country where someone in the highest office of state could speak such nonsense, and this view even gained traction and was subject to discussion, with symposiums even being held on the topic. In Germany, when the left-wing party that succeed­ ed the former East German communist party also latched on

– 85 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA to this idea, German intellectual circles subjected it to unbri­ dled ridicule. In Slovenia it was quite the other way around. After 20 years of acting on the basis of such paradigms it is no wonder that in some areas we are back where we were. Owing to the propaganda machinery, which is extremely powerful, in a few weeks some fact can be entirely turned around.

Democracy – if we are going to discuss it – assumes that those vying for favour with the voters have roughly the same scope for presenting their agendas, and that voters can choose and judge based on real facts. Here before the elections there is al­ ways some issue at the forefront which has absolutely no con­ nection with what is actually important for Slovenia’s future. We usually refer to such issues as scandals. And the nation is always deprived of a fruitful debate about how things should develop in the next four years and what they can expect from those that will run the government. In Slovenia we have never actually had such debate. There was perhaps most discussion before the first democratic elections in April 1990. Then eve­ rything became hazy. And this influences 40% of the electoral body that does not show up to the elections, because these vot­ ers think that if the only issue at stake is some unimportant thing that is now being presented as the main bone of conten­ tion and dominating the newspapers, then they simply do not care what the result is.

Given that numerous issues are coming back, in areas where we might at first glance have thought that there is no link with

– 86 – Janez Janša – Today's Slovenia Had a Promising Start history – such as the star on the euro coin – we also have a sit­ uation for which a description would require too much space if we went into detail. But I can provide a few facts. Never thus far in its history, apart from directly after the transition to a new economic system, has Slovenia faced such a number of unemployed people as we have today and as are forecast for the end of this year. Never before in Slovenia have we paid so much for petrol, although two or three years ago crude oil was ­significantly more expensive than it is today. In December 2008 you paid a little over 80 cents for a litre of petrol, while today the price per litre is 68% higher. Meanwhile, oil is cheap­ er in the international markets than it was in 2008. So we have some kind of approximation or an almost complete turna­ round, a return to the situation that prevailed yesterday, char­ acterised by those in power being geniuses at propaganda, at controlling, at turning things around and at advocating notions that there are several truths and that the winner is whoever propagandises their truth louder and whoever has the biggest loudspeakers. But they did not know how to run the economy. They did not know how to ensure the normal course of things. They did not know, nor do they know today, how to remove road toll stations from roads, even though the prepayment road toll vignettes have been in effect for several years. This detail, you will say, is unimportant, but it is very significant. Millions of Slovenes, as well as those transiting Slovenia, have to drive at 30 or 40 kilometres an hour through all the road toll sta­ tions. For this reason we are using up thousands of tons more petrol each year and polluting the environment. The speed re­

– 87 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA strictions at the road toll stations are leading to accidents, while now they have installed radars to collect fines for offences, and it is entirely pointless. We have returned to a time when they were not able to deal with the most basic problem, yet they were geniuses in certain other areas that served to ensure they stayed in power.

In conclusion we need to ask whether these things will con­ tinue to head in the wrong direction, or can the direction be changed. There is no answer to this question. We will all give it together. Not just at the coming elections – for if things have really gone adrift, then the elections will not solve much – but also in our everyday actions. It depends on each individual hav­ ing sufficient courage to give things their real name. To not fear – if they advocate the respectful burial of the dead – being accused of rummaging through bones and getting involved with the past and that no one is interested in this. It is up to all of us whether we see that the emperor is naked, whether we dare to say it, or whether we remain opportunistically silent. This is a key factor, and on it depends whether things will start to change and whether we will turn towards the direction that Slovenia took upon its democratisation and independence.

The opportunity for this comes not just every four years, but every day. This is the power we have today. This is the differ­ ence brought by the period of independence and democratisa­ tion. The power of the individual, the power of his voice. But that power works only if we use it. If we do not use what we

– 88 – Janez Janša – Today's Slovenia Had a Promising Start have, then other people will decide instead of us and we can all head together in the wrong direction.

The most fundamental thing of all, in terms of the question where we are going in the next 20 years, is the question wheth­ er we will be capable of establishing a society or community in which we will know clearly what is right and what is not. A society in which the laws and rules will apply equally to all. The very fact of starting to establish such a society and such a com­ munity will put everything else in its proper place. In every community where the rules apply equally to all, things start to get in order. For a community in which the economy can progress normally is also a community in which young people have prospects. In such environments there are no disputes about what the final objective is. There has been practically no discussion of this in Slovenia over the past 20 years. We had to get into this situation for such discussion to actually begin, but even now it is limited to certain media, those that are opening up space for such discussion, and awareness is gradually spread­ ing. At the symposium Slovenia 2.0, part of this year’s Days of Jože Pučnik, it was said that things in the coming months will change very quickly for one reason. And that reason is, that we will run out of money. We will no longer be able to get loans. We will all be faced with a problem that cannot be hushed up. It was for this reason that the former Soviet Union collapsed, for this reason Yugoslavia collapsed, and it will also sober Slov­ enia up. Yet this will be no soft landing, and time is also a very important factor here.

– 89 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

What should Slovenia be like tomorrow, and what do the ma­ jority of Slovenes expect from Slovenia tomorrow? If we could condense expectations into one sentence, then we could say that we expect Slovenia tomorrow to be more normal than what was yesterday and more normal than what is today. The transition is not yet finished. Expressed in a Biblical image, we could say that we are still crossing the Red Sea. That the walls of water on the left and right are gradually getting higher and higher, and they might also deluge the people trying to get back to their homeland. The future is not guaranteed. Just how quickly we can get to normality also depends on what it will cost. The longer we travel, the higher the price.

The answer does not lie in coincidence or fate, nor in what will happen if it happens. The answer is in ourselves. Slovenia suc­ ceeded in making the formal breakthrough to democracy and its own statehood and independence, because many people wanted this and also strove for it. In the beginning individuals, then increasingly more. And when sufficient energy was gath­ ered, the dam burst and the water flowed on. The same thing must happen for the transition to a normal state of affairs. Those surrounding us on the outside will not do it for us. Those on the outside will just grin and bear it if they see the commu­ nist star on a euro coin, because that is not a major problem for them. It is our problem. And we have to solve it. The more of us that are aware of this, the sooner we will get to a period of normality.

– 90 – dr. Dimitrij Rupel

Najboljši dosežek v zgodovini

25. junija 1991 je slovenski parlament sprejel Deklaracijo o(b) neodvisnosti in ustrezne ustavne listine, 7. julija je sledil spora­ zum z Evropsko unijo na Brionih, 29. novembra je razpad Ju­ goslavije ugotovila Badinterova arbitražna komisija, 16. de­ cembra je neodvisnost Slovenije priznala Evropska unija, 23. de­cembra je bila sprejeta ustava Prve republike, 26. decembra pa je razpadla tudi Sovjetska zveza. Slovenska država bo stara dvajset let.

Tupatam se oglašajo dvomi o smiselnosti te države. Mnogi so razo­ čarani nad današnjimi razmerami, nekateri obžalujejo razpad ­Jugoslavije. Sliši se vprašanje: smo se za to borili? Dvajseta oblet­ nica sovpada z resno krizo, ki jo ponekod razlagajo kot stranski proizvod svetovne finančne krize, ponekod – predvsem v krogih vladajoče tranzicijske levice – pa jo celo pripisujejo politiki osa­ mosvajanja in njenim nosilcem okrog leta 1991. Ko bi bila sedanje krize kriva osamosvojitev, ne bi bilo kaj proslavljati, in res, tupa­

– 91 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE tam nastaja vtis, kot da se pripravljamo na praznovanje obletnice nesporazuma, če ne celo zgodovinske zmote.

Najnovejša slovenska kriza seveda ni posledica slovenske neod­ visnosti, ampak njenega zaničevanja. V Sloveniji nimamo težav z neodvisno državnostjo, ampak s ponarejanjem življenja pred njo, z nekakšnim domotožjem po privilegijih nekdanje (jugoslovanske partijske) elite. Tej je kljub osamosvojitvi in po njej uspevalo ohra­ niti pomembne vzvode oblasti, dokler je ni – pod novimi imeni – popolnoma prevzela leta 2008. Lansko leto je odlikovala šefa nek­ danje politične policije (Udbe), letos pa je celo zaprla dostop do njenih arhivov. Tega dogajanja seveda ni več mogoče uskladiti s Prvo republiko, ki je nastala pred dvajsetimi leti. Idejo o Drugi republiki je - po mojem prepričanju – treba razumeti kot pobudo za vrnitev k izviru slovenske državnosti, ne pa k razmeram, ki so jo onemogočale. Druga republika ni nič drugega kot uresničitev de­ mokratičnih zahtev iz leta 1991 in potrditev slovenske državnosti, ki jo je navsezadnje priznala in sprejela tudi mednarodna skup­ nost. Ta seveda ne podpira rehabilitacije sistema, ki je temeljil na partijskem monopolu, na diktatu tajne policije in celo na državnem terorizmu.

Pisec teh vrstic sem bil med pobudniki in ustanovitelji prve sloven­ ske države, ves čas sem bil pozorna priča njenega delovanja, pol te­ ga časa pa njen zunanji minister. Moj odgovor na morebitne dvo­ me in vprašanja je: praznovanje dvajsete obletnice je priložnost za potrditev spoznanja, da je bila osamosvojitev najboljši slo­ venski dosežek v zgodovini.

– 92 – Dimitrij Rupel – Najboljši dosežki v zgodovini

I. Jugoslovanska kriza in rešitev Slovenije (1971–1991)

(Naša zgodovina) Do zadnjega kotička nagnetenemu in raz­ burkanemu sledi polprazen in do zadnje podrobnosti pospra­ vljen ekran. Tisočglavemu zboru z zmečkanimi in raztrganimi zastavami sledi solistični nastop ikone z negibnimi in zlikanimi zastavami. Na eni strani jezne množice, na drugi strani vzviše­ ni gospodar. Živimo v času vsestranske povezanosti in pregle­ dnosti, zato so pojmi kot arogantnost, avtoritarnost in diktatura na slabšem glasu, kot bi bili sicer.

O dogodkih pred dvajsetimi leti je seveda mogoče premišljeva­ ti predvsem na podlagi spominov in dokumentov, nemogoče pa se je izogniti primerjavam z aktualnim dogajanjem po svetu. V današnjih demonstracijah in pouličnih bojih prepoznavamo sestavine srednjeevropske in tudi slovenske pomladi pred dvaj­ setimi leti. Vznemirjenje se širi celo med državljani in državni­ ki na Kitajskem. Postali smo alergični na samovšečne – pa tudi na malodušne – voditelje, ki se sproti spreminjajo v metafore za krizo.

Balkanski kulturni in narodnostni boji se z ustanovitvijo nove srbsko-hrvaško-slovenske države po prvi svetovni vojni niso končali oz. razrešili. Jugoslavija – pa naj jo je vodil kralj ali predsednik – je bila vedno v krizi. Zadnja kriza (nove) Jugo­ slavije se je začela decembra 1971 na partijski konferenci v ­Karađorđevu, ko je Tito obračunal s hrvaškimi »nacionalisti«, ki sta jih vodila Dabčevićeva in Tripalo. Jeseni 1972 se je s

– 93 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE

­Titovim (in Dolančevim) pismom partijskemu članstvu kriza, ki se je izrazila v obliki klasične partijske diktature, razširila po vsej Jugoslaviji. V Sloveniji so takrat odstavili predsednika vlade Staneta Kavčiča, ki je predstavljal nekakšno reformi­ stično, »liberalno« krilo slovenskih komunistov. Vendar so se razmere v Srednji oz. v Vzhodni Evropi (počasi tudi v Jugo­ slaviji) po podpisu Helsinške listine leta 1975 začele spremi­ njati. 6. januarja 1977 je skupina čeških in slovaških oporečni­ kov, med katerimi je bil tudi Vaclav Havel, objavila Listino 1977; 16. novembra 1978 pa je postal papež ( Janez Pavel II.) Poljak Karol Wojtyła. Nato so si sledili še mnogi zanimivi do­ godki:

17. septembra 1979 se Udbi ponesreči bombni atentat v Veli­ kovcu, 25. decembra 1979 Danilo Türk postane predsednik Komisije za manjšinska in izseljenska vprašanja pri RK SZDL, 9. aprila 1980 sprejmejo zakon o usmerjenem izobraževanju, 4. maja 1980 v Ljubljani umre Josip Broz Tito, 11. junija 1980 pride do pobude za ustanovitev Nove revije, 23. junija 1980 na Dunaju poteka sodni proces proti atentator­ jema iz Velikovca, 1. julija 1980 Jernej Jan o tem procesu obvesti Danila Türka, 17. avgusta 1980 Poljaki ustanovijo sindikat Solidarnost (Lech Wałęsa), 20. januarja 1981 Ronald Reagan postane ameriški predsed­ nik, 1982-1986: Milka Planinc predsednica jugoslovanske vlade,

– 94 – Dimitrij Rupel – Najboljši dosežki v zgodovini

omejevanje potovanj v tujino (depoziti) in voženj z avtomo­ bili (bencinski boni), 1983: predlog o poenotenju šolstva v SFRJ (skupna šolska je­ dra), 11. marca 1985 Mihail Gorbačov postane generalni sekretar KP SZ.

Sredi osemdesetih let je Srbska akademija znanosti in umetnosti (SANU) objavila znani Memorandum SANU, sredi februarja 1987 pa je izšla 57. številka Nove revije, ki so jo 26. februarja obsodili na 23. seji predsedstva CK ZK Slovenije pod predsed­ stvom Milana Kučana in 27. februarja na 68. seji predsedstva Republiške konference SZDL pod vodstvom Jožeta Smoleta. Marca 1988 sta Igor Bavčar in Janez Janša izdala Dnevnik in spomine Staneta Kavčiča. 22. marca 1988 je delovna skupina Društva slovenskih pisateljev in Slovenskega sociološkega društva začela pisati novo slovensko ustavo. 29. marca 1988 je bila v Beogradu seja predsedstva CK ZKJ, ki so jo sklicali »zaradi razprave o osnutku stališč v zvezi z napadi na JLA«. V gradivu za sejo piše, »da gre za zavestno in koordinirano odkrito aktiv­ nost sil specialne vojne z očitno subverzivnimi nameni, za zve­ zo s sovražno emigracijo, in da so redakcije samo izvajalci ti­ stih, ki stojijo za njimi.« 25. aprila 1988 Bavčar in Janša v Časopisu za kritiko znanosti objavita Gradivo za slovensko usta­ vo. 12. maja 1988 je bila v Ljubljani ustanovljena Slovenska kmečka zveza; čez nekaj dni pa smo se (Grafenauer, Hribarja, jaz) v Bohinju sestali z dr. Francetom Bučarjem. Sledili so novi zanimivi dogodki:

– 95 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE

31. maja 1988 so aretirali Janeza Janšo in Ivana Borštnerja. 2. junija je bil v Cankarjevem domu Zbor slovenskih kulturnih delavcev, ki je sprejel protestno izjavo v zvezi z Janševo are­ tacijo in na katerem sem (avtor teh vrstic) predlagal ustano­ vitev Zveze slovenskih kulturnih delavcev. 3. junija 1988 je bil ustanovljen Bavčarjev Odbor za varstvo člo­ vekovih pravic, 3. junija 1988 začetek osvobodilnega gibanja Sajudis v Litvi (Landsbergis), 7. junija pa se je v Društvu slovenskih pisateljev začela serija 36 protestnih literarnih večerov. Od 18. do 27. julija je trajal proces proti četverici JBTZ pred ljubljanskim vojaškim sodiščem. Jeseni 1988 je bila vrsta sestankov na Kersnikovi 4 (Drevenšek, Magajna, Resnik, Rupel, Tomšič).

15. decembra 1988 je ustanovni odbor Slovenske demokratične zveze (SDZ) objavil programsko izjavo. Kritizirali smo neuspeš­ nost političnega sistema, jugoslovanski centralizem in zaosta­ janje za evropskim razvojem. Glavna cilja sta bila postavitev parlamentarne demokracije in izdelava nove slovenske ustave, »ki bo temeljila na človekovih pravicah in ki bo jasno in na no­ vo opredelila slovensko državnost«. SDZ je predlagala pristop k Evropski skupnosti. Pred novim letom smo se predstavniki združene opozicije (Oman, Tomšič in jaz) tajno sestali v štu­ dentskem naselju. 11. januarja 1989 smo v Cankarjevem domu uradno ustanovili SDZ. V govoru na množično obiskanem ustanovnem kongresu sem omenjal svetovno krizo in zgodo­

– 96 – Dimitrij Rupel – Najboljši dosežki v zgodovini vinske zablode socializma (od Dolomitske izjave in poboja do­ mobrancev do vojaških procesov). Predlagal sem konec izred­ nega stanja v državi in se zavzel za novo razdelitev političnega prostora v Sloveniji, torej za večstrankarski sistem. Končal sem z besedami: »Demokracije ni brez suverenosti, suverenosti ni brez demokracije!« V vodstvo stranke s(m)o bili takrat izvolje­ ni Janez Janša, Alojz Križman, Ivan Oman, Tomaž Pisanski, Hubert Požarnik, Samo Resnik, Dimitrij Rupel in Boštjan M. Zupančič. Temu so že spet sledili novi pomembni dogodki, ki so neizbežno vodili k novi neodvisni in demokratični slovenski državi:

16. februarja 1989 ustanovitev SDZS, 23. februarja 1989 Zbor za ustavo, 8. maja 1989 objavljena Majniška deklaracija, 8. maja 1989 Slobodan Milošević postane predsednik Srbije, 9. novembra 1989 pade Berlinski zid, 27. novembra 1989 ustanovitev koalicije DEMOS. 17. januarja 1990 v CD shod opozicije (DEMOS) z naslovom Prihodnost Slovenije, 8. aprila 1990 prve demokratične volitve v Sloveniji, 16. maja 1990 prva demokratična vlada, 23. decembra 1990: plebiscit za Prvo republiko, 25. junija 1991: razglasitev neodvisnosti, 7. julija 1991: Brionska deklaracija, 27. avgusta 1991 ustanovijo arbitražno komisijo pod vodstvom R. Badintera, 7. septembra 1991 se začne konferenca o Jugoslaviji v Haagu,

– 97 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE

25. septembra 1991 VS OZN uvede embargo na uvoz orožja za vso Jugoslavijo, 25. oktobra 1991 JLA zapusti Slovenijo, 29. novembra 1991 Badinterova komisija ugotovi razpad Jugo­ slavije, 16. decembra 1991 zunanji ministri EU sklenejo mednarodno priznanje Slovenije, 26. decembra 1991 razpade Sovjetska zveza.

II. Slovenska kriza in rešitev za Slovenijo (1991–2011)

(Primerjava 1991-2011) Dvajset let nazaj, v poznih osemdese­ tih letih prejšnjega stoletja je sredi Evrope prišlo do velikan­ skih političnih in gospodarskih zadreg, do obračuna med jezni­ mi množicami in vzvišenimi ikonami; do spora med poslušnimi in daljnovidnimi politiki. Običajno in razumljivo so bili prvi »profesionalci«, drugi pa amaterji. Ti spori so pripeljali do pad­ ca komunističnih režimov, vključno s sovjetskim imperijem, in do rešitve »ujetih« narodov, vključno s Slovenci. Časovna odda­ ljenost in menjave generacij zamegljujejo istovetnosti glavnih avtorjev, igralcev in druge temeljne značilnosti tistega časa. Večkrat pozabimo, kdo je bil na odru in kdo med poslušalci (ali prisluškovalci), pa tudi na prispevke iz zaodrja, na režiserje, bi­ ljeterje, blagajničarke in garderoberke.

V umetni megli so se tako rekoč izgubila zgodovinska dejstva od partijske in oznovske/udbovske diktature, povojnih pobojev,

– 98 – Dimitrij Rupel – Najboljši dosežki v zgodovini montiranih procesov, nastanka »novega razreda«, državnih po­ vezav z avtoritarnimi režimi v Afriki, Aziji in Latinski Ameri­ ki… do zapiranja in zatiranja neposlušnih intelektualcev in še posebej duhovnikov, »skupnih jeder« in »usmerjenega izobra­ ževanja«. V prijazni meglici nekdanjosti se izgubljajo fantastič­ na inflacija, znameniti varčevalni ukrepi (depoziti, par-nepar), dejstvo, da je takrat večina državljanov živela v pomanjkanju in da smo si najbolj želeli potovanj iz socialističnih v kapitalistič­ ne dežele. Podobno kot leta 1914 ali leta 1938 je bila za prelom potrebna kriza, ki je razdelila države in ljudstva na »naše« in »njihove«. Za Jugoslavijo je bila največja tragedija, da uradna jugoslovanska, predvsem srbska politika ni sprevidela politič­ nih in drugih anahronizmov; da ni razumela prelomnosti tre­ nutka in se je postavila na »napačno« stran zgodovine. Srbija ni sledila češkemu, madžarskemu, poljskemu ali npr. slovenskemu zgledu. Zgodovina si – kot se običajno dogaja – ni vzela veliko časa za podrobnosti. Jugoslavija je razpadla, na noge smo pos­ tavili Slovenijo in konec. Takšno je stanje stvari in tako bo osta­ lo do naslednje katastrofe.

Zaenkrat še ni bila prepričljivo ovržena domneva, da je bila ustanovitev samostojne nacionalne države najboljši dosežek v zgodovini Slovencev. Ob tem ni mogoče spregledati dejstva, da nekateri temu oporekajo, in seveda dejstva, da je ta država po dvajsetih letih obstoja v resnih težavah, iz česar nekateri (predvsem tisti, ki so leta 1991 sedeli v parterju ali švigali za odrom) sklepajo, da »ustanovitev samostojne nacionalne dr­ žave« nemara ni bila najboljši dosežek v slovenski zgodovini.

– 99 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE

Tu se želim nekoliko podrobneje ukvarjati s takšnim sklepa­ njem.

(Nezadovoljstvo s sodobnostjo ali »Življenje je nekje drugje«1) Značilno za pesnike je, da slavijo minule čase. Nekoč je bila, kot pravi Ovid, zlata doba, v kateri so ljudje sami od sebe, brez zakonov, prostovoljno skrbeli za veljavo dobrega in resničnega. Ni bilo niti strahu niti kazni: nobenih groženj, nobene ponižne množice, ki bi se bala sodnikov, živeli so varno brez zaščite... Slavna preteklost je navdihnila Prešernov Krst pri Savici 2 in ce­ lo Zdravljico3. Mnoge svete knjige in izročila govorijo o reševa­ nju z vrnitvijo pokopanega življenja.

Ljudje v zrelejših letih – razumljivo – povzdigujejo čas svoje mladosti. V kraljevski Jugoslaviji so hvalili cesarsko Avstrijo, v predsedniški Jugoslaviji so – posebej starejši meščani in bolj na samem – hvalili »predvojne čase«. Danes vse pogosteje slišimo pohvale bivše države, Tita, sožitja z »bratskimi narodi« in celo socializma, in to od mladih ljudi, ki vseh teh pojavov niso poz­ nali. Je mogoče, da imajo starejši rajši novejše, mlajši pa starejše čase?? V vsakem primeru je mogoče reči, da je Slovenija zašla v težave, pravzaprav v resno krizo. Je prišel čas za novo državo? Je to vprašanje povezano z idejo druge republike, o kateri se go­ vori?

1 Život je jinde (Življenje je nekje drugje) je naslov romana češkega pisatelja Milana Kun­ dere, ki je izšel leta 1973. 2 »Na tleh leže Slovenstva stebri stari.« 3 »Edinost, sreča, sprava k nam naj nazaj se vrnejo... da oblast in z njo čast, ko pred, spet naša bosta last!«

– 100 – Dimitrij Rupel – Najboljši dosežki v zgodovini

V zadnjih stotih letih so nas poleg drugih sprememb doletele tri državne preobrazbe in vse so bile povezane z vojskovanjem: s prvo in drugo svetovno vojno pa z jugoslovansko krizo. Ni mogoče reči, da so šle vse preobrazbe v isto smer, da so bile do­ sledne, ali da smo z njimi vedno pridobivali. Naše preobrazbe so prinašale zmanjševanje državnega, pa tudi (vendar ne vedno) etničnega ozemlja. Od države do države so kulturne pravice v glavnem naraščale, demokracija, zaščita človekovih pravic in gospodarski dosežki pa so nihali, celo v isti državi. Največja sprememba je prišla z neodvisnostjo leta 1991. Če pomislimo, da smo zapustili državo vsesplošnega pomanjkanja, v kateri so bili razveseljivi predvsem pojavi oz. izdelki »iz uvoza« in tisti, ki so jih doma naredili »za izvoz«; če pomislimo, da v njej druž­ boslovje ni nadomestilo le bogoslovja, ampak celo naravoslovje, bi nemara lahko dosegli splošno soglasje, da je bila najnovejša preobrazba, torej ustanovitev nacionalne države, najboljši dose­ žek v zgodovini.

Soglasja ne bo preprosto doseči predvsem zaradi vprašanja av­ torstva oz. očetovstva tega najboljšega dosežka. Kot smo brali v knjigi Piera Fassina Per passione, so slovenski komunistični vo­ ditelji rotili svoje italijanske tovariše, naj ne priznajo neodvis­ nosti slovenske države, ki je niso dosegli oni, ampak »desnica«.

Bi lahko vseeno dosegli splošno soglasje? Vendar se pojavljata dve vrsti nezadovoljstva. Nekateri pravijo, da je bilo bolje nekoč v socialistični Jugoslaviji, drugi, da tako ne gre več naprej. Pravza­ prav imata obe nezadovoljstvi nekaj skupnega (»tako ne gre več

– 101 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE naprej«), seveda pod pogojem, da to, kar pravita, tudi zares mi­ slita. To pa ni povsem gotovo, saj za nekatere spremembe po vsej priliki ni nobenih možnosti. Najbrž ni mogoče obuditi so­ cialistične Jugoslavije, prav tako nikogar ne mika, da bi zaradi najnovejše preobrazbe tvegal vojno. Zelo verjetno prva skupina nezadovoljnih ne razmišlja o socialistični Jugoslaviji, ampak o socialistični Sloveniji oz. o svoji Sloveniji, druga pa za spre­ membe ni pripravljena žrtvovati neodvisne države (ki je med drugim članica EU, NATO in OECD), ampak razmišlja o spremembah v okviru obstoječe države, vendar ne v smeri so­ cializma. Torej v resnici ne more iti za novo državo, ampak kve­ čjemu za drugačno ureditev v tisti državi, ki že je. Na tej točki bi lahko prišlo do soglasja. Vendar je pred preurejanjem potreben posnetek dejanskega položaja.

(Težave v gospodarstvu) Slovenija se – kot poročajo UMAR in praktično vsi slovenski mediji in kar je navsezadnje očitno iz vsakdanjih izkušenj slovenskih državljanov – sooča z velikimi gospodarskimi težavami, ki se še zaostrujejo. Velike težave so s krediti, kar povzroča t.i. kreditni krč. Kakovost bančne aktive se še naprej hitro slabša. V bankah se povečujejo oslabitve in re­ zervacije. Te so tako na mesečni ravni s 168,6 mio EUR dose­ gle najvišjo vrednost doslej. V celem letu 2010 so banke obli­ kovale za 757,3 mio EUR dodatnih rezervacij in oslabitev, kar je za dobro polovico več kot leto pred tem. Upadli so prihodki od davkov, vezanih na dohodek. Primanjkljaj državnega prora­ čuna je v prvih desetih mesecih 2010 dosegel 1,7 mrd EUR. V zadnjih dveh letih se je poglobil problem plačilne nesposobno­

– 102 – Dimitrij Rupel – Najboljši dosežki v zgodovini sti poslovnih subjektov. V letu 2010 je bilo v primerjavi s pred­ hodnim letom začetih 1,5–krat več prisilnih poravnav nad pravnimi osebami, 64,7 % več stečajnih postopkov in 43,7 % več osebnih stečajev nad samostojnimi podjetniki. V letu 2010 so bile v povprečju registrirane 100.504 brezposelne osebe, kar je 14.151 oseb (16,4 %) več kot leta 2009. Kljub zaneseni reto­ riki državnih voditeljev se gospodarsko življenje poslabšuje, slovenski življenjski standard pa vztrajno nazaduje.

O slovenskih razmerah poroča tudi OECD. To poročilo ima dve plati: po eni strani spodbuja vlado k reformam. Glede po­ kojninske reforme pravi, da je nujna, vendar v sedanji obliki, predvsem ko gre za starostno omejitev upokojevanja, premalo radikalna. Glede tujih vlaganj pravijo, da jim slovensko okolje ni dovolj naklonjeno.

(Težave v kulturi) OECD po drugi strani graja šolski sistem: češ da favorizira nižjo in srednjo šolo, zanemarja pa visoko šol­ stvo, kjer naj bi uvedli šolnine. Slovenska vlada se morda še strinja s priporočilom glede pokojninske reforme, medtem ko se je silovito odzvala na »trde, neoliberalne predloge« za podro­ čje šolstva. Tu seveda ne gre za dialog ali odnos med aktualno vlado in OECD, ampak med mednarodno uveljavljenimi gospo­ darskimi oz. kulturnimi koncepti in pametjo t.i. slovenske tranzi­ cijske levice. Ta arhaična in zaplankana pamet si ne pusti ničesar reči. Naši aktualni funkcionarji so – podobno kot naši nekdanji jugoslovanski (komunistični, neuvrščeni...) funkcionarji – po­ sebej alergični na nasvete iz tujine.

– 103 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE

Krizo, ki jo doživljamo, lahko imenujemo gospodarsko, finanč­ no, politično … Vendar je naša kriza predvsem kulturna kriza, ki je morda še najtežje obvladljiva. Po eni strani imamo opraviti s t.i. globalizacijo, tj. z informacijskim razvratom, ki vdira v naše življenje in v naše domove preko televizije, z internetom in nje­ govimi vsak dan novimi domislicami. Ob tem nepopustljivem pritisku se zdijo slovenske knjige in tiskani mediji kot nekak­ šen rezervat. Na eni strani razvrat, na drugi rezervat. Vendar ta rezervat iz razlogov, ki jih navaja poročilo OECD (razvode­nelo srednje in obubožano visoko šolstvo), in zaradi splošne klime posmehljivosti do znanja in kulture… ne ustvarja kritične ma­ se, ki bi varovala nacionalno substanco in omogočala uspešno duhovno tekmovanje. Položaj tistih, ki se ukvarjajo s pisanjem v slovenščini, vse bolj spominja na Prešernovo lamentacijo v Glosi.

(Zunanja politika) V zunanji politiki je Slovenija po zvezdniš­ kem letu 2008 doživela polom in padec. Na začetku je prišlo do sramotnega Arbitražnega sporazuma, pri katerem je Hrvaška vnaprej zanikala pomorski značaj Slovenije. Nato so se – kljub poslušnosti do uradnikov EU – izjalovila pričakovanja, da bojo Sloveniji dodelili pomembna mesta v evropski diplomaciji, ali da bo igrala vsaj vlogo arbitra/posrednika na balkanskem pri­ zorišču. Povezovanje z režimi samodržcev je razkrilo slabo in­ formiranost in šibkost diplomacije; svoj pravi interes, tj. zgolj zanimanje za »umetniški vtis« pa je vlada pokazala pri trgova­ nju za sestanek z ameriškim predsednikom. Značilni točki zu­ nanjepolitičnega poloma sta Guantanamo in Libija. Ameriški za­

– 104 – Dimitrij Rupel – Najboljši dosežki v zgodovini por za teroriste je bil med voditelji slovenske tranzicijske levice predmet velikanskega zgražanja, Gadafijeva diktatura pa pred­ met intenzivnega dvorjenja. Obe točki delujeta kot spodrsljaja predsednika vlade (Pahorja), v ozadju pa je vendar – kot pov­ sod – niti vlekel predsednik republike (Türk). Türk je bil tisti, ki je Američanom – npr. ob obisku G. W. Busha leta 2008 – najbolj ogorčeno očital kršenje človekovih pravic v Guanta­ namu; in že spet je bil Türk (še kot slovenski veleposlanik in predsedujoči VS OZN) tisti, ki si je (avgusta 1998) najbolj pri­ zadeval za ukinitev sankcij proti Libiji – v zvezi z zadevo Loc­ kerbie. Sicer je delovanje slovenske zunanje politike tam, kjer bi morala delovati, na svetovnem prizorišču, neslišno in neo­ pazno.

(Mediji, pravosodje, škandali) Vsak dan prinese škandal ali afe­ ro. Razpadajo in propadajo nekoč uspešna in ugledna podjetja, čemur sledijo množična odpuščanja delavcev. Medijsko pou­ darjanje njihovih stisk je ustvarilo razpoloženje strahu, tupatam tudi utrujenosti. V zadnjem času se je povečala dejavnost dr­ žavnih organov (policije, pravosodja …) in medijev pri preisko­ vanju in žigosanju premožnih državljanov. Širi se psihoza ne­ sposobnosti, podkupljivosti, pokvarjenosti in nesramnosti. Pri poslovanju javnih in državnih ustanov je vse več politične dis­ kriminacije in izključevanja, ki ju spremlja napadalna retorika. Ta je še vedno ali vse bolj silovito usmerjena zoper opozicijo: kot da bi bili »oligarhi« in »tajkuni« utelešenje nekakšne poli­ tične zavisti in nemoči. Kljub temu, da državni organi in naklo­ njeni mediji skrbno izbirajo svoje »tarče«, pa je očitno, da je

– 105 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE večina nezakonitosti (in seveda oligarhov oz. tajkunov) pove­ zanih z vladnimi strankami in funkcionarji.

V zadnjem času se polagoma razkrivajo prijemi, s katerimi je bilo mogoče priti do (za slovenske razmere) velikanskega pre­ moženja. Predvsem je bilo treba imeti prijatelje v bankah, ki za milijonske kredite niso zahtevali nobenih jamstev. Koristne so bile tudi medijske oz. oglaševalske povezave, s katerimi je bilo mogoče zastonj ali za bagatelne vsote zasesti ure in ure televi­ zijskih programov, v katerih so prodajali različne čudežne pri­ pomočke za trdno hrbtenico in zdravo spanje. Vse skupaj je imelo za posledico razočaranje nad zgledi uspešnega poslova­ nja, politike in sploh javnega delovanja.

(Reforme?) Vse kaže, da se aktualna oblast v začetku (2009) za rešitve oz. reforme ni zanimala. Bolj kot za gospodarsko zdrav­ je je bila zainteresirana za socialne posege in za politično/volil­ no utrjevanje s pomočjo skupin in slojev, ki so odvisni od soci­ alne radodarnosti države. Vlada se je kasneje lotila nekaterih reform (pokojnine, zdravstvo) tako, da je krčila pravice in uva­ jala omejitve, povrhu pa je tudi diskriminirala. Da ne bi priza­ dela privilegijev svojih privržencev, je odklanjala preglednost zavarovalnih (zdravstvenih, pokojninskih) sistemov, kar je ve­ čina državljanov razumela kot kaznovanje političnih naspro­ tnikov. Vse to dogajanje je spremljala vsiljiva, vendar neverodo­ stojna retorika.

– 106 – Dimitrij Rupel – Najboljši dosežki v zgodovini

(Kontinuiteta) »Vrhunski dosežek« politike vlade in predsedni­ ka republike je bila omejitev dostopnosti arhivov nekdanje ju­ goslovanske politične policije Udbe. Vlada je najprej s prepo­ vedjo Igorju Omerzi prekršila veljavni zakon, ki je bil (od leta 2006) dovoljeval dostop do arhivov, nakar je na silo in čez noč sprejela zakon, ki je arhive zaprl. S tem je skoraj pozabljeni spo­ drsljaj predsednika republike, ko je odlikoval nekdanjega šefa Udbe Ertla, postal značilnost in merilo aktualne oblasti. S tem je bila postavljena kontinuiteta med današnjo slovensko oblastjo in režimom, ki je vladal v komunistični Jugoslaviji. Če je mogoče v današnji Sloveniji nadaljevati z enakim delovanjem, ki je bilo značilno za bivšo državo, potem spremembe sploh niso potreb­ ne. Ena najresnejših ovir za rešitev iz nastalega položaja je vztrajanje pri kontinuiteti med socialistično Jugoslavijo in dana­ šnjo Slovenijo.

(Rešitev?) Krizo in težave bi bilo mogoče premagati s spre­ membami, ki bi bile enako obremenjujoče in enako rešilne za vse. Spremembe bi morale biti pravične, dovolj radikalne, ven­ dar tudi obetavne. K rešitvi bi morali prispevati vsi in vsi bi morali biti zanjo tudi enako nagrajeni. Situacija z osamosvaja­ njem, ko so njegovi nasprotniki »brcnili v zadnjico« vse ustano­ ve in posameznike, ki so leta 1991 radodarno in navdušeno, nič hudega sluteč postavili slovensko državo, se ne sme več pono­ viti; kot se tudi ne sme več ponoviti situacija, v kateri doživlja­ jo in uživajo vsa mogoča priznanja in odlikovanja le bojevniki za »pridobitve socializma«.

– 107 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE

Slovenija se ne zaveda dovolj niti svojih zmogljivosti (tj. fizič­ nih, predvsem demografskih omejitev) niti možnosti, ki jih po­ nujajo zanimiva zemljepisna lega, kvalitetno naravno okolje in … razvita demokracija. V Sloveniji se je razširilo prepričanje, da demokracija pomeni zgolj vladavino večine in da v njej tako rekoč ni prostora za elemente meritokracije, to se pravi za izkuš­ nje, kulturo in znanje. V razvitih demokracijah stranke ne skr­ bijo le za »naše«, ampak tudi za »pismene«. Njihovi kandidati imajo tudi, kot se reče, nekaj v glavi. V nekaterih deželah loču­ jejo odločanje o splošnih vprašanjih in odločanje o strokovnih ali – vzemimo – strateških vprašanjih, kot so npr. podnebne spremembe. V Evropski uniji o nekaterih vprašanjih odločamo s soglasjem, o drugih s kvalificirano večino; nekatera vprašanja so po načelu subsidiarnosti prepuščena državam, druga pa skup­ nosti; nekatera so v pristojnosti Evropske komisije, druga Ev­ ropskega sveta, nekatera pa so prepuščena Evropskemu parla­ mentu. Kot vidimo, se v EU ustvarjajo nove povezave in novi centri odločanja: za vprašanja zunanje in varnostne politike in za finance!

Vse kaže, da je sodobna Slovenija – kar ni nobena izjema – v političnem pogledu razdeljena na dva približno enaka dela, od katerih je eden bolj konservativen, to se pravi varčen in previ­ den, drugi pa bolj pustolovski, usmerjen k trenutnim udobjem in lagodjem. Stabilne in uspešne družbe ne dovoljujejo, da bi jih politični viharji premetavali v skrajnosti, ampak iščejo sre­ dnje poti in kompromise. Dokaz: politične stranke v razvitih demokracijah so si vse bolj podobne. Glavne politične stranke

– 108 – Dimitrij Rupel – Najboljši dosežki v zgodovini postajajo vedno bolj »sredinske«. Ta težnja je postala tako sploš­ no veljavna in obvezujoča, da poleg klasičnih strank nastajajo nove, ki se legitimirajo kot nasprotnice glavnega toka. Ponekod se takšna (mainstream) politika združuje in bojuje z različnimi radikalnimi skupinami/gibanji/strankami za preživetje. V ne­ katerih deželah takšne radikalne, avantgardne … skupine za svoje prodiranje uporabljajo neobičajna sredstva, celo orožje, kar jih uvršča med teroristične skupine. V Sloveniji takšnega ­radikalizma ne poznamo, čeprav se nekateri politiki istovetijo z različnimi radikalnimi in celo terorističnimi dejanji v zgodo­ vini.

Čeprav menda mnoge mika vsestransko zaostrovanje (klerikal­ no-liberalnega, domobransko-partizanskega…) kulturnega bo­ ja, bi ga bilo smotrno omejiti na prostor, kamor spada. Tu ne mislim na omejevanje v smislu zatiranja, saj bi zatiranje dose­ glo nasproten učinek, ampak na raven in standarde tega »boja«. Današnje kulturne ali politične polemike so večinoma plehke, njihovi avtorji so bolj ali manj uradni »govorci« in predstavniki za »stike z javnostmi«; sicer pa pravih polemik, kot so bile ne­ koč polemike Ćosića, Đilasa, Kardelja, Kermaunerja, Kocbeka, Krefta, Krleže, Pirjevca, Vidmarja in celo Ziherla … ni več. Slovenske kulturne oz. znanstvene oblasti bi morale spodbuditi­ in financirati takšne polemike na univerzi, v revijah, na TV …

Formalno gledano Slovenija sicer ima dve upravljavski ekipi, toda, če se med seboj zanikata in izključujeta (kot se dogaja v času Türk-Pahorjeve vlade), je njeno upravljanje preobremenje­

– 109 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE no, šibko in ne more biti uspešno. V slovenski politiki bi mora­ li uporabiti vsa znana in preskušena demokratična sredstva. V celoti bi morala slovenska politika postati varčna, vzdržna in premišljena, predvsem pa bi morala nemudoma opustiti t.i. sek­ tašenje, torej vse postopke, ki vnaprej izključujejo tekmece in slabijo nacionalne zmogljivosti. Aktualna omrtvičenost sloven­ skega gospodarstva in slovenski »zdrs« v nepomembnost sta najresnejše opozorilo, da po starem ne gre več!

(Življenje v Sloveniji) Vodilni slovenski (klerikalno-liberalni) politični razred se v začetku vojne, ki se je v Jugoslaviji začela relativno pozno, praktično istočasno z razkolom med Hitler­ jem in Stalinom, ni najbolje znašel. Bolj ali manj nepremišljeno si je izbiral zaveznike in najljubše okupatorje, predvsem pa je politično pobudo prepustil komunistom. Ti so do napada na Sovjetsko zvezo sledili smernicam iz Moskve. Kasneje so osvo­ bodilni boj združili z revolucijo in se vsaj od pomladi 1943 pri­ pravljali na prevzem oblasti po vojni. Položaj res ni mogel biti bolj zapleten. Predvojni politični razred je dopustil vtis poveza­ nosti z okupatorji, ki je spravil v zadrego zahodne zaveznike. Zanje je bilo zavezništvo s Stalinom (in Titom) važnejše od drugih povezav. Mnogi so namesto delitve interesnih sfer pri­ čakovali razkol v zavezništvu. Po vojni komunisti v Sloveniji niso dovolili konkurence, za katero tudi ni bilo – objektivno gledano – veliko možnosti. Komunisti si niso prizadevali, da bi našli, niti si niso želeli sogovornika, ki bi lahko zaradi zaslug v vojni prepričljivo zagovarjal slovenske nacionalne interese. Ti interesi in njihovi zagovorniki, predvsem pa sogovorniki, v

– 110 – Dimitrij Rupel – Najboljši dosežki v zgodovini

­revolucionarnih razmerah tudi niso bili v ospredju. Bil je čas maščevanja, iskanja grešnih kozlov in strahu. Tistih nekaj ­posameznikov, ki bi lahko bili njihovi sogovorniki, so komunis­ ti odstranili v montiranih procesih, navsezadnje pa so se znebi­li tudi svojih zaveznikov in prijateljev, kot je bil Edvard Kocbek.­

Če hoče ostati v tekmovalni kondiciji, si Slovenija takšnih zmot in nesporazumov v prihodnje ne bo več mogla privoščiti. Po zgodovinskem propadu fašizma, nacizma in komunizma; po zmagoslavju liberalne demokracije in tržnega gospodarstva, predvsem pa po nacionalni in evropski uveljavitvi Slovenije ni nobenega razloga za domotožje po bivših državah in nobene potrebe po zanašanju na to ali ono velesilo. Slovenija ni začas­ no, ampak po možnosti stalno bivališče vseh Slovencev, kar ­pomeni, da je treba to stalno bivališče urediti skladno s stan­ dardi, ki veljajo za stalna bivališča. Tu mislim na evropske in nacionalne standarde: na človekove pravice, demokracijo, eko­ logijo, kulturo, produktivnost, šolstvo, ustvarjalnost, varnost, zdravje ...

(Preurejanje Slovenije) Kot so ugotovili že raziskovalci pri Eco­ nomistu 4, Sloveniji najbolj primanjkuje politične kulture. Tu ne gre za spodobno obnašanje, kot so razlagali nekateri površni bralci v Sloveniji, ampak za »zadostno stopnjo družbenega soglas­ ja in povezanosti«, za nezaupanje do »močnih in brezobzirnih voditeljev«, za »prepričanje državljanov o prednosti demokracije pred drugimi oblikami oblasti«, za »visok odstotek prebivalstva, ki

4 Glej Democracy Index 2010.

– 111 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE demokracijo povezuje s kaznovanjem prestopnikov in z gospodar­ sko uspešnostjo«... Da bi izboljšali relativno nizke ocene, pred­ vsem pa zaradi fizičnih omejitev majhne države z majhnim šte­ vilom prebivalcev, bi bilo potrebno preurediti ali – kot tudi pravijo – resetirati slovenski politični sistem, pri čemer bi bilo smotrno vsaj deloma spremeniti tudi ustavo, ki bi jo lahko – za­ radi mene tudi neformalno – imenovali ustavo Druge republike.

Drugo republiko bi morali odlikovati racionalnost, disciplina in dostojanstvo. V njej bi omejili oblastniško arogantnost in stro­ go kontrolirali korupcijo. Višji disciplini bi bili podvrženi dr­ žavni proračun in vse finančne ustanove. Bistvena popravila bi bila potrebna pri volilnem sistemu, v šolstvu in pri sprostitvi medijskega prizorišča, da bi lahko postalo bolj informativno, bolj nepristransko in uravnovešeno. Nujen bi bil poseg zaradi naraščajoče politične diskriminacije pri zaposlovanju. Volilni sistem bi zaradi zgodovinskih obremenitev in aktualnih nape­ tosti moral postati preglednejši in preprostejši, z njim ali na kak drugačen način pa bi morali spodbujati sodelovanje/ko­ habitacijo različnih, tudi nasprotnih strank, in preprečiti pri­ vilegije, ki bi izhajali iz družinskih, prijateljskih, političnih, finančnih in drugih prednosti, ki niso rezultat osebnega pri­ zadevanja. Nov sistem ne bi smel dopuščati vnaprejšnje pred­ nosti nobene družbene skupine, nobenega ideološkega ali ver­ skega prepričanja. Izražanje teh prepričanj bi bilo mogoče urediti ločeno od operativne politike, hkrati pa bi bilo mogo­ če omejiti medijsko in oglaševalsko politizacijo gospodarskega življenja.

– 112 – Dr Dimitrij Rupel

The Best Achievement in History

On 25 June 1991 the Slovene parliament adopted the Declaration of Independence and the relevant constitutional charters, and this was followed by the agreement with the European Union at Brioni on 7 July, then on 29 November the disintegration of Yugoslavia was determined by the Badinter Arbitration Commission. On 16 December the European Union recognised Slovenia’s independence, the constitution of the First Republic was adopted on 23 December, and on 26 December the Soviet Union also collapsed. The Slovene state will be 20 years old.

Here and there doubts have been voiced about the point of this state. Many people are disappointed with the conditions today, and some people mourn the collapse of Yugoslavia. We hear the question: Is this what we fought for? The 20th anniversary coincides with a se­ rious crisis, which in some quarters is explained as a by-product of the global financial crisis, and in some places – mainly in the circles of the ruling transitional left-wing – it is even blamed on Slove­

– 113 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA nia’s independence policies and those that championed it in the pe­ riod around 1991. If the current crisis could be blamed on inde­ pendence, there would be nothing to celebrate, and in truth there is the impression here and there that we are getting ready to celebrate the anniversary of a misunderstanding, if not actually a historic er­ ror.

The latest Slovene crisis is of course not a consequence of Slov­ ene independence, but of a denigration of it. In Slovenia we do not have a problem with independent statehood, but with the falsi­ fying of life prior to independence, and with a kind of homesickness for the privileges of the former (Yugoslav Communist Party) elite. Despite independence, and continuing after it, this elite succeeded in maintaining significant leverage over executive authority, until – under new names – it completely took it over in 2008. Last year the head of the former political police (Udba) was decorated, and this year access to the Udba archives was even blocked. These develop­ ments of course cannot be reconciled with the First Republic, which was created 20 years ago. The idea of aSecond Republic should – I am convinced - be understood as an initiative to restore Slovene statehood to its source, and not to the conditions that prevented it. The Second Republic is nothing other than a fulfilment of the demo­ cratic demands of 1991 and a confirmation of Slovene statehood, which has after all been recognised and accepted by the internatio­ nal community. This of course does not support a rehabilitation of the system founded on the Party monopoly, on the diktat of the secret police and even on state terrorism.

– 114 – Dimitrij Rupel – The Best Achievement in History

The writer of these words was among the initiators and founders of the first Slovene state, and I was a close witness throughout to its functioning, half of this time as its foreign minister. My response to possible doubts and questions is this: celebrating the twentieth an­ niversary is an opportunity to confirm our recognition that in­ dependence was the greatest achievement in Slovenia’s history.

I. The Yugoslav crisis and Slovenia’s extrication (1971–1991)

(Our history) A tumultuous screen crammed to the last milli­ metre is followed by a half-empty and minutely tidied one. A thousand-strong gathering with rumpled and tattered flags is followed by the solo appearance of an icon with immobile and creaseless flags. On the one side an angry mass, on the other an exalted master. We live in times of universal connection and transparency, so notions such as arrogance, authoritarianism and dictatorship have a worse reputation than they would other­ wise.

The events of twenty years ago can of course be pondered chiefly on the basis of memories and documents, but it is im­ possible to avoid comparisons with current events around the world. In the latest demonstrations and street battles we can recognise elements of the Central European and also Slovene spring of twenty years ago. A sense of agitation has even spread among the citizens and statespeople of China. We have be­

– 115 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA come allergic to self-satisfied – as well as despondent – leaders, who are continuously becoming metaphors for crisis.

The Balkancultural and nationality struggles were not ended or resolved with the establishing of the new Serbo-Croatian- Slovene state after the First World War. Yugoslavia – whether it was ruled by a king or a president – was always in crisis. The final crisis of the (new) Yugoslavia began in December 1971 at the Party conference in Karađorđevo, when Tito had a show­ down with the Croatian “nationalists” led by Savka Dabčević and Miko Tripalo. In the autumn of 1972 Tito’s (and Dolanc’s) letter to the Party membership served to spread the crisis – re­ flected in the form of a classic Party dictatorship – throughout Yugoslavia. In Slovenia this was seen in the removal of the head of government, Stane Kavčič, who represented somehow the reformist, “liberal” wing of the Slovene communists. Yet conditions in Central and Eastern Europe (and slowly in Yu­ goslavia, too) started changing after the signing of the Helsinki Accords in 1975. On 6 January 1977 a group of Czech and Slo­ vak dissidents, among them Vaclav Havel, published Charter 1977; on 16 November 1978 the Pole Karol Wojtyła was made Pope ( John Paul II). This was then followed by quite a number of interesting developments:

17 September 1979 – Udba [the Yugoslav secret police] con­ ducts a failed assassination bombing in Völkermarkt (Slov­ ene: Velikovec), 25 December 1979 – Danilo Türk becomes head of the Com­

– 116 – Dimitrij Rupel – The Best Achievement in History

mittee for Minority and Emigrant Issues at the RK SZDL [Socialist Alliance of Working People of Slovenia], 9 April 1980 – adoption of the directed education law, 4 May 1980 – the death of Josip Broz Tito in Ljubljana, 11 June 1980 – initiative to found the magazine Nova revija, 23 June 1980 – court proceedings in Vienna against the two Völkermarkt bombers, 1 July 1980 – Jernej Jan informs Danilo Türk of the proceed­ ings, 17 August 1980 – the Poles set up the Solidarity workers’ un­ ion (Lech Wałęsa), 20 January 1981 – Ronald Reagan becomes American presi­ dent, 1982-1986: Milka Planinc is head of the Yugoslav government, restrictions on foreign travel (deposits) and driving cars (petrol coupons), 1983: Proposed standardisation of education in Yugoslavia (common core curriculum), 11 March 1985 – Mikhail Gorbachev becomes Secretary- General of the Soviet Communist Party.

In the middle of the eighties, the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SANU) publishes its famous SANU Memorandum, the 57th issue of the magazine Nova revija is published in the middle of February 1987, and is subject to condemnation on 26 February at the 23rd session of the Slovene Communist Party Central Committee, presided over by Milan Kučan, and is also condemned on 27 February at the 68th session of the

– 117 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA presidency of the Socialist Alliance of Working People of Slov­ enia, headed by Jože Smole. In March 1988 Igor Bavčar and Janez Janša published the Diary and Memoirs of Stane Kavčič. On 22 March 1988 a working group from the Slovene Writers' Association and Slovene Sociological Association started writing a new Slovene constitution. On 29 March 1988 the leadership of the Central Committee of the Yugoslav Communist Party held a meeting in Belgrade “in order to debate the draft posi­ tions relating to attacks on the Yugoslav People’s Army«. The material for the meeting states that there is a “conscious and coordinated, open activity of forces conducting a special war with clearly subversive intent, for an alliance with enemy émi­ gré circles, and that the editorial groups are just the agents of those that stand behind them.” On 25 April 1988 Bavčar and Janša publish the Material for the Slovene Constitution in the publication Časopis za kritiko znanosti [Newspaper for the Criticism of Science]. On 12 May 1988 the Slovene Farmers’ Federation was established in Ljubljana; after a few days a meeting (involving Grafenauer, Hribar and myself ) was held in Bohinj with Dr France Bučar. Then came a new series of noteworthy events:

31 May 1988 – the arrest of Janez Janša and Ivan Borštner. 2 June – Ljubljana’s Cankarjev dom centre was the venue for the Assembly of Slovene Cultural Workers, which adopted a protest statement relating to Janša’s arrest and at which I (the author of this piece) proposed the founding of the Un­ ion of Slovene Cultural Workers.

– 118 – Dimitrij Rupel – The Best Achievement in History

3 June 1988 – the founding of Bavčar’s Committee for the Pro­ tection of Human Rights, 3 June 1988 – start of the liberation movement Sajudis in Lithuania (Landsbergis), 7 June – the beginning of a series of 36 protest literary soirees at the Slovene Writers Association. From 18 to 27 July the Ljubljana Military Court tried »JBTZ«, the Ljubljana »Four«. Autumn 1988 – a series of meetings at Kersnikova 4, Ljubljana (Drevenšek, Magajna, Resnik, Rupel, Tomšič).

On 15 December 1988 the founding committee of the Slovene Democratic Alliance (Slovenska demokratična zveza /SDZ/ - SDA) published its manifesto. We criticised the failure of the political system, Yugoslav centralism and the lag behind Euro­ pean development. The primary aims were to establish parlia­ mentary democracy and to formulate a new Slovene constitu­ tion “which will be based on human rights and will provide a clear and new definition of Slovene statehood”. The SDA pro­ posed joining the European Community. Before the New Year, representatives of the united opposition (Oman, Tomšič and myself ) met secretly in the student campus. On 11 January 1989 we officially founded the SDA in Cankarjev dom. In a speech at the massively attended founding congress, I men­ tioned the global crisis and the historical blunders of socialism (from the Dolomite Declaration and the killing of Home Guard servicemen to the military trials). I proposed an end to the state of emergency in the country and espoused a new distribution of

– 119 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA political space in Slovenia, in other words a multiparty system. I closed with the words: “There is no democracy without sov­ ereignty, and no sovereignty without democracy!” Janez Janša, Alojz Križman, Ivan Oman, Tomaž Pisanski, Hubert Požarnik, Samo Resnik, Dimitrij Rupel and Boštjan M. Zupančič were elected at that time to the party leadership. This was once again followed by a new set of major developments, which led inexo­ rably to the new, independent and democratic Slovene state:

16 February 1989 – founding of the SDZS, the Social Demo­ cratic Alliance of Slovenia, 23 February 1989 – Assembly for the Constitution, 8 May 1989 – publication of the May Declaration, 8 May 1989 – Slobodan Milošević becomes president of Ser­ bia, 9 November 1989 – fall of the Berlin Wall, 27 November 1989 – founding of the DEMOS coalition, 17 January 1990 – opposition (DEMOS) rally in Cankarjev dom under the banner Future of Slovenia, 8 April 1990 – the first democratic elections in Slovenia, 16 May 1990 – the first democratic government, 23 December 1990 – plebiscite for the First Republic, 25 June 1991 – declaration of independence, 7 July 1991 – the Brioni Declaration, 27 August 1991 – establishment of the arbitration commission headed by Robert Badinter, 7 September 1991 – start of the Conference on Yugoslavia in The Hague,

– 120 – Dimitrij Rupel – The Best Achievement in History

25 September 1991 – the UN Security Council imposes an embargo on new arms imports for all of Yugoslavia, 25 October 1991 – the Yugoslav People’s Army (YPA) leaves Slovenia, 29 November 1991 – the Badinter Commission determines the disintegration of Yugoslavia, 16 December 1991 – EC foreign ministers agree on interna­ tional recognition for Slovenia, 26 December 1991 – collapse of the Soviet Union.

II. The Slovene crisis and the solution for Slovenia (1991–2011)

(Comparison 1991-2011) Twenty years ago, in the late 1980s, the heart of Europe witnessed monumental political and eco­ nomic crises, along with a showdown between angry masses and exalted icons; in short, a clash between obedient and far- sighted politicians. Usually, and understandably, the former were “professionals” and the latter, amateurs. These clashes led to the fall of communist regimes, including the Soviet empire, and to the salvation of »captive« nations, including the Slovenes. The passing of time and changing generations cloud the iden­ tity of the main players and protagonists, as well as the funda­ mental characteristics, of those times. We frequently forget who was on the stage and who was in the audience (or listen­ ing in), as well as the contributions from behind the scenes, the stage directors, ushers, box office and cloakroom staff.

– 121 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

In this artificial haze, we have in effect lost the historical facts, from the Party and Ozna/Udba dictatorship, post-war killings, show trials, the creation of a »new class«, state links with ­authoritarian regimes in Africa, Asia and Latin America and all the way to the detention and repression of disobedient in­ tellectuals and especially priests, “common cores” and “targeted education”. In the pleasant fog of yesteryear, we lose track of the incredible inflation, the notorious savings measures (depos­ its, petrol coupons etc.), the fact that at that time the majority of citizens lived in a state of shortage and that what we wanted most was to travel from socialist to capitalist countries. As in 1914 or 1938, the split required a crisis that divided countries and peoples into “ours” and “theirs”. For Yugoslavia the biggest tragedy was that the official Yugoslav and especially Serbian political leaders could not grasp the political and other anach­ ronisms; they did not understand the critical nature of that moment, and placed themselves on the “wrong” side of history. Serbia did not pursue the Czech, Hungarian, Polish or, for in­ stance, the Slovene model. History – as is customary – did not waste time on the details. Yugoslavia collapsed, Slovenia found its feet and that was that. This is how things are, and this is how they will remain until the next catastrophe.

For the moment there has been no convincing refutation of the assumption that the founding of this independent nation state has been the best achievement in the history of the Slovenes. Here we cannot overlook the fact that some people question this, and of course there is the fact that after 20 years this country is in se­

– 122 – Dimitrij Rupel – The Best Achievement in History rious trouble, which leads some (especially those who sat in the stalls and peeked from behind the stage in 1991) to conclude that the “founding of the independent nation state” was prob­ ably not the greatest achievement in Slovene history. Here I wish to deal with such a conclusion in somewhat greater de­ tail.

(Dissatisfaction with modern life or “Life is Elsewhere” 1) Poets are famous for glorifying past times. Once upon a time, as Ovid says, there was a golden age, in which people of their own voli­ tion, without any laws, voluntarily ensured the dominance of what was good and truthful. There was neither fear nor punish­ ment: no threats, no subjugated masses fearful of the judges, they lived in safety and without protection... A glorious past also inspired Prešeren’s Baptism at the Savica (Krst pri Savici2) and even his Toast (Zdravljica)3. Many holy books and tradi­ tions talk of salvation through a return to a life that has been buried.

People in their mature years – understandably – exalt the time of their youth. In the monarchic Yugoslavia they praised Impe­ rial Austria, and in presidential Yugoslavia they – especially the older burghers and preferably on their own – glorified the “pre- war times”. Nowadays we hear increasing praise of the former 1 Život je jinde (Life is Elsewhere) is the title of the novel by the Czech writer Milan Kun­ dera, published in 1973. 2 “Na tleh leže Slovenstva stebri stari.” [“On the ground lie the ancient pillars of the Slo­ vene identity”] 3 “Edinost, sreča, sprava k nam naj nazaj se vrnejo... da oblast in z njo čast, ko pred, spet naša bosta last!” [“Let peace, glad conciliation, come back to us throughout the land…Thus again will honour reign to justice pledged in our domain”]

– 123 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA country, of Tito, coexistence with the “brother nations” and even socialism, and we hear this from young people who were not familiar with all these phenomena. Is it possible that older people prefer modern times and younger people prefer old times? In any event it is possible to say that Slovenia has found itself in difficulty, in fact in a real crisis. Is it time for a new state? Is this question linked to the idea of a second republic, which some are talking about?

Over the past hundred years, along with other changes, we have endured three national transformations, and all of them were associated with warmongering: the First and Second World Wars, and the Yugoslav crisis. It is not possible to say that all the transformations pursued the same direction, that they were consistent or that we always gained something through them. Our transformations brought a reduction of the national and (although not always) ethnic territory. From state to state, cultural rights generally increased, while democracy, protection of human rights and economic achievements expe­ rienced swings, even in the same state. The biggest change came with independence in 1991. If we think that we left a country of general shortage, in which the greatest pleasure came primarily from phenomena or products that were “im­ ported” and from those made at home “for export”; if we think that sociology replaced not just theology but even science, we could probably all agree that the latest transformation, in other words the founding of a nation state, was the best achievement in history.

– 124 – Dimitrij Rupel – The Best Achievement in History

Agreement will not be easy to achieve, mainly because of the issue of the authorial rights or parentage of this best achi­ evement. As we may read in Piero Fassino’s book Per Pas­ sione, the Slovene communist leaders implored their Italian comrades not to recognise the independence of the Slovene state, because it was not they who had achieved it, but “the right”.

Could we nevertheless come to a general agreement? There are still two kinds of dissatisfaction. Some say that it was bet­ ter before in socialist Yugoslavia, and others that now we are getting nowhere. In fact both kinds of dissatisfaction have something in common (“now we are getting nowhere”), of course on the condition that what they say is really what they think. Yet this is not entirely certain, since in all likelihood there is no possibility for certain changes. It would no doubt be impossible to revive socialist Yugoslavia, while equally, no one is tempted to risk a war to effect the latest transforma­ tion. It is highly likely that the first group of dissatisfied peo­ ple are not thinking about socialist Yugoslavia, but about so­ cialist Slovenia – or rather their Slovenia – while the second group is not prepared to sacrifice our independent country (which is after all a member state of the EU, NATO and the OECD) for change, but is rather thinking about changes within the existing country, although not in the direction of socialism. So in truth this cannot be about a new country, but rather a different order in the country that we have. On this point we could come to some agreement. Yet before any reor­

– 125 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA ganisation, we need to take stock of the actual state of af­ fairs.

(Problems in the economy) As reported by the Institute for Ma­ cro­economic Analysis and Development (IMAD) and by prac­ tically all of Slovenia’s media, and what is ultimately clear from the everyday experiences of Slovene citizens, Slovenia is facing major economic difficulties that are getting more acute. There are major problems with loans, and this is causing what is called a credit crunch. The quality of bank assets continues to deteriorate. Banks are seeing increased impairments and provi­ sions. With a monthly level of EUR 168.6 million, these have reached their highest amount to date. In all of 2010 the banks created EUR 757.3 million more in provisions and impair­ ments, which is over half as much again as in the previous year. Revenues from taxes related to income fell. Thenational budg­ et deficit reached EUR 1.7 billion in the first ten months of 2010. In the last two years the problem of commercial entities not being able to meet payments intensified. Compared to the previous year, in 2010 there were 1.5 times more forced settle­ ments instigated against legal entities, 64.7% more bankruptcy proceedings and 43.7% more personal bankruptcies involving sole traders. In 2010 an average of 100,504 persons were regis­ tered as unemployed, which is 14,151 more persons (16.4%) than in 2009. Despite the high-flown rhetoric of our national leaders, economic life is deteriorating, and Slovenia’s standard of living is persistently moving backwards.

– 126 – Dimitrij Rupel – The Best Achievement in History

The OECD has also reported about the conditions in Slovenia. This report has two sides: on the one hand it encourages the government to implement reforms. Regarding pension reform, it says this is essential, although in its current form, especially where it involves age restrictions on retirement, it is insuffi­ ciently radical. Regarding foreign investments, they say that the Slovene environment is not sufficiently favourable.

(Problems in culture) On the other hand, the OECD finds fault with the school system, along the lines that it favours lower and secondary education, but neglects higher education, where tuition fees should be introduced. The Slovene govern­ ment perhaps still agrees with the recommendation regarding pension reform, while it has responded forcefully to the “hard, neoliberal proposals” for the field of education. Here of course we are not talking about a dialogue or relationship between the current government and the OECD, but between internation­ ally established economic and cultural concepts and the wisdom of what is called the Slovene transitional left-wing. This archaic and reclusive wisdom will not be told anything. Our current offi­ cials are – as they were in the former Yugoslavia (communist, non-aligned and so forth) – especially allergic to advice from abroad.

The crisis we are experiencing could be called economic, finan­ cial, political and more, but our crisis is primarily a cultural crisis, which is perhaps the most difficult thing of all to overcome. On the one hand we have to grapple with so-called globalisa­

– 127 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA tion, i.e. with the decadence of information technology, which invades our lives and our homes via television and the internet with its constant stream of brilliant novelties. In the face of this inexorable pressure, Slovene literature and printed media seem like some kind of protected area. On the one hand deca­ dence, on the other a protected area. Yet for reasons cited in the OECD report (adulterated secondary and god-forsaken high­ er education), and owing to the general climate of sneering at knowledge and culture, this protected area is not creating a critical mass that would protect the national substance and en­ able successful spiritual competition. The position of those in­ volved in writing in Slovene is increasingly reminiscent of Prešeren’s lamentation in Glosa [Gloss].

(Foreign policy) In foreign policy, following its stellar year of 2008, Slovenia has experienced a collapse and decline. To be­ gin with there was the shameful Arbitration Agreement, where­ in Croatia denied from the outset Slovenia’s maritime charac­ ter. Then – despite the obedience shown to EU officials – we had our expectations dashed that Slovenia would be accorded an important position in European diplomatic efforts, or that it would at least play the role of referee/middleman in the Bal­ kan arena. Connections to the regimes of autocrats revealed the lack of awareness and weakness of diplomatic efforts; meanwhile the government showed its real interest, i.e. seeking merely an “artist’s impression” in the horse-trading for a meet­ ing with the American president. The significant points of our foreign policy collapse were Guantanamo and Libya. Among the

– 128 – Dimitrij Rupel – The Best Achievement in History leaders of the Slovene transitional left, the American prison for terrorists was the subject of enormous indignation, while Gadafi’s dictatorship was the subject of intensive courting. Both points have served as gaffes on the part of the Prime Minister (Pahor), but still in the background – as everywhere – was the Slovene President (Türk), pulling the strings. It was Türk who – for instance during the visit of George W. Bush in 2008 – most indignantly accused the Americans of human rights violations in Guantanamo; and again it was Türk (still as Slovene ambassador and chairman of the UN Security Coun­ cil) who (in August 1998) worked hardest for the removal of sanctions against Libya – in connection with the Lockerbie af­ fair. Otherwise the functioning of Slovenia’s foreign policy where it should be doing something, in the global arena, is in­ audible and invisible.

(Media, justice, scandals) Every day brings a new scandal. Once successful and reputable companies are disintegrating and col­ lapsing, and this is followed by the mass lay-offs of workers. The media focus on their hardships has created a mood of fear, and here and there also fatigue. Lately state authorities (the police, judiciary etc.) and the media have stepped up their ac­ tivities of investigating and branding wealthy citizens. There is a spreading psychosis of inability, venality, corruption and shamelessness. In the operations of public and state institu­ tions there is increasing political discrimination and exclusion, accompanied by aggressive rhetoric. This is still or increasingly forcefully directed towards the opposition, as if the “oligarchs”

– 129 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA and “tycoons” were the embodiment of some kind of political envy and impotence. Despite the fact that the state authorities and favourably inclined media carefully select their “targets”, it is clear that the majority of the breaches of law (and of course the oligarchs and tycoons) are associated with the ruling par­ ties and officials.

In recent times we have gradually become aware of approaches enabling people to attain (for Slovene standards) enormous wealth. First and foremost you had to have friends in the banks, which required no guarantees for millions given in loans. It was also useful to have media and advertising connections, whereby you could secure hours and hours of television air time, either for nothing or for some token amount, in order to sell various miraculous aids for back trouble and healthy sleep. All in all, the result was disappointment at the models of suc­ cessful business, politics and public life in general.

(Reform?) All the indications are that the current government was initially (2009) not interested in a solution or reform. It was interested not so much in economic health as in social in­ tervention and in political/electoral consolidation, by means of groups and strata that depend on the social generosity of the state. Later on the government got to grips with certain re­ forms (pensions, healthcare), by cutting rights and introducing restrictions, and on top of that it discriminated. In order not to curtail the privileges of its adherents, it rejected the transpar­ ency of insurance (health, pension) systems, which the major­

– 130 – Dimitrij Rupel – The Best Achievement in History ity of citizens interpreted as the punishment of political oppo­ nents. All these developments were accompanied by forceful but dubious rhetoric.

(Continuity) The “supreme achievement” of government policy and the national president was restricting access to the archives of Udba, the former Yugoslav political police. Through its pro­ hibition for Igor Omerza, the government has first breached the valid law, which (since 2006) had permitted access to the archives and then forcefully and overnight adopted an emer­ gency law to close the archives. In this way the almost forgotten gaffe of the President, who decorated the former Udba boss Ertl, be­ came the characteristic and yardstick of the current government. This served to establish continuity between the current Slovene authorities and the regime that ruled in communist Yugoslavia. If it is possible to continue in present-day Slovenia the same mode of operation that typified the former state, then changes are not needed at all. One of the most serious obstacles to solv­ ing the current situation is persisting in continuity between so­ cialist Yugoslavia and present-day Slovenia.

(Solution?) The crisis and problems could be overcome through changes that would be equally burdensome and equally benefi­ cial for all. The changes should be fair, sufficiently radical but also promising. Everyone should contribute to the solution and everyone should also be equally rewarded by it. The situation surrounding independence, when its opponents “kicked the backside” of all the institutions and individuals that had estab­

– 131 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA lished the Slovene state in 1991 with such generosity and in­ spiration, and with no inkling of anything bad, should not be repeated; nor should we repeat the situation where all manner of recognition and decorations are experienced and enjoyed only by the warriors for the “gains of socialism”.

Slovenia is not sufficiently aware either of itscapacities (i.e. the physical and primarily demographic limitations) or its possi­ bilities offered by an attractive geographical position, a high- quality natural environment and … a developed democracy. In Slovenia the conviction has spread that democracy means sim­ ply the rule of the majority, and that within it there is in effect no room for the elements of a meritocracy, in other words for experience, culture and knowledge. In developed democracies, parties do not just look out for “our own”, but also for the “lit­ erate”. Their candidates do have something between their ears, as they say. In some countries, decision-making on general is­ sues and decision-making on expert or – for instance – strate­ gic issues, such as climate change, are separated. In the Euro­ pean Union we decide on certain issues by agreement, on others by a qualified majority; certain issues are left through the principle of subsidiarity to individual countries, and others to the community; some fall within the jurisdiction of the Eu­ ropean Commission, others the European Council, and others still to the European Parliament. As we can see, new connec­ tions and new centres of decision-making are being created in the EU: for foreign affairs and security policy issues, and for finance!

– 132 – Dimitrij Rupel – The Best Achievement in History

Everything indicates that modern Slovenia – which is no ex­ ception – is divided politically into two approximately equal parts, of which one is more conservative, in other words more inclined to frugality and caution, and the other more adventur­ ous, inclined towards current comfort and ease. Stable and suc­ cessful societies do not permit political whirlwinds to sweep them into extremism, but rather seek middle paths and com­ promises. Proof: political parties in developed democracies are increasingly similar. The main political parties are becoming increasingly “centrist”. This trend has become so general and obligatory that alongside the classical parties new ones are emerging, claiming legitimacy as the opponents of the main­ stream. In places such (mainstream) political interests merge and grapple with various radical groups/movements/parties for their survival. In some countries such radical, avant-garde groups promote themselves through the use of unusual means, even arms, and this places them among terrorist groups. In Slovenia we are not familiar with any such radicalism, although certain politicians identify with various radical and even terror­ ist acts in history.

Although apparently many people are drawn by the idea of a multilateral exacerbation (clerical-liberal, Home Guard-Parti­ san and so on) of the cultural struggle, we would be advised to restrict it to the place where it belongs. Here I am not thinking about restriction in the sense of supression, since suppression would have the opposite effect, but about the level and stand­ ards of this “struggle”. Today’s cultural or political polemics are

– 133 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA for the most part insipid, and their authors are more or less of­ ficial “spokespersons” and “PR” representatives; the real polem­ ics, such as those from Ćosić, Đilas, Kardelj, Kermauner, Kocbek, Kreft, Krleža, Pirjevc, Vidmar and even Ziherl… are no more. Slovenian cultural and scientific authorities should promote and finance such polemics at universities, in maga­ zines, on TV and so on.

Viewed formally, Slovenia does have two administrative teams, but if they are mutually dismissive and exclusive (as has been the case during the Türk-Pahor government), its management has been excessively burdened and weak, and cannot succeed. Slovene politics should make use of all knowledge and tried and tested democratic means. Slovene politics in its entirety should become safe, sustainable and considered, and above all it should immediately abandon what is termed sectarianism, in other words all processes that exclude competitors from the outset and weaken national capacities. The current paralysis of the Slovene economy and the Slovene “drift” into insignifi­ cance are the most serious warnings that things cannot continue as they were!

(Life in Slovenia) At the beginning of the war, which started relatively late in Yugoslavia, practically at the same time as the split between Hitler and Stalin, the dominant Slovene (cleri­ cal-liberal) political class did not come off that well. More or less without weighing things up, it chose allies and favourite occupying forces, and most importantly it left political initia­

– 134 – Dimitrij Rupel – The Best Achievement in History tive to the communists. Up until the attack on the Soviet Un­ ion, the communists followed guidelines from Moscow. Later they merged the liberation struggle with the revolution, and at least from the spring of 1943 they were preparing to take pow­ er after the war. The situation could not in truth have been more complicated. The pre-war political class allowed the im­ pression to be created that they were linked to the occupying forces, and this put the Western allies in an uncomfortable sit­ uation. For them, alliance with Stalin (and Tito) was more im­ portant than other connections. Many people anticipated a split in the alliance, rather than the division of spheres of inter­ est. After the war the communists in Slovenia permitted no competition, something for which – viewed objectively – there was not actually much scope. The communists made no effort to find, nor did they even want to talk to, anyone who, through merit earned in the war, could argue convincingly in favour of Slovene national interests. These interests and their advocates, and especially those who might be able to discuss them, were not in the forefront in the revolutionary circumstances. It was a time of revenge, of seeking out scapegoats, and of fear. Those few individuals that might have been partners in discussion were removed by the communists in show trials, and ultimate­ ly they cast off their own allies and friends such as Edvard Kocbek.

If it wants to stay fit to compete, Slovenia can no longer afford such errors and misunderstandings in the future. Following the historical collapse of Fascism, Nazism and Communism; after

– 135 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA the victory of liberal democracy and the market economy, and especially after the national and European establishment of Slovenia, there is no reason for homesickness for past states and no need for any reliance on this or that superpower. Slov­ enia is not the temporary, but as far as possible the permanent residence of all Slovenes, meaning that this permanent resi­ dence should be ordered in line with the standards pertaining to permanent residences. Here I have in mind European and national standards: human rights, democracy, ecology, culture, productivity, education, creativity, security, health and so on.

(Reorganisation of Slovenia) As researchers at the Economist4, have already found, Slovenia lacks most of all a political culture. This is not about behaving with decorum, as some superficial readers in Slovenia understood it, but about a “satisfactory level of social agreement and cohesion”, a mistrust of “powerful and un­ scrupulous leaders”, a “conviction of citizens about the advantage of democracy over other forms of government”, a “high percentage of the population that links democracy to the punishment of criminals and with economic success”. In order to improve the relatively low score, and especially owing to the physical limitations of a small country with a small population, we would need to reor­ ganise or – as they also state – reset the Slovene political sys­ tem, wherein it would make sense at least partly to amend the constitution, which we could – and as far as I am concerned informally – call the constitution of the Second Republic.

4 See Democracy Index 2010.

– 136 – Dimitrij Rupel – The Best Achievement in History

The Second Republic would have to be distinguished by ration­ ality, discipline and dignity. Within it, government arrogance would be restricted, and corruption strictly controlled. The na­ tional budget and all financial institutions would be subjected to greater discipline. Significant adjustments would be needed for the electoral system, in education and in deregulating the media arena, in order for it to become more informative, and more impartial and balanced. Urgent intervention would be required in the face of increasing political discrimination in employment. Given the historical burdens and current tensions, the elector­ al system should become more transparent and simple, and through it or in some other way we should promote the coop­ eration/cohabitation of various parties, including opposing parties, and prevent privileges stemming from family, friends, finances and other advantages that are not the result of per­ sonal effort. The new system should not permit any automatic advantage to any social group, or to any ideological or religious conviction. The expression of such convictions would be pos­ sible separately from operational politics, while at the same time it would be possible to limit the media and advertising politicisation of economic life.

– 137 –

Igor Bavčar

Dvajset let po tem

Dvajset let po nastanku prve svobodne in samostojne slovenske države, ki ji je v pičlih petnajstih letih po nastanku uspelo pos­ tati enakopravna članica svobodne družine evropskih držav znotraj Evropske unije in članica NATA, spomini na tisto epo­ halno obdobje bledijo. Danes se zdi ta razvoj nekako samou­ meven in naša takratna ravnanja smiselna in glede na doseženo tudi optimalna. S te časovne distance se zdi tudi, da so bile tak­ ratne mednarodne in notranje politične in gospodarske oko­ liščine naklonjene naši samostojnosti, da smo enostavno skoči­ li na vlak sprememb, ki je pretresal blokovsko razdeljeno Evropo, rušil zidove komunizma in naznanjal pomlad zatiranih evropskih narodov.

Toda le dve leti pred tem, maja 1988, je slovenska tajna politič­ na policija, Služba državne varnosti, aretirala tri slovenske dr­ žavljane, publicista, novinarja in častnika, ki jih je čez nekaj ur izročila jugoslovanski vojski in ta jim je sredi Ljubljane začela

– 139 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE soditi v srbskem jeziku, na tajnem sojenju, kjer so prisotnost dovolili le najožjim sorodnikom. Najbolj množičen in organi­ ziran protest zoper to sojenje, ki je prvič po desetletjih prepo­ vedi združevanja zunaj partijsko dovoljenih struktur združil več kot sto tisoč članov Odbora za varstvo človekovih pravic, je bil sprva videti kot začetek desetletnega pohoda v slovensko sa­ mostojnost, ki je s tem začela dobivati domovinsko pravico v nastajajoči javnosti. Jasno je bilo namreč, da država, katere in­ stitucije teptajo osnovne človekove pravice in pravice do upora­ be materinega jezika pred sodiščem, ne more biti naša država.

Proces proti četverici, trem aretiranim se je namreč pridružil še urednik časopisa, je sicer predstavljal nekakšen preskok v razu­ mevanju človekovih pravic, demokracije in sodobnega principa delitve oblasti. Toda večnacionalna federalna država, kakršna je bila Jugoslavija, je še vedno zakrivala ključne točke preboja in jih zavijala v potencirana nacionalna nasprotovanja. Temu je spretno sledila tudi slovenska komunistična oblast, ki je igrala na strah pred velikosrbskim hegemonizmom in je zato kolabo­ rirala z represivnim aparatom zvezne vojske. Padec Berlinskega zidu leto za prvimi množičnimi protesti v Sloveniji je sesul sovjetski imperij in jasno je postajalo, da tudi jugoslovanska dr­ žava, ki je vse bolj temeljila na represiji in zatiranju človekovih pravic, ne more preživeti.

A to ni bilo samoumevno. Protesti niso bili dovolj. Gibanje, ki je zelo jasno profiliralo svoje cilje v osvoboditev štirih vojaških obsojencev in za spoštovanje človekovih pravic, je združevalo

– 140 – Igor Bavčar – Dvajset let po tem najširšo politično mavrico privržencev. Zelo hitro je znotraj njega nastala ideja, da bi se politično organiziralo, po drugi strani pa so njegove zahteve artikulirale nujne politične spre­ membe v parlamentarno demokracijo. Zaradi velikih političnih razlik med ključnimi akterji Odbora za človekove pravice ta ni prerasel v stranko, kot so nekateri predlagali in zahtevali. Pač pa je iz njega izšel praktično celoten spekter novih političnih strank razen dveh, ki sta nastali ob njegovem delovanju.

Na volitvah so te nove stranke, združene v demokratično opo­ zicijo DEMOS, zmagale s pičlo večino. DEMOS je stežka zbral dovolj izkušenih ljudi, da je z njimi nastopil na volitvah. Demokratična opozicija ni imela ne izkušenj ne novih ljudi, s katerimi bi lahko po zmagi na volitvah prevzela realno oblast v nekem realno kratkem času. Na oblast je prišla skupina opozi­ cijskih voditeljev, izkušena v javnem nastopanju in vajena uni­ verzitetnih razprav in debatnih večerov, a brez velikih politič­ nih in državniških izkušenj.

Z geslom o »sestopu komunistov z oblasti«, ki so ga leta 1989 lansirali, ko so se spremembe že kazale kot neizogibne, je prej­ šnja oblast obenem v slovenski javnosti genialno dosegla, da je bila iluzija o novi oblasti še toliko večja. Partijski vrh ni nad­ ziral le medijev, po prevzemu oblasti s strani DEMOSA se je ohranil domala celoten državni aparat, vsa uradniška nomen­ klatura, poleg tega pa je zaradi spretno lansiranega gesla o ­»sestopu komunistov« vsako radikalnejšo personalno ali poli­ tično spremembo spremljal očitek o lustraciji. Mislim, da je v

– 141 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE tem velik del razlogov za to, da v Sloveniji ni prišlo do kakšne posebne tematizacije obdobja enopartijskega režima tako kot v drugih državah evropske pomladi. Ni čudno, da se z vsemi temi vprašanji ukvarjamo še danes, ko razvoj sporadično trči na te čeri.

Toda vse to ne bi bilo tako usodno, če ne bi nekdanja oblast, ki je v demokratičnih razmerah igrala novo vlogo opozicije, od­ krito nastopala zoper osamovojitene težnje DEMOSOVE oblasti. Ko danes poslušam nekdanje člane te partijske opozi­ cije izpred 20 let, kako na proslavah ob dnevu samostojnosti poveličujejo ta dosežek, mi gre na smeh. Na srečo imamo ta privilegij, da se lahko ob tem smehljamo. Toda lahko bi se kon­ čalo drugače.

V novi DEMOSOVI vladi sem prevzel ministrstvo za notranje zadeve. To je bila osrednja institucija nekdanje komunistične oblasti. Znotraj njega je delovala politična policija, Služba dr­ žavne varnosti, ki je edina razpolagala z vsemi ključnimi infor­ macijami, kajti njeno delo zadnja leta je bilo izključno usmer­ jeno v porajajočo opozicijo demokratični oblasti. Že podatek, da je bilo število zaposlenih v SDV največje prav leta 1989 in da je to tudi leto, ko je bilo opravljenih največ političnih ocen ljudi, skoraj 100.000, pove vse o enormni moči, ki je bila skon­ centrirana v tej instituciji. Personalno in praktično je bil edini uporabnik njenih informacij vrh komunistične stranke. Zgodba o »sestopu komunistov z oblasti« postane s tem veliko bolj pro­ zaična.

– 142 – Igor Bavčar – Dvajset let po tem

Poleg tega da je bilo sodelovanje SDV z vojaško obveščevalno in kontraobveščevalno službo stalno, ni odveč reči, da so neka­ teri najvišji funkcionarji SDV sodelovali z JLA vse do njenega odhoda, nekateri pa so še po tem oficirjem vojaške varnostne službe obljubljali, da se bodo vsekakor vrnili. Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve je bila hkrati tudi edina institucija, ki je legalno znotraj takratne republiške in federalne jugoslovanske ureditve razpolagala z realno oboroženo silo. Teritorialna obramba do ustavnih sprememb novembra leta 1990 ni spadala pod sloven­ sko oblast.

V teh razmerah je jugoslovanska vojska dan pred imenovanjem nove vlade razorožila slovensko teritorialno obrambo in prej­ šnja oblast o tem DEMOSA ni obvestila, tudi ni odredila no­ benega ukrepa zoper to. Še več, organizirala je, recimo, sindi­ kalni protest v policiji in na ta način pozvala neposredno k nepokorščini novi oblasti!

Danes gledamo na te dogodke z neke oddaljenosti in napačno je, če se zdi, da so bila ta dejanja slučajna. V resnici pa je bil to akt prejšnje oblasti in prvi akt jugoslovanske oblasti zoper ­DEMOSOVO vlado in pokazal je, kako ranljivi smo bili v ­resnici.

Spominjam se, da politične policije nisem mogel demontirati takoj. Šest mesecev nisem našel človeka, ki bi se lotil tega zah­ tevnega projekta. Moji ključni ukrepi so bili, da sem politični policiji takoj odvzel policijska pooblastila, jo razorožil, prepo­

– 143 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE vedal delati na t. i. notranjepolitičnem področju, prepovedal sem svojevoljen in samostojen vstop njenih operativcev v po­ sebne tajne prostore slovenskih poštnih uradov, kjer so izvajali prisluškovanje, upokojil sem nekaj sto operativcev in takoj za­ čel s spremembo zakonodaje na tem področju po vzoru nemške zvezne države Hessen. Zoper vse te ukrepe je takratna opozi­ cija v parlamentu ostro protestirala, češ da rušim temelje držav­ nih institucij.

Ko sem spomladi 1990 v slovenski vladi prevzel koordinacijo projekta osamosvojitve, ki ga je nalagal rezultat plebiscita, sem se srečal z enakim nasprotovanjem takratne opozicije, ki je pre­ bivalstvo strašila s tem, da Slovenija ni sposobna samostojnega življenja in da bomo brez jugoslovanskih trgov »jedli travo«.

Po svoje je s tega zornega kota epohalno, kar smo dosegli zgolj v dveh letih DEMOSOVE oblasti, med letoma 1990 in 1993. V tajnosti, toda legalno smo nadomestili odvzeto vojaško moč, dobili izjemno plebiscitarno podporo Slovenk in Slovencev, uvedli svoj denar, sprejeli svojo ustavo, dobili vojno za samos­ tojnost in mednarodno priznanje potem, ko smo dokazali, da znamo sami braniti svoje interese in izvajati efektivno oblast.

Toda tudi po vsem tem je opozicija skušala zavirati ta proces. Bivši namestnik italijanskega zunanjega ministra Piero Fassino v svoji knjigi Per passione (»Iz strasti«) piše o svojih stikih s slo­ venskimi komunisti leta 1991. Fassino pripoveduje, kako je na dan razglasitve slovenske samostojnosti (»25. junija 1991«) obi­

– 144 – Igor Bavčar – Dvajset let po tem skal Milana Kučana, takratnega predsednika predsedstva Slo­ venije, in Cirila Ribičiča, enega ključnih ljudi bivše komunis­ tične stranke. Pogovor opiše takole: »Slovenci so prosili, naj jih ne bi pustili samih, pri čemer so rotili (sollecitando) italijansko in evropsko levico, naj neodvisnosti bivših jugoslovanskih re­ publik ne podarita desnici.« (str. 292).

Tam, kjer naj ne bi bilo razlik med različnimi političnimi usme­ ritvami znotraj države, je še zadnjič, na srečo neuspešno, takrat­ na slovenska opozicija nastopila zoper neodvisnost in samos­ tojnost slovenske države, ki se je pravkar rojevala.

– 145 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

Igor Bavčar

Twenty Years After

Twenty years after the founding of the first free and independ­ ent Slovene state, which in a mere 15 years since its founding managed to become an equal member of the free family of Eu­ ropean nations within the European Union and a member of NATO, memories of that momentous period are fading. Today that development seems somehow to be taken for granted, and our actions at that time logical as well as optimal, given what we have achieved. From this distance of time it also seems that the international and internal political and economic circum­ stances of that time favoured our independence, that we simply jumped on the train of change that had shaken up the bloc- divided Europe, pulled down the walls of communism and heralded the spring of repressed European nations.

Yet just two years before that, in May 1988, the Slovene secret political police, the State Security Service, arrested three Slov­ ene citizens – a journalist, a reporter and an officer – and after

– 146 – Igor Bavčar – Twenty Years After a few hours handed them over to the Yugoslav Army, which instigated proceedings against them in the middle of Ljub­ ljana, and in the Serbian language, in a secret trial, where only the closest relatives were allowed to be present. The biggest at­ tended and organised protest against that trial, which for the first time in decades of a ban on gatherings outside the Party- approved structures, brought together more than a hundred thousand members of the Committee for the Protection of Human Rights, was at first seen as the start of a decades-long march to Slovene independence, which thereby started to ac­ quire the right to a homeland in the emerging public. Indeed it was clear that a state whose institutions trampled on basic human rights and the right to use one’s mother tongue before the courts, could not be our state.

The trial against the four – with the three arrested men being joined by a newspaper editor – represented a kind of leap in our understanding of human rights, democracy and the mod­ ern principle of division of power. Yet the multinational fed­ eral state, as Yugoslavia was, still covered up the key points of the breakthrough and framed them in heightened nationalist antagonism. This was dexterously endorsed by the Slovene communist authorities, which played on the fear of Greater Serbia hegemonism, and for that reason collaborated with the repressive apparatus of the federal military. The fall of the Berlin Wall one year after the first mass protests in Slovenia brought down the Soviet empire, and it became clear that the Yugoslav state, which was founded increasingly on re­

– 147 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA pression and the suppression of human rights, could not sur­ vive.

Yet this was not a given. Protests were not enough. A move­ ment that very clearly profiled its aims in the liberation of four people convicted by the military and in respect of human rights, brought together a very broad political rainbow of ad­ herents. The idea of becoming politically organised arose very quickly within it, while on the other hand its demands articu­ lated urgent political change into a parliamentary democracy. Owing to the large political differences between the key actors in the Committee for Human Rights, it did not evolve into a party, as some had proposed and demanded. Yet out of it came practically the complete spectrum of new political parties, apart from two that emerged alongside it.

In the elections these new parties, allied in the democratic op­ position called DEMOS, won with a tiny majority. DEMOS had a tough job finding enough experienced people to stand for election. The democratic opposition had neither experience nor new people with whom following the election victory it could take real power in some realistically short time. A group of opposition leaders came to power, and they were experi­ enced in public speaking and used to university discussion and debate evenings, but lacked any significant experience in poli­ tics or statesmanship.

– 148 – Igor Bavčar – Twenty Years After

With the slogan of the “communists stepping down from pow­ er”, which was launched in 1989 at the same time as the chang­ es seemed inevitable, the previous regime brilliantly succeeded in generating an even greater illusion of a new government. The Party leadership not only controlled the media, after DEMOS took power pretty much the entire state apparatus was preserved, including all the official nomenklatura, and ow­ ing to the skilfully launched slogan of the “communists step­ ping down from power”, every relatively radical personnel or political change was accompanied by accusations of a “lustra­ tion” or purge. I think that here lies a major part of the reason why Slovenia did not undergo any particular debate regarding the period of one-party rule, as was the case in the other coun­ tries of the European spring. It is no wonder that we are still dealing with all these issues today, when development sporadi­ cally snags on this rock.

Yet none of this would be so critical if the former regime, which in democratic conditions played the new role of opposition, had not come out openly against the independence aspira­ tions of the DEMOS government. Today, when I listen to former members of the Party opposition of 20 years ago ag­ grandising that achievement during celebrations of our day of independence, I have to laugh. Fortunately we have the privi­ lege of being able to smile at this. But it could have ended up differently.

– 149 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

In the new DEMOS government I took over the Ministry of the Interior. This was a central institution of the former com­ munist authorities. Within it was the political police, the State Security Service (SSS/SDV/), which alone disposed of all key information, for its work of recent years had been exclusively channelled into growing opposition to democratic power. The very fact that the number of SSS employees was at its height exactly in 1989 and that it was in that year that the highest number of political assessments – nearly 100,000 – were car­ ried out on people, tells us everything about the enormous power concentrated in that institution. In personal and practi­ cal terms the only user of its information was the top leader­ ship of the Communist Party. In this light the story of the “communists stepping down from power” becomes much more prosaic.

Apart from the fact that cooperation between the SSS and the military intelligence and counter-intelligence services was con­ stant, it is also worth noting that some of the most senior SSS officials collaborated with the YPA (Yugoslav People’s Army) right up until its departure, and some of them even after that promised officers in the military security service that they would of course be coming back. At the same time the Minis­ try of the Interior was the one institution that legally disposed of a proper armed force within the then republic and federal Yugoslav system. Up until the constitutional changes in No­ vember 1990, the Territorial Defence did not fall under Slov­ ene authority.

– 150 – Igor Bavčar – Twenty Years After

In these circumstances, the day before the appointment of the new government the Yugoslav military disarmed the Slovene Territorial Defence and the outgoing government did not no­ tify DEMOS of this, nor did it order any measure against it. Furthermore, it organised for instance a union protest among the police, and in this way appealed for direct insubordination towards the new government!

Today we can view these events with a certain distance, and it is wrong if these actions seem to be coincidental. In reality this was an act by the former authority and the first act of the Yu­ goslav authorities against the DEMOS government, and it showed how vulnerable we really were.

I remember that I could not disband the political police straight away. For six months I could not find a single person to take on that challenging project. My key measures were to immedi­ ately divest the political police of police powers, to disarm it, prohibit it from working in what was termed the internal po­ litical sphere, I prohibited the arbitrary and independent entry of its operatives into the special secret premises of Slovene post and telecommunications offices, where they conducted wire­ tapping, I retired around 100 operatives and immediately start­ ed amending the law in this area along the lines of the German federal state of Hessen. The then opposition fiercely protested all these measures in parliament, claiming that I was destroy­ ing the foundations of state institutions.

– 151 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

When I took over coordination of the independence project within the Slovene Government in the spring of 1990 – a project required by the plebiscite result – I encountered exactly the same antagonism from the then opposition, which was scaring the population with the claim that Slovenia was not capable of independent life and without the Yugoslav markets we would be “eating grass”.

In its own way, from this aspect it was momentous what we achieved in just two years of DEMOS government, between 1990 and 1993. In secret, but legally, we replaced the military power that had been taken away, we gained the extraordinary plebiscite support of Slovene men and women, we introduced our own currency, adopted our own constitution, we won our war of independence and gained international recognition af­ ter showing that we were able to defend our interests and ex­ ercise effective authority.

Yet even after this the opposition tried to impede the process. The former deputy Italian foreign minister Piero Fassino writes in his book Per passione (“Out of Passion”) about his contacts with Slovene communists in 1991. Fassino tells of how on the day Slovenia declared independence (“25 June 1991”) he vis­ ited Milan Kučan, then President of the Presidency of Slove­ nia, and Ciril Ribičič, one of the key figures in the former Communist Party. He describes the conversation thus: “The Slovenes begged us not to leave them all alone, imploring (sol­ lecitando) the Italian and European left not to hand over the

– 152 – Igor Bavčar – Twenty Years After independence of the former Yugoslav republics to the right.” (p. 292).

Where there were supposedly no differences between the vari­ ous political orientations within the country, ultimately – and fortunately without success – the then Slovene opposition act­ ed against the independence of the Slovene state that was just being born.

– 153 –

Ivan Oman

Dvajset let

Ob dvajseti obletnici neodvisnosti slovenske države, ko obuja­ mo spomine na tisti prelomni čas, bi se kazalo nekako spreho­ diti po poti do tega velikega cilja. Pa se nekoliko ustavimo ob posameznih postajah te poti.

Spomladi leta 1987 je izšla 57. številka Nove revije, ki je obja­ vila Prispevke za slovenski nacionalni program. Kako smo to brali! Kot nekakšen nov slovenski evangelij! Kot neka luč na koncu temnega predora! Res, da se šele svetlika, pa vendar luč! Prišla bo!

Leto zatem, 12. maja 1988, kmečki shod v Ljubljani, ustanovi­ tev Slovenske kmečke zveze, prve povojne organizacije, ki je ni obvladovala vladajoča komunistična stranka. Veliko preseneče­ nje v Sloveniji in Jugoslaviji. Odmevalo je tudi v Evropi. De­ jansko – prehod čez Rubikon! Kot poljska Solidarnost.

– 155 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE

Po aretaciji Janeza Janše in tovarišev se je pričelo dogajati nekaj spektakularnega: ustanovitev zbora za človekove pravice in de­ monstrativno zbiranje ljudi na cestah in trgih. Režim se je ustrašil.

Nastalo je množično demokratično gibanje. Slovenskemu de­ mokratičnemu gibanju je šel na roko tudi vzpon srbskega naci­ onalkomunizma, zaradi česar se je počutila ogrožena nomen­ klatura slovenske komunistične stranke, ki je zato potrebovala neko obliko vsenarodnega konsenza. Tako je prišlo do ne­ kakšnega tihega priznanja legalnosti organizirane politične opozicije, ki so jo ob proklamaciji Majniške deklaracije leta 1989 poleg Kmečke zveze sestavljali Krščanski demokrati, Slo­ venska demokratična zveza, Socialdemokrati, pozneje pa so se pridružili še Zeleni in Obrtniška (liberalna) stranka. Vse te no­ ve stranke, ki so se združile v koalicijo Demos (demokratična opozicija Slovenije), so bile resna alternativa komunističnemu režimu. Na prvih (dejanskih in še kar demokratičnih) volitvah po vojni v slovenski parlament so uspele doseči večino. Zato so lahko sestavile novo vlado in začele izvajati program uveljavlja­ nja demokratičnega sistema ter doreči neodvisnost države Re­ publike Slovenije. Seveda brez trenj ni šlo. Za nekatere so bili moteč element – Krščanski demokrati (Ali mogoče po tistem: »znamenje, kateremu se bo nasprotovalo«1!?)

Če preskočim razglasitev neodvisnosti in vojno v tej zvezi, mi ostane še ena ugotovitev. Po odstavitvi osamosvojitvene vlade

1 Lk 2, 34

– 156 – Ivan Oman – Dvajset let so bile vse vlade koalicijske in kolikor toliko levo-desno urav­ notežene. Po volitvah leta 2008 pa je uspela zavladati koalicija neokomunističnih grupacij, ki se sicer razglaša za levico, v res­ nici pa so to stranke, ki obvladujejo kapital, ali pa kapital njih. Če odmislim gospodarsko in sploh tekočo politiko vlade, ki je ne ocenjujem, mi ostane presoja delovanja v smeri ponovne uveljavitve t.i. »enoumja« s čaščenjem mitov komunistične re­ volucije ter delitve Slovencev na rdeče in bele. Vse to, namesto da bi delovali v smeri narodne sprave, ki je po triletni držav­ ljanski vojni med 1942 in 1945 tako potrebna.

– 157 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

Ivan Oman

Twenty Years

The twentieth anniversary of Slovenia’s independence is an oc­ casion for us to remember those critical times and relive the path we took to achieve that great goal. Let us briefly consider the main stages on that path.

In the spring of 1987, the 57th issue of the journal Nova Re­ vija was published. It contained articles, which set out the Slov­ enian national program. How we read them! It was like a new Slovenian gospel! Like the light at the end of a dark tunnel! Admittedly it was only glimmering but nevertheless it was a light! It was coming!

One year later on 12 May 1988, there was a gathering of farm­ ers in Ljubljana and the Slovenian Farmers Federation was founded – the first post-war organisation which was not gov­ erned by the ruling communist party. This was a great surprise both in Slovenia and Yugoslavia. And it was news also for the

– 158 – Ivan Oman – Twenty Years rest of Europe. It represented the crossing of the Rubicon! Like the Polish Solidarity movement.

Following the arrest of Janez Janša and his companions, some­ thing spectacular began to happen: a Committee for the Pro­ tection of Human Rights was established and people gathered to demonstrate in the streets and squares. The regime was afraid.

A mass democratic movement emerged. The Slovenian demo­ cratic movement was helped also by the rise of Serbian nation­ al communism which made the Slovenian communist party feel threatened and they therefore sought a form of popular consensus. This resulted in a quiet acknowledgement of the le­ gality of the political opposition, which at the time of the May Declaration in 1989 consisted of the Farmers' Federation, the Christian Democrats, the Slovenian Democratic Alliance, the Social Democrats, and was later also joined by the Greens and the Tradesmen’s (liberal) Party. All these new parties, which joined together to form the Demos (democratic opposition of Slovenia) coalition, were a serious alternative to the communist regime. At the first Slovenian parliamentary elections follow­ ing the Second World War, the opposition won the majority of the vote. So they were able to assemble a new government, be­ gin carrying out a program of democratisation and take steps towards the independence of the Republic of Slovenia. Of course, there were differences and some clashes. For some peo­ ple the Christian Democrats were a disturbing element – (per­

– 159 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA haps in line with the biblical “sign that shall be spoken against”/ Lk 2:34/!?)

If I skip the declaration of independence and the war which followed, I am left with another finding. After the government which achieved independence was deposed, all the govern­ ments were made up of coalitions and were more or less bal­ anced between the left and the right. After the 2008 elections, a coalition of neo-communist groups came to power who de­ clare themselves to be left-wing but are in fact parties which either have control of capital, or are controlled by it. If I ignore the economic work of the present government, I am left with the realization that we are moving towards a new period of so- called “one-party ideology” with the worshipping of myths connected with the communist revolution and the renewed di­ vision of Slovenians into either “reds” or “whites”. All this, while we should be working for national reconciliation, which remains necessary as the scars of the three-year civil war be­ tween 1942 and 1945 have still not been healed.

– 160 – Epilog / Epilogue dr. Romana Jordan Cizelj

Epilog: Vrednote na svojem ozemlju moramo vzpostaviti sami

Pred dvajsetimi leti sem stopala v zrelo življenje. Leta 1990 sem se zaposlila kot mlada raziskovalka na Institutu Jožef ­Stefan v Ljubljani. Bila sem polna pričakovanj. V meni so tlele prijetne iskrice priložnosti, ki so se mi odpirale v profesional­ nem življenju. A takratno razpoloženje ni bilo zgolj posledica osebne sreče. Tudi sama sem se namreč močno navzela navdu­ šenja, ki sem ga čutila okrog sebe. Takrat nisem pričakovala, da bomo 20 let po osamosvojitvi podlegli brezizhodnosti in kot narod padli na najnižjo točko ne-ustvarjanja ali anti-ustvarja­ nja. Sprašujem se: zakaj in kako se je to zgodilo?

Profesionalno se s politiko ukvarjam šele sedem let, pa tudi ne­ koliko premlada sem, da bi lahko aktivno soustvarjala samos­ tojno slovensko državo. Zato sem s toliko večjo pozornostjo prebrala prispevke, ki so jih tvorci naše države napisali za to

– 163 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE knjigo. Vtkala jih bom v svoje spomine in poglede. Na nekate­ rih mestih se med nami čuti medgeneracijska razlika, na dru­ gih ne. Zato naj ta prispevek služi ne le kot epilog zbornika, temveč kot pogled »od zunaj« na takratne dogodke. Kot pogled nekoga, ki je zdaj »znotraj« politike, a je ta politika evropska politika, zato lahko na Slovenijo gledam kot neposredno nevpletena oseba, ki si še vedno prilašča privilegij vpletenosti »od zunaj«.

Še danes se živo spominjam sredine 80. let, ko je slovenska sa­ mozavest rasla in se razvijala. Poleg študija sem priložnostno delala kot prodajalka v butični trgovinici v eni od znanih slo­ venskih gostiln. V njej sem prodajala pristne slovenske izdelke, ljudje pa so jih z veseljem kupovali za darila za poroke ali kak­ šne druge praznike. Kako ponosno smo si pripenjali lipov list, ki smo ga razumevali kot slovenski simbol, kot simbol boljše prihodnosti! Nismo se bili več pripravljeni podrejati drugim kulturam, zavedli smo se svoje identitete in jo hoteli dejansko tudi zaživeti, želeli smo si dostojanstva in osebne svobode. Ja­ nez Janša to poimenuje kot željo po »normalnosti«, dr. Dimitrij Rupel pa »rešitev 'ujetih' narodov«.

Nato se je zgodila plebiscitarna odločitev za samostojno Slove­ nijo, 25. 6. 1991 pa razglasitev neodvisnosti. Janez Janša se tega spominja kot »izviren način osamosvojitve z glasovanjem na referendumu in s šestmesečnim moratorijem na uresničevanje te odločitve«. Tudi sama sem se udeležila zborovanja v Ljublja­ ni in slovesne razglasitve neodvisne države Slovenije. Pa slavje

– 164 – Romana Jordan Cizelj – Epilog: Vrednote na svojem ozemlju moramo vzpostaviti sami ob uresničenju stoletnih sanj naroda po samostojnosti ni bilo le veselo, saj so nas še istega dne na zborovanju preletela letala ju­ goslovanske ljudske armade. A nas niso uspela ustrahovati. Na zborovanju sem srečala sodelavca, ki me je takrat fotografiral. Še danes imam pred očmi množico ljudi s skupnim ciljem, so­ delavčevo fotografijo, vihranje slovenske zastave in zvok vojaš­ kih letal. Srečna sem, da sem lahko živela tisti nepozabni čas.

Sledilo je polaganje računov jugoslovanski armadi, začela se je vojna. Spomnim se, da sem se takrat lotila popolnoma jasnih samoohranitvenih akcij, priprave zalog hrane in vode. Ker je bilo veliko cest zaprtih za promet, sem se v službo prebijala po stranskih poteh. Takrat sem dodobra spoznala dotlej neznane mi vaške poti, saj sem bila v Domžalah priseljenka. Ampak lahko se pohvalim, da nisem bila v službi odsotna niti en dan. Na reaktorskem centru v Podgorici, ki spada pod Institut Jožef Stefan, sem bila tudi takrat, ko je jugoslovanska vojska raketi­ rala oddajnik v Domžalah. Skoraj sesedla sem se od strahu, ko so bile rakete iz aviona izstreljene točno nad reaktorjem. A vendarle niti za trenutek nisem pomislila, da bi se bilo bolje predati, ne živeti slovenske pomladi dalje. In v tem smo si bili takrat enaki številni Slovenci in Slovenke. Mnogi so tvegali in nekateri tudi dali svoja življenja za svobodo, ki so jo slutili v bližnji prihodnosti.

Jugoslovanska vojska se je iz Slovenije umaknila nekaj mesecev kasneje, 25. 10. 1991. Ko sem to slišala po radiu, kar nisem mo­ gla verjeti. Šele ko sem na televiziji spremljala vkrcanje zadnje­

– 165 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE ga jugoslovanskega vojaka na ladjo in odhod vojske iz Sloveni­ je, sem začela počasi razumsko dojemati, da sem priča izredno pomembnim dogodkom. Novorojena država Slovenija je pre­ trgala popkovino od Jugoslavije in zaživela samostojno. Slo­ venci smo zrasli, ne v tujih, temveč v svojih očeh, narodni po­ nos je dosegel višek.

Lojze Peterle v svojem prispevku piše o hvaležnosti. Tudi jaz sem hvaležna. Hvaležna, da sem vse svoje ustvarjalno življenje preživela v svobodni Sloveniji, da sem ves čas v institucijah v Sloveniji lahko uporabljala slovenski jezik, da sem bila lahko ponosna na svojo državo. Kajti ta mlada država je v kratkem času postala članica EU, NATO, OECD. Država s komaj dve­ ma milijonoma prebivalcev je predsedovala Svetu EU, ki pred­ stavlja 500 milijonov Evropejk in Evropejcev. Hvaležna sem, da so pred dvajsetimi leti imeli naši voditelji tisto, kar je zelo dobro opisal Lojze Peterle: »Potrebna je bila vizija, program, zaupanje in podpora, prevzem oblasti, zakonodajna in izvršna operativnost, potreben je bil tudi pogum.« Hvaležna sem več sto tisoč članom Odbora za varstvo človekovih pravic, ki so se, kot piše Igor Bavčar, prvič po desetletjih prepovedi združeva­ nja zunaj partijsko dovoljenih struktur združili v najbolj mno­ žičen in organiziran protest zoper sojenje proti četverici. Hva­ ležna sem, da je pred več kot dvema desetletjema prevladala modrost naroda. In hvaležna sem tujim politikom, znanstveni­ kom, novinarjem, preprostim ljudem, Slovencem po svetu, ki so Sloveniji pomagali v tistih težkih časih. Ob tem želim pouda­ riti in pravzaprav ponoviti besede dr. Milana Zvera, da je bila

– 166 – Romana Jordan Cizelj – Epilog: Vrednote na svojem ozemlju moramo vzpostaviti sami

Evropska ljudska stranka z nami od začetka in da nas podpira tudi danes. A zgleda, da smo se Slovenci po izvedbi samostojne države utrudili. Sledila so leta vzpostavljanja kontinuitete, čas neizsanjanih sanj, čas, ko je upanje zamrlo, ko smo se predali malodušju, ko nismo bili pripravljeni izpeljati družbenih spre­ memb do konca. Cena je visoka in merljiva tudi v številkah. Janez Janša npr. navaja: »Decembra 2008 ste za liter bencina dali nekaj več kot 80 centov, danes je cena za liter 68 % višja. Ob tem, da je nafta na mednarodnih trgih cenejša.« Število brezposelnih oseb je krepko preseglo številko 100.000, steča­ jem v gospodarstvu še ni videti konca. Ob tem je povsem legi­ timno vprašanje: zakaj take težave? Zakaj v teh težkih razme­ rah nismo sposobni stopiti skupaj kot nekdaj in se izviti iz primeža krize? Odgovor ponujata tako Janez Janša kot tudi Lojze Peterle, ki pojasnjujeta, da pred dvajsetimi leti med poli­ tičnimi strankami ni bilo takšne enotnosti, kot se danes skuša prikazati za tisti čas. Takrat so bila enotna pričakovanja v naro­ du kot celoti, politične odločitve pa so bile včasih sprejete s prednostjo le nekaj glasov. Račun za naše oklevanje je bil več­ krat izstavljen. Demokratične institucije namreč ne delujejo, kot bi morale. Politična tekma ne temelji na enakih možnostih, kar se kaže v tem, da sta politična moč in odločanje pripadala bolj ali manj isti skupini politikov. To pa je imelo posledice tu­ di za ostale družbene sfere, kot so gospodarstvo, mediji in pra­ vosodje.

Osebno ne maram kritizerstva, menim pa, da je poštena in do­ bronamerna kritika nujno potrebna. Prepričana sem, da v naši

– 167 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE državi v tem trenutku moramo narediti korak od kritizerstva h kritiki. Jasno moramo povedati, kaj nas moti in kaj ni prav. Na­ to pa svoje moči usmeriti v ukrepe za izboljšanje situacije. Zne­ biti se moramo miselnosti, da smo ujeti v spone nespremenlji­ vosti, spet se moramo počutiti svobodne. Ljudje morajo dobiti priložnost za zaposlitev, mladi ne smejo na prvo zaposlitev ča­ kati nekaj let, celo nekaj mesecev je preveč. Pravna država mo­ ra zaposlenim zagotavljati, da bodo za svoje delo pravočasno prejeli zaslužek, socialna država pa, da bodo živeli človeka dos­ tojno življenje tudi v primeru, ko se spopadajo s težavami, kot je npr. bolezen. Znova moramo kot družba ceniti znanje, ustvarjalnost, modrost in ne priznavati kot uspeh le bogastvo v premoženju. Vzpostaviti moramo sistem, v katerem bo mladim popolnoma jasno, da diplome ni moč kupiti, ampak jo je mo­ žno le prigarati s trudom, z učenjem, vajo. Vzpostaviti moramo jasna pravila in disciplino, da bodo tisti, ki ne bodo spoštovali pravil, kaznovani. Ne gre za represijo, temveč za poštenost, ena­ ke izhodiščne možnosti za vse.

Ponosna sem, da sem v skupini prvih sedmih slovenskih pos­ lancev v Evropskem parlamentu. Pri svojem delu sem dodobra spoznala, kako velike priložnosti ponuja Unija državam člani­ cam. EU ni talilni lonec, temveč naš skupen dom, ki nam omo­ goča, da razvijamo svoje sposobnosti preko meja domovine. Ob tem si delimo skupne evropske vrednote, kot so svoboda, spoš­ tovanje človekovih pravic, demokracija, pravna država, spošto­ vanje človekovega dostojanstva, enakost. Teh vrednot nam Unija ne more podariti, na svojem ozemlju jih moramo vzpos­

– 168 – Romana Jordan Cizelj – Epilog: Vrednote na svojem ozemlju moramo vzpostaviti sami taviti sami. Prav tako moramo sami poskrbeti, da bodo naše strategije del evropskih, saj nam le to omogoča sinergijo človeš­ kih in finančnih virov, izmenjavo dobrih praks in mnogo bolj­ ši izkoristek. Dolgoročni izzivi Evrope so na področju demo­ grafskih sprememb, podnebnih sprememb, zaščite okolja, trajnostnega razvoja, inovativnosti, kohezije … Cilji, ki so še kako slovenski. Cilji, ki so jih imeli v mislih tudi ustvarjalci so­ dobne slovenske države. V svojih prispevkih v tej knjigi so to jasno pokazali.

Šele v evropskem prostoru sem se zavedla, da je v Sloveniji ze­ lo prisotna miselnost o kaznih kot mehanizmu za doseganje ciljev, prenašamo pa jo še globoko iz socialističnih časov. To je preživet pristop. Sodobne države temeljijo na spodbudah tis­ tim, ki uresničujejo družbeno sprejete cilje.

Verjamem, da se bo Slovenija izvila iz krča, v katerem se je znašla, in da bomo zmogli uresničiti tudi politične spremem­ be. Ena od stvari, ki jim ne moremo ubežati, je razvoj infor­ macijsko-komunikacijskih tehnologij. Te pa nudijo mnogo več priložnosti za pridobivanje informacij ter vnašajo transpa­ rentnost, zato so tudi priložnost za odgovornejše odločanje volivk in volivcev. Ključnega pomena pri tem pa sta razvoj ustrezne infrastrukture in primerno izobraževanje. Šolski sis­ tem naj izobražuje za življenje, rezultat naj bodo samozavestni in razgledani ljudje, ki bodo konkurenčni na trgu dela. Imeti morajo osnovna znanja in ogromno iznajdljivosti, prilagodlji­ vosti in dinamičnosti. Šolski sistem naj temelji na razvijanju

– 169 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE tistega, kar potrebujemo, in ne na ohranjanju zatečenega sta­ nja.

Četudi še tako ostro trdimo, da so izobraževalne institucije le izobraževalne in ne vzgojne, pa vzgojnega dejavnika ne more­ mo zanikati. Mladi ljudje se v njih srečajo z različnimi vredno­ tami (ali z odsotnostjo nekaterih vrednot), ki jih živijo, ne da bi se jih popolnoma zavedali. Nevednost se kasneje lahko nadgra­ di z znanjem. Če pa to ni mogoče, ostane praznina. To pa ni dobro. Lažna slika, četudi je lepa, je popolnoma brez pomena. Četudi so določene resnice iz naše preteklosti še tako boleče, jih moramo priznati. Zatiskanje oči pred resnico ima mnogo daljnosežnejše posledice za narod kot priznanje stranpoti in napačnih odločitev. Mladi imajo pravico do resnice, mi starejši pa dolžnost, da jim resnico predstavimo. Zato, da bodo bolje razumeli svoje korenine, da bodo vedeli, kaj je narobe in kaj je prav, in da ne bodo ponavljali napak, ki so bile vsaj enkrat že storjene. Mladi imajo pravico do resnice tudi zato, da se ne bo­ do obremenjevali s preteklostjo in da se bodo lahko posvetili prihodnosti.

Po mojem razumevanju je eden izmed pomembnih mejnikov v demokratičnem razvoju slovenske države 57. številka Nove re­ vije, ki je izšla leta 1987. Takrat sem bila na poti do diplome na Fakulteti za elektrotehniko in kot novopečena elektroinženirka nisem imela poguma, da bi se ukvarjala z družboslovno-poli­ tičnimi vprašanji. Takratno svoje obnašanje sem si tolmačila kot mojo osebnostno lastnost, dr. Dimitrij Rupel pa me je pre­

– 170 – Romana Jordan Cizelj – Epilog: Vrednote na svojem ozemlju moramo vzpostaviti sami senetil s trditvijo v svojem prispevku, da v Jugoslaviji »družbo­ slovje ni nadomestilo le bogoslovja, ampak celo naravoslovje«. Danes je ena od mojih skritih (po tej objavi pravzaprav ne več) želja, da bi se nekako dokopala do kultne 57. številke Nove re­ vije in jo v miru prebirala od začetka do konca znova in znova. Z njo bi lažje doživela velike ideje takrat porajajoče se nove slovenske države, v njej pa bi rada nekako prepoznala tudi is­ krice, ideje in vezivo, ki je Slovence pred dvajsetimi leti usodno povezalo in nam vlilo moč, da smo si upali, da smo znali in uspeli. Kot piše Ivan Oman o legendarni številki Nove revije: »Kako smo to brali! Kot nekakšen nov slovenski evangelij! Kot neka luč na koncu temnega predora!« Sedaj niso tako težki ča­ si, kot so bili pred dvajsetimi leti, a v Sloveniji je mrak. Znova potrebujemo luč, znova si moramo zastaviti skupen cilj, znova moramo začeti verjeti, da ga bomo dosegli. Skupaj, enotno, z voditelji, ki zmorejo in znajo voditi.

– 171 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

Dr Romana Jordan Cizelj

Epilogue: We Ourselves Must Establish the Values in Our Country

I entered adult life twenty years ago. In 1990 I was employed as a Junior Researcher at the Jožef Stefan Institute in Ljublja­ na. I was full of expectations. Within me were pleasant glim­ mers of opportunity opening up in my professional life. But those feelings were not merely the consequence of my perso­nal happiness. I was also caught up in the enthusiasm that I felt around me. At that time I did not expect that twenty years ­after independence we would succumb to despair and fall to the lowest depths of non-creativity or anti-creativity. I ask my­ self: how and why did this happen?

I have been professionally involved in politics for just seven years, and I am also a bit too young to have actively participat­ ed in the creation of the independent Slovenian state. There­ fore I read the essays which the founders of our country wrote

– 172 – Romana Jordan Cizelj – Epilogue: We Ourselves Must Establish the Values in Our Country for this volume all the more attentively. They will become a part of my memories and my views. At certain points I felt a generation gap between us, at others not. Therefore this essay should serve not just as an epilogue to the anthology, but as a view “from the outside” on the events of that time. As the views of someone who is now “inside” politics, though those politics are European politics, so I can look at Slovenia as someone not directly involved, someone who still enjoys the privileges of in­ volvement “from the outside”.

I still remember the mid-80s, when Slovenian self-confidence was bourgeoning and developing. In addition to my studies I had the opportunity to work as a sales clerk in a boutique shop in one of Slovenia’s well-known inns. I sold genuine Slovenian articles, which people happily purchased as wedding gifts or for other festive occasions. How proudly we pinned on our linden leaves, which we understood as a Slovenian symbol, a symbol of a better future. We were no longer willing to be sub­ ordinated to other cultures; we were aware of our own identity and wanted to actually live it. We wanted dignity and personal freedom. Janez Janša calls it a desire for “normality”; Dr Dim­ itrij Rupel refers to it as the “salvation of ‘captive’ nations”.

Then the plebiscite decided in favour of an independent Slo­ venia, and independence was proclaimed on 25 June 1991. ­Janez Janša remembers it as an “original path to independence by voting in a referendum and a six-month moratorium on the implementation of that decision”. I also participated in the ral­

– 173 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA lies in Ljubljana and the formal proclamation of the independ­ ent Slovenian state. But the glory of realising the nation’s cen­ turies-old dream of independence was not just joyous, as aircraft of the Yugoslav People’s Army flew over our heads on that very same day. But they did not succeed in intimidating us. At the rally I met a colleague who took a photo of me. I have the photograph to this day; a crowd of people with the same objective, waving the Slovenian flag, and the sound of the military aircraft. I am lucky to have lived through that unfor­ gettable time.

Then came the settling of accounts with the Yugoslav Army: it was war. I remember going into a completely clear self-preser­ vation mode, preparing stocks of food and water. Since a lot of roads were closed to traffic, I had to take side roads to get to work. I became very familiar with village paths previously un­ known to me, as I was a newcomer to Domžale. But I can proudly say that I didn’t miss even a single day of work. I was also at the reactor centre in Podgorica, which is part of the Jožef Stefan Institute, when the Yugoslav Army shelled the transmitter in Domžale. I nearly fainted, as the aircraft’s mis­ siles were launched directly above the reactor. But not for a moment did I think that it would be better to surrender, and not live from the Slovenian Spring onward. And this senti­ ment was shared by many Slovenes at the time. Many risked and some even gave their lives for the freedom they sensed in the near future.

– 174 – Romana Jordan Cizelj – Epilogue: We Ourselves Must Establish the Values in Our Country

The Yugoslav Army withdrew from Slovenia a few months lat­ er, on 25 October 1991. When I heard the news on the radio, I couldn’t believe it. It was only when I watched on television the last Yugoslav soldier boarding the ship and the army leav­ ing Slovenia that I slowly began to realise that I was witnessing an exceptionally important event. The newborn country had cut its umbilical cord to Yugoslavia and was now living inde­ pendently. We Slovenes had grown up, not in foreign eyes but in our own, and national pride reached its apex.

Lojze Peterle writes in his essay about gratitude. I am also grateful. Grateful that I have lived my entire adult life in a free Slovenia, that I have always been able to use the Slovenian lan­ guage in Slovenian institutions, that I could be proud of my country. A country that in a short time had become a member of the EU, NATO, the OECD. A country of barely two million inhabitants which has held the presidency of the EU, represent­ ing 500 million Europeans. I am grateful that twenty years ago our leaders embodied what Lojze Peterle described so well: “What was required was a vision, a programme, trust and sup­ port, the assumption of authority, legislative and executive oper­ ability, and courage.” I am grateful to the more than one hun­ dred thousand members of the Committee for the Protection of Human Rights, who, as Igor Bavčar writes, were the first af­ ter the decades-long ban on gatherings outside of Party-ap­ proved structures to hold a mass organised rally in protest of the trial against the four. I am grateful that more than two decades ago the nation’s wisdom prevailed. And I am also grateful to the

– 175 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA politicians, scientists, journalists, ordinary people, and Slovenes around the world who helped Slovenia during those difficult times. Here I would like to underscore and in fact repeat the words of Dr Milan Zver, that the European People’s Party stood by us from the beginning and that it continues to support us today. But it appears that we Slovenes became fatigued after achieving independence. What followed was years of establish­ ing continuity, a time of undreamed dreams, when hope faded, when we gave in to discouragement, when we were not willing to pursue social changes to the end. The price is high and can be measured in numbers. Janez Janša e.g. states that: “In December 2008 you paid a little over 80 cents for a litre of petrol, while today the price per litre is 68% higher. But at the same time, crude oil is cheaper on the international markets.” The unem­ ployment figures have gone well over 100,000, and we have still not seen the end of company bankruptcies. This raises a com­ pletely legitimate question: why are we having such difficulties? Why in these difficult circumstances are we not capable of join­ ing together as we once did and wresting ourselves from the grasp of the crisis? An answer is offered by both Janez Janša and Lojze Peterle, who explain that twenty years ago there was not as much unification among the political parties as some people would now have you believe. At that time there were uniform expectations among the nation as a whole, but the political de­ cisions were sometimes adopted by a scant few votes. The pay­ ment of the price for our hesitancy came on numerous occa­ sions. Our democratic institutions are in fact not functioning as they should. The political game is not based on a level playing

– 176 – Romana Jordan Cizelj – Epilogue: We Ourselves Must Establish the Values in Our Country field, which is evidenced by the fact that political power and decision-making devolve to more or less the same group of politicians. This has also had consequences for the other social spheres, such as the economy, the media and the judiciary.

I personally prefer not to engage in criticism, but I believe that honest and well-intentioned criticism is urgently needed. I be­ lieve that in our country at this moment we have to take a step from crisis mode into criticism. We have to clearly state what is bothering us and what is not right. Then we have to direct our strengths into measures to improve the situation. We have to rid ourselves of the conviction that we are stuck in the shack­ les of an unalterable reality; we have to feel freedom once again. People have to have the opportunity to have jobs, and young people shouldn’t have to wait years for their first job – even just a few months is too long. The rule of law must ensure that em­ ployees will be paid on time for their work, and the welfare state must ensure that people will live dignified lives even if they face difficulties such as illness. As a society, we have once again to learn how to value knowledge, creativity, and wisdom, and not to consider wealth and property to be the only meas­ ure of success. We have to create a system in which it will be entirely clear to young people that a degree is not something that can be bought, but can only be earned through effort, study and exercises. We have to establish clear rules and disci­ pline so that those who do not respect the rules will be pun­ ished. This would not be repression, but fairness; the same basic opportunities for everyone.

– 177 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

I am proud to be one of the first seven Slovenian Members of the European Parliament. In my work I have become very aware of the value of the opportunities that the Union offers to the Member States. The EU is not a melting pot, but our com­ mon home, which allows us to develop our capacities outside the borders of our homelands. In doing so we share common European values such as freedom, respect for human rights, democracy, the rule of law, respect for human dignity and equality. The Union cannot give us these values; we ourselves have to establish them in our country. We also have to make sure that our strategies will be a part of European strategy, since this is the only way to create synergies of human and fi­ nancial resources, the exchange of best practices and much higher yields. Europe’s long-term challenges lie in the area of demographic changes, climate change, environmental protec­ tion, sustainable development, innovation, cohesion … Goals that are entirely commensurate with Slovenia’s. Goals that the founders of the modern Slovenian state also had in mind. This is clearly shown in the essays in this book.

It was only when I began working at European level that I re­ alised that the idea of punishment as a mechanism for achiev­ ing goals is highly expressed in Slovenia, and that we carry it deep within us from socialist times. This is an outdated ap­ proach. Modern countries are based on incentives for those who achieve socially accepted goals.

– 178 – Romana Jordan Cizelj – Epilogue: We Ourselves Must Establish the Values in Our Country

I believe that Slovenia will pull itself out of the current crisis, and that we will also be able to implement political changes. One of the things which we cannot escape is the development of information and communications technology. This offers us many more opportunities for acquiring information and intro­ ducing transparency, so it is also an opportunity for voters to make more responsible decisions. The development of the ap­ propriate infrastructure and suitable education are crucial to this effort. The school system should educate for life, and the result should be self-confident and well-rounded people who are capable of competing on the labour market. They have to be equipped with basic knowledge and an enormous amount of innovativeness, flexibility and dynamism. The school system should be based on the development of the qualities we need, and not on maintaining an outdated status quo.

Although we could say that educational institutions are strict­ ly educational and not intended for upbringing, we cannot ne­ glect the upbringing factor. Young people encounter various values there (or the absence of certain values), which they live by without being fully aware of. This lack of awareness can lat­ er be compensated for through knowledge. When this is not possible, a vacuum is created. This is not good. A false picture, even if it is beautiful, is utterly meaningless. Although certain truths from our past are still painful, we have to confront them. Closing our eyes to the truth can have many farther-reaching consequences for the nation than admitting missteps and wrong decisions. The young have the right to the truth, and we

– 179 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA elders have the duty to tell it to them, so that they better un­ derstand our roots, so that they know what is right and what is wrong, and so that they do not repeat mistakes that have al­ ready been made at least once. The young also have the right to the truth so that they will not be burdened with the past and so that they can focus on the future.

As I understand it, one of the important milestones in the democratic development of the Slovenian state was Issue No. 57 of Nova revija, which came out in 1987. At the time I was on my way to receiving my diploma from the Faculty of Elec­ trical Engineering, and as a freshly minted electrical engineer I did not have the courage to get involved in socio-political is­ sues. I interpreted my behaviour during that time as my per­ sonal quality, but Dr Rupel surprised me with his assertion in his essay that in Yugoslavia, “social science replaced not only theology but science as well”. Today one of my hidden desires (actually, no longer after this publication) is to dig out the now cult-status Issue 57 of “Nova revija” and read it in peace over and over from cover to cover. This would make it easier to ex­ perience the great ideas of the then-incipient Slovenian state, and I could also recognise the glimmers, ideas and common thread that bound Slovenes together twenty years ago and gave us the strength to hope, to know and to succeed. As Ivan Oman writes of that legendary issue of “Nova revija”: “How we read it! Like a new Slovenian gospel! Like a light at the end of a dark tunnel!” Today the times are not as difficult as they were twenty years ago, but there is darkness in Slovenia. We need

– 180 – Romana Jordan Cizelj – Epilogue: We Ourselves Must Establish the Values in Our Country light once more, once more we have to set ourselves a common goal, once more we have to start believing that we can achieve it. Together, as one, with leaders who are able to and know how to lead.

– 181 –

Slovenska pomlad in nastajanje slovenske države v slikah Slovenian spring and independence in pictures

Slovenska pomlad in nastajanje slovenske države / Slovenian spring and independence

Zborovanje pozimi 1987 ob stavki Litostrojskih delavcev /N.B./ Demonstrations supporting the strike of Litostroj workers (winter 1987) /N.B./

– 185 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE / TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

Zborovanje v podporo Janezu Janši, Ivanu Borštnerju, Davidu Tasiču in Franciju Zavrlu na Roški cesti v Ljubljani (1988) /N.B./

– 186 – Slovenska pomlad in nastajanje slovenske države / Slovenian spring and independence

Demonstrations against trial against Janez Janša, David Tasič, Ivan Borštner in Franci Zavrl in Ljubljana (1988) /N.B./

– 187 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE / TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

Janez Janša, David Tasič, Ivan Borštner in Franci Zavrl (1988) /N.B./ Janez Janša, David Tasič, Ivan Borštner in Franci Zavrl (1988) /N.B./

– 188 – Slovenska pomlad in nastajanje slovenske države / Slovenian spring and independence

Sestanek predstavnikov koalicije Demosa, Januar 1990 /T.S./ A meeting of the Demos Coalition, January 1990 /T.S./

– 189 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE / TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

Volilni letak (1990) An election poster of the Demos Coalition (1990)

– 190 – Slovenska pomlad in nastajanje slovenske države / Slovenian spring and independence

Prve svobodne volitve po drugi svetovni vojni, april 1990 /N.B./ First free elections after Second World War, april 1990 /N.B./

– 191 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE / TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

Demosova Peterletova vlada leta 1990 … /T.S./ Demos governement led by Lojze Peterle in 1990 … /T.S./

– 192 – Slovenska pomlad in nastajanje slovenske države / Slovenian spring and independence

… in na srečanju 21 let pozneje (2011) /L.Ž./ … and at a reunion 21 years later (2011) /L.Ž./

– 193 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE / TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

Plebiscit za neodvisno Slovenijo, 23. decembra 1990 /N.B./ Plebiscite on Slovenian independence, 23 December 1990 /N.B./

– 194 – Slovenska pomlad in nastajanje slovenske države / Slovenian spring and independence

Dr. Jože Pučnik, Igor Bavčar, Lojze Peterle, Ivan Oman v Državnem zboru /N.B./ Dr Jože Pučnik, Igor Bavčar, Lojze Peterle and Ivan Oman in the Slovenian Assembly /N.B./

– 195 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE / TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

Predsednik državnega dr. France Bučar zbora 25. junija 1991 razglasi samostojno in neodvisno Slovenijo /N.B./ The speaker of the Assembly Dr France Bučar declares the independence of Slovenia on 25 June 1991 /N.B./

– 196 – Slovenska pomlad in nastajanje slovenske države / Slovenian spring and independence

Državni zbor ob razglasitvi samostojnosti 25. junija 1991 /N.B./ Slovenian Assembly at the declaration of Slovenian independence on 25 June 1991 /N.B./

– 197 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE / TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

Dvigovanje slovenske zastave ob razglasitvi slovenske samostojnosti (1991) Raising the Slovenian flag at the declaration of Slovenian independence (1991)

– 198 – Slovenska pomlad in nastajanje slovenske države / Slovenian spring and independence

Praznovanje ob razglasitvi slovenske samostojnosti (Prešernov trg, Ljubljana – 1991) /N.B./ Spontaneous festivities Following the declaration of Slovenian independence (Prešeren Square, Ljubljana – 1991) /N.B./

– 199 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE / TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

Vojna za Slovenijo – Vojak JLA in nemški turist (1991) /N.B./ War for independence of Slovenia – a Yugoslav People's Army soldier and a German tourist (1991) /N.B./

– 200 – Slovenska pomlad in nastajanje slovenske države / Slovenian spring and independence

Vojna za Slovenijo – vojaki Teritorialne obrambe na Jezerskem (1991) /N.B./ War for independence of Slovenia - soldiers od Slovenian Teritorial Defence at Jezersko (on the Austrian border – 1991) /N.B./

– 201 – Foto: Nace Bizilj /N.B./ in Tone Stojko /T.S./, Muzej novejše zgodovine Slovenije, in Ljubo Žgavc /L.Ž./ Photo: Nace Bizilj /N.B./ and Tone Stojko /T.S./, National Museum of Contemporary History and Ljubo Žgavc /L.Ž./ Predstavitev avtorjev

Igor Bavčar je diplomiral na katedri za politične vede na Fakulteti za družbene vede. V začetku osemdesetih let je aktiv­ no deloval v publicistiki. Bil je urednik Tribune, Časopisa za kritiko znanosti, založbe KRT. Leta 1988 je ustanovil in do ­demokratičnih sprememb leta 1990 vodil Odbor za varstvo človekovih pravic. V prvi slovenski vladi je bil od leta 1990 do 1993 minister za notranje zadeve. V letu 1991 je v vladi Repu­ blike Slovenije vodil vladni projekt osamosvojitve Slovenije, v junijski vojni leta 1991 pa je vodil glavni štab slovenskih obo­ roženih sil. Od leta 1993 je bil poslanec v državnem zboru Re­ publike Slovenije, 1997 pa ga je državni zbor izvolil za ministra brez resorja, zadolženega za evropske zadeve. Leta 2000 je bil izvoljen za poslanca na listi Liberalne demokracije Slovenije (LDS) ter nato ponovno izvoljen za ministra za evropske zade­ ve. V vladi je vodil ministrsko koordinacijo za vzpostavitev juž­ ne meje in vladni odbor za državno upravo in javne zadeve. V letih 2002 – 2009 je bil predsednik uprave holdinške družbe

– 203 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE

Istrabenz. Je član predsedstva Združenja za vrednote slovenske osamosvojitve.

Janez Janša se je rodil 1958 v Ljubljani, na Fakulteti za so­ ciologijo, politične vede in novinarstvo v Ljubljani je 1982. leta diplomiral iz obramboslovja. V osemdesetih letih se je politič­ no angažiral v novonastajajočih mirovnih in ekoloških giba­ njih, ki jih je takratna oblast obravnavala kot »družbeno nevar­ ne«. 1988 je Janeza Janšo aretirala Služba državne varnosti. Na procesu, kjer so četverici (ob Janši še Ivanu Borštnerju, Davidu Tasiču in Franciju Zavrlu) sodili brez prisotnosti javnosti in brez pravice do odvetnika, je bil obsojen na 18 mesecev zapora. Ob procesu so se pojavile javne zahteve za spremembe v smeri večstrankarske demokracije. Množične demonstracije v Ljub­ ljani so oznanile slovensko pomlad. 1989 je sodeloval pri usta­ novitvi Slovenske demokratične zveze (SDZ) in bil izvoljen za njenega podpredsednika. Na prvih demokratičnih volitvah v Sloveniji 1990 je bil izvoljen za poslanca. Med 1990 in 1994 je bil minister za obrambo. Pod njegovim vodstvom je nastal do­ volj trden obrambni sistem, da se je Slovenija junija 1991 z rela­tivno majhnimi žrtvami obranila pred agresijo jugoslovan­ ske armade in razglasila neodvisnost. Leta 1992 se je pridružil dr. Jožetu Pučniku in njegovi Socialdemokratski stranki Slo­ venije. V letih 1992–2004 je bil poslanec v Državnem zboru. 1993. leta je bil izvoljen za predsednika SDS. Bil je vodja ­slovenske parlamentarne delegacije v Severnoatlantski skup­ ščini (1997-98), od junija do oktobra 2000 v vladi dr. Andreja

– 204 – Predstavitev avtorjev

Bajuka pa je ponovno vodil ministrstvo za obrambo. Po zmagi SDS na volitvah 2004 je postal predsednik vlade RS (2004- 08), v času predsedovanja Slovenije EU v prvi polovici 2008 je vodil Svet Evropske unije. Od 2008 je poslanec v Državnem zboru in vodja opozicije.

Romana Jordan Cizelj je leta 1990 diplomirala na Fakul­ teti za elektrotehniko, leta 1994 je magistrirala na Fakulteti za matematiko in fiziko, leta 2001 pa je na isti fakulteti opravila doktorat iz jedrske tehnike. Že med leti 1990 in 2004, ko je bi­ la raziskovalka na Odseku za reaktorsko tehniko Inštituta Jožef Stefan, je bila aktivno vpeta v družbeno-politično življenje. Na lokalnem nivoju je bila predsednica Nadzornega odbora Obči­ ne Domžale ter svetnica v Občinskem svetu občine Domžale. Na državnem nivoju je delovala kot sekretarka Univerzitetno- znanstvenega foruma. Preden je Slovenija postala članica Se­ verno-atlantske zveze, je bila članica upravnega odbora in pod­ predsednica Slovenskega odbora za NATO. Leta 2004 je bila izvoljena v skupino prvih slovenskih poslancev v Evropskem parlamentu. Je članica politične skupine Evropske ljudske stranke. Leta 2009 je bila ponovno izvoljena v Evropski parla­ ment. Glavna področja njenega delovanja so energetika, pod­ nebje, okolje, industrija in raziskave. Leta 2007 je prejela na­ grado evropske poslanke leta na področju energetike. Je častna občanka občine Prebold. Romana Jordan Cizelj je otroštvo preživela v Žalcu in Preboldu v Savinjski dolini. Je mati dveh sinov.

– 205 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE

Ivan Oman se je rodil leta 1929 v Zmincu pri Škofji Loki. Po osnovni šoli je začel delati na očetovi kmetiji. V sedemdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja se je pridružil kmečkemu gibanju in sodeloval v vseh večjih pobudah tistega časa. Maja 1988 je pos­ tal predsednik na novo ustanovljene Slovenske kmečke zveze. Ob nastanku Združene opozicije Slovenije Demos je postal njen podpredsednik. Leta 1990 je bi izvoljen za člana predsed­ stva Republike Slovenije. Bil je edini član predsedstva, ki je od­ ločno podprl ustanovitev Slovenske vojske in ni podpisal kapi­ tulantske »deklaracije za mir«. Ker si je želel, da bi se Slovenska kmečka zveza, ki se je preimenovala v Slovensko ljudsko stran­ ko, združila s Slovenskimi krščanskim demokrati, je prestopil v SKD. V mandatu 1992 do 1996 je bil poslanec, izvoljen na listi Slovenskih krščanskih demokratov. Potem se je umaknil iz ­aktivnega političnega življenja. Je predsednik veteranske orga­ nizacije »Združenje za vrednote slovenske osamosvojitve«.

Alojz Peterle je bil najprej soustanovitelj Slovenskega kr­ ščansko socialnega gibanja (marca 1989) in nato njegov glavni tajnik, v novembru 1989 pa je postal soustanovitelj in predsed­ nik Slovenskih krščanskih demokratov – SKD, kar je bil vse do leta 2000. Po demokratičnih volitvah je bil prvi predsednik slo­ venske vlade, ki je izpeljala osamosvojitev v letih 1990 do 1992. Med drugim je bil dvakrat zunanji minister RS (1992-94 in 2000), podpredsednik Evropske zveze krščanskih demokratov (1996-99), predsednik Slovenskih krščanskih demokratov, ­poslanec v Državnem zboru RS, predsednik Komisije DZ za

– 206 – Predstavitev avtorjev evropske zadeve, član predsedstva Komisije za prihodnost EU ter predsednik Čebelarske zveze Slovenije. Od leta 2004 je pos­lanec v Evropskem parlamentu v poslanski skupini Evrop­ ske ljudske stranke, bil je podpredsednik Evropske ljudske stranke in podpredsednik Evropskega združenja federalistov (UEF). Peterle je tudi dobitnik več državnih in mednarodnih nagrad in odlikovanj, med drugimi: Častni znak svobode (Slo­ venija); Internationaler Preis Joseph Krainer (Avstija); Ordine Piano (Holy See), Evropski poslanec leta 2008 (2008 MEP Award), v kategoriji »Zdravje in varnost hrane«.

Dimitrij Rupel je leta 1976 doktoriral iz sociologije na Brandeis University v ameriškem Bostonu. Jugoslovanska se­ demdeseta leta so bila neprijazna do svobodomiselnih intelek­ tualcev, tako je nekaj let preživel kot asistent brez možnosti predavanj. Leta 1978 je postal gostujoči profesor na kanadski Queen's University, leta 1985 je predaval na newyorški New School for Social Research, leta 1989 pa nekaj mesecev gosto­ val na Cleveland State University. Dimitrij Rupel – poleg tega, da je avtor množice člankov v revijah in časnikih – piše gleda­ liške igre, leposlovne, esejistične in strokovne knjige. Napisal je šest romanov in trinajst neleposlovnih knjig. Bil je med usta­ novitelji Nove revije, v času odkritega spora z oblastmi zaradi 57. številke (Prispevki za slovenski nacionalni program) pa tu­ di njen odgovorni urednik. Komunistični oblastniki so leta 1987 poskrbeli za silovito kampanjo proti Novi reviji in ga tu­ di odstavili. Potem se je aktivno in intenzivno vključil v slo­

– 207 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE vensko opozicijsko gibanje, (leta 1989) postal predsednik ­Slovenske demokratične zveze (SDZ) in podpredsednik De­ mokratične opozicije Slovenije (DEMOS). Po zmagi Demosa na prvih demokratičnih volitvah leta 1990 je postal prvi slo­ venski zunanji minister. Prizadeval si je za mednarodno priz­ nanje Slovenije, ki je uspelo konec leta 1991. Po volitvah leta 1992 je bil poslanec Državnega zbora, leta 1994 je bil izvoljen za ljubljanskega župana, leta 1997 pa je postal veleposlanik v Združenih državah Amerike. Leta 2000 se je vrnil v Ljubljano, kjer je postal zunanji minister v vladi Janeza Drnovška. Med letoma 2004 in 2008 je bil zunanji minister v vladi Janeza Jan­ še. Profesor in veleposlanik Dimitrij Rupel je zaposlen na Mi­ nistrstvu za zunanje zadeve v Ljubljani. Predava na Fakulteti za državne in evropske študije (Brdo pri Kranju) in na Evropski pravni fakulteti v Novi Gorici.

Milan Zver je šolanje zaključil na Fakulteti za družbene ve­ de, z doktoratom s področja obče politologije. Je avtor mnogih študij, člankov in knjig, med drugim monografije Demokracija v klasični slovenski politični misli (2002). Preden je bil izvoljen za poslanca in imenovan za ministra za šolstvo in šport leta 2004, je bil kot predavatelj zaposlen na mariborski univerzi. Bil je tesen sodelavec dr. Jožeta Pučnika, leta 2004 je uredil zbor­ nik Pučnikova znanstvena in politična misel. V zadnjih letih je nosilec pomembnih funkcij v Slovenski demokratski stranki. Bil je tudi mestni in državni svetnik. V prvi polovici leta 2008 je med drugim uspešno vodil Svet EU na področju izobraževa­

– 208 – Predstavitev avtorjev nja in mladine. Leta 2009 je bil izvoljen v Evropski parlament, kjer je član poslanske skupine Evropske ljudske stranke. Vodi slovensko nacionalno delegacijo v Evropski ljudski stranki. Je član odbora Evropskega parlamenta za Kulturo in izobraževa­ nje ter nadomestni član odbora za Kmetijstvo in razvoj pode­ želja, poleg tega pa je tudi nadomestni član posebnega odbora Za politične izzive in proračunska sredstva za trajnostno Evropsko unijo po letu 2013. Sodeluje v delegacijah za Make­ donijo in Kitajsko ter v mnogih drugih parlamentarnih delov­ nih telesih.

– 209 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

About the authors

Igor Bavčar graduated in Political Studies from the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Ljubljana. In the early 1980s he was actively involved in journalism. He was the chief- editor of the newspaper “Tribuna” and the journal “Časopis za kritiko znanosti”. In 1988 he established the Committee for Protection of Human Rights which he led until the democrat­ ic changes in 1990. From 1990 to 1993 he was Minister of the Interior in the first Slovenian government. In 1991, he led the governmental independence project within the Government of the Republic of Slovenia and, during the war in June 1991, he co-ordinated the Slovenian armed forces. From 1993, he was a deputy at the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia and in 1997 the National Assembly elected him Minister with­ out Portfolio for European Affairs. He stayed in office until 2000. From 2000 to 2002 he was Minister for European Af­ fairs. He also led the ministerial co-ordinated action for estab­ lishing the southern border and the Government Committee

– 210 – About the authors for State Administration and Public Policy. Between 2002 and 2009 he was Chairman of the Management Board of the Is­ trabenz Holding Company.

Janez Janša, President of Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS), was Prime Minister of the Republic of Slovenia in the years 2004-08. During Slovenian EU Presidency in the first half of 2008 he led the Council of the European Union. Be­ tween 2000 and 2004 he was Deputy and president of the SDS. From June to October 2000 he was Minister of Defence. In the years 1995–1999 he was Deputy and president of the SDS, head of the Slovenian parliamentary delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly (NAA) (1997-96). As Minister of Defence (1990–1994) he succeeded in formation of the first Slovenian Armed Forces, which, together with the Slovenian police fended off the aggression of the Yugoslav Army in June 1991 and proclaimed independence. In 1993 he was elected president of the SDS for the first time. He was Vice-presi­ dent of the Slovene Democratic Alliance (SDZ); deputy, fol­ lowing the first democratic elections; and later, president of the party council (1990–1991). In 1988 he was arrested by the Slovene Secret Political Police (SDV) on account of his dissidence, detained in custody and tried before a military court without the right to legal representation, sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. In the 1980s he was active in political opposition to the communist system via activities in newly emerging pacifist and environmental movements, writing of

– 211 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA critical articles for various publications. In 1982 he was ap­ pointed president of the Committee for Basic People’s De­ fence and Social Self-Protection within the framework of the youth organisation Alliance of Socialist Youth of Slovenia (ZSMS). He was dismissed early and lost any possibility of employment due to his critical writings on the Yugoslav Peo­ ple’s Army.

Romana Jordan Cizelj graduated in electrical engineer­ ing at the University of Ljubljana in 1990, in 1994 she got a master’s degree at the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics of the University of Ljubljana where in 2000 she obtained a PhD on a thesis on nuclear engineering. Between 1990 and 2002 she worked as a researcher at the Jožef Stefan Institute in Ljubljana. She entered active politics in 1998, when she was elected on the Supervisory Board of the municipality of Domžale. In 2002, she was elected member of the Domžale Municipal Council on the list of the Slovenian Democratic Party. On the national level she was active as a Member of the Management Board and Secretary of the University Science Forum as well as Member of the Management Board and Vice-President of the Slovenian Committee for NATO. In 2004, she was in the first group elected to the European Parlia­ ment. She belongs to the European People’s Party. In 2009 she was re-elected to the EP. Her main fields of work are energet­ ics, climate, environment, industry and research. In 2007 she got the MEP of the year award for energetics. She is a honor­

– 212 – About the authors ary citizen of the town Prebold. Romana Jordan Cizelj spent her childhood in Žalec and Prebold in the Savinja Valley. She is a mother of two sons.

Ivan Oman was born in 1929 in Zminec near Škofja Loka. After finishing primary school he started to work at his father’s farm. In the 1970s he joined the farmers’ movement and he took part in all important initiatives of that time. In May 1988 he became president of the newly founded Slovenian Farmers' Federation. When joined democratic opposition (DEMOS) was established he was elected its Vice-President. In 1990 he was elected member of Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia. He was the only member of the Presidency that fully support­ ed formation of Slovenian Armed Forces and did not sign the »Declaration for peace« which was intended to prevent Slov­ ene self-defence. Because he wanted that Slovenian Farmers' Federation, then already called Slovenian People’s Party (SLS), joins with the Slovenian Christian Democrats (SKD) he be­ came a member of the Slovenian Christian Democrats. In the mandate 1992 – 1996 he was a Deputy in the National Assem­ bly elected on the list of the Christian Democrats. After that he withdrew from active politics. He is Chairman of the Slov­ ene veteran organisation »Association for the Values of Slov­ ene Independence«.

– 213 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

Alojz Peterle was a leader of the Slovene Christian Dem­ ocrats from the founding of the party in 1989 until 2000. Be­ tween 1990 and 1992, he was President of the first freely elect­ ed Slovenian Government, and he was among those who led Slovenia to independence from Yugoslavia. He was Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister (1993-1994); Foreign Minister (2000), Member of the Presidium of the Convention on the Future of Europe (2002-2003) and Observer in the Eu­ ropean Parliament (2003-2004). In the 2004 elections to the European Parliament, Peterle was elected for the New Slove­ nia Christian People’s Party, a member of the European Peo­ ple’s Party (EPP). In March 2006, he was elected as Vice Pres­ ident of the European People’s Party for a three-year term. At 2009 European elections he was re-elected as an MEP. Alojz Peterle is Vice-President of the Union of European Federalists (since 2004) and Member of the State Legislative Leaders Foundation (1989). He received a number of awards, among others: MEP Awards 2008 (Health and Food Safety); APOZ Award (Fight against Cancer), Častni znak svobode (Slovenia); Internationaler Preis Joseph Krainer (Austria); Ordine Piano (Holy See).

Dimitrij Rupel. After receiving a bachelor’s degree in com­ parative literature and sociology from the University of Ljubljana, he continued his studies at the University of Essex, and the Brandeis University where he obtained a PhD in soci­ ology in 1976. During this time, he has published literary

– 214 – About the authors works, journalistic and critical articles. From 1977 to 1978, he taught at Queen’s University in Canada, then in 1985 at the New School for Social Research of New York in 1989. Togeth­ er with other Slovenian intellectuals in the 1980s, he initiated and edited the alternative and dissident magazine Nova Revija, which later became the platform for democratic reform in the Socialist Republic of Slovenia. In 1987, he was among the au­ thors of the Contributions to the Slovenian National Program, an intellectual manifesto that demanded a democratic, plural­ istic and sovereign Slovenian state. The publication of the manifesto by the Nova revija, edited by Rupel, caused a huge scandal in Yugoslavia, and Rupel was forced to step down as editor. In 1989, he was one of the founders of the Slovenian Democratic Alliance (Slovenska demokratična zveza, SDZ), one of the first democratic parties that challenged the Communist regime. After the victory of the anti-Communist DEMOS co­ alition in the first free elections in Slovenia in 1990, Rupel was appointed the first Foreign Minister of the Republic of Slov­ enia. During his term in office, Slovenia declared its independ­ ence and gained international recognition. In 1992 he was elected a Representative in the National Assembly of Slovenia. In 1995 he took office ofMayo r of Ljubljana. He remained in this position until 1997, when he was appointed Ambassador to the United States. Rupel returned to the post of the Foreign Minister of Slovenia in 2000. He remained at this position un­ til July 2004. From 2004 to 2008 Rupel was Foreign Minister in Janez Janša’s government. From January to June he was President of the EU General Affairs and External Relations

– 215 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

Council. During 2005 he was the chairman-in-office of the OSCE.

Milan Zver is a Slovenian politician, sociologist and politi­ cal scientist. In 1998, Milan Zver obtained his PhD at the University of Ljubljana. The same year, he started teaching so­ ciology at the University of Maribor. He has written several articles and monographs in political analysis and history of po­ litical thought. Between 2004 and 2008, he was Minister for Education and Sports. In the first half of 2008 during Slovene presidency to the European Union he was the President of the Council of the European Union for Education, Youth and Culture. In the European elections of 2009 he was elected to the European Parliament. He is a member of the Group of the European People’s Party (EPP) and the leader of Slovenian delegation in the EPP. He is a member of the Committee on Culture and Education and Delegation to the EU-Former Yu­ goslav Republic of Macedonia and a substitute member of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Special committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013 and the Delega­ tion for relations with the People’s Republic of China. Milan Zver was a Municipal Councillor in Ljubljana (2002-2004). He has been a member of several executive bodies of the Slov­ enian Democratic Party (SDS) since 1992, at first as an advis­ er and subsequently as a member and two-times Vice-Presi­ dent. He has also been active on the international political scene, mostly within the European People’s Party and in con­

– 216 – About the authors servative think tanks such as the International Republican In­ stitute and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation.

– 217 –

Seznam uporabljenih kratic

CD – Cankarjev dom CDU – Krščansko demokratska unija (Nemčija) CK – Centralni komite CK ZK – Centralni komite Zveze komunistov CK ZKJ – Centralni komite Zveze komunistov Jugoslavije DEMOS – Demokratična opozicija Slovenije DZ – Državni zbor EU – Evropska unija EZ – Evropska zveza KP SZ – Komunistična partija Sovjetske zveze JBTZ – Janša, Borštner, Tasič, Zavrl JLA – Jugoslovanska ljudska armada LDS – Liberalna demokracija Slovenije NATO – North Atlantic Treaty Organization – Organizacija severnoatlantske pogodbe OECD – Organizacija za gospodarsko sodelovanje in razvoj OF – Osvobodilna fronta

– 219 – DVAJSET LET SAMOSTOJNE SLOVENIJE

OZN – Organizacija združenih narodov RK SZDL – Republiška konferenca Socialistične zveze delov­ nega ljudstva RS – Republika Slovenija SANU – Srbska akademija znanosti in umetnosti SDV – Služba državne varnosti SDS – Slovenska demokratska stranka SDZ – Slovenska demokratična zveza SDZS – Socialdemokratska zveza Slovenije SFRJ – Socialistična republika Jugoslavija SKD – Slovenski krščanski demokrati SLS – Slovenska ljudska stranka SZDL – Socialistična zveza delovnega ljudstva TO – Teritorialna obramba UEF – Evropsko združenje federalistov UDBA – Uprava državne varnosti UMAR – Urad RS za makroekonomske analize VS OZN – Varnostni svet Organizacije združenih narodov

– 220 – List of abbreviations

CDU – Christian Democratic Union (Germany) DEMOS – Democratic Opposition of Slovenia EC – European Commission EU – European Union EDU – European Democrat Union EP – European Parliament EPP – European People's Party IMAD (UMAR) – Institute for Macroeconomic Analysis and Development JBTZ – Janez Janša, Ivan Borštner, David Tasič, Franci Zavrl JLA (YPA)– Yugoslav People's Army LDS – Liberal Democratic Party, Liberal Democracy of Slov­ enia MEP – Member of the European Parliament NAA – North Atlantic Assembly NATO – North Atlantic Treaty Organization OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and De­ velopment

– 221 – TWENTY YEARS OF INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA

OSCE – Organization for Security and Co-operation in Eu­ rope OZNA – Department for the Protection of People RK SZDL – Republic Conference of the Socialist Alliance of Working People of Slovenia RS – Republic of Slovenia SANU – Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts SDA (SDZ ) – Slovene Democratic Alliance SDV (SSS) – State Security Service SDS – Slovenian Democratic Party SDZ (SDA) – Slovene Democratic Alliance SDZS – Social Democratic Alliance of Slovenia SKD – Slovenian Christian Democrats SKZ – Slovenian Farmers' Federation SLS – Slovenian People’s Party SSS (SDV) – State Security Service TD (TO) – Territorial Defence TO (TD) – Territorial Defence UDBA – State Security Administration UN – United Nations YPA (JLA) – Yugoslav People’s Army ZSMS – Union of the Socialist Youth of Slovenia

– 222 –

Dvajset let neodvisne Slovenije Twenty Years of Independent Slovenia

Uredil dr. Milan Zver Avtorji prispevkov: Lojze Peterle, Janez Janša, dr. Dimitrij Rupel, Igor Bavčar, Ivan Oman, dr. Romana Jordan Cizelj Foto: Nace Bizilj /N.B./ in Tone Stojko /T.S./, Muzej novejše zgodovine Slovenije, in Ljubo Žgavc /L.Ž./ Oblikovala in tehnično uredila Mirjam Pezdirc Izdali in založili: Evropska ljudska stranka, Inštitut dr. Jožeta Pučnika in Inštitut dr. Janeza Evangelista Kreka Natisnila tiskarna Januš, s. p., Ljubljana Prva izdaja, naklada 1000 izvodov Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2011

Dvajset let neodvisne Slovenije Twenty Years of Independent Slovenia

Edited by Dr Milan Zver Authors: Lojze Peterle, Janez Janša, Dr Dimitrij Rupel, Igor Bavčar, Ivan Oman, Dr Romana Jordan Cizelj Photo: Nace Bizilj /N.B./ and Tone Stojko /T.S./, National Museum of Contemporary History and Ljubo Žgavc /L.Ž./ Translated into English by Amidas d. o. o. Design and production Mirjam Pezdirc Published by European People's Party, Inštitut dr. Janeza Evangelista Kreka and Inštitut dr. Jožeta Pučnika Printed by Tiskarna Januš, s. p., Ljubljana, Slovenia First edition printrun 1000 copies Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2011