PRISPEVKI ZGODOVINO ZA NOVEJŠO 3 Quarter of a Century of the Republic of Slovenia INŠTITUT ZA NOVEJŠO ZGODOVINO Letnik LVI Ljubljana 2016 Številka 3 P R I S PE V K I Z A N OV E J Š O ZG O D OV I N O Quarter of a Century of the Republic of Slovenia Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 Contributions to the Contemporary History Contributions a l'histoire contemporaine Beiträge zur Zeitgeschichte UDC 94(497.4)"18/19" UDK ISSN 0353-0329 Uredniški odbor/Editorial board: dr. Jure Gašparič (glavni urednik/editor-in-chief ), dr. Zdenko Čepič, dr. Filip Čuček, dr. Damijan Guštin, dr. Ľuboš Kačírek, dr. Martin Moll, dr. Andrej Pančur, dr. Zdenko Radelić, dr. Andreas Schulz, dr. Mojca Šorn, dr. Marko Zajc Lektura/Reading: dr. Andreja Perić Jezernik Prevodi/Translations: Studio S.U.R., Translat d.o.o., Scribendi, Jasna Levanič in Barbara Krasnik Bibliografska obdelava/Bibliographic data processing: Igor Zemljič Izdajatelj/Published by: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino/Institute of Contemporary History Kongresni trg 1, SI-1000 Ljubljana tel. (386) 01 200 31 20, fax (386) 01 200 31 60 e-mail: jure.gasparic@inz.si Sofinancer/Financially supported by: Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije/ Slovenian Research Agency Računalniški prelom/Typesetting: MEDIT d.o.o., Notranje Gorice Tisk/Printed by: Fotolito Dolenc d.o.o. Cena/Price: 15,00 EUR Zamenjave/Exchange: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino/Institute of Contemporary History Kongresni trg 1, SI-1000 Ljubljana Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino so indeksirani v/are indexed in: Scopus, ERIH Plus, Historical Abstract, ABC-CLIO, PubMed, CEEOL, Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory Za znanstveno korektnost člankov odgovarjajo avtorji/ The publisher assumes no responsibility for statements made by authors Številka vpisa v razvid medijev: 720 Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 Table of Contents EDITORIAL Quarter of a Century ............................................................................................. 7 ARTICLES Jurij Hadalin, Unwanted Heritage? Historiographic Discourse about (Second) Yugoslavia ............................................................................................. 11 UDC: 930(497.4):94(497.1)"1945/1991" Jure Gašparič, Writing the Political History of the Republic of Slovenia .............. 22 UDC: 930 930:323(497.4)"1991/2016" Simona Kustec Lipicer, Evaluation Remarks about Slovenian Parliamentary Democracy at Its Twenty-Fifth Anniversary ......................................................... 42 UDC: 328(497.4)"2014/2016" Aleksander Lorenčič, Studying the Economic Transition – Challenges, Problems and Results .......................................................................................... 59 UDC: 328: 340.134(437)"1989/1990" Tomaž Pavlin, Attainment of Slovenian Independence and Sport ........................ 71 UDC: 796(497.4)"1991/2016" Damijan Guštin, Defence of the Republic of Slovenia 1991–2004: From Individual to Collective Defence ................................................................ 86 UDC: 355.02(497.4)"1991/2004" Bojan Godeša, Reconciliation instead of History ............................................... 101 UDC: 2-185.57:930:323(497.4)"1990/2016" Vesna Gotovina, Archival Materials of the State Authorities Related to the Processes of Democratisation and the Attainment of Independence of Slovenia .............................................................................. 118 UDC: 930.25:94(497.4)"1991" Andrej Pančur, Mojca Šorn, Smart Big Data: Use of Slovenian Parliamentary Papers in Digital History ................................................................................... 130 UDC: 328: 930.25:004.9 Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 Zdenko Čepič, Before That: The Formation of Slovenian Statehood prior to Its Independence .................................................................................. 147 UDC 341.231(497.4)"1941/1991" Jurij Perovšek, What to Say? – Marking the 25th Anniversary of Slovenian Independence ................................................................................ 159 UDC: 930:94(497.4)"1991" REVIEWS AND REPORTS Twenty-five Years of the Republic of Slovenia – Challenges, Dilemmas and Expectations (Filip Čuček) ............................................................................... 171 Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 5 Uredniško obvestilo Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino je ena osrednjih slovenskih znanstvenih zgodovinopisnih revij, ki objavlja teme s področja novejše zgodovine (19. in 20. stoletje) srednje in jugo- vzhodne Evrope. Od leta 1960 revijo redno izdaja Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino (do leta 1986 je izhajala pod imenom Prispevki za zgodovino delavskega gibanja). Revija izide trikrat letno v slovenskem jeziku in v naslednjih tujih jezikih: angleščina, nemščina, srbščina, hrvaščina, bosanščina, italijanščina, slovaščina in češčina. Članki izha- jajo z izvlečki v angleščini in slovenščini ter povzetki v angleščini. Arhivski letniki so dostopni na Zgodovina Slovenije - SIstory. Informacije za avtorje in navodila so dostopni na http://ojs.inz.si/index.php/pnz/index. Editorial Notice Contributions to Contemporary History is one of the central Slovenian scientific histori- ographic journals, dedicated to publishing articles from the field of contemporary history (the 19th and 20th century). It has been published regularly since 1960 by the Institute of Contemporary History, and until 1986 it was entitled Contributions to the History of the Workers‘ Movement. The journal is published three times per year in Slovenian and in the following foreign languages: English, German, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Italian, Slovak and Czech. The articles are all published with abstracts in English and Slovenian as well as summaries in English. The archive of past volumes is available at the History of Slovenia - SIstory web portal. Further information and guidelines for the authors are available at http://ojs.inz.si/ index.php/pnz/index. www.sistory.si Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 7 Editorial Quarter of a Century For many, the quarter of a century of the Republic of Slovenia (1991–2016) is a relative concept. Some do not think that the anniversary is anything special, others do not want to celebrate it at all at this time due to the many wasted opportunities, while the rest would like to honour the memory of the 25 years since the establish- ment of the state very conscientiously. The anniversary is also relative for historians and the Slovenian historiography: on the one hand the year 2016 does not represent any significant milestone in history, while on the other hand 25 years of the inde- pendent Slovenian state certainly encourages us to start facing the research challenges posed by this period more actively. There are many reasons for this – apart from the aforementioned anniversary. In this time the image of Slovenia, its society and ourselves has changed com- pletely. The processes that began at the end of the 1980s have left a profound and thorough impression. A new political and economic system has been constructed, privatisation and denationalisation of the socially-owned property has been carried out, scandals unheard of before have taken place, the role of the Church and the civilian society has changed, the attitude towards the disintegrated Yugoslavia and then towards the former Yugoslav countries – successors of the late common state – has altered as well, together with the attitude towards the past, World War II and the attainment of independence... Even habits have changed. Once, in the European East, secret services scrutinised the lives of the people (as the film Das Leben der An- deren depicts so wonderfully), while today we voluntarily share information about ourselves on Facebook and Twitter. Language – including political discourse – has changed, and a variety of expressions have been coined or have fallen out of use: the national interest, tycoon, parties of the Slovenian Spring... These twenty-five years also represent the time that encompasses one third of the post-war period. This period is longer than the span of years during which the first Yugoslav state existed in peace (the First Yugoslavia has been diligently studied for more than fifty years and there are still many challenges ahead of us). According to the information of the Statistical Office, during this period more than half a million children were born: a quarter of the population of Slovenia. This is our time, and it is by all means ripe for historiographic analysis. It has been full of events and issues, and as such it calls for a systemic analysis. At the same time it is a period which is still alive and present. Dilemmas involved in the challenge of exploring the history of the Re- public of Slovenia, characteristic for this period of time exclusively, certainly abound. In light of all of the above we, at the Institute of Contemporary History, have decided to take concrete steps towards the challenge of studying the history of the Editorial8 last quarter of a century. In June 2016 we therefore organised a consultation entitled “Četrt stoletja Republike Slovenije: izzivi, dileme, pričakovanja” (A Quarter of a Century of the Republic of Slovenia – Challenges, Dilemmas, Expectations). The report on the consultation has been drawn up by Filip Čuček and is included in this issue of Contributions to Contemporary History. The basic goal of the consultation that took place on 15 and 16 June 2016 at the Institute of Contemporary History was not pretentious. Nobody had the intention to write the “great historical truth” about Slovenia. Instead it was aimed at establishing the methodological, scientific and topically suitable foundations for further research. Experts in various fields were invited (history of diplomacy, political history and political sciences, economic history, archival science, museology, digital humanities, philosophy, etc.). It was taken into account that nowadays the divisions between sci- ences that focus on the exploration of the present barely exist anymore: what exists are the common problems that should be tackled. The book entitled “Četrt stoletja Republike Slovenije: izzivi, dileme, pričakovanja” (A Quarter of a Century of the Republic of Slovenia – Challenges, Dilemmas, Expectations), written on the basis of the conclusions reached at this consultation, has already been published. The relevance of the issue and especially the research maturity of the contribu- tions presented at the consultation ultimately resulted in the idea to prepare a special topical issue of the Contributions to Contemporary History journal, entitled Quar- ter of a Century. Many experts responded to the invitation issued by the editorial board. It was especially heartening that they provided a variety of contributions, dif- fering greatly in terms of contents, approach, scope and methodology. Jurij Hadalin focused on how the disintegrated Yugoslav state was comprehended by the Slovenian historiography and society in the last quarter of a century. Already in the introduc- tion he established that the former Yugoslavia was and still is predominantly a politi- cal rather than expert topic. Jure Gašparič shed some light on the issues involved in researching and writing the most recent political history of the Republic of Slovenia. He specifically analysed numerous dilemmas and methodological peculiarities (the issue of historical distance, the sensibility of such efforts, the unmanageability and specificity of sources), while at the same time pointing out the first potential research conclusions. Concrete conclusions on the political development of Slovenia were also contributed by Simona Kustec Lipicer, who carried out an in-depth analysis of the development and character of political parties. Aleksander Lorenčič presented the quandaries, problems and research results that he had encountered and reached during his research of the economic aspect of the Slovenian transition. Tomaž Pav- lin‘s contribution on the Slovenian sport and the issues it had to face is especially interesting in terms of understanding the wider dimensions of the establishment of the Slovenian state. After all, sport has always been deemed as a vital element of the Slovenian culture. Damijan Guštin presented the development of the Slovenian armed forces and described in detail the process of their formation and subsequent transformation. Meanwhile, Bojan Godeša focused on one of the most traumatic social issues of the Slovenian transition: the issue of reconciliation (i.e. on the prob- Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 9 lem of the diametrically opposite outlooks on World War II and the events that took place during and after it in Slovenia). The issue of the materials, relevant for the exploration of the most recent history, was also explored by the archival science expert Vesna Gotovina, who described the issues involved in the acquisition, preservation and arrangement of classic archival materials comprehensively; as well as by Andrej Pančur and Mojca Šorn, who pre- pared a theoretical, analytical and practical presentation of one of the most topical problems encountered when attempts are made to study our time: the unmanageable quantity of digital sources. Their contribution, written on the basis of a parliamen- tary materials analysis, presents the Slovenian historiography with completely new methodological challenges. In the conclusion Zdenko Čepič presented an analytical essay about the process of the formation of the independent Slovenian state through- out the 20th century, in which he especially carefully considered three moments when the self-determination of the population had been expressed (the establish- ment of the First Yugoslavia, the formation of the Second Yugoslavia, and finally during its dissolution). The special issue of Contributions to Contemporary History, Quarter of a Century, is concluded by Jurij Perovšek, who, also in the form of an essay, underlines especially the negative aspects of the political, social and economic transition. The discussions include quite a few chapters from the development of Slovenia, though many of them are certainly missing. The work in itself certainly illustrates the fast-paced and tumultuous times in which everyone focuses on their own priorities. The topical issue of the Contributions to Contemporary History journal also lacks any precise predictions with regard to the directions in which the Republic of Slove- nia might be heading. However, we can safely state that it contains certain questions, guidelines with regard to how to address them, and some answers about our recent past. Thus we can see the Republic of Slovenia more clearly and differently. Jure Gašparič and Mojca Šorn THE INSTITUTE OF CONTEMPORARY HISTORY LIBRARY The Institute of Contemporary History Library is a specialised library, collecting and storing the resources for scientific researchers and fans of contemporary history. Initially its materials mostly encompassed books and magazines on the history of World War II and history of the workers' movement. However, as the Institute's areas of interest expanded, its library has also procured materials about the political, economic, social and cultural history of Slovenians. The library's basic collection consists of around 40.000 books about the contemporary history of Slovenia and the world. Initially the majority of books focused on the history of World War II and the workers' movement, while later the library started procuring literature about social and cultural history. We can state that with its collection of materials our library represents the most important historiographic collection about the history of the 20th century in Slovenia. The library keeps around 200 titles of magazines, including all of the most important newspapers since Bleiweis's Kmetijske and rokodelske novice newspaper to cultural and professional magazines and all kinds of bound daily newspapers. Opening hours Monday – Friday: 8 a.m. to 1 p.m., Wednesday: 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. Contact + 386 1 200 31 28 or +386 1 200 31 32 Web page http://www.inz.si/knjiznica.php Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 11 1.01 UDC: 930(497.4):94(497.1)"1945/1991" Jurij Hadalin* Unwanted Heritage? Historiographic Discourse about (Second) Yugoslavia IZVLEČEK NEZAŽELENA DEDIŠČINA? HISTORIOGRAFSKI DISKURZ O (DRUGI) JUGOSLAVIJI Avtor poskuša v kratkem pregledu predstaviti dojemanje druge jugoslovanske države v sloven- skem zgodovinopisju in družbi, saj ostaja jugoslovanska zgodovina v Sloveniji predvsem politična in ne toliko strokovna tema. Vprašanje, kdaj se bo uspela odlepiti od tega, ostaja neodgovorjeno, kljub temu pa ocenjuje, da je potrebno na procese, ki so v preteklosti bili obravnavani izven širšega konteksta, včasih pogledati tudi z nekoliko drugačne perspektive. Ključne besede: Jugoslavija, zgodovina, zgodovinopisje ABSTRACT In a short overview the author attempts to present the attitude towards the second Yugoslav state in the Slovenian historiography and society, as in Slovenia the Yugoslav history remains above all a political rather than expert topic. The question when this flaw will be overcome remains un- answered. Nevertheless, the author estimates that the processes, seen outside of the broader context in the past, should sometimes be viewed from a somewhat different perspective. Keywords: Yugoslavia, history, historiography In this article I shall discuss a historical phenomenon called Yugoslavia. It is a country that no longer exists, and allegedly we are all well-aware of this. However, one could ask a direct witness about it: the singer-songwriter Andrej Šifrer, who used to sing at the time of its demise: “Kdo bo za pijačo dal, ko umrla bo država? [Who will buy drinks when the state is dead?]”1 * Research Associate, PhD, Institute of Contemporary History, Kongresni trg 1, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, jurij.hadalin@inz.si 1 Andrej Šifrer, “Država,” on: Hiti počasi (Ljubljana: ZKP RTVLJ, 1990). The song was a big hit in the period before the Slovenian independence. More about the circumstances surrounding the creation of this song: “Hiti počasi,” Hiti počasi ‒ Wikipedija, prosta enciklopedija, accesed 20 June 2016, https:// sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiti_po%C4%8Dasi. Jurij Hadalin: Unwanted Heritage? Historiographic Discourse about (Second) Yugoslavia12 After all, that is why we are celebrating the 25th anniversary of the independent Slovenian state this year. Nevertheless, Yugoslavia still lives its virtual life, perhaps mostly because it does not actually exist in the political geography; it does not have only a single successor or pretender to its universal heritage; nor does it have a “nation” (neither tripartite, nor from the ranks of the nations and nationalities); although fifteen years ago almost 328,000 Yugoslavs were counted in the United States.2 On the basis of the same source (a lecture by Tomasz Kamusella at the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana3) we can add that even its unique language has been preserved in the virtual world, as the largest Wikipedia from our territories has been written in what is today the non-existent Serbo-Croatian language.4 At this point let me also mention the Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito, who is often – in the general as well as professional public – presented as synonymous with the word Yu- goslavia. Even he “has lived his virtual life” since as early as 1997, when he started disturbing the public from the servers of the Jožef Stefan Institute.5 Thus he lives regardless of reality and not always merely due to the concept of “Yugo-nostalgia”, which has in the recent years acquired an increasingly pejorative connotation, espe- cially in the segment of the society which sees the second Yugoslav state especially on the basis of the traumatic events at the time of its establishment. However, perhaps these people can seek solace in the fact that “Yugo-nostalgia” is a typical example of retroutopia,6 i.e. nostalgia for something that has in fact never existed, at least not in the idolised form that might be painted today. We could also use the term retronostalgia; however, that is something completely different, as the Radio Student show with the same title underlines with its slogan: “We record, describe and deconstruct selected objects from our consumer past. Unfortunately, however, we cannot deny them.”7 Many people associate this nostalgia merely with the political system, and we have to acknowledge, from what is today already a sufficient temporal distance, that it was unique and utopic in its complexity. However, also in terms of geography and culture we have been determined by Yugoslavia to the degree where we cannot 2 In the population census of 2000, 328,547 people declared the Yugoslav, 374,241 Croatian, 140,337 Serbian and 176,691 Slovenian ancestry. See: “United States Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, Ancestry (Total Categories Tallied) for People with One or More Ancestry Categories Report- ed,” American FactFinder – Results, accesed 20 June 2016, http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableser- vices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_00_SF3_PCT018&prodType=table. 3 Tomasz Kamusella, The Forgotten 1989 Ethnic Cleansing of Bulgaria’s Turks. A Yugoslav Connec- tion? (lecture) (Ljubljana: Faculty of Arts and Institute of Contemporary History, 7 June 2016). 4 The Serbo-Croatian version includes 433,561 articles, Serbian 336,321 articles, Croatian 166,093 articles and Slovenian 151,768 articles. See: List of Wikipedias – Meta, accesed 20 June 2016, https:// meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias#All_Wikipedias_ordered_by_number_of_articles. 5 Tito‘s Home Page, www.titoville.com. Website currently unavailable. 6 Jela Krečič, Miglena Nikolčina: Treba je tvegati in si zamisliti utopijo [We Have to Take a Risk and Imagine an Utopia], accesed 1 September 2016, http://m.delo.si/sobotna/miglena-nikolcina-treba-je- tvegati-in-si-zamisliti-utopijo.html. 7 Retrostalgija [Retronostalgia] | Radio Študent, http://radiostudent.si/dru%C5%BEba/retrostal- gija. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 13 simply overlook it on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the independent Slove- nian state. Dejan Novačić is the curator of this non-existent state: he described the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in his well-known work SFRJ za ponavljače (SFRY for Repeaters, in the Slovenian translation SFRJ – moja dežela, or SFRY – My Country),8 while he developed the Yugoslav mental heritage in the book Emi- grantska kuharica9 (Emigrant Cookbook, which explains how the aforementioned 328,000 Yugoslavs have been preserving their culture). In the introduction to the aforementioned “lexicographic study” Miha Avanzo asks himself: “Where do dead countries end up?”10 The answer is provided by Dubravka Ugrešić, who says: “that Novačić’s book is a humorous deconstruction of flowery words, and therefore it has a twofold effect. As we are reading it, we can calmly come to terms with our own past and at the same time forgive it with relief.” She also adds: “The value of this book lies in the fact that it is one of the first works to open the space for the revaluation of the past, and not the official past – that is up to historians – but the past of our own lives.”11 And at this point I can think of two things: 1. In the last 25 years, in Slovenia the orphan Yugoslavia has lived in a tumultuous at- mosphere, as our former/current actors have been unable to carry out this revaluation in a relaxed-enough spirit. Let me just refer to the recent interview with Stane Granda. “The journalist asked him how it is possible that the youth today – those who were born after the disintegration of Yugoslavia – talk about the fallen state with such a positive attitude. Granda answered that one of the reasons was the false upbringing that perpetu- ated a myriad of lies and half-truths. One of such lies is that once upon a time everybody had jobs. ‘Of course we all had jobs, but people often had nothing to do there,’ Granda refuted one of the most frequent blunders. He also reminded everyone to the hilarious processes involved in buying cars and a seriously limited freedom of speech. ‘These rights, whose acquisition represents a significant turning point... They do not mean anything to them, as they were born to this, this is their life. When they hear that jobs and apartments existed, it is naturally that they complain – even though I, for one, have never received an apartment, and I nevertheless had to contribute money to the housing fund.’ The historian claims that many lies remain, in judiciary as well as in the education system. In schools the lies are reflected in the selected topics. Granda illustrated this with the les- sons in history, where the pupils learn when people in Slovenia started wearing jeans, but they do not find out that jeans had to be smuggled from abroad. ‘The former system was 8 Dejan Novačić, SFRJ za ponavljače. Turistički vodič [SFRY for Repeaters. A Tourist Guide] (Beo- grad: Moć knjige, 2003). 9 Dejan Novačić, Emigrantski kuvar. Sve što ste oduvek hteli da znate o jugoslovenskoj kuhinji, ali ne- mate više koga da pitate [Emigrant Cookbook. What You’ve Always Wanted to Know about the Yugoslav Kitchen, but There’s No One Left to Ask] (Novi Sad: Stylos Art, 2009). 10 Miha Avanzo, “Kje končajo mrtve države?,” [Where do Dead Countries End Up] in: Dejan Novačić, SFRJ – moja dežela. Turistični vodnik (Ljubljana: Orbis, 2003), 4. 11 Dubrovka Ugrešić, “Leksikon izmišljene dežele,” [Lexicon of an Imaginary Country] in: Dejan Novaćić, SFRJ – moja dežela. Turistični vodič (Ljubljana: Orbis, 2003), 5, 6. Jurij Hadalin: Unwanted Heritage? Historiographic Discourse about (Second) Yugoslavia14 based on lies, and many of these lies remain present in the society,’ he stated and added that the various Yugo-nostalgic celebrations in the primary and secondary schools are also the result of the advanced age of the teachers, who are therefore perhaps also slightly demented.”12 2. Yugoslavia no longer exists and it should be the subject of historians. That is what my colleague Zdenko Čepič13 has frequently said in the recent years, and it is time that we actually get on with it – soberly and using the standard historiographic methodology. However, we have more or less intensively been doing this also in the last 25 years. And that, actually, is what I wanted to discuss. In the time of the Second Yugoslavia and its permanent reforms not very many truly Yugoslav/common things were created, despite significant efforts. If we can describe the Yugoslav social reality with precisely three truly common denomina- tors – Tito, Yugoslav People’s Army and the blue team – than it is clear that Yugo- slav historiography in the classic sense of the word did not exist. Large-scale com- mon project did exist – from the History of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia/ League of Communists of Yugoslavia to the Encyclopaedia of Yugoslavia – but we can nevertheless not talk about a common “Yugoslav historiography”.14 Extensive joint projects, where their contributors “nearly perished due to excessive workload” (I am quoting Zdenko Čepič, who would often tell an anecdote about a leader of one of the projects, Dušan Bilandžić), remained unrealised, “while the exploration of the Yugoslav nations” past started moving more and more often into the realm of journalism, artistic works and especially ‘pure politics”,15 as Božo Repe wrote. Sadly, most often that was where it remained. For the purposes of this contribution I have reviewed quite a collection of scientific publications, and under keyword “Yugosla- via” I have found quite a few peculiar ways in which this concept was used (sort of in the style of the permanent exhibition of the military museum at Kalamegdan, where the presentation of the Yugoslav military history started somewhere in the Iron Age). I have nevertheless found that in the middle of the 1980s a few reviews were writ- ten that may have partly opposed each other in their interpretations, but they still represent the basis for serious studies of the Yugoslav history (History of SFRY by 12 Stane Granda, “Zaklinjanje Titu je znak razpadanja uma in demence,” [Swearing by Tito is a Sign of Disintegrating Minds and Dementia] Nova24tv, accesed 20 June 2016, http://nova24tv.si/ slovenija/ljudje/stane-granda-zaklinjanje-titu-je-znak-razpadanja-uma-in-demence/. 13 E.g. Zdenko Čepič, “Misli in dejstva: izhodišča,” [Thoughts and Facts: Starting Points] in: Slovenija v Jugoslaviji, ed. Zdenko Čepič (Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2015), 5‒19. 14 Mateja Režek, “Usmerjena preteklost. Mehanizmi ideološke in politične ‘kontaminacije’ zgo- dovinopisja v socialistični Sloveniji in Jugoslaviji,” [Directed Past: Mechanisms of Ideological and Po- litical ‘Contamination’ of Historiography in the Socialist Slovenia and Yugoslavia] Acta Histriae 22, No. 4 (2014): 971‒92 and 977. 15 Božo Repe, “Zgodovina, zgodovinopisje in etika,” [History, Historiography and Ethics] in: Etika v slovenskem jeziku, literaturi in kulturi. Zbornik predavanj / 49. seminar slovenskega jezika, litera- ture in kulture, [Ljubljana], 1 – 12 July 2013, ed. Aleksander Bjelčević (Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete, Ljubljana: 2013), 82, 83. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 15 Bilandžić,16 Yugoslavia 1918‒1984 by Petranović‒Zečević,17 and Nations, Yugosla- via, Revolution by Janko Pleterski18). Despite the differences, the common historio- graphic space did exist. In the Contributions to Contemporary History (Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino) scientific journal we can thus follow reviews of works from the territory of the former state until around the end of 1992 (due to the relatively long delay in publication). In the same year three works focusing on the Slovenian history also in the Yugoslav context were published (Assumption of Power by Jera Vodušek Starič,19 Slovenian Industry in the Clutches of Yugoslavia by Jože Prinčič,20 and Liberalism by Božo Repe21). These were followed by quite a lengthy silence and we could say that the “republican historiography” with the purpose of strengthening the new state reality once again came to the forefront. However, the study programmes at the Department of History at the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana managed to avoid this focus somehow. There we, the students, were still able to listen to lectures on the former common space, albeit under somewhat altered titles: for example, in 1991 the term “History of Yugoslav nations” was replaced by the collocation “History of South-East Europe”.22 In the time of its dissolution and throughout of the 1990s Yugoslavia was at the centre of the international attention, especially due to the Yugoslav Wars. At this moment a turning point took place in Slovenia, and after the significant growth in the 1980s the Slovenian-centric historiography was in full swing. After all, the flood of exclusively foreign works about Yugoslavia and its neuralgic former component parts led to the fact that my colleague and I, when we researched this issue years ago, would refer to the works of foreign (English-speaking) and Serbian authors much more often than the few Slovenian and Croatian authors. The publication of Pirjevec’s Yugoslavia in 1995, more than half of which is dedicated to the Second Yugoslavia, was an important reference point.23 However, even this book was ini- 16 The book was first published in 1979, in the Slovenian language in 1980, but here I am referring to the third, extended edition from the middle of the 1980s. – Dušan Bilandžić, Historija Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije. Glavni procesi [History of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Main Processes: 1918‒1985] (Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1985). 17 The publication was then re-published and extended to include the period until 1988, and the authors continued writing about this topic in the 1990s. – Branko Petranović and Momčilo Zečević, Jugoslavija 1918‒1984 [Yugoslavia 1918‒1984] (Beograd: Rad, 1985). 18 Janko Pleterski, Nacije, Jugoslavija, revolucija [Nations, Yugoslavia, Revolution] (Beograd: Ko- munist, 1985). Slovenian edition Janko Pleterski, Narodi, Jugoslavija, revolucija (Ljubljana: Komunist and Državna založba, 1986). 19 Jerca Vodušek Starič, Prevzem oblasti 1944‒1946 [Assumption of Power 1944‒1946] (Ljublja- na: Cankarjeva založba, 1992). 20 Jože Prinčič, Slovenska industrija v jugoslovanskem primežu [Slovenian Industry in the Clutches of Yugoslavia] (Novo mesto: Dolenjska založba, 1992). 21 Božo Repe, ‘Liberalizem’ v Sloveniji [‘Liberalism’ in Slovenia] (Ljubljana: RO ZZB NOV Slo- venije, 1992). 22 Janez Mlinar, Oddelek za zgodovino. Zgodovina oddelka [Departmen of History. History of the Department], accesed 1 September 2016, http://www.zgodovina-ff-uni-lj.net/index.php?option=com_ content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=42. 23 Jože Prijevec, Jugoslavija 1918‒1992. Nastanek, razvoj ter razpad Karadjordjevićeve in Titove Ju- Jurij Hadalin: Unwanted Heritage? Historiographic Discourse about (Second) Yugoslavia16 tially written for the Italian market, and only afterwards it was successfully published and well-received in Slovenia as well. Afterwards Jože Pirjevec wrote further works about the Yugoslav Wars and later also Tito. These were released in ideal publishing circumstances, but they did not transcend the importance of his book Yugoslavia, which therefore remains unsurpassed as the only synthetic work of this kind by a Slovenian author. In the words of Branko Goropevšek, “It is currently one of the few works written in the language of a small nation living under the Alps, whose contents do not stir up emotions in its readers and it is also not subject to sensation- alism, which can often be claimed of similar political thrillers of this sort.”24 Such thrillers are still in ample supply today. However, as I browse through the works of Slovenian historians I can establish that in Slovenia the new era of interest in the Yugoslav history in its broader context started after 2000 and after the change of the regime in the contemporaneous Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or Serbia. Slovenian historians finally regained access to archive sources, and in the interim a sort of a competitive spirit was formed, as in Serbia the Yugoslav history had been intensively dealt with, focused on in temporal and substantive stages, and often interpreted in a way which did not necessarily correspond to the Slovenian outlook on this period.25 Since my active engagement in research, the Second Yugoslavia has become increas- ingly important. Symposiums were organised on occasions of major anniversaries of the Yugoslav state; a research project dedicated to this very issue took place at the Institute of Contemporary History (Položaj in vloga Slovenije v jugoslovanski državi po drugi svetovni vojni 1945‒1991 – Position and Role of Slovenia in the Yugoslav State after World War II 1945‒1991); several collections of scientific texts have been published; individual researchers have placed their works into a broader context; and the exchange of visits and confrontation of opinions with the researchers from other former Yugoslav territories has gradually become a constant. The second issue involves the evaluation of the Yugoslav experience and is dis- cussed in the third part of this contribution. Many people have focused on Yugo- slavia in various contexts and times. Their evaluations differed and were sometimes even conflicting, so that the readers sometimes even felt that these assessments were made under the influence of the constant requirements of daily politics, as the events from the times of Yugoslavia and its disintegration are still present not only in the parliamentary discussions, but also in the main TV news programmes and lately even in the crime sections in the press. Perhaps this indicates that we, as a society, goslavije [Yugoslavia 1918‒1992. Origin, Development and Disintegration of Karađorđević’s and Tito‘s Yugoslavia] (Koper: Lipa, 1995). 24 Branko Goropevšek, “Kot steklenica piva na smetišču,” [Like a Beer Bottle in the Dump] Zgo- dovina za vse 3, No. 1 (1996): 87, 88. 25 Here we should mention an interesting fact that in the last 25 years the First Yugoslavia has ac- quired a markedly better reputation in the Slovenian historiography. This does not only mean a more leni- ent view of its political regime, which simply was not seen positively in the second Yugoslav state, but also the outlook on the position of Slovenians in this state. This, for example, is not comparable with the other former Yugoslav historiographies, where the image of the First Yugoslavia has remained more similar to the former views. This is especially true of Serbia. I would like to thank Peter Vodopivec for this note. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 17 have still not got over the dissolution of the “marriage”. Many authors were also quite unoriginal. For example, if we look at one of the formulations from the conclu- sion in Silvo Kranjec’s book Kako smo se zedinili (How We Have United) of 1928, we can soon establish that a formula exists for a successful ending of every text about the Slovenian national decisions: “Thus our unification was acknowledged and confirmed in the international agreements, where we Slovenians were mentioned for the first time. After long centuries of foreign yoke we have joined the family of free nations as an equal member... /.../ This very forma- tion of our current state teaches us that it is impossible to vanquish an educated and hon- est nation and that no man can permanently separate what God has joined together.”26 (underlined by J. H.) From a myriad of opinions I have extracted the records of three Slovenian historians who wrote about this topic constantly and through a lengthy time period: Janko Pleterski, Božo Repe and Dušan Nećak. The following quote from Dušan Nećak’s article 70 let Jugoslavije – obletnice in prelomnice (70 Years of Yugoslavia – Anniversaries and Turning Points) of 1989, written on a similar occasion as we are celebrating today, shows how thoughts de- pend on the circumstances and how much easier it is to observe the historical cir- cumstances from an all-knowing position thirty years later.27 “In 1988 the ‘point zero!’ of the general Yugoslav development was reached. Only through domination of rationality over emotions and, I hope, because of the realisations stemming from historical experience – that only a democratic Yugoslavia is a homeland of all nations and nationalities under the condition that everyone in it feels nationally and socially safe and equal and that it is strong only in so far as its constituent parts are strong – an explosion has, for now, not taken place. If we can keep learning from histori- cal experience, it shall also never happen”.28 The same author appeared at a very interesting colloquium entitled Jugoslavija – zgodovinska nuja ali zmota (Yugoslavia – a Historical Necessity or Mistake), which indicates that the question of evaluating the Slovenian experience in the former state despite the professed historiographical love or the need for temporal distance was an important social issue. Here, well over five years later, Nećak said: “From all of the above it is nevertheless clear that Yugoslavia was a historical necessity also for the Slovenian nation. It was an unavoidable historical transference in which the Slo- 26 Silvo Kranjec, Kako smo se zedinili [How We Have United] (Celje: Družba sv. Mohorja, 1928), 142. 27 The seventy-year anniversary of the establishment of the first Yugoslav state. 28 Dušan Nećak, “70 let Jugoslavije ‒ obletnice in prelomnice,” [70 Years of Yugoslavia – Anniver- saries and Turning Points] Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 60, No. 1 (1989): 31, 32. Jurij Hadalin: Unwanted Heritage? Historiographic Discourse about (Second) Yugoslavia18 venian nation had matured to the degree where it was able to undertake the formation of its own sovereign state. With its own nation Slovenians received an opportunity to decide independently about its own destiny and future. We must also assume the responsibility for every decision about the potential new, old, or ancient integrations.”29 The very title of the symposium attests to the spirit of the times. Božo Repe stated: “We historians focused on Yugoslavia from the viewpoint of a done fact. It is simply our job. We were looking for traces of logical developments from the Yugoslav idea until the creation and functioning of the state.”30 Quite a few years later he went on to add: “The today’s Slovenian outlook on Yugoslavia, especially the political outlook – and this is partly true also of historians – stems from the theory that Yugoslavism was a kind of a provisional solution, something that helped Slovenians overcome the difficult times until they were able to return where they belonged: to the so-called ‘Europe’.”31 From the today’s distance, when we have been dwelling in the so-called Europe for quite a while and when this historical goal has been achieved, this issue is not at the forefront anymore. Especially if we think of what is today a very popular (and populist) comparison between the mastodonically bureaucratic but politically weak European Union, whose members include states on very different levels of develop- ment, and Yugoslavia. At this point we can refer to the well-known thought of the last Yugoslav President of the Government (or President of the Federal Executive Council) Ante Marković, who saw Yugoslavia as a convoy of ships in which the last ship, i.e. Kosovo, was seven times slower than the rest. Thus Božo Repe removes Europe from the forefront in a university textbook: “Circumstances have forced Slovenia to leave Yugoslavia: the increasing gap between Yu- goslavia and the developed countries, but primarily the inability of Yugoslavia to democ- ratise and modernise itself as well as ensure the national rights to its nations. It was this combination of liberal ideas and national feelings that created enough mass energy in Slovenia to allow for the envisioned goals to be carried out.”32 29 Dušan Nećak, “Jugoslavija, historična nujnost ali napaka?,” [Yugoslavia, a Historical Exigency or a Mistake?] Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 65, No. 1 (1994): 70, 71. 30 Božo Repe, “Jugoslavija – zgodovinska nuja ali zgodovinska zmota,” [Yugoslavia: A Historical Necessity or a Historical Mistake?] Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 65, No. 1 (1994): 73. 31 Božo Repe, “Zakaj so Slovenci vstopili v Jugoslavijo in zakaj so iz nje odšli?,” [Why Slovenians Entered Yugoslavia and Why They Left It], in: Jugoslavija v času. Devetdeset let od nastanka prve jugoslo- vanske države, [Yugoslavia in Time. Ninety Years from the Formation of First Yugoslav State] ed. Bojan Balkovec (Ljubljana: Oddelek za zgodovino Filozofske fakultete, 2009), 23. 32 Božo Repe, Jugoslovanstvo kot ideja in kot praksa [Yugoslavism as Idea and Practice] (Ljubljana: Filozofska Fakulteta‒Oddelek za zgodovino, 2016), 148, accesed 1 September 2016, http://www.zgo- dovina-ff-uni-lj.net/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=26&func=startdown&id=67. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 19 Naturally, he also adds the international context that made this possible. To the fol- lowing empty phrase – the so-called thousand-year dream – we should also add the following finding from the aforementioned textbook: “Despite its constant dissatisfaction Slovenia believed in the Yugoslav state. It invested ex- traordinary amounts of energy in its existence and its system, and the Slovenian political and economic elites had significant influence in the state leadership already in the First, but even more so in the Second Yugoslavia. Therefore nobody thought of seeking any solutions outside of Yugoslavia until the very end of the 1980s.” When I said something similar in a radio broadcast on the occasion of the referendum about the independence of Slovenia, the journalist just gaped at me in wonder.33 However, the point of this contribution lies elsewhere: not so much in the inter- pretations, but rather in the context in which this chapter of the Slovenian history should be explored. Already Janko Pleterski discussed this at the Maribor sympo- sium, where he talked about the plundering of history34: “Only a comprehensive, unplundered history can be the proverbial bough on which one can sit. No matter whether the tree from which this bough grows was once called the Habsburg Em- pire, yesterday Yugoslavia, or today simply Europe.”35 Sources and Literature Literature: • “Hiti počasi.” Hiti počasi ‒ Wikipedija, prosta enciklopedija. Accesed 20 June 2016. https:// sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiti_po%C4%8Dasi. • Avanzo, Miha. “Kje končajo mrtve države?.” [Where Do Dead Countries End Up] In: Dejan No- vačić, SFRJ – moja dežela: turistični vodnik, 4. Ljubljana: Orbis, 2003. • Bilandžić, Dušan. Historija Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije. Glavni procesi: 1918‒1985 [History of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: the Main Processes: 1918‒1985]. Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1985. • Čepič, Zdenko. “Misli in dejstva. Izhodišča.” [Thoughts and Facts: Starting Points] In: Slovenija v Jugoslaviji, ed. Zdenko Čepič, 5‒19. Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2015. • Čuček, Filip, Jurij Hadalin, Jure Gašparič and Ivan Merljak. “Strta pričakovanja (Sledi časa).” [Bro- ken Expectations (Traces of Time)] Radio Slovenija, programme I (23 December 2012). Accesed 1 September 2016. http://tvslo.si/predvajaj/strta-pricakovanja/ava2.153826307/. • Goropevšek, Branko. “Kot steklenica piva na smetišču.” [Like a Beer Bottle in the Dump] Zgodovi- na za vse 3, No. 1 (1996): 85‒88. • Granda, Stane. “Zaklinjanje Titu je znak razpadanja uma in demence.” [Swearing by Tito is a Sign of Disintegrating Minds and Dementia] Nova24tv. Accesed 20 June 2016. http://nova24tv.si/slo- venija/ljudje/stane-granda-zaklinjanje-titu-je-znak-razpadanja-uma-in-demence/. 33 Filip Čuček, Jurij Hadalin, Jure Gašparič and Ivan Merljak, “Strta pričakovanja (Sledi časa),” [Broken Expectations (Traces of Time)] Radio Slovenija, programme I (23 December 2012), accesed 1 September 2016, http://tvslo.si/predvajaj/strta-pricakovanja/ava2.153826307/. 34 The plundering of history has been characteristic of the former Eastern Bloc countries. I see it as reaching into a cookie jar and taking only what you find useful, while leaving and discarding the rest. 35 Janko Pleterski, “Jugoslavija v slovenski zgodovini,” [Yugoslavia in the Slovenian History] Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 65, No. 1 (1994): 45. Jurij Hadalin: Unwanted Heritage? Historiographic Discourse about (Second) Yugoslavia20 • Kamusella, Tomasz. The Forgotten 1989 Ethnic Cleansing of Bulgaria’s Turks. A Yugoslav Connection? (lecture). Ljubljana: Faculty of Arts and Institute of Contemporary History, 7 June 2016. • Kranjec, Silvo. Kako smo se zedinili. [How We Have United] Celje: Družba sv. Mohorja, 1928. • Krečič, Jela. Miglena Nikolčina: Treba je tvegati in si zamisliti utopijo [We Have to Take a Risk and Imagine an Utopia]. Accesed 1 September 2016. http://m.delo.si/sobotna/miglena-nikolcina-tre- ba-je-tvegati-in-si-zamisliti-utopijo.html. • List of Wikipedias- Meta. Accesed 20 June 2016. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_ Wikipedias#All_Wikipedias_ordered_by_number_of_articles. • Mlinar, Janez. Oddelek za zgodovino. Zgodovina oddelka. [Department of History. Histo- ry of the Department] Accesed 1 September 2016. http://www.zgodovina-ff-uni-lj.net/index. php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=42. • Nećak, Dušan. “70 let Jugoslavije ‒ obletnice in prelomnice.” [70 Years of Yugoslavia – Anniversa- ries and Turning Points] Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 60, No. 1 (1989): 15‒32. • Nećak, Dušan. “Jugoslavija, historična nujnost ali napaka?.” [Yugoslavia, a Historical Exigency or a Mistake?] Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 65, No. 1 (1994): 67‒71. • Novačić, Dejan. Emigrantski kuvar. Sve što ste oduvek hteli da znate o jugoslovenskoj kuhinji, ali nemate više koga da pitate. [Emigrant Cookbook. What You’ve Always Wanted to Know about the Yugoslav Kitchen, but There’s No One Left to Ask] Novi Sad: Stylos Art, 2009. • Novačić, Dejan. SFRJ – moja dežela. Turistični vodič. [SFRY – My Country. A Tourist Guide] Lju- bljana: Orbis, 2003. • Novačić, Dejan. SFRJ za ponavljače. Turistički vodič. [SFRY for Repeaters. A Tourist Guide] Beo- grad: Moć knjige, 2003. • Petranović, Branko and Momčilo Zečević. Jugoslavija 1918‒1984. Zbirka dokumenata. [Yugoslavia 1918‒1984. Collection of Documents] Beograd: Rad, 1985. • Pirjevec, Jože. Jugoslavija 1918‒1992. Nastanek, razvoj ter razpad Karadjordjevićeve in Titove Jugo- slavije. [Yugoslavia 1918‒1992. Origin, Development and Disintegration of Karađorđević’s and Tito‘s Yugoslavia] Koper: Lipa, 1995. • Pleterski, Janko. “Jugoslavija v slovenski zgodovini.” [Yugoslavia in the Slovenian History] Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 65, No. 1 (1994): 40‒46. • Pleterski, Janko. Nacije, Jugoslavija, revolucija. [Nations, Yugoslavia, Revolution] Beograd: Komu- nist, 1985. • Pleterski, Janko. Narodi, Jugoslavija, revolucija. [Nations, Yugoslavia, Revolution] Ljubljana: Ko- munist and Državna založba Slovenije, 1986. • Prinčič, Jože. Slovenska industrija v jugoslovanskem primežu. Kapitalna, ključna kapitalna in temeljna investicijska izgradnja v Sloveniji: 1945‒1956. [Slovenian Industry in the Clutches of Yugoslavia. Capital, Key Capital and Basic Investment Development in Slovenia: 1945‒1956] Novo mesto: Dolenjska založba, 1992. • Repe, Božo. ‘Liberalizem’ v Sloveniji. [‘Liberalism’ in Slovenia] Ljubljana: RO ZZB NOV Slovenije, 1992. • Repe, Božo. “Jugoslavija — zgodovinska nuja ali zgodovinska zmota.” [Yugoslavia: A Historical Necessity or a Historical Mistake?] Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 65, No. 1, (1994): 72‒76. • Repe, Božo. Jugoslovanstvo kot ideja in kot praksa. [Yugoslavism as Idea and Practice] Ljubljana: Filozofska Fakulteta‒Oddelek za zgodovino, 2016. Accesed 1 September 2016. http://www.zgodo- vina-ff-uni-lj.net/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=26&func=startdown&id=67. • Repe, Božo. “Zakaj so Slovenci vstopili v Jugoslavijo in zakaj so iz nje odšli?.” [Why Slovenians Entered Yugoslavia and Why They Left It] In: Jugoslavija v času. Devetdeset let od nastanka prve jugoslovanske države, [Yugoslavia in Time. Ninety Years from the Formation of First Yugoslav State] ed. Bojan Balkovec, 21‒46. Ljubljana: Oddelek za zgodovino Filozofske fakultete, 2009. • Repe, Božo. “Zgodovina, zgodovinopisje in etika.” [History, Historiography and Ethics] In: Etika v slovenskem jeziku, literaturi in kulturi. Zbornik predavanj / 49. seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture, [Ljubljana], 1 – 12 July 2013, ed. Aleksander Bjelčević, 81‒88. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete, Ljubljana, 2013. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 21 • Retrostalgija [Retronostalgia] | Radio Študent. Accesed 1 September 2016. http://radiostudent.si/ dru%C5%BEba/retrostalgija. • Režek, Mateja. “Usmerjena preteklost: Mehanizmi ideološke in politične ‘kontaminacije’ zgodo- vinopisja v socialistični Sloveniji in Jugoslaviji.” [Directed Past: Mechanisms of Ideological and Political “Contamination” of Historiography in the Socialist Slovenia and Yugoslavia] Acta Histriae 22, No. 4 (2014): 971‒92. • Šifrer, Andrej. “Država”. Hiti počasi. Ljubljana: ZKP RTVLJ, 1990. • Tito‘s Home Page. At: www.titoville.com. Website currently unavailable. • Ugrešić, Dubravka. “Leksikon izmišljene dežele.” [Lexicon of an Imaginary Country]. In: Dejan Novaćić, SFRJ – moja dežela. Turistični vodič, 5‒6. Ljubljana: Orbis, 2003. • “United States Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, Ancestry (Total Categories Tallied) for People with One or More Ancestry Categories Reported.” American FactFinder – Results. Accesed 20 June 2016. http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_00_ SF3_PCT018&prodType=table. • Vodušek Starič, Jera. Prevzem oblasti 1944‒1946. [Assumption of Power 1944-1946] Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 1992. Jurij Hadalin NEZAŽELENA DEDIŠČINA? HISTORIOGRAFSKI DISKURZ O (DRUGI) JUGOSLAVIJI P O V Z E T E K O drugi jugoslovanski državi so v različnih kontekstih in časovnih razmakih razmišljali mnogi. Postavili so različne ocene, ki se med seboj včasih tudi bijejo, tako da ima bralec včasih občutek, da so nastale predvsem pod vplivom nenehnih potreb dnevne politike, saj je dogajanje iz časov Jugoslavije in njenega konca še vedno prisotno ne le v parlamentarni razpravi, ampak je izpostavljeno v osrednjih informativnih oddajah in zadnje čase celo črnih kronikah. Kar morda kaže, da konca “zakonskega razmerja” kot družba še vedno nismo preboleli. Bolečih oz. perečih tem se navadno ob praznovanjih ogibamo, a politično, zemljepisno in tudi kulturno nas je Jugoslavija determinirala do te mere, da ob 25. obletnici samostojne slovenske države preprosto ne moremo mimo nje. Avtor je pod drobnogled vzel tri povezane tematike. V prvem delu razprave najprej opravi s fenome- nom t. i. “jugonostalgije”, ki je danes v družbi precejšen kamen spotike, pomembno pa prispeva tudi k ugledu in pomenu druge jugoslovanske države v širši javnosti. V drugem delu sestavka se posveti vpra- šanju obstoja jugoslovanske historiografije in odnosu slovenskega zgodovinopisja do druge Jugoslavije. V tretjem delu članka nato na podlagi zapisov treh uveljavljenih slovenskih zgodovinarjev iz različnih obdobij zadnjega tridesetletja poskuša predstaviti še spremembe v vrednotenju jugoslovanske izkušnje. Razprava ni namenjena temu, da bi na enem mestu in z obširno analizo poskušali rešiti zgoraj navedena vprašanja, predstavlja zgolj kritični preblisk in želi doseči nekoliko širšo obravnavo problema, upoštevajoč širše kontekste, ki v današnjem zgodovinopisju še vedno občasno umanjkajo. Jure Gašparič: Writing the Political History of the Republic of Slovenia22 * Senior Researcher, PhD, Institute of Contemporary History, Kongresni trg 1, 1000 – Ljublja- na, Slovenia, jure.gasparic@inz.si 1.01 UDC: 930 930:323(497.4)"1991/2016" Jure Gašparič* Writing the Political History of the Republic of Slovenia IZVLEČEK PISATI POLITIČNO ZGODOVINO REPUBLIKE SLOVENIJE Avtor v prispevku obravnava problematiko raziskovanja in pisanja politične zgodovine Re- publike Slovenije po letu 1991. Po uvodni ugotovitvi, da ljudje od vsega začetka niso zaupali politikom in strankam, zastavi vprašanje, kako so ti ves čas ravnali, kako so se razvijale politične institucije, kako so se prilagajale svetu in času, ki se je v dvajsetih letih spremenil. Najprej predstavi številne dileme in metodološke posebnosti problematike (problem historične distance, smiselnost početja, neobvladljivost in specifičnost virov), nato pa oriše mogoče pristope in načine spopadanja z izzivom. V drugem delu prispevka povzame ugotovitve lastnega raziskovanja tega obdobja (o polarizaciji, personalizaciji, medializaciji in informalizaciji politike), jih vpenja v širši evropski okvir in poleg tega zariše še izziv za prihodnje raziskovanje. Ključne besede: politična zgodovina, 1991–2016, Slovenija, politične stranke ABSTRACT The author focuses on the issue of researching and writing the political history of the Republic of Slovenia after its independence in 1991. After his introductory assessment that ever since the be- ginning people have not trusted politicians and political parties, he focuses on the question of how people have acted throughout this time, how the political institutions have been developing, and how they have been adapting to the world and the times which have changed radically in the last twenty five years. First the author presents numerous dilemmas and methodological peculiarities of the issue at hand (the problem of historical distance, the sensibility of the activity, the uncontrol- lable and specific sources), and then he proceeds to describe the possible approaches and methods of meeting this challenge. In the second part of the contribution the author sums up the findings resulting from his own research of this period (about the polarisation, personalisation, medialisa- tion and informalisation of politics), placing them into the wider European context. Furthermore, he also outlines the challenges for future research. Keywords: Political history, 1991–2016, Slovenia, political parties Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 23 »A New Political Spectrum Is Being Created...« Attempting to write a paper about the development of the Slovenian politics of the last quarter of a century represents a special challenge and a kind of an adventure for historians. It is best illustrated by looking at the beginnings and the final stages of the period – namely, extreme points help historiography to correctly place and interpret the processes. Let us begin in 1993 and take a look at the young National Assembly (Slovenian Parliament). That autumn it was visited, in the middle of an intense budgetary discussion, by the Czech President Václav Havel, “Citizen Havel”. The former dissident, dramatist and author of political essays addressed the Slove- nian MPs with a short speech in accordance with his political thought about the “anti-political politics”.1 The popular Havel symbolised the romantic, “velvet” image of the transition, which, however, was essentially quite a bit rougher than that in the Czech Republic as well as in Slovenia. “One of the things we most definitely have in common is that we are both build- ing a parliamentary democracy,” Havel said. “A new political spectrum is emerging, with new political subjects who are seeking their own identity and their place. These subjects are now searching for new avenues for coop- eration, also with regard to the ways of representation. To put it simply, we are building a political system... However, many dangers lurk in this dramatic, interesting and excit- ing situation, and we should pay special attention to them. In my opinion, one of such dangers is that the parties in our territory could obtain an overrated role. It seems as if the state suddenly belonged to the political parties. As if the parties were not supposed to serve their country, but rather that the country should serve the parties... I wholeheart- edly wish that your Parliament as well as ours were safe from these dangers, which have been preying on us in this difficult period.”2 As the most recent research of our Czech colleagues emphasises, in Havel’s opin- ion the Czech Parliament was “not safe” from danger. As President, Havel constantly criticised it for being hesitant and slow. Havel’s attitude was quite openly anti-parlia- mentary (which has until now been overlooked by those who have studied his work), and this stance of his was widely supported by the Czech people.3 However, Havel was not only supported by his own compatriots, but also by the citizens of Slovenia. 1 Jiří Suk, “Od nezmožnosti politiky k politice jako umění možného. Paradohní život občana Vá- clava Havla v letech 1969–1992,” in: Kapitoly z dějin české demokracie po roce 1989, ed. Adéla Gjuričová and Michal Kopeček (Praha and Litomyšl: Paseka, 2008), 16–51. 2 Dokumentacijsko-knjižnični oddelek Državnega zbora Republike Slovenije, Dobesedni zapis 13. seje I. mandata DZ z dne 9. 11. 1993 [Verbatim Record of 13th Session of the first Mandate]. Available at: Portal DZ, http://www.dz-rs.si. 3 Adéla Gjuričová, “Anti-politics and anti-parliamentarism. Václav Havel and the Czechoslovak parliament in the 1990s.” Conference Paper (European Information and Research Network on Par- liamentary History: Parlamentarismuskritik und Antiparlamentarismus in Europa. Berlin, 7 and 8 May 2015). Jure Gašparič: Writing the Political History of the Republic of Slovenia24 Already in the time when the Slovenian political system was being formed – when there was a lot of optimism in the country – people did not trust the political institu- tions, parties and politicians.4 According to the former politician and Constitutional Court Judge Ciril Ribičič, people were supposedly convinced that the Parliament was a “gang of lazy spendthrifts”.5 In the following years Slovenia became the abso- lute champion in almost all of the statistical categories used by Brussels to compare the countries of the European East.6 The slogan about the Story of Success spread, but the standpoint with regard to politics and political parties did not change. Quite the opposite: if we look at the end of “our period”, at the year 2013, we can establish that this opinion of the people has only strengthened. In 2013 the dissatisfaction resulting from the economic crisis kept getting increas- ingly profound and more and more obviously oriented against the political elites.7 The general disgruntlement, disappointment, resentment and mistrust due to – ac- cording to the people’s conviction – inappropriate responses of the state gradually es- calated into direct protests. The events started in the socially sensitive environment: in the city of Maribor, from where the spark of the “people’s uprisings” also spread to other cities, including Ljubljana, where protesters would frequently gather in front of the Parliament en masse. Mottoes about the wrongfulness of the political system 4 Niko Toš, ed., Vrednote v prehodu VIII. Slovenija v srednje in vzhodnoevropskih primerjavah 1991– 2011 (Ljubljana and Wien: Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za družbene vede, IDV-CJMMK and Edition Echoraum, 2014), 302. Jure Gašparič, “O samoumevnosti uvajanja parlamentarne demokracije v vzhod- ni Evropi po letu 1989.” Conference Paper (Regionalni vidiki tranzicije. Nova Gorica, 15 October 2015). 5 Ciril Ribičič, Siva tipka 074 (Ljubljana: Enotnost, 1995), 124. 6 At the tenth anniversary of the independent Slovenia, the Government Office for Communica- tion presented the Slovenian achievements in the following manner: “In these past ten years Slovenia dismantled the old economy and set up a new one. It has a national shipbuilding industry and its own airline, a stock exchange, its World Trade Center and other institutions. With 892,000 people in employment, it boasts a per capita GDP of US$ 9,150 and an inflation rate of 8.9 per cent. It intro- duced its own currency, the Slovene tolar, it has strong foreign exchange reserves, and a tax system that is increasingly in tune with that of Western Europe. The former socially-owned companies have been (almost) entirely privatised. Business activities are increasingly liberal, the exchange rate is favourable, the interest rate is high in real terms and fiscal policy envisages minimal budget deficits. Slovenia is rapidly becoming a transport hub, with the shortest route connecting France and Italy with Hungary (Milan-Ljubljana-Budapest), and the Balkans with Central Europe (Zagreb- Ljubljana-Munich). In the political arena it has become established as a partner and adviser on the margin of the turbulent Balkans. From its acceptance into the United Nations up to its membership of the Security Council, the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other international institu- tions and also to becoming the most serious candidate country for membership of Nato and the Euro- pean Union, it is mapping out the path of a recognised and established state in the modern world. It is an up-to-date, progressive democracy, while at the same time it has retained the unique image of a small nation that has not just survived millennia of foreign influence and rule, but has also entered into the new order as a winner.” – Slovenia - 10 Years of Independence, 30 May 2016, http://www.slovenija2001. gov.si/10years/independence/. 7 The description of 2013 is based on my text about the sixth term of the National Assembly. See: Jure Gašparič, Slovenski parlament. Politično-zgodovinski pregled od začetka prvega do konca šestega man- data (1992–2014) - Elektronska izdaja 1.0 (Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2014). Available at: Zgodovina Slovenije – SIstory, http://www.sistory.si/SISTORY:ID:26950. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 25 as well as appeals for the introduction of direct democracy started appearing... Poli- tics once again became similar to the oldest trade, and this was expressed by one of the protesters in a brutally direct, vulgar, but politically exceedingly meaningful ban- ner: “A fuck or a refund!” The beginning and the end of “our period” are thus, at the first glance, quite closely connected in terms of the issue at hand. The cause-and-effect relationship looks like this: a quarter of a century ago we started building a political system, but ever since the beginning we have been finding that it did not work very well and that it should not be trusted. Towards the end of our period we have shown this through protests. The interpretation is simple, but lacking a vital part: politics itself. What have the actions of the politicians been, how have the political institu- tions developed, and how have they adapted to the world and the times that have changed in the last twenty years? Obviously completely differently from what the people expected. Does this mean that politicians are irrational? Are the voters, who keep electing supposedly unsuitable politicians all the time, those who are irrational? How can we explain and describe politics in the modern world? Vaclav Havel once said: “We live in a postmodern world where everything is possible and nothing is certain.”8 In the opinion of many historians, the period after the Cold War is unclear and chaotic, “unlesbar”,9 and the same goes for politics. Despite many similarities with the political history of the older periods, delving into the more recent past is a true adventure, which at the very beginning poses a few important methodological questions, brings on challenges, reveals dilemmas, but at the same time already offers some answers in advance. About the Distinctiveness of the Topic and about the Dilemmas The first answer, which can often be noted in the media and in a part of the expert public, is that the research of the Slovenian politics after 1991 may be an interesting and relevant topic, but that nothing truly new can be written about it – at least not anything that has not already been written by those who wrote about it and deliber- ated on it as it was happening.10 This sort of history would therefore only make sense if the researcher stumbled upon reliable documents about one of the unknown or unexplained political scandals from the last quarter of the century. Another preliminary answer, which is actually already a dilemma, concerns the 8 Quoted after: Andreas Rödder, 21.0. Eine kurze Geschichte der Gegenwart (München: C.H.Beck, 2016), 11. 9 Ibid. 10 When the biography of the former President Milan Kučan was published, a journalist of the Delo newspaper brought the attention to this issue as well when he asked the author the following: “I’ve mentioned to a few of my colleagues that I’m reading your book. Every one of them asked me the same question: ‘Is there anything new in it?’ What they meant was whether the book revealed anything to refute all of the previous interpretations...” – Matija Grah, “Vem za pričakovanja, da bom odkril skrivnosti murgelske kleti,” Delo, 30 October 2015. Jure Gašparič: Writing the Political History of the Republic of Slovenia26 question of the general sensibility of researching processes that have not yet come to their conclusion or we at least do not know that they have concluded. As it is, a quarter of a century of the Slovenian state is a period of a multi-layered transition, which is not yet complete in all of its aspects and surges (of course, it is question- able how to define the conclusions of processes). At the same time this period has been co-created by the elites that are still at least partly publicly active (and which, of course, interpret these processes in their own way). Hence it is supposedly too soon for historians to take a look at this period of time. Things which may seem very significant today and which the historians might focus on in their research could look completely insignificant in time (and vice versa).11 The history of the present, as George Kennan referred to it, is thus allegedly not truly possible. The following dilemma, which is simultaneously a challenge, is related to the tem- poral component. What is a methodologically suitable manner at all in which histori- ans could explore the recent politics and the phenomenon of the political? As it hap- pens, the available materials are inexhaustible in all aspects, with regard to quantity as well as in terms of substantive and scientific breadth. Besides the enormous quantities of materials produced by the media – from newspapers to television, radio and in- ternet sites – it is also possible to collect the oral sources from the participants of the political developments and make use of the vast quantity of the materials produced on a daily basis and published by the state or its institutions (reports on the work of the governments, handover files, studies, legislative materials, verbatim records of parliamentary sessions, etc.). On the one hand these materials are more diverse as, for example, the materials from the period of the first Yugoslav state (Kingdom of SHS/ Yugoslavia), but simultaneously also more extensive and more comprehensive (non- evaluated, unfiltered, preserved in their totality). Especially the audio-visual materials, which influence the world view of the today‘s generations most significantly, represent a special challenge and make the century-old historiographic rule Quod non est in actis non est in mundo quite problematic.12 Furthermore, a truly vast quantity of online and other digital contents is being produced today: tweets, Facebook posts, text mes- sages... Quite a few resounding public stories have been triggered precisely by this sort of media, but nevertheless nobody archives these sorts of contents systematically. At the same time the historians of the most contemporary period have numer- ous studies and analyses at their disposal as well as rough data produced by other sciences that focus on modernity. In order to research the period of the independent Republic of Slovenia it is critical to acquire the materials and analyses from the Social Science Data Archives13 – especially the surveys produced in the context of the Slo- 11 Rödder, 21.0. Eine kurze Geschichte der Gegenwart, 13. 12 To find out more about the challenges that the audiovisual media represent for the researchers of the present see: Thomas Lindenberger, “Vergangenes Hören und Sehen. Zeitgeschichte und ihre Herausforderung durch die audiovisuellen Medien,” in: Zeithistorische Forschungen/Studies in Contem- porary History, Online-Ausgabe, 1 (2004), H. 1, URL: http://www.zeithistorische-forschungen.de/1- 2004/id=4586, Druckausgabe: 72–85. 13 See: O Arhivu družboslovnih podatkov, http://www.adp.fdv.uni-lj.si/o_arhivu/. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 27 venian Public Opinion research (these have been carried out continuously ever since the 1960s), studies of the political analysis centre, and other studies from the field of politology, sociology, and social sciences. Political economy researchers have the materials of economic institutes at their disposal, while almost all sciences contribute their viewpoint with regard to, for example, research policy. The (un)manageable amount of materials on the one hand is closely connected with its research usefulness on the other hand. Naturally, all kinds of materials are useful for researchers. It is only a question of what the researchers focus on and how. However, the materials for the most recent period are largely permeated by the preju- dice that they only represent the surface of the events – in accordance with the afore- mentioned answer or conviction that we already know everything about “our” period, and what we do not know has been concealed and will remain hidden. (Of course, I do not know according to what logic it will then be revealed to our descendants.) On the Approaches to the Topic and about the Dilemmas Quite a few challenges and dilemmas undoubtedly exist; we only have to ask ourselves how to deal with them. The first dilemma (or rather a preconception) for the researchers who claim that nothing new can be written about this period of time is actually the easiest to handle. We can look at it from a purely philosophical and theoretical as well as from the practical point of view. Namely, when we undertake any serious and methodologically sound research we cannot theoretically know what sort of interpretative conclusions we will reach. Any evaluation in advance can turn out as erroneous (for example, years ago I myself was convinced that from its very be- ginning King Alexander‘s Dictatorship in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1930s kept generating new political problems instead of solving them, but later I kept discover- ing more and more that initially its image as well as its perception were completely different). In the same vein the questions that we asked yesterday were perhaps completely different and non-essential in comparison with the issues that we are interested in today. Not long ago it was important which politician used to be a member of the League of Communists, while today we are already interested in other things. After all, this kind of questioning represents the essence and the general characteristic of historiography, which concerns all the historic periods. The present and the envi- ronment we live in always dictate the research questions. For example, in Germany the 2008 financial crisis resulted in a notably increased interest in the economic history in general.14 Simultaneously it is completely practical to claim that research in historiography, which does not lead to any new or original interpretations, is neither meaningless nor flawed. In a sense this is just another way of accumulating 14 Frank Bösch and Jürgen Danyel, “Die Zeitgeschichtsforschung und ihre Methoden,” in: Zeit- geschichte – Konzepte und Methoden, eds. Frank Bösch and Jürgen Danyel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 9–21, here 13. Rödder, 21.0. Eine kurze Geschichte der Gegenwart, 13. Jure Gašparič: Writing the Political History of the Republic of Slovenia28 knowledge and bringing the attention to the topics and aspects of the historiographic science. However, in so far as research is integral and synthetically-oriented, it is es- pecially meaningful and well-founded – after all, historiography is oriented towards writing complete interpretations. Another dilemma – that the contemporary time is too young for historians, be- cause historical distance is required for serious research – is justified up to a point. It is certainly simpler to research a remote and concluded process, unlike the today‘s seemingly chaotic times. Things are easier to interpret if we see them whole, includ- ing their beginning and end. However, the advantage represented by distance hides quite a dangerous inherent trap: the knowledge of the end. If we are familiar with the conclusion of a certain process, we are in danger of adapting the whole interpretation of the developments to this ending. We are in danger of looking for reasons in the ac- tions of people, logical in view of the familiar ending (consequence), while forgetting that in history things happen even when nobody is planning them.15 The historians focusing on the present do not know the end, and therefore the relationship between the purpose and the supposed result cannot compromise their analyses.16 On the other hand, however, we should be aware that the history of the present can have rather direct effects on the formation of the self-image of the state and its citizens, as it studies a recent period and thus addresses the memories of the living or their direct descendants. The history of the present explains “our time”, which is why people do care how it is described (this is not only an issue with the history of the present, but rather with all of contemporary history – perhaps in Slovenia this especially concerns the World War II historians). Historiography can contribute to the formation of a “suitable” self-image, just like it happened in Germany after World War II when the myth about the so-called “Erfolgsgeschichte” formed, as well as in Great Britain, where this period was for a long time characterised as the “post- war consensus”.17 Addressing living contemporaries can therefore represent a specific trap for historians, but it is still much more manageable than what is probably the biggest research problem: the amount and variety of materials. If only a few decades ago historians kept finding that the history of the most recent period was not possible since the thirty-year restriction on the access to ma- 15 The historian of ideas and concepts Quentin Skinner refers to this mistake as the myth of pro- lepsis. One of the researchers of the process of the dissolution of Yugoslavia Dejan Jović underlines the frequency of this mistake in the explanations of the end of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. – Dejan Jović, “Razlozi za raspad socijalističke Jugoslavije: kritička analiza postojećih interpretacija,” Reč 62, No. 8 (June 2001), 91–157, here 142–52. 16 The German historian Andreas Wirsching, author of the book about the history of Europe in our time, also states that the advantage of researching the present lies in the “erzwungene Verzicht auf jegliche Teleologie.” Namely, historians are not exposed to the danger of the teleological search for the purpose and goal of history. – Andreas Wirsching, Der Preis der Freiheit. Geschichte Europas in unserer Zeit (München: C.H.Beck, 2012), 14, 15. 17 The British historiography has characterised the post-war “consensus” as a myth. – Gabriele Metzler, “Zeitgeschichte: Begriff – Disziplin – Problem, Version: 1.0,” in: Docupedia-Zeitgeschichte, 7 April 2014, https://docupedia.de/zg/Zeitgeschichte. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 29 terials was enforced, as a matter of principle, in all the archives, today the situation is quite the opposite. The ocean of sources is endless, and, moreover, these sources are different in many aspects from, for example, the sources for studying the history of the First Yugoslavia. In both cases we can outline the developments in politics on the basis of newspaper articles; in both cases we can resort to documents that have been preserved (it seems interesting that historians do not have either the complete archives of the pre-war political parties nor the archives of the today‘s parties at their disposal);18 and in both cases we can also make use of political memoirs19 and verba- tim records of parliamentary sessions. However, here the similarities end. Of course, it is questionable to what a degree the dissimilarity of sources hinders the political historians in their research. In principle this should not represent an obstacle, but it is certainly a kind of a challenge. First we have to be aware that every period has its own sources with their own particular characteristics. The materials about the Theresian reforms of the 18th century are certainly different from those about the history of the Communist Party after 1945, and these again differ from the materi- als about the contemporaneous politics. Today the world is different and individuals operate and work in accordance with other guidelines. In the past a large amount of meeting-minutes was available, and the archives also frequently contained personal notes, letters, and so on. Today these materials are virtually non-existent and unavail- able for historians; but we do have television, the internet, living participants of the events, etc. These sources appear less reliable than archival documents, at least at the first glance, even though they can be much more telling. This is especially true of the oral sources – witnesses, once upon a time seen as the “enemies of historians”,20 can also enrich the available historiographic material considerably, if only we gather and methodologically process their testimonies in a suitable manner.21 All of the sources of our time – the classic ones, known already from the previous periods (especially newspapers, verbatim records of parliamentary sessions and legis- lative materials), as well as the newer (digital) sources – can be thoroughly analysed and evaluated only if we apply the following two approaches: interdisciplinarity and 18 Currently only the materials of three parties – the socialists, the Greens and the Liberal De- mocracy of Slovenia – are in the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia. Of these the LDS was the most influential and has, to date, taken part in the various governments the longest (SI AS 366, Socialistična stranka Slovenije (1990–1993), SI AS 2117, Zeleni Slovenije (1990–1993), SI AS 2111 Liberalna demokracija Slovenije (1976–2011)). 19 Quite a few memorial records by the politicians of our period exist, but they focus either on the time of the Slovenian emancipation or represent merely a collection of thoughts and notes about a cer- tain period of time (which may also be very interesting and useful in terms of research). However, only a few of these texts are systematic and chronologically ordered, focusing on concrete political develop- ments. See for example Ivo Hvalica, Zadnja replika (Ljubljana: Promag, 2002). Ciril Ribičič, Siva tipka 074 (Ljubljana: Enotnost, 1995). Miran Potrč, Klic k razumu. Spomini (Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2014). 20 The collocation was coined by Wolfgang Kraushaar when he problematised the German histori- ography about the 1968 movement. – Metzler, “Zeitgeschichte: Begriff – Disziplin – Problem.” 21 See: Zdenko Čepič et al., Prikrita modra mreža. Organi za notranje zadeve Republike Slovenije v projektu MSNZ leta 1990 (Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino and Zveza policijskih veteranskih društev Sever, 2010). Jure Gašparič: Writing the Political History of the Republic of Slovenia30 the tools provided by the today’s digital humanities. The latter enables us to focus on new research questions and process extraordinary amounts of materials (we can easily analyse the characteristics of the parliamentary discussions in the period of fifty years, which used to be physically impossible before), while interdisciplinarity ensures a more thorough and focused approach. As it is, research into modernity focuses more and more on the topics and problems, while the distinctions between the individual disciplines are being blurred.22 Thus nowadays politologists, lawyers, linguists, anthropologists and historians cooperate (or have done so) in practice.23 Finally, what about the prejudice that the available materials do not reveal all the secrets? The situation is similar as it used to be. Also in the Habsburg Monarchy and in the First Yugoslavia everyone was convinced that the political decisions were adopted behind the doors of smoky cabinets and coffee houses, which is what the notes (sometimes different from one another) of various political actors attest to. In principle the digression about the materials of our period could be much long- er than what I have just written, and all the concrete problems that the researchers may stumble upon cannot be predicted at all. Therefore I would just like to under- line one more issue that I have faced myself, closely connected with the sheer amount of the materials and density of the political developments. In so far as a researcher‘s ambition is to comprehensively describe a certain political period at least to a certain degree, the massive amount of the materials at the initial stages dictates a descriptive approach. Thus the wish to control and encompass everything in itself impedes any methodological creativity.24 However, if researchers only have a limited amount of materials at their disposal, they are forced to resort to different approaches and can at the same time be more daring in the thesis they propose. Topic Presentation Regardless of all the dilemmas and methodological challenges I will now take the first step into the adventure and give a short description of the political history of the independent Slovenia, on the basis of which it will be possible to ask new questions and open new research dilemmas. In the book about the history of the Slovenian Parliament I have outlined the basic sequence of events with the main chapters of the post-independence development. Here I will sum up its main points.25 It seems that the events in the last twenty years can be most logically broken down by the parliamentary terms of office.26 22 Metzler, “Zeitgeschichte: Begriff – Disziplin – Problem.” 23 See Conference Program: Parliaments and Methodology. Anthropological, Discourse-Oriented and Digital Approaches to Parliamentary History. Helsinki and Jyväskylä, Finland 12–14 June 2014, 1 June 2016, https://www.jyu.fi/en/congress/parliaments-and-methodology/program/EuParl_Programme.pdf. 24 Bösch and Danyel, “Die Zeitgeschichtsforschung und ihre Methoden,” 9, 10. 25 Jure Gašparič, Državni zbor 1992–2012. O slovenskem parlamentarizmu (Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2012). 26 This may seem self-evident, but the questions of the periodisation and (non)linearity of the Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 31 In the shadow of the transition (the 1992–1996 term) At the first National Assembly elections in 1992, party-based democracy was still in its infancy and the political arena, in which the parties had not yet introduced clear and coherent programmes, was as a result somewhat vague and unclear. In the elections, each party had their own electoral tactics, and the campaign was not lacking low blows and brutal confrontations. Numerous transitional characteristics could be seen in the campaign. It was something new and it did not only shake up political life, but society in general, it drew the attention of many citizens and included many scandalous stories, happily gloated over by journalists and citizens alike. In those days, as well as later, party leaders found themselves being exposed. At the same time as parliamentary elections, presidential elections were also held; the first President of the Republic of Slovenia was Milan Kučan.27 The National Assembly’s first line-up was rather fragmented, eight parties gained seats and the majority of votes went to LDS (Liberal Democratic Party), with the remaining parties far behind. The political leader Janez Drnovšek formed a diverse coalition dubbed the “small political miracle” – it was composed of LDS, Chris- tian Democrats, United List (Združena lista) and SDSS (Social Democratic Party of Slovenia). Once the relationships between coalition and opposition were estab- lished, the Parliament and the Government began addressing its vast agenda. First and foremost, the agenda dealt with urgent legislative activities, as the former federal legislation had to be replaced on the one hand, and fundamental documents of nu- merous state subsystems had to be adopted on the other – from education, judiciary administration, tax system, ownership transformation, and the formation of a new economic system, to national security, political parties, and corruption. In addition to fundamental legislative activities, the common thread of the first National Assem- bly term was economic issues. Throughout the term, Drnovšek’s coalition gradually dissolved, with only the LDS and SKD (Slovenian Christian Democrats) remaining in the end.28 The weakness of the great coalition (the 1996–2000 term) After elections, the second convocation of the National Assembly found itself in a stalemate position. The parties of the so-called transition right wing (new parties, formed in the late 1980s and early 1990s) aggregately received 45 votes and all others (mainly parties, based on former socialist organisations), including the two mem- bers representing minorities and supporting the actual Prime Minister Drnovšek development are not always easy. The Czech colleagues have decided for a similar division as well. See: Jan Wintr, Česká parlamentní kultura (Praha: Auditorium, 2010). 27 Milan Kučan is the first among the most visible politicians of our time about whom a serious historiographical political biography has been written. See: Božo Repe, Milan Kučan, prvi predsednik (Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2015). 28 Gašparič, Državni zbor 1992–2012, 53–70. Jure Gašparič: Writing the Political History of the Republic of Slovenia32 (the president of LDS, the party that was the relative winner in the elections), also received 45 votes. The Parliament, a reflection of the society, found itself in a pre- dicament, divided equally in half ... The constitutive session dragged on and on and opposing views were in evidence at each parliamentary step. However, the politicians finally managed to reach an agreement resulting in a large coalition between the larg- est parties, LDS and SLS (Slovene People’s Party), joined by DeSUS. The coalition that was finally formed after a difficult few months was very diverse despite the small number of partners because LDS and SLS represented a combina- tion of two conceptually and socially completely different parties. In practice, dur- ing the second term, this thesis was confirmed by parliamentary practice to a large extent. Conditions and realities in the National Assembly were often confusing; it seemed that SLS was more of an opposition party than a coalition party. Further- more, the opposition failed to attack and control the government in a coordinated manner because it was also divided itself on an ideological level. SDS and SKD were closer to SLS and ZLSD was closer to Liberal Democratic Party. The dissolution of the coalition often seemed inevitable. In November 1997, presidential elections for a five-year term were once again held. Despite some reservations, Milan Kučan ran again and won the election in a landslide (for the last time). Despite all of its crises (which were quite frequent, especially those related to per- sonnel), the shaky coalition between LDS and SLS managed to keep going until the eve of the end of its term. In the spring of 2000, only six months before elections, the coalition-opposition relationships in the Parliaments were blown apart. After many difficult meetings with ups and downs, the related parties, SLS and SKD, finally managed to agree on merging into one party that would not be a part of the coali- tion. The fall of the “falling” government was impending. Drnovšek did not wait for things to develop further; he was a step ahead of his partners and proposed the re- placement of SLS ministers with new ones. A vote of confidence was connected with the replacement of ministers, but it was not passed. After merging, SLS and SKD became the largest party in Parliament and shortly after the demise of Drnovšek it proposed Andrej Bajuk as the new Prime Minister. However, the new parliamentary coalition was not destined to last for long, as the second term was about to end in less than six months. Also, the coalition itself experienced a severe political crisis after only a month.29 Leftist domination (the 2000–2004 term) On Sunday, 15 October 2000, the third National Assembly elections took place in Slovenia. Once again, there was an election campaign and many appearances took place, mainly by well-known parties and faces ... The elections that occurred at the turn of the decade, century, and millennium did not represent a major milestone themselves, but they symbolically marked the entry into a new era. The first decade 29 Ibid., 71–91. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 33 after the fall of the Berlin Wall, named the “Time of Freedom” by the British his- torian Timothy Garton Ash, was coming to an end and a new “nameless decade” was beginning; this was an elusive period without clear features.30 A year earlier a common European currency was introduced and NATO expanded into its first three eastern European countries, thus giving special emphasis on integration processes. The following year, on 5 October 2000, only ten days prior to elections in Slovenia, the last Yugoslav tyrant was overthrown – the Serbian leader Slobodan Milošević. All of this may seem like some historical censorship of an epoch. Slovenia was a part of these global currents and during its third National Assembly term also joined the European Union and NATO, symbolically (maybe even in an illusory manner) con- cluding the transition process in the country. On top of everything, the third term was also the last term led by Drnovšek’s great LDS, the strongest party after 1992. The election results on 15 October 2000 were its swansong. LDS received 36.21 % votes, assuring it 34 seats in the Parliament. It formed a coalition with ZLSD, SLS and DeSUS. To a large extent, the third term and the forms of parliamentary work were char- acterised by the weakness of the opposition, the core of which were SDS (former SDSS, renamed in Slovenian Democratic Party) and NSi (new party named New Slovenia). The coalition was soon nicknamed “voting steamroller” and in such condi- tions the opposition had to remain firm. During the term, in 2002, the government had a new Prime Minister (Tone Rop) following Janez Drnovšek’s election to Presi- dent of the Republic.31 Rightist domination (the 2004–2008 term) On the one hand, the fourth National Assembly elections, which were called by the President of the Republic to take place on 3 October 2004, gave the impression of an entirely every-day democratic routine with a standard election campaign, and yet on the other they continued to be stuck in established ideological and political patterns. The “cultural fight” between the “left wing” and the “right wing” continued, though its intensity decreased. The election results were not entirely unexpected, but they marked a major ideological turning point. The great LDS lost for the first time after 1992. On that Sunday, the winner was SDS with its leader Janez Janša, who gradually became the flag bearer of the opposition after 1996. Janša then also formed a coalition and became the Prime Minister. If the distinct supremacy of the coali- tion and the weakness of the opposition marked the third term, one could conclude that the fourth term would be completely different in this regard. The coalition was smaller, more diverse, and two hard-bitten parties in the opposition preyed on it, not allowing the Government to even have the traditional 100 days of peace. Different 30 Timothy Garton Ash, Jahrhundertwende. Weltpolitische Betrachtungen 2000–2010 (München: Carl Hanser Verlag München, 2010), 17, 18. 31 Gašparič, Državni zbor 1992–2012, 92–107. Jure Gašparič: Writing the Political History of the Republic of Slovenia34 conditions and practices in Parliament were to be expected. However, no significant changes occurred and the initial (unrealistic) expectations crumpled. At the begin- ning, the stability and support of the coalition and the Government were high (also in public opinion), but on the hand, the opposition succumbed to internal searching and splits. In particular, LDS seemed to have been experiencing a crisis. Therefore, the fourth term was similar to the third term, only a few roles changed. European topics were the undeniable cohesive element of politics and numerous other topics were divisive along the traditional left-right axis. During this time, in 2007, new presidential elections were held, but Janez Drnovšek did not run again due to illness. The winner was Danilo Türk.32 In the shadow of the crisis (the 2008–2011 term) On the eve of the fifth National Assembly elections in September 2008, the Slo- vene political arena seemed quite clear and predictable. The common thread of all parties was “welfare”, but the plans in their programmes to achieve welfare were increasingly less specific and noticeably increasingly more alike. Contrary to expecta- tions, the relative victory went to the party SD (Social Democrats) formerly known as ZLSD whose leader, Borut Pahor, became the Prime Minister. On the eve of the elections, it was already clear that a debt and financial crisis is spreading around the world and that it might grow into a wider economic crisis affecting Slovenia as well. Pahor‘s team gave the impression that it was aware of the situation, but in the following few months, it acted slowly and indecisively as per the Prime Minister‘s consensual approach. The first bundle of anti-crisis measures reached the Parliament at the end of the year. It was adopted by Members of Parlia- ment on their last sitting in 2008, thus symbolically foreshadowing the main focus of the fifth term – overcoming the crisis which finally grew from a financial crisis into a political one. Throughout the term, there was division on all important topics (or at least those that were stressed as such). When the Government finally managed to agree on a so- lution for the border issue with the neighbouring Croatia, which must undoubtedly be counted as one of its major successes, it immediately encountered firm objections from the opposition and a portion of prominent intellectuals (however, a large por- tion of intellectuals in the public eye supported the agreement). During the third year of the term, the trust in the Government and the Parliament was still low and dissatisfaction grew. The political arena remained implacable and the coalition was increasingly giving the impression that it was blocked from the outside and from within and that it did not have any real “exit” ideas. The path into a political crisis was thus set. The coalition gradually dissolved, ultimately consisting only of SD and LDS. The fifth term ended by a vote of no confidence given to the Government and, 32 Ibid., 108–23. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 35 with no new candidate for a Prime Minister, the President dissolved the National Assembly on 21 October 2011. For the first time in (nearly) twenty years of the Slovenian Parliament, early elections were to take place, planned for 4 December 2011. The trust in a significant portion of parliamentary parties was shaken and a significant restructuring of the political arena was to be expected.33 The time of disappointment and weariness (the 2011–2014 term) Between the President‘s announcement that he would dissolve the National As- sembly and the elections, there was not much time. In such circumstances, it was not surprising that the campaign lacked truly innovative approaches, convincing and insightful solutions and compelling addresses to the voters. The elections were quite peaceful (but not without scandals) and, for the first time in twenty years, divisive ideological topics were more evidently pushed into the background. In early October, the political atmosphere was still predictable. However, shortly afterwards, the political arena began to change drastically as new political faces and new parties appeared one after another. Less than two months prior to elections, two new parties with an extremely high rating appeared, as they climbed to the top of election polls. The first one was founded by the Mayor or Ljubljana, Zoran Jankovič (PS -Pozitivna Slovenija - Positive Slovenia), and the second by the former minister Gregor Virant (Državljanska lista Gregorja Viranta - Gregor Virant’s Civic List). If the campaign warned of major political shifts in Slovenia, the election results on Sunday, 4 December 2011, only confirmed them. The election was won by Jankovič‘s PS, but its president – again, for the first time in twenty years – did not become Prime Minister. The coalition was formed by Janez Janša, the leader of SDS, which received the second highest number of votes. The Parliament and the Govern- ment began fervently working and dealing with the crisis and the fiscal consolidation of the country. The dissatisfaction of people due to the economic crisis gradually increased in the second half of 2012 and was directed specifically at political elites. Numer- ous “people‘s uprisings” erupted. In such circumstances, the coalition collapsed and in March 2013 a new Slovenian Government was formed under the leadership of Alenka Bratušek of PS (first woman Prime Minister). After the new Government was elected, the political storm calmed down for one year despite numerous troubles in the Cabinet and unsuccessful staff choices, until Bratušek resigned. This automati- cally ended the term for the entire Cabinet. No one proposed a new political figure to form a government and the new President, Borut Pahor, elected in 2012, dissolved the Parliament on 2 June and called for elections to be held on 13 July 2014 (with harsh criticism due to the summer holiday period).34 33 Ibid., 124–43. 34 Gašparič, Slovenski parlament, 81–96. Jure Gašparič: Writing the Political History of the Republic of Slovenia36 The 2014– term It was expected that the elections would, as in 2011, significantly change the political and personnel structure of the Parliament. There were several reasons for this. Following the demise of Janša’s Government, the momentum of people’s upris- ings began to decline. However, the dissatisfaction with politics and political elites remained and the results of public opinion polls continued to be unforgiving. There- fore, a few uprising groups, such as the All-Slovene People’s Uprising, decided to use the potential of the uprisings to actively enter into politics. In December 2013, the party Solidarnost (Solidarity) was formed. The next year, on 1 March 2014, the party United Left (Združena levica) was formed following the example of the then still at- tractive and convincing Syriza in Greece. Just prior to the elections, additional three parties entered the political arena: the party Verjamem (I Believe) led by Igor Šoltes, Alliance of Alenka Bratušek, and the Party of Miro Cerar. The latter (later renamed into the Modern Centre Party) ultimately won with the largest percentage of votes after 1992 and subsequently formed the current Slovenian Government together with SD and DeSUS.35 The political situation has calmed down and it seems that politics has retreated to the background somewhat... Findings and Challenges What conclusions can we draw on the basis of this short insight in the political history of the last quarter of a century? Firstly, the introductory finding that out peri- od is very dynamic, riddled with events and “unreadable” can certainly be confirmed. Despite the relative political stability of the Slovenian governments (in comparison with the Czech Republic, for example), the party space has been unstable and ever changing, in a continuous state of restructuring. Its most notable constant was the polarisation – the division of the political actors into the Slovenian left and right. Furthermore, certain characteristics already noted in the broader European space can also be ascribed to the Slovenian development: the personalisation of politics, medialisation, and informalisation.36 Let us first look at the phenomenon of the left-right polarisation. Where does it originate from and what is its perception based on? At list partly the dividing line was (and still is) the attitude of the political parties to the past, especially to World War II and the post-war socialist period. In this regard certain parties see Yugoslavia and its society in an exceedingly binary manner. Their interpretative pattern is totalitarian- historical, reducing the past merely to good and evil.37 The adherents of this pattern 35 Ibid. 36 Wirsching, Der Preis der Freiheit, 308–18. 37 See: Michal Pullmann, Konec experimentu. Přestavba a pád komunismu v Československu (Praha: Scriptorium, 2011), 15, 16. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 37 only look at this state in order to find arguments for and against their views. Accord- ing to them an “evil” regime reigned in Yugoslavia, which was an “artificial creation” that repressed the good of the society. Some of them may acknowledge, though, that Yugoslavia also had some advantages. Such a generalised claim is disputable already in the very analytical sense, since it presupposes that people were nothing but indoc- trinated masses, incapable of taking care of themselves and simply persisting quietly in the Yugoslav framework. However, as soon as these masses became capable of thought, they immediately wanted to break free of the Titoist chains and seek safe haven in their own democratic national states. This pattern is clearly understandable and politically useful, but it overlooks the actual disposition of the people. The attitude towards the past can be associated with the issues of continuity and discontinuity in the historical development. Despite the various convictions of indi- vidual political parties, in the development after 1990 and 1991 we can notice many elements of continuity from the previous period as well as radical turning points and transformations, which is characteristic for the whole of the eastern Central Europe.38 We can also discern that the parties with their emphasised interest in history and their opinions about it frequently introduce additional confusion into the political space or contribute to the mythisation of the past. There are ample examples: for instance, in the last twenty-five years two parties from opposing sides appealed to the heritage of the social democratic party from Austria, established in 1896. The president of the Slovenian People‘s Party stated that he was extremely proud to be the successor of Anton Korošec, the most eminent Slovenian politician in the First Yugoslavia, even though the today‘s Slovenian People‘s Party has nothing to do with Korošec (except fictitiously).39 Later another party referred to Korošec’s party as well... The personalisation of politics is another characteristic of the Slovenian politics as well as of the European politics of our time. This may be nothing new, as we have known many examples of outstanding political personae in the post-war Eu- rope (e.g. Charles de Gaulle, Willy Brandt). However, these were always personifica- tions of concrete contents and standpoints. On the other hand, after 1990 we find that in Europe political personalities per se have come to the forefront, frequently without any contents (they have even been known to form their parties in an ad hoc manner).40 Slovenia is no exception in this regard. It seems that few parties are resilient enough to survive the replacement of their main leaders, whom all the spotlights are aimed at, without significant turmoil.41 The latter phenomenon is 38 Gašparič, “O samoumevnosti uvajanja parlamentarne demokracije v vzhodni Evropi.” 39 Cf. Mateja Ratej, “Začetki politične pluralizacije v pojugoslovanski Sloveniji. Vprašanje političnega nasledstva Koroščeve SLS,” Zgodovinski časopis 67, No. 3-4 (2013), 472–92. 40 Wirsching, Der Preis der Freiheit, 313–15. 41 On the other hand, the pre-election events in the neighbouring Croatia in the summer of 2016 attest to the fact that the replacement of an unpopular president of the party with a more likeable leader can swiftly restore the trust of the voters in the party. As it happened, after the fall of the Most-HDZ coalition government in June 2016 it seemed that the HDZ and its President Tomislav Karamarko Jure Gašparič: Writing the Political History of the Republic of Slovenia38 certainly closely connected with the medialisation of politics, which is also a wider all-European characteristic.42 While jumbo posters were a great novelty of the cam- paigns back in 1992, the political actions of today are taking place on a variety of me- dia platforms. The Parliament may still be the central arena for political debates, but other formats represent an increasingly serious competition. Furthermore it seems that the Parliament in its essence is mostly and merely the following: the arena for debates and not the space where politics is being formed. In the people‘s opinion, serious political decisions are reached far away from the public gaze, which means that politics is informalised. This is also nothing new: we have already underlined that even in the old Yugoslavia and old Austria people were frequently convinced that politics is being made behind closed doors, often in the absence of the Parliament (the only difference is that once upon a time the cabinets and coffee houses were filled with smoke, which is probably a thing of the past). However, back then the frustrated Members of Parliament finally gave vent to their irritation by engaging in severe obstructions. In our period, however, deputies are simply overburdened with their functions in the working bodies and other activities, which may consequently diminish the importance of the Parliament.43 In light of these findings it seems that the connection between the introductory Havel’s warning and the large-scale anti-political demonstrations is more under- standable. Nobody (or almost nobody) wanted to undermine the trust in the parlia- mentary democracy intentionally. That simply happened due to the aforementioned characteristics of politics. There is no cause-and-effect relationship; and this, on the other hand, gives rise to other questions, partially focused on the future. One of the first questions is whether we have arrived to the end of the big and deeply-rooted parties with their traditional electoral bases. This does not seem impossible. In 2005 a large-scale public opinion research was carried out among the voters in the Western European countries, who responded that political parties were necessary, but also re- jected the thesis that the existent parties were truly concerned with the welfare of the people.44 So what is the alternative, then? In parliamentary democracy the alterna- tive can only be another political party, but in the future such a party will have to be very different from those established a quarter of a century ago. The detailed explora- tion of party-political dynamics is thus certainly one of the research challenges – not only external dynamics, but possibly also the dynamics within the parties themselves, in so far as the researchers are enabled to analyse that. Shedding some light on the party dynamics will finally allow us to gain a better insight in the decision-making process. The aforementioned collaboration of anthropologists, linguists, politologists and historians should be ensured, since the issue is multi-layered and the answers are not necessarily rational. would certainly be defeated at the elections. However, the sentiment of the electoral body changed in just a few months – when the party was taken over by Andrej Plenković. 42 Wirsching, Der Preis der Freiheit, 312. 43 Ibid., 311. 44 Ibid., 347. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 39 As it is, politics is not a game of chess, as the German historian Gerhard A. Ritter wrote wittily.45 Nobody is forced to make their move once the opponent has made one. Politicians are frequently lost. Time and again they do not do anything, their actions are often irrational, and concrete results are frequently unrelated to their actions. However, when the moment is right, some of them know how to exploit it and are capable of doing it (after which they, of course, present their actions as a result of a strategic consideration).46 The factor of time – the context – thus remains an essential element of the analysis, and without it we cannot truly understand politics. Sources and Literature • Ash, Timothy Garton. Jahrhundertwende. Weltpolitische Betrachtungen 2000–2010. München: Carl Hanser Verlag München, 2010. • Bösch, Frank and Jürgen Danyel. “Die Zeitgeschichtsforschung und ihre Methoden.” In: Zeit- geschichte – Konzepte und Methoden, eds. Frank Bösch and Jürgen Danyel, 9–21. Göttingen: Van- denhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. • Čepič, Zdenko, Filip Čuček, Jure Gašparič, Damijan Guštin, Božo Repe and Uroš Svete. Prikrita modra mreža. Organi za notranje zadeve Republike Slovenije v projektu MSNZ leta 1990. Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino and Zveza policijskih veteranskih društev Sever, 2010. • Dokumentacijsko-knjižnični oddelek Državnega zbora Republike Slovenije, Dobesedni zapis 13. seje I. mandata DZ z dne 9. 11. 1993 [Verbatim Record of 13th Session of the 1st Mandate]. Avail- able at: Portal DZ. http://www.dz-rs.si. • Fischer, Joschka. Rdeče-zelena leta. Prelomni dogodki od vojne na Kosovu do 11. septembra. Ljubljana: Didakta, 2011 (Orig. Die rot-grünen Jahre. Deutsche Außenpolitik - vom Kosovo bis zum 11. Septem- ber). • Gašparič, Jure. “O samoumevnosti uvajanja parlamentarne demokracije v vzhodni Evropi po letu 1989.” Conference Paper (Regionalni vidiki tranzicije. Nova Gorica, 15 October 2015). • Gašparič, Jure. Državni zbor 1992–2012. O slovenskem parlamentarizmu. Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2012. • Gašparič, Jure. Slovenski parlament. Politično-zgodovinski pregled od začetka prvega do konca šestega mandata (1992–2014) - Elektronska izdaja 1.0. Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2014. Available at: Zgodovina Slovenije – SIstory. http://www.sistory.si/SISTORY:ID:26950. • Gjuričová, Adéla. “Anti-politics and anti-parliamentarism. Václav Havel and the Czechoslovak parliament in the 1990s.” Conference Paper (European Information and Research Network on Parliamentary History: Parlamentarismuskritik und Antiparlamentarismus in Europa. Berlin, 7. and 8 May 2015). • Grah, Matija. “Vem za pričakovanja, da bom odkril skrivnosti murgelske kleti.” Delo, 30. October 2015. 45 Gerhard A. Ritter, Der Umbruch von 1989/91 und die Geschichtswissenschaft. Bayerische Aka- demie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte. Jahrgang 1995, Heft 5 (München, 1995), 23. 46 The former German Vice-Chancellor and Minister of Foreign Affairs Joschka Fischer admitted this freely in his memoirs, as he wrote that without the financial scandal of the CDU party the red-green coalition, created in 1998, would never have existed: “Luck and chance are essential for politics, like the air we breathe. What is later shown as a brilliant plan or a well thought-out strategy, or what the actors later declare as such, is often a result of chance or simply luck, not so much of the alleged genius of the people involved.” – Joschka Fischer, Rdeče-zelena leta. Prelomni dogodki od vojne na Kosovu do 11. Septembra (Ljubljana: Didakta, 2011), 271. Jure Gašparič: Writing the Political History of the Republic of Slovenia40 • Hvalica, Ivo. Zadnja replika. Ljubljana: Promag, 2002. • Jović, Dejan. “Razlozi za raspad socijalističke Jugoslavije: kritička analiza postojećih interpretacija.” Reč 62, No. 8 (June 2011): 91–157. • Lindenberger, Thomas. “Vergangenes Hören und Sehen. Zeitgeschichte und ihre Herausforder- ung durch die audiovisuellen Medien.” In: Zeithistorische Forschungen/Studies in Contemporary His- tory, Online-Ausgabe, 1 (2004), H. 1. URL: http://www.zeithistorische-forschungen.de/1-2004/ id=4586, Druckausgabe: 72–85. • Metzler, Gabriele. “Zeitgeschichte: Begriff – Disziplin – Problem, Version: 1.0.” In: Docupedia- Zeitgeschichte, 7. April 2014. https://docupedia.de/zg/Zeitgeschichte. • O Arhivu družboslovnih podatkov. http://www.adp.fdv.uni-lj.si/o_arhivu/. • Parliaments and Methodology: Anthropological, Discourse-Oriented and Digital Approaches to Par- liamentary History. Helsinki and Jyväskylä, Finland 12–14 June 2014. https://www.jyu.fi/en/con- gress/parliaments-and-methodology/program/EuParl_Programme.pdf. • Potrč, Miran. Klic k razumu. Spomini. Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2014. • Pullmann, Michal. Konec experimentu. Přestavba a pád komunismu v Československu. Praha: Scrip- torium, 2011. • Ratej, Mateja. “Začetki politične pluralizacije v pojugoslovanski Sloveniji. Vprašanje političnega nasledstva Koroščeve SLS.” Zgodovinski časopis 67, No. 3-4 (2013): 472–92. • Repe, Božo. Milan Kučan, prvi predsednik. Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2015. • Ribičič, Ciril. Siva tipka 074. Ljubljana: Enotnost, 1995. • Ritter, Gerhard A. Der Umbruch von 1989/91 und die Geschichtswissenschaft. Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte. Jahrgang 1995, Heft 5. München, 1995. • Rödder, Andreas. 21.0. Eine kurze Geschichte der Gegenwart. München: C.H.Beck, 2016. • Slovenia - 10 Years of Independence, 30 May 2016. http://www.slovenija2001.gov.si/10years/inde- pendence/. • Suk, Jiří. “Od nezmožnosti politiky k politice jako umění možného. Paradohní život občana Vá- clava Havla v letech 1969–1992.” In: Kapitoly z dějin české demokracie po roce 1989, eds. Adéla Gjuričová and Michal Kopeček, 16–51. Praha and Litomyšl: Paseka, 2008. • Toš, Niko, ed. Vrednote v prehodu VIII. Slovenija v srednje in vzhodnoevropskih primerjavah 1991– 2011. Ljubljana and Wien: Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za družbene vede, IDV-CJMMK and Edition Echoraum, 2014. • Wintr, Jan. Česká parlamentní kultura. Praha: Auditorium, 2010. • Wirsching, Andreas. Der Preis der Freiheit. Geschichte Europas in unserer Zeit. München: C.H.Beck, 2012. Jure Gašparič PISATI POLITIČNO ZGODOVINO REPUBLIKE SLOVENIJE P O V Z E T E K Poskus pisanja besedila o razvoju slovenske politike v zadnjega četrt stoletja je za zgodovinarja poseben izziv in svojevrstna pustolovščina, ki že v začetku odpira nekaj važnih metodoloških vprašanj, odstira nekaj dilem, a hkrati že ponuja nekaj vnaprejšnjih odgovorov. Prvi odgovor, ki ga je pogosto zaslediti v medijih in delu strokovne javnosti, je ta, da je raziskovanje slovenske politike po letu 1991 že zanimiva in relevantna tema, a o njej ni mogoče napisati ničesar zares novega, vsaj nič takega, kar ne bi sprotni kronisti dogajanja že zapisali. Drugi vnaprejšnji odgovor, ki je pravzaprav že dilema, zadeva vprašanje obče smiselnosti raziskovanja procesov, ki še niso zaključeni. Čas naj bi bil za pogled zgodo- vinarja še premlad. S časovno komponento je povezano naslednja dilema. Kako sploh metodološko ustrezno kot zgodovinar raziskovati nedavno politiko in fenomen političnega? Gradivo, ki je na voljo, je namreč brezbrežno v vseh ozirih – tako po količini kot po problemski in znanstveni širini. Izzivov in dilem je nedvomno precej, vprašanje je, kako temu streči. Prva dilema, ki pravi, da ni Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 41 mogoče o tem času napisati ničesar novega, je še najlažje obvladljiva. Pri vsakršnem resnem in metodo- loško osmišljenem raziskovanju namreč že teoretično ne moremo vedeti, do kakšnih interpretativnih ugotovitev bomo prišli. Ravno tako so vprašanja, ki smo si jih zastavili včeraj, morda čisto drugačna in nebistvena v primerjavi z vprašanji, ki nas zanimajo danes. Druga dilema, ki pravi, da je sodobni čas za zgodovinarja premlad, je do neke mere upravičena. Gotovo je enostavneje raziskovati oddaljen in zaključen proces, kakor današnji, na videz kaotičen čas. Toda prednost, ki jo predstavlja distanca, v sebi skriva nemajhno past – vedenje o koncu. Znanemu koncu (posledici) bomo iskali logične vzroke v ravnanjih ljudi in pri tem pozabili, da se v zgodovini stvari dogajajo tudi takrat, ko jih nihče ne načrtuje. Problematika virov je še najlažje obvladljiva. Vse vire naše dobe – tako klasične, znane že iz preteklih dob, kakor novejše (digitalne) - lahko temeljito analiziramo in pretehtamo le ob pritegnitvi dveh nači- nov pristopa – z interdisciplinarnostjo in s pomočjo orodij, ki jih danes ponuja digitalna humanistika. Raziskovanje sodobnosti se namreč bolj in bolj osredotoča na teme in probleme, pri čemer padajo meje med posameznimi disciplinami. In kaj lahko po opravljenem raziskovanju sklepamo o politični zgodovini zadnjega četrt stoletja? Najprej se gotovo potrjuje ugotovitev, da je naša doba zelo dinamična, dogodkovno gosta in “neberlji- va”. Navkljub relativni politični stabilnosti vlad je bil strankarski prostor nestabilen in spreminjajoč, v neprekinjenem prestrukturiranju. Med večjimi konstantami je bila polarizacija - delitev političnih akterjev na slovensko levico in desnico. Poleg tega lahko slovenskemu razvoju pripišemo tudi nekatere od značilnosti, ki so jih zaznali v širšem evropskem prostoru – personalizacijo politike, medializacijo in informalizacijo. Eden raziskovalnih izzivov za prihodnost je podrobno proučevanje strankarsko-politič- ne dinamike – ne le navzven, po možnosti tudi znotraj strank, v kolikor bi bilo raziskovalcu to omogo- čeno. Interdisciplinarno sodelovanje pri tem ne sme izostati, saj je problematika večplastna, odgovori pa ne nujno racionalni. Simona Kustec Lipicer: Evaluation Remarks about Slovenian Parliamentary Democracy ...42 * Full Professor, PhD, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva ploščad 5, SI-1000 Ljubljana, simona.kustec-lipicer@fdv.uni-lj.si 1.01 UDC: 328(497.4)"2014/2016" Simona Kustec Lipicer* Evaluation Remarks about Slovenian Parliamentary Democracy at Its Twenty-Fifth Anniversary IZVLEČEK OCENA SLOVENSKE PARLAMENTARNE DEMOKRACIJE OB NJENI PETINDVAJSETLETNICI V članku je z namenom podati oceno dosedanjih praks slovenske parlamentarne demokracije podan kronološki pregled sprememb in prevladujočih demokratičnih vzorcev v državi od prvih parlamentarnih volitev po sprejemu ustave do aktualnega časa. Osrednjo mesto analize, ki je v prvem delu članka utemeljena prvenstveno na statističnih podatkih v drugem delu pa na sekun- darnih virih, med njimi spoznanjih že izvedenih raziskovalnih študij ter medijskih zapisov, je namenjeno parlamentarnemu in vladnemu vedenju političnih strank v posameznem volilnem obdobju. Analiza pokaže, da je bila slovenska parlamentarna demokracija v prvem, poosamosvojitve- nem obdobju pretežno predvidljivo osredotočena v temeljni demokratični razvoj in ni beležila pomembnejših sprememb skozi čas. Na drugi strani pa predvsem zadnja tri volilna obdobja (t.i. drugo obdobje demokracije) kažejo na bistvene spremembe od prvotno zastavljenega delovanja in jih zaznamuje prevlada notranjih strankarskih interesov ter konfliktov, kar ima učinek na celotni demokratični prostor v državi. Na podlagi vsega prikazanega je eno od ključnih spoznanj članka, da politične stranke v Slove- niji ohranjajo temeljno vlogo gradnika parlamentarne demokracije, vendar pa izvajanje njihovih vlog in aktivnosti tako znotraj parlamentarne kot vladne arene v zadnjih obdobjih pospešeno opozarja na premislek o osrednjem poslanstvu ter demokratičnih funkcijah političnih strank. Prav tako je zlasti v zadnjem obdobju možno zaznati, da se možnosti nezanesljivega in nepredvidlji- vega volilnega rezultata za stranke povečujejo sorazmerno z njihovimi notranjimi ter medstran- karskimi konflikti, ki na parlamentarno demokracijo države mečejo izrazito negativno podobo. Ključne besede: Državni zbor Republike Slovenije, demokracija, volivci, vlada, spremembe ABSTRACT In order to evaluate the existing practices of the Slovenian parliamentary democracy, the author conducted a chronological overview of the shifts in prevailing democratic patterns, starting with the first parliamentary elections after the country gained independence onwards. Parliamentary Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 43 and governmental political party behaviour was central to the analysis and, thus, was analysed us- ing both statistical data and secondary sources, which primarily consisted of academic and research papers and media records. The analysis revealed that Slovenian parliamentary democracy in the initial (first) decade was according to the electoral data predictable and by programme orientation oriented towards democratic development. However, over the past three election cycles (second decade), the situation began to change quickly, indicating a predominance of internal party interests and conflicts that affect the country’s entire democratic arena. One of the main findings of the article suggests that political parties in Slovenia remain a fundamentally important pillar of parliamentary democracy, but their roles and activities within the parliamentary, governmental and other arenas increasingly warn of their central mission and democratic system functions. It can be detected that the potentials for electoral uncertainties in- crease with the intensities of internal and inter-parties’ conflicts which all give distinctly negative connotation to the country’s parliamentary democracy. Key words: National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia, Democracy, Voters, Government, Changes The Place of the Political Parties in the Parliamentary Democracy In Europe, political parties are an essential aspect of parliamentary-party democracy,1 as they allow the parliamentary arena to function normally. Because of this, political parties represent the core of modern politics. With the advent of mass democracy in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, the existence of a direct link between the state and individuals became more and more unrealistic; this shift has contributed to the legitimisation of politi- cal parties as intermediaries between individual citizens and the state.2 As a result, political parties have taken on the role of an interface, or a connecting point between the citizens and state institutions. Parties have begun to function as a key element of the integration of the people’s will and the respective governing authorities. In this regard, the implementation of universal and free voting has led to an assertion of power by the political parties. Despite their relatively recent appearance on the political stage, parties have made such a strong mark on contemporary politics and democracy that twentieth-century democracy could be best described as a ‘party democracy’.3 Parties not only became 1 Alan Ware, Citizens, parties, and the state. A reappraisal (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1988). 2 Ingrid van Biezen and Richard S. Katz, Democracy and Political Parties. Paper, prepared for the workshop ‘Democracy and Political Parties’, ECPR Joint Sessions, 2005 (Granada, April 2005), 1, avail- able at URL: https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/3402a19c-2e82-4b30-bf30-6a423927d5b0.pdf. 3 Note 2. Simona Kustec Lipicer: Evaluation Remarks about Slovenian Parliamentary Democracy ...44 an indispensable part of the democratic society’s existence; they also became a funda- mental factor for changes in democratic societies.4 Up until this point, democratic theorists did not consider the role of political parties to be an important factor in the changing patterns of democracy. Numer- ous studies on the institutional and procedural functions of political parties exist,5 including some that explore the relationship between citizens and the state,6 but few have focused on political parties as the third fundamental constitutive pillar of democracy. With regard to a system-wide democracy, political parties exist and work on two levels: 1. Level 1 refers to the platform political parties create for themselves in the external environment; this includes their attitudes and their making related to their vot- ers, to their work in political institutions etc. 2. Level 2 refers to internal party dynamics, which are reflected in their internal political processes, how they perceive their own mission and jurisdictions in the system and, consequently, any adequate cadre, financial, intellectual and other operational resources allocated to them.7 The most recent research has found that parties are losing relevance as vehicles of representation, mobilisation and channels for interest articulation and aggregation. All of this together makes parties increasingly incapable of carrying out their essential function and, consequently, have had an indirect impact on citizens’ decreasing trust and confidence in political institutions and politics in general.8 The primary aim of this article is to recognise and assess the patterns of Slovenian parliamentary democracy; these patterns are identified using electoral experiences from the independence of the state onwards. The behaviour of the parliamentary and governmental political parties are at the centre of the analysis. In order to structure the chronological overview, the analysis focuses on each electoral term as an indi- vidual unit in which the prevailing frameworks represent the wider political context, upgraded with the political party arenas’ main specifics of the analysed time periods. The analysis uses statistical data and other secondary sources – which consist primar- ily of academic research papers and media records – to explore these themes. 4 Richard S. Katz, “Party in Democratic Theory,” in: Handbook of Party Politics, eds. Richard S. Katz and Daniel Crotty (London: Sage, 2006), 44. 5 Peter Mair, “Party System Change,” in: Handbook of Party Politics, eds. Katz and Crotty, 63–75. 6 Arendt Ljiphart, Patterns of Democracy (Yale: Yale University Press, 2012). 7 Andre Krouwel, ‘’Party Models,’’ in: Handbook of Party Politics, eds. Katz and Crotty, 249–70. Peter Mair and Ingrid van Biezen, “Partymembership in twenty European democracies, 1980–2000,” Party Politics, No. 7 (2011): 5–21. See also Note 5. 8 Michael Gallagher, Michael Laver and Peter Mair, Representative Government in Western Europe (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005). Russell J. Dalton, David M. Farrell and Ian McAllister, Political par- ties and democratic linkage. How parties organize democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 45 The Slovenian Experience as an Example: The Broader Political Context of Parliamentary Democracy from Independence until Today9 After gaining independence in 1991, the first election of representatives to the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia took place in 1992. There have since been an additional seven election cycles, and ten governments have been elected to the National Assembly.10 Basic electoral indicators11 show that on average, 20 political parties participate in parliamentary elections. At least 17 political parties participated in the 2008 and 2014 elections. In contrast, 26 parties participated in the 1992 elections. Bigger variations in the number of competing political parties between the two consecutive elections were not recorded. The number of elected, re-elected and unelected parties remains stable. On aver- age, two new parties are elected in each election, whereas two parties fail re-election. This data supports the volatility phenomena, which suggests that political party elec- toral support changes according to their past electoral success. Based on statistical data, since Slovenia’s 2004 elections (and even more so from 2008 onwards), the volatility rates have reflected the electoral success and after that immediate and com- plete failure of new political parties to enter the parliament. On average, the government coalition consists of four parties. On average, within one government office term, two shifts occur in coalition partners, whether due to their resignation or to their replacement by the prime minister. The only exception 9 Chapter based on the following data and other sources’ webpages: National Electoral Commission, accesed 15 September 2016, URL: http://www.dvk-rs.si/index.php/en. Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, accesed 15 September 2016, URL: https://www.uradni-list.si/. Government of the Republic of Slovenia, accesed 15 September 2016, URL: http://www.vlada.si/en/about_the_government/govern- ments_of_the_republic_of_slovenia/. Reports on National Assembly‘s work in the parliamentary terms, accesed 15 September 2016, URL: http://www.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/Home/deloDZ/raziskovalnaDe- javnost/Knjige. “Freedom House,” Nations in Transit. Slovenia, 2016, accesed 20 June 2016, URL: htt- ps://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/2016/slovenia. “European Journal of Political Research,’’ Political Data Yearbook. Slovenia, 2016, accesed 20 June 2016, URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ journal/10.1111/(ISSN)2047-8852/homepage/slovenia.htm. For more details about the statistical data and in-depth analysis see also Simona Kustec Lipicer and Andrija Henjak, ‘’Changing dynamics of democratic parliamentary arena in Slovenia. Voters, parties, elections,” Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino 55, No. 3 (2015). 10 The 1990 elections may be mentioned as a forerunner of the first after–independence elections to the National Assembly in 1990. In the 1990 elections, 80 members were elected in each of the three assembly chambers, which were the Socio–Political Chamber, the Chamber of Associated Labour and the Chamber of Communities. Government was formed based on the outcome of the Sociopolitical Chamber elections, and this was conducted by the coalition of the Demos in the period of 1990 to 1992. Due to disagreements in the Demos coalition, the government was led by the left Liberal De- mocracy of Slovenia, LDS just before the first parliamentary elections (from May 1992 till the end of February 1993). 11 More details about the statistical data and in-depth analysis are in Kustec Lipicer and Henjak, ‘’Changing dynamics of democratic parliamentary arena in Slovenia.” Simona Kustec Lipicer: Evaluation Remarks about Slovenian Parliamentary Democracy ...46 was the coalition in the 2004–2008 term, the only one in Slovenian parliamentary history to sustain a complete electoral period term in the initial composition.12 These circumstances have resulted in a significant decrease in trust in the govern- ment and the National Assembly generally and in the political parties specifically. 12 Drago Zajc, Samo Kropivnik and Simona Kustec Lipicer, Od volilnih programov do koalicijskih pogodb. Analiza politične kongruence (Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, 2012). Table 1: Data regarding the number of parties in the parliamentary elections in Slovenia, 1992–2014 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2011 2014 No. of candidates 1475 1300 1007 1395 1182 1300 1246 No. of competing parties 26 22 23 23 17 20 17 No. of elected parties 8 7 8 7 7 7 7 No. of newly elected parties 1 3 1 2 2 3 No. of unelected parties 2 2 2 2 3 3 No. of coalition parties 4, later 3 and then 2 3 dropping to 2 5 dropping to 4 4 4 5 (SDS term) / 4 (PS term) 3 Source: Adapted from the Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia (2016), National Electoral Commission (2016) and Government of the Republic of Slovenia (2016) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2011 2014 % volality votes  for new  pares Figure 1: Volatility and vote share of new parties in the parliamentary elections in Slovenia, 1992– 2014 Source: Adapted from Kustec Lipicer and Henjak (2015) Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 47 Over the past two electoral periods, the level of trust in political parties has fallen below 5 %.13 However, the average electoral participation is still slightly higher than 70 %. After 2004, the turnout rate dropped to the aforementioned average, with participation in the last elections in 2014 barely exceeding 50 %, all of which points to a decrease in the legitimacy of electoral participation, something that needs to be taken into consideration in the democratic political system. Parliament 1992–1996 Slovenia’s first National Assembly of the Republic election in 1992 was influenced by the early period of democracy. Based on constitutional norms, internal visions of action and fundamental political visions regarding how to model and develop a democratic state and market system, political parties – together with the parliament and the government, which function as fundamental pillars of democracy – began to build up their democratic experience.14 Internal party conflicts that related to 13 Niko Toš, ed., Vrednote v prehodu VIII. Slovenija v srednje in vzhodnoevropskih primerjavah 1991–2011 (Ljubljana and Wien: Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za družbene vede and IDV-CJMMK – Edition Echoraum, 2014). 14 Aleksander Lorenčič, Prelom s starim in začetek novega. Tranzicija slovenskega gospodarstva iz socializma v kapitalizem (1990–2004) (Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2012). Jure Gašparič, Slovenski parlament. Politično-zgodovinski pregled od začetka prvega do konca šestega mandata (1992– 2014) – 1.0 (Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2014), accesed 29 June 2016, URL: http:// www.sistory.si/SISTORY:ID:26950. Janko Prunk and Tomaž Deželan, eds., Dvajset let slovenske države (Maribor: Aristej and Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, Center za politološke raziskave, 2012). 0,00 10,00 20,00 30,00 40,00 50,00 60,00 70,00 80,00 90,00 100,00 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Figure 2: Election turnout in Slovenia, 1992–2014 Source: National Electoral Commission (2016) Simona Kustec Lipicer: Evaluation Remarks about Slovenian Parliamentary Democracy ...48 new social movements’ internal democratic processes were prevalent and ultimately resulted in their separation or integration of social movements into political parties formations which consequently indicated a farewell of the former from the political system.15 In the shadow of these processes, the first coalition was very diverse. Con- sisting of parties from both the left and the right, this new coalition was led by the relative winner of the elections, the left-centred liberal democracy of Slovenia (LDS), and its president, Janez Drnovšek, became the prime minister. In March 1994, the affair ‘Depala vas’ was revealed. Though it was the only one, it induced a huge polemic of the aforementioned office term. This affair also directly affected the governmental coalition’s internal instability. The coalition leading, the left-winged LDS, was primarily a reason for deposing the then Minister of Defence, which led to the resignation of the right positioned social democratic party SDSS, whose members included said Minister of Defence, from the governmental coali- tion. Further, in 1994, the then Foreign Minister from the quota of another, also in the right political pole positioned partner Slovenian Christian Democrats, SKD, also resigned from the Government. However, despite this, the SKD remained in the coalition. Six months before the 1996 general elections, the left-wing social demo- crats, ZLSD, the second of the four coalition partners, resigned from the coalition.16 Parliament 1996–2000 The second term of the National Assembly was again marked by the relative victory of the LDS party. The party’s president, Janez Drnovšek, formed a new gov- ernmental coalition, this time with the newly elected, interest-driven Democratic Party of Retired Persons of Slovenia, DeSUS, and the center–right agrarian party of Slovenian People’s Party, SLS. The coalition, despite its constant internal tensions, endured until six months before the next election, where the National Assembly, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, called for a vote of no confidence in the government. The coali- tion did not pass. This was the first time in history that the National Assembly voted that they had no trust in the government.17 Instead of calling early elections for a six month period, the government was taken over from the (already) united former right coalition party SLS and the right-wing opposition parties SKD (SLS + SKD), as well as the Slovenian Democratic Party SDS (formerly the SDSS). The coalition was lead by the prime minister, Andrej Bajuk from SLS + SKD. The main characteristic 15 Danica Fink - Hafner, Nova družbena gibanja – subjekti politične inovacije (Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, 1992). 16 Marko Pečauer, ‘’Skoraj vsak mandat se konča s krizo,’’ Delo, 19 September 2008, accesed 22 May 2016, URL: https://m.delo.si/clanek/174052. 17 The merger of the coalition party SLS with the opposition, SKD, led to the resignation of all of the ministers of SLS from the government. The ministers of SLS constituted almost half of the govern- ment. Furthermore, the appointment of new ministers was tied to a vote of no confidence in the new government, but was not elected. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 49 marking this half-year long right-wing coalition was the numerous politically driven personal replacements.18 Aside from another round of internal coalition tensions and other parliamentary- party turbulences, the second parliamentary term remained influenced by the fur- ther development of the market-economic model, as well as the starting processes of integrating the country into the international arena. After the Depala vas affair, an- other similar military-police political affair emerged (Vič Holmec) during the same term, together with the already mentioned affairs connecting the political cadre re- placements in this period’s last months. Parliament 2000–2004 The third parliamentary elections were again won by the left-positioned LDS, this time with the vast majority of 36,26 of the votes. LDS President, Janez Drnovšek, assembled a governmental coalition for the third time. This third coalition was de- scribed as a ‘large heterogeneous coalition’.19 In the beginning of the mandate, the coalition was composed of five parties, all of which had already cooperated with the mandatary back when he had been leading the two previous governments.20 In 2002, Prime Minister Drnovšek ran and was subsequently elected for the President of the Republic. The new prime minister within the same coalition became Drnovšek’s for- mer party colleague.21 Tone Rop, the former minister of finances, became the ruling party’s new president. Strong disagreements emerging in the coalition almost a year before the new parliamentary elections led to the resignation of the right SLS ministers. In this parliamentary term, an active opposition action was recognised. Also, a vote of no confidence in the government, which did not pass, was proposed by the right leading opposition parties SDS and Nsi.22 A programme interested governmental report on Slovenia’s 2000–2004 development23 was prepared for this occasion, and it served as a valuable written side-effect remark of this political act. This period was positively influenced by external politics, namely, formal mem- 18 One of the key people of the ruling coalition parties became Telekom’s CEO; the director of the Tax Administration was illegally deposed with more than a hundred government officials. More in STA (Arhiv novic), accesed 30 June 2016, URL: http://sta.si. 19 Alenka Krašovec and Ladislav Cabada L., ‘’Kako smo si različni. Značilnosti vladnih koalicij v Sloveniji, Češki republiki in na Slovaškem,” Teorija in praksa 50, No. 5/6 (2013): 717–35. 20 The SDS was the only party that the coalition had already cooperated with in the past, but was also not invited into the current large coalition. The SLS, which was responsible for the governmental crisis before the end of the previous mandate, also participated in the coalition. 21 The party membership of Janez Drnovšek was frozen when he was elected for the President of the Republic. In 2006, Drnovšek resigned from the LDS. 22 Immediately after the 2000 elections and subsequent internal party disagreements, the NSi were formed out of the resigned members and deputies from before the election merged the SLS + SKD. After the formation of the NSi, the party SLS + SKD was again renamed the SLS. 23 More details Arhiv glavnih novic; Vlada Republike Slovenije, 2016, accesed 5 July 2016, URL: http://www.vlada.si/medijsko_sredisce/glavne_novice/. Simona Kustec Lipicer: Evaluation Remarks about Slovenian Parliamentary Democracy ...50 bership in the EU and NATO. External factors, along with the encouraging econom- ic indicators and, consequently, social indicators,24 showed the successful realisation of the country’s development model that was set a decade ago, which was focused on the economic and international consolidation and stabilisation of the country. In contrast to the increasingly numerous internal political affairs and party con- flicts, decreased trust in the fundamental political institutions and lower electoral participation were notable in this period and thus influenced the processes of demo- cratic political institution consolidation. Most notably, in 2003, Udba.net media archive was released by the right-wing parties, which referred to the list of previous employees in the communist times.25 Parallel to this, some other examples of pre- election and election allegations of appointing political staffing26 were present. From the stated internal and mutual party relation perspective, the Slovenian political de- velopment first showed bigger democratic wounds and prevented a smooth continu- ation of democratic growth. Parliament 2004–2008 After the fourth elections in 2004, the mandate to form the government was taken over by the centre-right coalition for the first time. The governmental coalition included the election winner, SDS, the right parties, NSi and SLS, and the centrist DeSUS party. All parties had already had prior experience in the previous coalitions. The country had successfully completed the process of integration and entry into the international arena during this term, which they did by adopting the European currency, the Euro, presiding, as the first CEE member state, to the Council of the EU in 2008 and implementing the so-called ‘borderline rules’ of the Schengen area.27 The initial development model in the economic, social and international seg- ments was successfully completed.28 However, the consolidation of the state and government democratic structures, on the other hand, could not be confirmed. The mandate was influenced by a number of internal and international high-profile af- fairs, such as regulating the problems of the Roma people, the rights violations of the so-called ‘erased’, the beginning of the Partia affair, the Piranski zaliv affair and numerous personnel changes, which were thought to be linked with the political par- ties.29 Despite the fact that all of the democratic institutions had been established for over a decade and a half following the country’s independence, their final consolida- tion and credibility was constantly undermined by a number of internal scandals and 24 Lorenčič, Prelom s starim in začetek novega. 25 Ali H. Žerdin, ‘’Udba.net,” Udba.net | MLADINA.si, available at: http://www.mladina. si/61653/18-04-2003-udba_net/?utm_source=dnevnik%2F18-04-2003-udba_net%2F&utm_ medium=web&utm_campaign=oldLink. 26 More details in STA (Arhiv novic), accesed 30 June 2016, URL: https://www.sta.si/. 27 Note 26. 28 Note 24. 29 Note 26. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 51 affairs, conflicts, personnel exchanges and, with that, logically related institutional instability. All of this had the same common denominator: the parliamentary and, specifically, the ruling government political parties’ uncertainties. In this term, internal coalition disagreements culminated again half a year before the next elections, with the vote of confidence in the parliament. The tensions of the coalition partners SLS and DeSUS complicated the internal coalition relations, as did a new proposal by the prime minister to vote for the future of this government. The government passed a vote of confidence and was the only one in the country’s current government and parliamentary history to endure over the same coalition structure until the end of the regular term. Parliament 2008–2011 The fifth parliamentary elections were marked by a tight election result. The man- date to form a government was again assigned to the coalition of the leftist parties. The coalition was included the leading Social Democratic party, SD, which led the government for the first time; the barely elected LDS; the newly established politi- cal party, Zares (although the majority of the Zares consisted of members of the old LDS); and the permanent coalition partner, DeSUS. This period, despite the programme affinity and the manageable number of coali- tion partners, was characterized by continuous internal issues, coalition unrest and scandals. Furthermore, this period was also affected by the global economic crisis, to which the country had responded with excessive borrowing, thereby putting a grow- ing burden on the national budget.30 Initial personnel moves by Prime Minister Borut Pahor led to the coalition part- ners’ request to convene an extraordinary session of the coalition summit in 2009. A wave of resignations from ministers and other high officials followed in 2010. Almost one-third of the ministers were replaced. Resignations continued in 2011, following the resignation of the Minister of Higher Education, Science and Technol- ogy and the president of the Zares party. Interpellations were actively filled, and all governmental reform proposals were obstructed by the opposition; later, proposals were also obstructed by the voters on the referenda. Six referendums were tendered during this parliamentary term, namely, arbitration, reform referendums on the mini jobs, a pension reform referendum and a referendum on the Law on the Prevention of Labour and Employment in the black, as well as a referendum on the RTV con- tribution and archives.31 This mandate was also marked by a number of internal political scandals in ad- dition to the aforementioned personnel affairs – for example, the unsuccessful reha- 30 Boštjan Noč, Kazalniki zadolženosti Slovenije. Paper, prepared for the Conference Statistični dnevi, 2011, accesed 20 May 2016, URL: http://www.stat.si/StatisticniDnevi/Docs/Radenci2011/ Noc-Kazalniki_zadolzenosti-prispevek.pdf. 31 Simona Kustec Lipicer and Niko Toš, “Analiza volilnega vedenja in izbir na prvih predčasnih volitvah v Državni zbor,” Teorija in praksa 50, No. 3-4 (May-August 2013): 503–29, 685. Simona Kustec Lipicer: Evaluation Remarks about Slovenian Parliamentary Democracy ...52 bilitation of the banking system; the construction of the sixth block of the Šoštanj Thermal Power Plant; the insolvency of once successful companies, such as Vegrad, Istrabenz, Mura; and government Falcon aircraft. Other corruption scandals includ- ed the bullmastiffs affair, the Ultra affair, the rental of the National Bureau of Inves- tigation premises and the Dimic affair. In terms of Slovenia’s international activities, this mandate was marked by the agreement of the Republic of Slovenia’s and the Republic of Croatia’s prime ministers in November 2009, which stated that open border conflict issues would be resolved through international arbitration. Besides this, the appearance of the top Slovenian politicians in the international arena visibly faded in all other topics. Civil servants were often involved in political decision-making processes on behalf of the state, or the state was not represented in aforementioned processes.32 The situation above was expressed when first DeSUS and later Zares resigned from the coalition a year before the new election was called. The National Assembly requested for a vote of confidence on the Prime Minister’s proposal and, for the second time in history, the government did not pass the vote. Therefore, the President of the Republic convened the first early elections for autumn 2011. Parliament 2011–2014 The results of the 2011 autumn elections brought a major twist to the parliamen- tary political arena. Competition for votes between old and successful new political parties became a pure fact, with the new ones gaining more and more electorate trust. Despite the very real prospect of early parliamentary elections, political parties were not as sufficiently prepared, either financially or organisationally, as the po- litical parties in the previous National Assembly elections. The role of the two new political parties established just before the elections – left-positive Slovenia (PS) and centre-right Civic List (DL)33 – was one of the key innovations of the pre-electoral, the electoral and, subsequently, the post-election period from the party perspective. Both parties personalised their leaders, who were both politically recognisable fig- ures, namely, Zoran Janković, the second-time elected mayor of the capital city of Ljubljana (PS), and Gregor Virant, one of the hitherto most prominent members of the SDS party and the Minister of Public Administration from 2004 to 2008 (DL). 32 Damjan Lajh and Zdravko Petak, eds., EU Public Policies Seen from a National Perspective. Slo- venia and Croatia in the European Union (Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, 2015). 33 The Movement for Sustainable Development of Slovenia (TRS) was established as an alterna- tive to the party system in October 2011. The Party for Sustainable Development of Slovenia was then formed from the political wing of the movement. The mentioned political party participated in the parliamentary elections in 2011, but, despite initial good opinion polls and prognoses, did not exceed the threshold for entry into parliament. However, it did achieve a comparable election result as the old, once successful parties SNS and LDS and a half higher result than the former parliamentary coalition party Zares. The TRS members were mostly recognisable personalities from public life and value – ori- ented intellectuals left. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 53 These two parties occupied 41 % of all parliamentary seats. For the first time since 1992, after 12 years as the country’s leading government party, the LDS did not pass the electoral threshold. The party received only 1.48 % of the votes. The only national party in Slovenia, the SNS, received only 1.80 % of the votes in the 2011 elections and so did not enter the parliament. Zares, which had been elected into the parliament immediately after its establishment before the 2008 parliamentary elections, also failed to pass the electoral threshold. However, after a three-year break between 2008 and 2011, the NSi reached the electoral threshold and re-entered the parliament. The existing old political parties, shocked by the election results but still more politically experienced, formed the government coalition, after the newly established left-wing party PS together with the future members of a coalition failed to nomi- nate the Speaker of the Parliament and afterwards the government. Hence PS left the mandate to the second best party, the experienced right-wing SDS. The SDS composed a short-term government with a five-member coalition that was, despite its size, quite close ideologically. The SDS coalition partners were also a new political party, DL, two old right-wing coalition partners SLS and Nsi and a constant in all coalitions present party DeSUS. Soon after the government’s forma- tion, Prime Minister Janez Janša (SDS) was first (and again) accused of direct politi- cal intervention in replacements and nomination of staffing since the beginning of the term,34 and afterwards the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption re- leased a report pointing to the financial accusations against the prime minister and, a few weeks later, the president of PS, the largest parliamentary party,35 which resulted in the resignation of both politicians from their senior positions. Janša resigned as prime minister after the National Assembly rejected the vote of confidence, while Janković temporarily resigned as the PS party president. Leadership of the PS party was temporarily and ‘as a last resort’ left to Alenka Bratušek after the aforementioned incident. Alenka Bratušek became a mandatary and, in March 2013, she took over the leadership of the ninth Slovenian government, which was composed of the left- social democratic party SD and former coalition partners DL and DeSUS. However, internal conflicts in the PS, along with the new success of the PS founding president at the party electoral congress, led to the resignation of Prime Minister Bratušek just one year after she took over the government. The President of the Republic called for early elections for the second time in a row in late spring 2013.36 This term was marked by the disability of both governments, which were facing many of their internal and between political parties’ pressures, divisions and ambi- tions, despite their attempts to solve the economic and financial crisis and their work 34 Kadrovski blitzkrieg – Mladina.si, 2012, accesed 30 June 2016, URL: http://www.mladina. si/109350/kadrovski-blitzkrieg/. 35 “KPK,” Odločitve in mnenja komisije | Komisija za preprečevanje korupcije, 2012, accesed 20 June 2016, URL: https://www.kpk-rs.si/sl/nadzor-in-preiskave/odlocitve-in-mnenja-komisije. STA (Arhiv novic), accesed 30 June 2016, URL: URL: https://www.sta.si/. 36 STA (Arhiv novic), accesed 30 June 2016, URL: https://www.sta.si/. Simona Kustec Lipicer: Evaluation Remarks about Slovenian Parliamentary Democracy ...54 to return the country to the international arena. However, the biggest international slip at the end of mandate was Bratušek’s self-nomination for the European Com- missioner.37 Parliament 2014 – The seventh parliamentary election, which was also the second preliminary elec- tion in Slovenia, was implemented at the beginning of summer vacation on July 13, 2014. The election results again followed a similar parliamentary arena patterns as the previous elections. The biggest winner of the 2014 elections was the newly established centre Party of Miro Cerar, or the SMC. Once again, this party had been established just before the elections and had one main driving figure: the publicly well-known and respect- ful constitutional lawyer Miro Cerar. The party gained 40 % of the votes and was renamed the Modern Centre Party in early 2015; it formed a left-centred govern- ment coalition in September 2014 together with the left-wing social democrats, SD and DeSUS. Insights into the parliamentary arena show that in addition to the SMC, the threshold was as well achieved by two new left-wing parties, the United Left (ZL) and nearly passed the electoral threshold new party of the former prime minister, ZaAB. In contrast to the past elections, these three political parties did not enter the parliamentary arena. Two of them were successful new parties at the former elections and members of the governmental coalition. The third unsuccessful party was the right-positioned SLS, the historically oldest party, as well as a frequent, but generally conflictual, member of many former governmental coalitions. Similar to the recent terms of office coalition, work so far has been marked by internal party accusations and tensions, as well as remarks on the lack of leadership capacities. A set of opposition activities has been well activated against the work of the coalition.38 During the current government activity from autumn of 2014 until nowadays, the public-financial conditions were stabilised, particularly the control over the allowed budget deficit. Additionally, legally transparent frames for manag- ing state assets were accepted, economic growth increased importantly, while unem- ployment rate decreased to the level before the crisis in 2008. A greater emphasis was placed on the protection and management of natural resources. The government, however, once again more actively cooperates in the international community, par- ticularly through participation in migration policy.39 37 Note 36. 38 Note 36. 39 STA (Arhiv novic), accesed 30 June 2016, URL: https://www.sta.si/. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 55 Conclusion Slovenian’s 25 year-old parliamentary democracy has revealed some patterns throughout its quite active and also turbulent development. These patterns can be divided into two periods: 1) the implementation period for democratic state model and its positioning in the international environment (1992–2008) and 2) the pe- riod of internal political and party crises and the search for a new model of growth (2008–present). The state democracy’s first period was characterised by a clear and distinct, ideo- logically distant programme vision, as well as by a focus on the international envi- ronment and the internal ability of the political parties and elites to establish the democratic management foundations and the modes of governing. In contrast, the second, still ongoing period is characterised by political parties’ prevailing dominance throughout the political system (or so-called partitocracy).40 Political parties express tendencies for controlling all of the state (sub)systems, which are not and should not depend on political parties’ policies and influence (e.g. cartelisation patterns).41 Therefore, political parties are also involved in most of the state’s affairs and political staffing. This means that parties do not use their powers and functions to mediate and control the political system’s conflictual issues and problems but are actively helping to shape them. As political parties (as well as individuals in these parties) are still pursuing their own interests, they are constantly causing disagreements and turbulences. Not only does this not lead to forming successful coalition partnerships, it also disables individual party functioning, as well as it also enables the winning potentials of completely new and undefiled parties to enter the parliament or even win the forthcoming elections. Effective management of the coalition so far corresponds to the great importance of having individuals in politics whose knowledge and skills correspond to transpar- ent political leadership, as well as the importance of controlling party speculations. These speculations include different kinds of pressure that coalition partners put on a leading party, as well as how some parties tactically chose to resign just before the specific term of government ran out. In this regard, it is clear that political parties forming the governmental coalition play a direct and decisive role in political stabil- ity. Hence, in terms of government experience, we can see that the failure of all of the previous coalition governments was directly related to the internal coalition partners’ affairs and disagreements. However, they never directly related to the success of op- position parties’ pressures to the coalition work. There are also not real differences possible to detect between left- and right- po- sitioned political parties, in addition to coalitions that share the same patterns over time in all of the three analysed arenas. Some differences in this regard could poten- tially be noticed in the cases of new political parties, but as they would be mostly 40 Note 7. 41 Note 41. Simona Kustec Lipicer: Evaluation Remarks about Slovenian Parliamentary Democracy ...56 Mayflys up until today, lacking the capacities and experiences for implementing sta- ble and sustainable democratic stability through their parliamentary group and coali- tion work, their long-term effect on democracy is mostly unseen. With the 1992 elections as a starting point, a total of 148 political parties have competed at the elections, while 51 have constituted the country’s parliamentary arena afterwards. 12 new political parties have been elected to the National Assem- bly, though 14 of them have not been successful in re-entering the parliament, and only one of the older parties has been voted back into Parliament. Not a single one of the newly elected political parties has been re-elected in the subsequent elections, though the old political parties are on the whole losing their election success with each election cycle. Because of all of the stated, the nature of the Slovenian parlia- mentary democracy is still considered reasonable, although it signals clear warnings of the risks, especially those of the practices and functions undertaken inside the party arenas. Citizens still recognise political parties as the intermediators between their will and the political institutions’ work. This is still reasonably moderate, al- though on one hand political participation as seen through election turnout data is constantly falling. On the other hand the share of effective votes is very high, but the volatility rate shows that voters more and more give voice for the political newcomers and activations from the civil society initiatives in the last three terms. One of the main findings of the article suggests that political parties in Slovenia remain a fundamentally important pillar of parliamentary democracy, but their roles and activities within the parliamentary, governmental and other arenas increasingly warn of their central mission and democratic system functions. It can be detected that the potentials for electoral uncertainties increase with the intensities of internal and inter-parties’ conflicts which all give distinctly negative connotation to the coun- try’s parliamentary democracy. Sources and Literature Literature: • Dalton, Russell J., David M. Farrell and Ian McAllister. Political parties and democratic linkage. How parties organize democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. • “European Journal of Political Research.” Political Data Yearbook. Slovenia, 2016. Accesed 20 June 2016. URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)2047-8852/homepage/slove- nia.htm. • Fink - Hafner, Danica. Nova družbena gibanja – subjekti politične inovacije. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, 1992. • Gallagher, Michael, Michael Laver and Peter Mair. Representative Government in Western Europe. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005. • Gašparič, Jure. Slovenski parlament. Politično-zgodovinski pregled od začetka prvega do konca šestega mandata (1992–2014) – 1.0. Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2014. Accesed 29 June 2016. URL: http://www.sistory.si/SISTORY:ID:26950. • Katz, Richard S. “Party in Democratic Theory.” In: Handbook of Party Politics, eds. Richard S. Katz and Daniel Crotty, 34–47. London: Sage, 2006. • Krašovec, Alenka and Ladislav Cabada L. “Kako smo si različni. Značilnosti vladnih koalicij v Slo- veniji, Češki republiki in na Slovaškem.” Teorija in praksa 50, No. 5/6 (2013): 717–35. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 57 • Krouwel, Andre. “Party Models.” In: Handbook of Party Politics, eds. Richard S. Katz and Daniel Crotty, 249–270. London: Sage, 2006. • Kustec Lipicer, Simona and Andrija Henjak. “Changing dynamics of democratic parliamentary are- na in Slovenia. Voters, parties, elections.” Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino 55, No. 3 (2015): 84–104. • Kustec Lipicer, Simona and Niko Toš. “Analiza volilnega vedenja in izbir na prvih predčasnih voli- tvah v Državni zbor.” Teorija in praksa 50, No. 3-4, (May-August 2013): 503–29, 685. • Lajh, Damjan and Zdravko Petak, eds. EU Public Policies Seen from a National Perspective. Slovenia and Croatia in the European Union. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, 2015. • Ljiphart, Arendt. Patterns of Democracy. Yale: Yale University Press, 2012. • Lorenčič, Aleksander. Prelom s starim in začetek novega. Tranzicija slovenskega gospodarstva iz socializ- ma v kapitalizem (1990–2004). Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2012. • Mair, Peter and Ingrid van Biezen. “Partymembership in twenty European democracies, 1980– 2000.” Party Politics, No. 7 (2011): 5–21. • Mair, Peter. “Party System Change.” In: Handbook of Party Politics, eds. Richard S. Katz and Daniel Crotty, 63–75. London: Sage, 2006. • Noč, Boštjan. Kazalniki zadolženosti Slovenije. Paper, prepared for the Conference Statistični dnevi, 2011. Accesed 20 May 2016. URL: http://www.stat.si/StatisticniDnevi/Docs/Radenci2011/Noc- -Kazalniki_zadolzenosti-prispevek.pdf. • Pečauer, Marko. “Skoraj vsak mandat se konča s krizo.” Delo, 19 September 2008. Accesed 22 May 2016. URL: https://m.delo.si/clanek/174052. • Prunk, Janko and Tomaž Deželan, eds. Dvajset let slovenske države. Maribor: Aristej and Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, Center za politološke raziskave, 2012. • Toš, Niko, ed. Vrednote v prehodu VIII. Slovenija v srednje in vzhodnoevropskih primerjavah 1991– 2011. Ljubljana and Wien: Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za družbene vede and IDV-CJMMK – Edition Echoraum, 2014. • Van Biezen, Ingrid and Richard S. Katz. Democracy and Political Parties. Paper, prepared for the workshop ‘Democracy and Political Parties’, ECPR Joint Sessions, 2005, 14–19. Granada, April 2005. Available at URL: https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/3402a19c-2e82-4b30-bf30- 6a423927d5b0.pdf. • Ware, Alan. Citizens, parties, and the state. A reappraisal. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1988. • Zajc, Drago, Samo Kropivnik and Simona Kustec Lipicer. Od volilnih programov do koalicijskih pogodb. Analiza politične kongruence. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, 2012. Other sources: • “Freedom House.” Nations in Transit. Slovenia, 2016. Accesed 20 June 2016, URL: https://freedo- mhouse.org/report/nations-transit/2016/slovenia. • “KPK.” Odločitve in mnenja komisije | Komisija za preprečevanje korupcije, 2012. Accesed 20 June 2016. URL: https://www.kpk-rs.si/sl/nadzor-in-preiskave/odlocitve-in-mnenja-komisije. • Arhiv glavnih novic; Vlada Republike Slovenije, 2016. Accesed 5 July 2016. URL: http://www.vlada. si/medijsko_sredisce/glavne_novice/. • Government of the Republic of Slovenia. Accesed 15 September 2016. URL: http://www.vlada.si/en/ about_the_government/governments_of_the_republic_of_slovenia/. • Kadrovski blitzkrieg – Mladina.si, 2012. Accesed 30 June 2016. URL: http://www.mladina. si/109350/kadrovski-blitzkrieg/. • National Electoral Commission. Accesed 15 September 2016. URL: http://www.dvk-rs.si/index. php/en. • Official Gazette of teh Republic of Slovenia. Accesed 15 September 2016. URL: https://www.uradni- -list.si/. • Reports on National Assembly‘s work in the parliamentary terms Accesed 15 September 2016. URL: http://www.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/Home/deloDZ/raziskovalnaDejavnost/Knjige. • STA (Arhiv novic). Accesed 30 June 2016. URL: https://www.sta.si/. • Žerdin, Ali H. “Udba.net.” Udba.net | MLADINA.si. Accesed 21 July 2016. URL: http:// Simona Kustec Lipicer: Evaluation Remarks about Slovenian Parliamentary Democracy ...58 www.mladina.si/61653/18-04-2003-udba_net/?utm_source=dnevnik%2F18-04-2003-udba_ net%2F&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=oldLink. Simona Kustec Lipicer OCENA SLOVENSKE PARLAMENTARNE DEMOKRACIJE OB NJENI PETINDVAJSETLETNICI P O V Z E T E K Namen članka je oceniti dosedanje prakse slovenske parlamentarne demokracije. Skozi kronološki pregled sprememb in prevladujočih demokratičnih vzorcev vedenja političnih strank preučujemo par- lamentarno in vladno delovanje, kot se kaže v državi od prvih parlamentarnih volitev po sprejemu ustave do aktualnega časa. Članek je razdeljen v dva večja sklopa, od katerega enega (po obsegu sicer manjšega) predstavlja analiza temeljnih volilnih podatkov, drugega (po obsegu prevladujočega dela besedila) pa prikaz ključnih lastnosti vladnega in s tem posredno tudi parlamentarnega delovanja političnih strank v posameznem mandatnem obdobju, kot jih prikazujejo sekundarna spoznanja že izvedenih raziskovalnih študij ter medijskih zapisov. Od prvih demokratičnih volitev po sprejemu slovenske ustave leta 1991 je bilo do danes izvede- nih sedem parlamentarnih volitev, oblikovanih pa je bilo deset različnih vlad. Skupaj je na volitvah v preučevanih obdobjih tekmovalo 148 političnih strank oziroma v povprečju 20 na posamezne volitve. Od volitev leta 1992 dalje je parlamentarni prag prestopilo 51 političnih strank, od njih 12 povsem na novo, medtem ko jih 14 na naslednjih volitvah ni bilo ponovno izvoljenih. Stopnja izvoljivosti povsem novih političnih strank v obdobju zadnjih treh volitev izjemno narašča, hkrati pa v tem istem času število tekmujočih strank v primerjavi s prejšnjimi volitvami upade za blizu četrtino (podoben upad beležimo tudi v številu tekmujočih strank med prvimi volitvami leta 1992 in naslednjimi leta 1996). Značilnost parlamentarnega in strankarskega prostora v obdobju zadnjih treh parlamentarnih volitev je tudi izjemen volilni uspeh novih strank ter izraziti neuspeh na naslednjih volitvah, saj do sedaj nobena od njih na naslednjih volitvah ponovno ne prestopi parlamentarnega praga. Iz volitev v volitve prav tako upada volilni uspeh starih strank, ki pa v nasprotju z novimi strankami praviloma presežejo volilni prag, a zasedejo vsakič manj sedežev v parlamentu. Ponovna vrnitev v parlament po predhodnem volilnem neuspehu je do sedaj uspela le politični stranki iz t.i. skupine starih strank ter nobeni od novih. Nasploh je za slovenski parlamentarni prostor značilno, da je stopnja volilne nestanovitnosti (t. i. volatility) v nasprotju s stabilnimi starejšimi demokracijami visoka. Vidno upada tudi stopnja volilne udeležbe. V drugem delu članka del analize dinamike vladnega delovanja in vedenja v posameznem volil- nem obdobju, ki je utemeljen prvenstveno na pregledu spoznanj že izvedenih raziskovalnih študij ter medijskih zapisov. V nasprotju s prikazanimi temeljnimi volilnimi podatki, ki se skozi obdobja ne spreminjajo fundamentalno, analiza v drugem delu članka pokaže na bolj živahno, a hkrati tudi vse bolj negativno dinamiko razvoja slovenske strankarske in s tem povezano parlamentarne demokracije. To je glede na vzorce dosedanjih praks in doseženih učinkov možno razdeliti v dve prevladujoči obdobji, in sicer: 1. pozitivno obdobje (1992 – 2008), ki ga zaznamuje pretežno predvidljiva osredotočenost države v temeljni demokratični razvoj in povzemanje dobrih demokratičnih praks, aktivno sodelovanje v mednarodnem prostoru, vključno s polnopravnim vstopom države v EU in NATO, poudarek na spo- štovanju človekovih pravic ter tržnega liberalizma starih razvitih demokracij; ter. 2. negativno obdobje (2008 - ), ki še vedno traja in ga zaznamuje predvsem čas znotraj in medstrankarskih konfliktov in oz- kega zasledovanja lastnih strankarskih interesov, v katerem lastnosti prvega obdobja povsem umanjkajo. Ključno spoznanje članka utrjuje spoznanje, da politične stranke v Sloveniji ohranjajo temeljno vlogo gradnika, a tudi krvnika parlamentarne demokracije. Izvajanje njihovih vlog in aktivnosti tako znotraj parlamentarne kot vladne arene v zadnjih obdobjih namreč pospešeno opozarja na premislek o osrednjem poslanstvu ter demokratičnih funkcijah političnih strank. Prav tako je zlasti v zadnjem obdobju možno zaznati, da se možnosti nezanesljivega in nepredvidljivega volilnega rezultata za stranke povečujejo sorazmerno z njihovimi notranjimi ter medstrankarskimi konflikti, ki na parlamentarno demokracijo države mečejo izrazito negativno podobo. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 59 1.01 UDC: 930:330.342.14/.15(497.4)"1991/2004" Aleksander Lorenčič* Studying the Economic Transition – Challenges, Problems and Results IZVLEČEK PROUČEVANJE GOSPODARSKE TRANZICIJE – IZZIVI, ZAGATE IN REZULTATI V pričujočem prispevku avtor predstavi izzive, zagate in spoznanja, s katerimi se je soočal pri raziskavi in proučevanju slovenske gospodarske tranzicije. Cilj raziskave, ki velja za ‚pionirsko‘ na področju zgodovinopisja, je bil analitično interpretirati proces gospodarske tranzicije in poudariti njene temeljne posebnosti, zakonitosti, nosilce ter rezultate. Rezultat raziskovanja je znanstvena monografija in številni znanstveni ter strokovni članki s področja gospodarske tranzicije. Ključne besede: Slovenija, osamosvojitev, gospodarstvo, tranzicija ABSTRACT In the following article the author presents the challenges, problems and findings that he en- countered while researching and studying the Slovene economic transition. The aim of this research, which is considered ‘pioneer’ in the field of historiography, was to analytically interpret the process of economic transition and point out its fundamental characteristics, rules, agents and results. The result of the research is a scientific monograph and a number of scientific and technical articles in the field of economic transition. Key words: Slovenia, independence, economy, transition In historiography, there are a few so clear and in terms of time so accurately delimited milestones as the year 1991 in Slovene history. With the proclamation of autonomy and independence, we, the Slovenians, have taken our destiny completely into our own hands for the first time, which is why this period, without a doubt, deserves special attention in the field of historiographical research. Despite the fact that from the viewpoint of historiography it lasts only for a short period of two decades and despite the processes many of which have not yet been concluded, this period has to be systematically researched by means of the historiographic method.1 * PhD, Pokrajinski muzej Ptuj-Ormož, Muzejski trg 1, SI – 2250 Ptuj, aleksander.lorencic@ pmpo.si, aleksander.lorencic@pmpo.si 1 Aleksander Lorenčič, “Slovensko gospodarstvo med tranzicijo in globalno krizo (1990–2010),” Aleksander Lorenčič: Studying the Economic Transition – Challenges, Problems and Results60 The study of the period in question, which – due to the so-called historical distance – requires taking into account several factors that influence the scientific research and the presentation of events (from the question of sources, to documentation and the influence of politics), is in many countries no longer a novelty. The importance and role of economic history as a sub-discipline or a specific genre within the historical science is not given much attention. In general, the economic historiography has been for decades on the outskirts of interest in the professional circles. In the nineties of the 20th century, there has been a restructuring of the economic historiography, which coincided with the arrival of the younger researchers. In fact, only two re- searchers, Žarko Lazarević and Jože Prinčič, both members of the Institute of Con- temporary History, have systematically and actively dealt solely with the economic history.2 Precisely the Institute of Contemporary History has decided to systemati- cally focus also on the period after 1990, and for that purpose employed two young researchers. The result of this decision is, among others, a scientific monograph titled Prelom s starim in začetek novega: Tranzicija slovenskega gospodarstva iz socializma v kapitalizem (1990–2004) (A Break With the Old and the Beginning of the New: The Transition of Slovene Economy from Socialism to Capitalism (1990–2004)), which rep- resents a significant contribution to the Slovenian economic historiography.3 Writing about the Slovenian economic transition as a historian has not been an easy task, but it has nevertheless represented a great challenge. I agree with Ivan T. Berend, who in 2009 in the preface of his book wrote that to write about the present or “the unfinished present” is the same as “shooting a moving target”.4 The fact is that anyone who reads the newspapers or watches the daily-news programs is aware that in the last few years we have been “bombarded” on a daily basis with the information that more or less pertains to the economic transition or its consequences. What is more, the market is full of literature and articles (non-technical, technical and scien- tific) which deal with the process of economic transition as a whole or focus only on individual problems. I have to admit that due to the multitude of often contradic- tory information (the opinions of the economic profession are frequently divided as well), it was rather difficult to create a relevant and comprehensive image of such a complex process as the economic transition. As far as the methodological approaches are concerned, due to the legal restrictions on the access of the archival materials, the research and insights are mostly not based on the classic historical (archival) sources. However, judging by the previous research experience regarding the period after the in: Vizija raziskav slovenske gospodarske in družbene zgodovine, ed. Darja Mihelič (Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, 2014), 311, 312. 2 Žarko Lazarević, “Identitetne zadrege slovenskega ekonomskega zgodovinopisja,” in: Podobe modernizacije. Poglavja iz gospodarske in socialne modernizacije Slovenije v 19. in 20. stoletju, eds. Žarko Lazarević and Aleksander Lorenčič (Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2009), 38. 3 Aleksander Lorenčič, Prelom s starim in začetek novega. Tranzicija slovenskega gospodarstva iz so- cializma v kapitalizem (1990–2004) (Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2012). 4 Ivan T. Berend, From the Soviet Bloc to the European Union. The Economic and Social Transfor- mation of Central and Eastern Europe since 1973 (New York: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009), 14. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 61 Slovenian independence, it is clear that the classic method of studying historiogra- phy has to be upgraded with the new methodological approaches. One of the reasons is also the occurrence of informational and communicational revolution after 1990, enabling quicker access to various sources (e.g. the digitalization of different docu- ments), and at the same time triggering the emergence of new industries. The sec- ond reason lies in the fact that after 1991, only the state bodies and institutions the documentation of which is more or less accessible also today were legally required to hand over their material to the archives in a given period of time. Furthermore, it is known that a great deal of material was destroyed, be it due to negligence or on pur- pose, for instance the material of various companies. What is interesting as well is the information presented by an archivist from the Regional Archives Maribor, Gordana Šövegeš, who was wondering about the whereabouts of the documentary material of the Prekmurian companies that went bankrupt in the nineties. Inquiring with differ- ent bankruptcy managers and former company directors yielded no new information for the archivist, and the most frequently heard answer was “we do not know”. The ones responsible also ignored the laws. “Where would we be if we complied with all the laws and regulations!” a director replied to the archivist. We have to bear in mind that the Prekmurian example is certainly not the only one and, as written by the archivist Šövegeš in 2003, it is “generally known that the material of the former companies in public ownership is being massively destroyed even today”.5 Similar things happened with the Communist Party material or the CK ZKS (Central Com- mittee of the Slovene Communist Party) material. Many municipal committees (18 exactly) did not hand over their material. As written by Darinka Drnovšek from the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia, some people “destroyed the documentation simply because they feared that under the new political circumstances these archives would be taken advantage of”, others stored the documents somewhere (in the base- ment or the attic) and “the new leaderships did not want to have anything to do with it”.6 Archivists will thus have a lot of hard work to make sure that the archival mate- rial ends up in the archives in the most satisfactory form possible – at least a greater part of what has not been destroyed. Since the problem of transition is distinctively multidisciplinary, the methodological approach was highly interdisciplinary as well. As a historian, I have given priority to the established method of historical profes- sion, meaning that on the basis of a detailed study of all the possible and available sources and especially the critical analysis of the latter, I have tried to determine, con- front and confirm as many material facts of the process in question as possible. The economic, political, sociological, legal and anthropological conceptualizations of the thematic, theoretical and methodological bases for studying the transition were all 5 Gordana Šövegeš Lipovšek, “The archival material of the Prekmurian companies,” in: Arhivi in arhivsko gradivo v času tranzicijskih sprememb/Infoarh, eds. Mija Mravlja and Andrej Nared (Ljubljana: Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2003), 59–61. 6 Darinka Drnovšek, “The material of the Communist Party in the time of transition,” in: Arhivi in arhivsko gradivo v času tranzicijskih sprememb/Infoarh, eds. Mija Mravlja and Andrej Nared (Lju- bljana: Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2003), 67–70. Aleksander Lorenčič: Studying the Economic Transition – Challenges, Problems and Results62 taken into account. The monograph deals with all the fundamental processes of the economic transition. Up until now, especially the economic profession has dealt with individual problems and processes of this period, but not in a manner in which the problem of economic transition is presented in this work. As already pointed out, the monograph is written in accordance with the rules of historical profession and it represents a comprehensive account of the problem of the economic transition. This means the inclusion of all the relevant aspects of the problem, since only this way we can expect a comprehensive and authentic reconstruction of the complexity of the economic transition. The decision to become a sovereign and independent country has made it pos- sible for Slovenia to engage in its own economic policy and to take over the respon- sibility for its own economic development. By the end of 1992 Slovenia had already been recognized by one hundred countries and become a member of the UN and its specialized organizations; by 1996 she had become a member of almost all the significant economic associations (European Bank for Reconstruction and Develop- ment, International Monetary Fund, World Bank and International Finance Corpo- ration, GATT, WTO, EFTA and CEFTA). Slovenia was in this way “fastened with a safety belt” to the West and thus protected from the war that took place in parts of the former Yugoslavia. The biggest strategic objective of the Republic of Slovenia was, due to its close political, cultural and economic co-operation with Europe, full membership of the EU, which was realized on 1 May 2004. The only organization which Slovenia was unable to become a member of quite so rapidly was the OECD which unites the economically most developed countries in the world (Slovenia did not become a member until 2010).7 Slovenia was one of the first to pass over the pe- riod of transformation depression, which was typical for transition economies in the early nineties, as the recovery of economic growth through the revival of domestic demand took place in mid–1993. Slovenia relatively quickly exceeded the pretran- sitional level of economic activity – the 1990 level of pretransitional development from in 1996 and the 1987 level in 1998.8 Throughout the whole economic transition process, the process of privatization has caused by far the most trouble and stress in political and economic circles and to the population as a whole. It has certainly proved to be the central and most de- manding of all the transition processes. Let us say right away that this is not just a Slovenian particularity, but similar patterns were also seen in other post–communist countries. Privatization of socially-owned property was the process that affected the population most deeply. Legally, the process took place in several steps. In autumn 1991 two acts relating to the privatization of apartments and denationalization were adopted. The Ownership Transformation of Companies Act (OTCA) was adopted in November 1992.9 The basic principle of the privatization of apartments and apart- 7 Lorenčič, Prelom s starim in začetek novega, 455, 456. 8 Ibid, 456. 9 Ibid, 457, 458. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 63 ment houses was the equalisation of the right to purchase an apartment for all those citizens who held housing rights on the day the Housing Act was implemented. An even greater problem was caused by denationalization or the implementation of the latter which was often the subject of polemics and various accusations, particularly by expropriators who set up the Association of Expropriated Property Owners of Slovenia. In their view, the return of nationalized property took place too slowly. The property was returned to the former owners or their heirs “in kind” and if that was not possible, compensation was provided. Return of the property “in kind” provoked most outrage when the Act was adopted, which only intensified when the act was put into practice. At the end of March 2007, the percentage of settled cases at the na- tional level was 94.9. The objective of denationalization and privatization of apart- ments should be to establish ownership and to redress a wrong, but often just the opposite has happened. Legislation in the form it was adopted has actually led to a number of new injustices. Let us look at, for example, the returning of apartments in kind, even when they were occupied by residents with housing rights to them. Slo- venia was the only one of all the transition countries to implement this. Many people in this situation were unjustly treated and indeed exploited by the new owners, but the state has done very little to help and has actually continued to write acts that have done very little to prevent a number of malversations. The government had by far the most problems with the adoption of the privatization of companies act. The propos- als concerning the method of privatization, put forward by Aleksander Bajt and Ivan Ribnikar, were given little serious discussion at government level. However, within the coalition there was a conflict between two completely different economic and political concepts and in the end, some sort of interim model between Mencinger’s and Sachs’s proposal prevailed. During the period from 1990 to the adoption of the OTCA at the end of 1992, many companies converted their status, increased in capital or reorganized on the basis of the Yugoslav legislation of that time. Because at that time the state had not yet fully established the institution of control over the status and financial-capital changes of the companies that had social capital, there was, of course, wide scope for abuse. During this period, so-called “wild privatiza- tion” took place. In order to prevent such abuses, in December 1990 two state insti- tutions that were supposed to supervise and regulate the process of privatization and restructuring were established. The Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Restruc- turing and Privatization has supervised and followed the process, prepared guidelines and verified the privatization programmes, while The Fund of the Republic of Slove- nia for Development has restructured companies. The latter also became the owner of companies and could negotiate and sign sales contracts. Today we are often wit- ness to accusations about fearsome social stratification, stories about management takeovers and similar. What we have to realize is that the situation in society and the economy today is not a result of what took place yesterday or in recent years, but that we have to look for answers at the beginning of our transition story. The lion’s share of controversial privatizations can reliably be attributed to delays in the long-term process of the adoption of The Ownership Transformation of Companies Act. We Aleksander Lorenčič: Studying the Economic Transition – Challenges, Problems and Results64 cannot affirm that the so-called “wild privatization” ran by the so-called Marković acts, because if that were the case, it certainly would not be controversial and illegal. In fact, it only referred to a legally unresolved Marković conception of privatization. One fact we cannot dispute is that while politicians were arguing and discussing pos- sible solutions to the problems of ownership transformation, some had already seized a considerable section of socially-owned property. Let us recall the two, so-called “higher forms” of abusing social property, which some were taking advantage of when relevant legislation had not yet been adopted. The first is by-pass companies. This was a well-known and widespread phenomenon of establishing a company in private ownership, set up by workers employed in a social enterprise with the same or similar subject of business for which the social company was registered. The social company was then run down, until they entered liquidation and bankruptcy. This serves as a clear case of “wild privatization”. The other example represents a free trans- fer of social capital, which refers to the second paragraph of article 145 of the Law on Enterprises from 1990. The described transfer of the capital, even if carried out between companies that were in social ownership, was illegal. In this way, mixed companies now became social property owners in social companies and by doing so also indirectly privatized social companies without the Privatization Act, which was unacceptable and illegal. Of course, there were also other forms of abusing social property, such as unfounded abatement of debts, improper profit-sharing and un- paid transfer of capital. In any case the fundamental cause of “wild privatization” was the fact that the privatization of public property was possible from the outset, with- out adequate rules and regulations. Moreover, despite warnings from the relevant institutions, the Slovenian parliament did not react. The same was also true in the case of the aforementioned article 145. b of the Law on Enterprises, which allowed free transfer of social property under one’s own will and which the Slovenian parlia- ment did not withdraw or supplement in time. According to data from the Agency for Auditing, during the period from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 1992 there was a deficit of socially-owned property to the value of 86,174 million Slovenian Tolars or, if revalorized, the value of 1,238,454,581.87 Euros. In total, according to the audit, the deficit of socially-owned property in the period from 1 January 1990 to 31 July 2004 was to the value of 104 billion-Slovenian Tolars.10 In any case, a small proportion of the population managed to recover significantly during this pe- riod. The long-term adoption of the appropriate legislation has thus had serious consequences. However, it is possible to understand the governing policy of that time, at least to a certain extent. According to many, the privatization law which was eventually adopted was the best of all those suggested. Certainly, if we accept that it is better to pause and reflect rather than make hasty decisions, it was certainly prefer- able to pass an appropriate law later than rush through an unsuitable one. It is also true, as Jože Mencinger admits, that the government at that time was a group of amateurs and either politicians or the appropriate bodies were able to deal with the 10 Ibid, 268, 458–60. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 65 situation (this was the same in all transition countries). In defence of the government at that time, we should also consider that processes such as the transition do not hap- pen often and there is no manual for producing perfect results. All this can be under- stood, but what is harder to accept is the fact that consequently there were numerous abuses and economic benefits to some, which, of course, is the other, darker side of the story. Anyway, the finally adopted OTCA provides companies with seven meth- ods of achieving ownership transformation and combines the elements of two differ- ent approaches, namely the decentralized approach, where most of the initiatives and decisions came from companies and the mass privatization of part of the shares so that they can be divided among citizens in exchange for certificates. Despite the long-term adoption of the OTCA, some flaws remained. The legislature had, inter alia, restricted audits to a three-year period from 1990 to 1992, assuming that the pre-privatization audit procedures would be completed by the end of 1994, which certainly was not the case. It turns out that the deadlines set by the legislator were missed completely and impossible to execute in practice. Inappropriate rules of law, among other things, triggered once again the unnecessary “legalization” of “wild privatization” after 1 January 1993 and thus the establishment of by-pass companies and similar malversations also continued after 31 December 1992.11 Up to the be- ginning of the operation of the Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for the Auditing of Ownership Transformation of Companies in August 1996, so after a period of almost three years, it was not possible to initiate an appropriate audit of previous privatization or to act according to the OTCA. One of the methods of becoming rich in Slovenia was provided by certificates. The majority of Slovenian citizens sold the certificates quickly, thinking they were nothing more than a worthless piece of paper. Since 1993, however, the market in proprietary certificates has flourished. Brokerage firms were formed and a handful of better-informed citizens purchased the certifi- cates at low value and exchanged them later for shares; while the share values in- creased (mostly), their owners became increasingly richer. The processes of owner- ship and privatization have taken a relatively slow course. Up to 7 November 1994, 700 companies submitted their programmes for restructuring to The Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Restructuring and Privatization, which was 52 per cent of all those liable for transformation by law. In early May 1998 the Act Concluding Ownership Transformation and Privatisation of Legal Entities Owned by the Devel- opment Corporation of Slovenia came into force, which defined the transition from the decentralized to centralized form of privatization. In the six years of the process, almost all of the companies with social capital carried out ownership transformation, and only a small number of companies chose not to privatize, because of their own inactivity, or other objective reasons. By completing the process of the ownership transformation of companies, the first phase of the transition process was completed, the aim of which was to push Slovenia into common global trends and economic flows and also enter into the European integration process. With the completion of 11 Ibid, 461. Aleksander Lorenčič: Studying the Economic Transition – Challenges, Problems and Results66 the process a new investment cycle was also initiated, thereby increasing not only the economic growth and employment but also the share of foreign investments. After the formal completion of the process of ownership transformation of companies, it was necessary to complete the second part of the transition process, namely the pri- vatization of state property. The sale of state property represents another form of “wild privatization”. The majority of capital shares in the period 1995–2005 were sold without public bids, therefore non-transparently. The privatization method was otherwise well-intentioned and allowed a high level of worker and employee involve- ment in ownership changes, but the good intentions came to nothing. During the privatization process, the participation of internal owners (non-management em- ployees) and state funds declined, but the participation of investment firms and managers increased. Slovenia’s entry into the European Union marked the formal end of the transition, however the emphasis here is on formal, because only after that period did the privatization prey or its results begin to show. We have been witness to frequent stories of management takeovers, numerous accusations and polemics. These events served the politicians mostly for the purpose of collecting votes; let us not forget the story of the sale of Mercator. The management buyouts did not start in BTC, Iskra, Merkur or Laško. A unique case of a Slovenian management buyout took place in 1995 in the company Agroruše. It is reasonable to add that where pri- vatization was carried out fairly and by the will of the people, where there was no double crossing and injustice and in particular, where intentions were entirely hon- est, those who undertook the process of ownership transformation were able to live with an entirely different spirit and even better. Unfortunately, it transpired that in a large number of Slovenian companies the motivating principles of the managers were less than fair, accruing benefits and greed. As previously mentioned, things were not as closely regulated as they should have been at the very beginning. We are think- ing in particular here of the legal aspect; little has changed. There were many “loop- holes” in the acts and many of those who are now accused of all kinds of abuses, have acquired their wealth, so to speak, legally. A large share of the responsibility lies with the legal system and politicians, because the National Assembly is a place where acts are proposed and adopted. As mentioned previously, many of the deficits in the first period of transition occurred because legislation was inadequate or pending, as well as calls to action being largely ignored. In the first phase of transition, politicians behaved – except in the election period, obviously – as if wild privatization were only an idea, completely foreign to the Slovenian economy. If we mention the later period and the aforementioned notorious manager’s takeovers, the fact is that a great deal of them also happened with the generous help of the politicians. Whether we like it or not, politics and the economy are co-dependent areas, as was illustrated so strikingly during the process of privatization, since the latter often served policy as a tool to increase influence. Even in stories that were seemingly all about the national interest, it transpired that the interests of individuals prevailed. The concept of policy in its narrow sense is defined as directing society with the help of the state. And given the fact that socially-owned property has mostly landed in the hands of a handful of Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 67 people, that we are witnessing distinctive social stratification, that many do not be- lieve in a state governed by the rule of law and the like, it is clear that the policy has not entirely successfully directed Slovenian society to the intended goal. The restruc- turing of the Slovenian economy can certainly not be described as successful, at least not entirely. If not before, this statement proved to be true when after the first quar- ter of 2009, Slovenia officially lapsed into recession brought about by the global fi- nancial and economic crisis. The recession occurred for the first time since 1993, when our country passed over to the transformation recovery and we again witnessed a decline in economic activity, the failure of companies and high unemployment. Crises, which are an integral part of economic life, highlight accumulated economic imbalances or irregularities, and this is exactly what happened in Slovenia. Many of the companies which were not successfully and suitably restructured during the tran- sition have collapsed. Many were forced to reorganize and restructure.12 With regard to the conclusions and results of the research connected to my study of the economic transition, be it individual articles or the monograph Prelom s starim in začetek novega (A Break With the Old and the Beginning of the New), the fact is that from today’s perspective and with new knowledge I would have written some things differently. However, this is precisely the essence of the research and historiography as such: it is a vital process that takes the existing knowledge and constantly upgrades it in the presence of new knowledge. I believe the crucial thing in understanding the economic transition is for the researcher to understand the process and put it in a broader context. Taking an example of the grounds or causes for the socio-political and economic changes, we must bear in mind that, from a broader perspective, this was the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the bipolar division of the world and the time in which socialism became obsolete. In Yugoslavia, the political, transnational, cultural and economic disagreements lead to the desired goal – the Slovenian independence and the transition to a capitalist system. Researching the economic transition as a contemporary researcher, I am aware of the fact that capitalism is a causal-consequential process and that Slovenia cannot avoid external influences, on which it ultimately depends. Economic crises are an integral part of the economy; the two crises Slovenia has faced in the last 25 years – the transitional and the current one – do not have the same reasons for their occurrence, but their consequences for the population are similar: the bankruptcies of many companies, unemployment, the problems of the banks, etc. The crisis that occurred in 2008 is the third great crisis in the last century and a half. Comparing the crisis that hit the countries with the Slovenian population after the collapse of the Vienna Stock Exchange in 1873, the crisis that was the result of the stock market crash on Wall Street in 1929 and the current crisis, the fact is that all three of them have their origin in the financial sector, because they are the consequence of the financial, credit and investment speculations, and they all occurred after periods of outstandingly positive financial and economic trends. The main difference between the transitional crisis 12 Ibid, 461–64. Aleksander Lorenčič: Studying the Economic Transition – Challenges, Problems and Results68 on the one hand, and the global financial and economic crisis on the other is that the former had regional, while the latter had global dimensions. In 1991, Slovenia entered the world of capitalism, which was also facing certain changes that ultimately lead to the outbreak of the last great crisis. If we consider the events from a broader perspective, we discover that in the field of capitalism, especially after the outbreak of the oil crisis in 1973, there has been a major shift in mentality, leading to the belief that the role of state and interventionism are not essential or important for the economy. Neoliberalism occurred: an economic-political paradigm which advo- cates minimizing the role of state in the economy. The economist Davorin Kračun believes that neoliberalism received political support with the election of President Reagan in the USA and reached its peak at the end of the 1980 with the so-called Washington Consensus, which represented a recipe for the countries in transition.13 Kračun believes that “under these circumstances, the neoliberal economic-political paradigm was fairly successful also because it coincided with the collapse of the East- ern Bloc and the expansion of the global market to the once impregnable fortresses of Russia and China”. Moreover, in his opinion, the informational and communica- tional revolutions paved the way for the entirely new industries.14 Ivan T. Berend, a comparative historian of the Central and Eastern Europe, is of similar opinion, and he believes that capitalism has changed and since the 1970s has definitely not been the same. “The developed European countries have been deindustrialized, the in- dustry has lost its significance and in the most developed Western countries only 18 percent of the active population works in the industry. The financial sector, including banks, financial institutions, insurance companies and the real estate sector, grows six time faster than the real economy and its assets are three or four times larger than the entire gross domestic product of the European Union. I am talking about the deindustrialized, excessively financially controlled economy, which was very fragile and susceptible to the financial panic that occurred. From 1980 onwards, the entire system has been deregulated: all the regulations implemented in the 1930 and after the Second World War with the Bretton Woods Agreement, including the lessons learned from the Great Depression, have been eliminated. Neoliberalism was con- vinced that it solved the problems of the crises and that they will not occur anymore. The leading economists of the Chicago School advised the governments that we no longer need the straightjacket of regulation,” believes Berend.15 In Slovenia, we were not fully aware 25 years ago what the transition to capitalism will bring. During this period, capitalism has changed in certain aspects as well. The financial capitalism prevails, which affects the social differences and rivalry even more. 25 years of inde- pendence is a relatively short period and it seems that after so many years of being an 13 Sonja Ploj Ratajc and Vanessa Čokl, “An interview with Davorin Kračun,” V soboto/Večer, 28 July 2012, 3–5. 14 Ibid, 3. 15 Saša Vidmajer, “An interview with Ivan T. Berend,” Delo/Sobotna priloga, accesed 25 March 2012, http://www.delo.si/zgodbe/sobotnapriloga/zgodovinar-ivan-t-berend-krizo-je-povzrocila-perifer- na-mentaliteta.html. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 69 independent country we have only begun to learn about the negative aspects of the capitalist system, of which we expected so much when we gained independence. To- day, this strongly shows in the helplessness and despair of people. It is often said that the Slovenian constitution writes about the implementation of the market economy, while in reality, we have run into the cruel capitalist economy. The romantic ideas make it that much harder to accept the fact that in 1991, Slovenia did not only gain independence, but also transited to the capitalist system with all of its positive and negative characteristics about which we listen on a daily basis.16 1991 marks a sig- nificant turning point in our history. Attaining independence, gaining international recognition and entering into various international bodies, with the pinnacle – en- trance into the European Union in 2004 – are achievements our ancestors could only dream of. If we draw a line, the process of economic transition and the transition to an open socio-market economy in Slovenia deserves positive historical appraisal with a black dot that, as in other transition countries, points to missed strokes and opportunities. This is understandable, because a process as complex as the transition cannot be accomplished entirely as planned or intended, since matters in practice often do not run as smoothly they are written in textbooks and acts of law. Sources and Literature Literature: • Berend, T. Ivan. From the Soviet Bloc to the European Union. The Economic and Social Transformation of Central and Eastern Europe since 1973. New York: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009. • Drnovšek, Darinka. “The material of the Communist Party in the time of transition.” In: Arhivi in arhivsko gradivo v času tranzicijskih sprememb/Infoarh, eds. Mija Mravlja and Andrej Nared, 67–70. Ljubljana: Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2003. • Lazarević, Žarko. “Identitetne zadrege slovenskega ekonomskega zgodovinopisja.” In: Podobe mo- dernizacije. Poglavja iz gospodarske in socialne modernizacije Slovenije v 19. in 20. stoletju, eds. Žarko Lazarević and Aleksander Lorenčič, 13–57. Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2009. • Lorenčič, Aleksander and Lojze Javornik. “Slovenci imamo mitičen odnos do vsake državne tvorbe: Zgodovinar Aleksander Lorenčič o čudnosti čudenja liberalnemu kapitalizmu, slepega prevzemanja ideologije od starejših generacij in o slovenskem zaostajanju zaradi neenotnosti o temeljnih eko- nomskih nalogah in odnosu do tujih naložb.” Finance. Priloga Manager: revija za podjetne, 17 June 2016, 16–19. • Lorenčič, Aleksander. Prelom s starim in začetek novega. Tranzicija slovenskega gospodarstva iz socializ- ma v kapitalizem (1990–2004). Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2012. • Lorenčič, Aleksander. “Slovensko gospodarstvo med tranzicijo in globalno krizo (1990–2010).” In: Vizija raziskav slovenske gospodarske in družbene zgodovine, ed. Darja Mihelič, 311–325. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, 2014. • Ploj Ratajc, Sonja and Vanessa Čokl. “An interview with Davorin Kračun.” V soboto/Večer, 28 July 2012, 3–5. 16 I have summed up my views on the development during the 25 years of independence in an interview for the newspaper Finance – Aleksander Lorenčič and Lojze Javornik, “Slovenci imamo mitičen odnos do vsake državne tvorbe: Zgodovinar Aleksander Lorenčič o čudnosti čudenja liber- alnemu kapitalizmu, slepega prevzemanja ideologije od starejših generacij in o slovenskem zaostajanju zaradi neenotnosti o temeljnih ekonomskih nalogah in odnosu do tujih naložb,” Finance. Priloga Man- ager: revija za podjetne, 17 June 2016, 16–19. Aleksander Lorenčič: Studying the Economic Transition – Challenges, Problems and Results70 • Šövegeš Lipovšek, Gordana. “The archival material of the Prekmurian companies.” In: Arhivi in arhivsko gradivo v času tranzicijskih sprememb/Infoarh, eds. Mija Mravlja and Andrej Nared, 59–61. Ljubljana: Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2003. • Vidmajer, Saša. “An interview with Ivan T. Berend.” Delo/Sobotna priloga. Accesed 25. March 2012. http://www.delo.si/zgodbe/sobotnapriloga/zgodovinar-ivan-t-berend-krizo-je-povzrocila-perifer- na-mentaliteta.html. Aleksander Lorenčič PROUČEVANJE GOSPODARSKE TRANZICIJE – IZZIVI, ZAGATE IN REZULTATI P O V Z E T E K V pričujočem prispevku avtor predstavi izzive, zagate in spoznanja, s katerimi se je soočal pri razi- skavi in proučevanju slovenske gospodarske tranzicije. Cilj raziskave, katere rezultat je več znanstvenih in strokovnih člankov ter znanstvena monografija Prelom s starim in začetek novega, ki velja za ‚pionir- sko‘ na področju zgodovinopisja, je bil analitično interpretirati proces gospodarske tranzicije in pouda- riti njene temeljne posebnosti, zakonitosti, nosilce ter rezultate. Rezultat raziskovanja je znanstvena mo- nografija in številni znanstveni ter strokovni članki s področja gospodarske tranzicije. Pisati o slovenski gospodarski tranziciji kot zgodovinar je bilo vse prej kot lahko delo, a mi je predstavljalo velik izziv. Ivan T. Berend meni, da je o dogodkih iz sedanjosti oziroma o “nedokončani sedanjosti” pisati tako, kot da bi “streljal na premikajočo se tarčo”. Dejstvo je, da vsak, ki prebira časopisje ali gleda dnevno-informativne oddaje, ve, da smo bili zadnja leta tako rekoč vsak dan “bombardirani” s številnimi informacijami, ki so se tako ali drugače navezovale na gospodarsko tranzicijo oziroma njene posledice. Poleg tega je na trgu ogromno literature in člankov, poljudnih, strokovnih in znanstvenih, ki celostno ali po posameznih pro- blemih obravnavajo proces gospodarske tranzicije. Priznati moram, da si je bilo v tej množici podatkov, ki so si pogosto nasprotujoči (tudi ekonomska stroka je v mnenjih pogosto deljena), zelo težko ustvariti relevantno, celostno podobo o tako kompleksnem procesu, kot je gospodarska tranzicija. Pred 25 leti se v Sloveniji nismo zavedali oziroma si je bilo težko predstavljati, kaj bo prehod v kapitalizem v celoti prinesel. Tudi kapitalizem se je v tem obdobju v določenih pogledih spremenil. Prevladuje finančni kapitalizem, ki še toliko bolj vpliva na socialne razlike in tekmovalnost. Četrt stoletja samostojnosti je relativno kratka doba in zdi se, da šele po toliko letih samostojne države spoznavamo negativne plati kapitalističnega sistema, od katerega smo ob osamosvojitvi toliko pričakovali. To se danes izrazito kaže kot nemoč in brezup ljudi. Pogosto je slišati, da smo v Sloveniji v ustavo zapisali, da uvajamo tržno gospodarstvo, zašli pa smo v kruto kapitalistično gospodarstvo. Zaradi romantičnih predstav je toliko težje sprejeti dejstvo, da se Slovenija leta 1991 ni samo osamosvojila, temveč je prešla tudi v kapitalistič- ni sistem z vsemi pozitivnimi in tudi negativnimi lastnostmi, o katerih danes vsakodnevno poslušamo. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 71 * Assistant Professor, PhD, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Sport, Gortanova 22, SI-1000 Ljubljana, tomaz.pavlin@fsp.uni-lj.si 1.01 UDC: 796(497.4)"1991/2016" Tomaž Pavlin* Attainment of Slovenian Independence and Sport IZVLEČEK SLOVENSKA OSAMOSVOJITEV IN ŠPORT Šport je tekom druge polovice 19. in nato 20. stoletja postal sestavni del slovenske narodne biti in kulture. Resda sta se kot krovna izraza tega družbenega področja v daljšem obdobju uporabljala izraza telesna vzgoja in telesna kultura, organizacijsko pa je bil in je utemeljen na društvenem or- ganiziranju. V kontekstu organiziranja se je po drugi svetovni vojni vzpostavila specifična struktu- ra, konec osemdesetih let 20. stoletja pa so nastopile prve spremembe, pojmovne in organizacijske, z razglasitvijo samostojnosti pa nadaljnje in vstop v mednarodni prostor. Prispevek odstira ključne trenutke predosamosvojitve in prve korake v pripravo športne samostojnosti s svojim nacionalnim olimpijskim komitejem ter nato junijsko osamosvojitev 1991 in odmev v športu, nato pa kratko nakaže skladno s politično-ekonomsko tranzicijo dileme športnega reorganiziranja in novega raz- merja javno-društveno po osamosvojitvi. Ključne besede: šport, osamosvojitev, Slovenija, Olimpijski komite Slovenije ABSTRACT During the second half of the 19th and then in the 20th century, sport has become an integral part of the Slovenian national essence and culture. It is true that for a long time the expressions “physical education” and “physical culture” were used as umbrella terms for this social area, while in the organisational sense sport was and remains based on organisation in clubs. In the context of organisation a specific structure had been set up after World War II. At the end of the 1980s the first conceptual and organisational changes were introduced, while with the declaration of the Slovenian independence further changes and entry into the international space were implemented. The following contribution reveals the key moments of pre-independence and the first steps towards the preparation of the independence of sports by means of the Slovenian own Olympic Commit- tee, followed by the declaration of independence in June 1991 and its implications for sport. Then the contribution shortly outlines the dilemmas of sport reorganisation stemming from the political-economic transition and the new relationship between the public and club sport after the independence. Keywords: sport, independence, Slovenia, Slovenian Olympic Committee Tomaž Pavlin: Attainment of Slovenian Independence and Sport72 At the 20th anniversary of the Slovenian Olympic Committee & Sports Associa- tion, Dr Janez Kocijančič, its President at that time, emphasised in his introductory “assessment” that Slovenian sport “has not ’entered’ its own country without very solid foundations and traditions, but I can nevertheless safely state that it has seen its true renaissance in the period of the independent Slovenia”1, which is amply shown by the medals from the Olympic and other competitions that do away with the stereotypical image of Slovenians as individual athletes, primarily skiers. Let me just quickly emphasise the qualifications of the Slovenian football team for the European (2000) and World Cup (2002, 2010); or the qualifications of the hockey team for the Olympics in Sochi (2014) and again for the upcoming 2018 Olympics; the silver medal of the handball team at the European Championship in Ljubljana in 2004; the newest silver medal of the volleyball team at the European Champion- ship in 2015; and the fourth place of the basketball team at the 2009 World Cham- pionship. The individual achievements of clubs at the European club level are also a part of these successes. It is a fact that sports were – and still are – a well-developed and popular part of the leisure time of Slovenians, whether competitive or recrea- tional. According to the assessments more than half of the Slovenian population of various ages and genders supposedly regularly or periodically engage in sports, meaning that Slovenia is ranked quite high also in the European scope. The green landscape and cities which can compensate for the lack of infrastructure as well as the “enthusiasm” and zeal that influences the recreational, amateur, voluntary or professional activities has, in the past, connected sports with the national question and national identity. This also opens the question of acknowledging and evaluating the influence of sports on the formation of the national awareness and statehood, as budgetary financing in the middle of the 1990s was at the tail end of Europe, while on the other hand Slovenian athletes were, paradoxically, directly proportional in their competitive achievements. How can we explain this, especially in light of the fact that financing within the sports budget increased for unorganised or public sports, and why? Transition? Slovenian sport has a long tradition and continuity, if we look at its organisation- al foundations and structure. Already in 1862 an initiative to establish a “gymnastic” society in Ljubljana was undertaken in the enthusiastic atmosphere of restoring the constitutional life in what was then the Austrian Empire. Thus the Južni Sokol or- ganisation was established in October 1863. In view of its name, which refers to a similar Sokol organisation from Prague, literature often tends to stereotypically reit- erate that this organisation was modelled after the Czech one. Admittedly it is true that among the Habsburg Slavs the first Sokol organisation was founded in Prague in February 1862 and that the Czechs represented a cultural model for Slovenians in the period until World War I. However, it is also a fact that gymnastic activities had 1 Janez Kocijančič, “Uvodne misli,” [Introductory Thoughts] in: Olimpijski komite Slovenije-Zdru- ženje športnih zvez 1991–2011. Športna zgodba, stkana iz dejavnosti tisočev, ed. Tomaž Pavlin (Ljubljana: OKS-ZŠZ, 2011), unpaginated pages. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 73 been well-known in Ljubljana already before 1862, and that the citizens of Ljubljana engaged in sports independently or also unaware of the developments in Prague. Furthermore, it was nothing new for the people of Ljubljana to organise themselves in societies. As it happened, the first societies had already been established during the “Spring of Nations”, while a year before the aforementioned gymnastic initiative the so-called Čitalnica society had been established, which had brought together athletic enthusiasts as well. Athletes came together in their own society, similar to the Čitalnica society. They contacted the northern Czech ‹brothers› and named their organisation Južni Sokol (Southern Sokol) in light of the contemporaneous Pan- Slavism, while their expert knowledge was based on the inventiveness of the people of Ljubljana.2 The gymnastic society was an indicator of the physical culture life of Slovenians, which had already developed before World War I when cycling, moun- taineering as well as sports that spread especially in the interwar period had already been organised in a similar way as gymnastics. Thus physical culture became a dis- tinctive activity of Slovenians, in the organisational sense – in view of the common Yugoslav state after World War I – integrated in the Yugoslav state organisations and consequently into international sports. Similarly as after the turning point in the years 1918 and 1919, in 1990 and 1991 athletes had to face a question of how to proceed, but this time enriched by the tradition as well as their international distinc- tiveness. The Pre-independence Period The story of the emancipation of sports includes, on the one hand, the politi- cal process in the second half of the 1980s and the Yugoslav dissolution as well as the simultaneous question of whether – or how – the political radicalisation was reflected in sports. On the other hand we have to take into account the attainment of independence, dissolution of Yugoslavia, and international recognition and inte- gration. When studying the events in the 1980s we should also look at, firstly, the state sport organisation and the developments in the state sport associations, and, secondly, for example, the competitions in the leagues where the national and po- litical confrontation was reflected in fandom and incidents. Thus, for example, the Olimpija ice hockey team from Ljubljana was already in the season 1985/86 – after the match against Crvena zvezda from Belgrade in the completely full Tivoli Hall in Ljubljana – punished with a one-month ban on playing in the home Tivoli Hall due to a “nationalist” cheering incident. Meanwhile, elsewhere in Yugoslavia the na- tionalist cheering incidents culminated especially at the football derbies, particularly with the conflict between the fans of Dinamo from Zagreb and Crvena zvezda from Belgrade in Zagreb in 1990, which represented a sinister precursor to the subsequent military conflicts. 2 Tomaž Pavlin, “Dajati pobudo, priložnost in navad pravilnim vajam,” [Providing the Initiative, Opportunity and Habits for Correct Exercises] Šport, No. 3–4 (2013): 34. Tomaž Pavlin: Attainment of Slovenian Independence and Sport74 In light of the Slovenian international sport integration, focus was especially aimed at the establishment of the Slovenian Olympic Committee and its recogni- tion as well as at the club and competitive part of the sport. However, this also included the integration of the sport administrative bodies in the European institu- tions, which coincided with the political changes and transformation of the repub- lic’s administrative system and bodies. In view of the political and economic change from socialism to market economy and democracy, the time after the Slovenian emancipation opened the issues or transition of the (socialist) “socially-owned” to the public and private. In sports, the transition of the 1990s was reflected in the organisational, administrative, budgetary, ownership (e.g. ownership of gymnastic facilities and other sport infrastructure), legislative (the Sports Act of 1998), and, after all, also in the terminological sense. In certain sports segments the transition had started already before 25 June 1991, e.g. organisationally also after 1989, in line with the political changes in the Republic of Slovenia and the transformation of the republic administrative bodies and budget. We should also emphasise the termino- logical “sportisation” in 1990, as for decades in the socialist Yugoslavia the umbrella term had been physical culture (“telesna kultura” in Slovenian and “fizička kultura” in the other republics), and this had included the subsystems of physical education, recreation and sport. Sport was the common term for recreational, amateur and pro- fessional competitive organisations and activities. Officially only the football players in the premier federal league were professionals, while otherwise the competitive systems were based on amateurism, even though various forms of professionalism were also quietly introduced in the other sports in the 1970s and 1980s. In this sense it is possible to note the shortage of historical analyses of the Yugoslav period, especially the so-called “Portorož decisions”, adopted in the middle of the 1970s, which represented a sort of a transition of the contemporaneous system of sports. These decisions coincided with the constitutional changes and the introduction of self-management communities of interest, through which the financing of the sports activities was implemented while the expert questions were solved in the sports or- ganisations. In terms of organisation, club sport was, at the level of the republic, covered by the Association of Physical Culture Organisations of Slovenia (herein- after ZTKOS), which brought together the interests of autonomous sports associa- tions, the Partizan3 of Slovenia association and the Alpine Association of Slovenia. The organisation at the municipal level was similar. The republic associations came together in the central Association of Physical Culture Organisations of Yugoslavia (popularly referred to as the “sofka” – from the Serbo-Croatian name “Savez organi- zacija fizičke kulture Jugoslavije”). The Yugoslav Olympic Committee – a member of the International Olympic Committee that replaced the older prewar Yugoslav 3 In 1952, the gymnastic association as a successor to the Sokol organisation was named Partizan (freedom fighter in World War II). In 1963 the Gymnastic Association, focused primarily on sport gymnastics, separated itself from the Partizan association; while the latter focused on general exercise and recreation. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 75 Olympic Board in 1947 and was not further divided into republic Olympic Com- mittees but was a single central organisation – functioned in cooperation with the “sofka” association or even within its framework. Therefore Slovenians did not have their own national Olympic organisation in this period. The special committee for top-level sport, managed by a Slovenian, Tomislav (a.k.a. Tomo) Levovnik at the end of the 1980s, also functioned in the framework of the “sofka” association. Simi- larly as the Associations of Physical Culture Organisations, the republic associations of individual sports were brought together in the Yugoslav sports associations; and the latter were members of the international associations. Therefore international recognition and enrolment into the international associations meant access to in- ternational competitions, and for this the membership in state organisations was of key importance. If we take another look at the terminology, which also today often results in prob- lems with understanding the system and subsystems or the purpose and assessment of the whole activity: in 1990 – after several discussions, especially academic at the Faculty of Physical Culture (today the Faculty of Sport) – the term physical culture was changed to sport. This also involved the renaming of the subsystems: physical education → sport education, recreation → sport recreation, sport → (high-level, top-level) sport. At the same time sport was also a hypernym, which is a process that we cannot register in the other republics. In accordance with the above, on 5 September 1990 the ZTKOS (Association of Physical Culture Organisations of Slovenia) was renamed as the Sports Association of Slovenia (hereinafter ŠZS). However, in accordance with the democ- ratisation the question of membership was also raised, and the Partizan of Slovenia association, for example, continued its independent path. In 1993 the Partizan of Slovenia association renamed itself as the Sports Union of Slovenia.4 The new times were supposed to be reflected in the ŠZS also in the elections of its President on 25 September 1990. Šugman, President of the ŠZS, later emphasised that “also in sport elections took place: for the first time after World War II without the participation of either the state authorities or political parties”5, though, admit- tedly, quite a few officials or committee members were also members and/or politi- cians of the League of Communists and later its successor, and a comparison should be made between the sorts of sport elections through a longer time frame. After its election assembly in 1991, the ŠZS analysed the current situation with the aim of 4 Rajko Šugman, Prelomno obdobje slovenskega športa 1988–1994. Prispevki za zgodovino slovenske- ga športa [The Turning Point for the Slovenian Sport 1988–1994. Contributions to the History of Slo- venian Sport] (Ljubljana: Fakulteta za šport, 1999), 36–56. Tomaž Pavlin, “Ni pomembno zmagati, pač se dobro boriti ali slovenska olimpijska pot,” [It is Not Important to Win, but to Put Up a Good Fight or the Slovenian Olympic Path] in: Sabljanje, veščina, tradicija, šport. Zbornik ob 100-letnici osvojitve srebrne olimpijske medalje Rudolfa Cvetka, eds. Jože Podpečnik and Simona Pörš (Ljubljana: Narodni muzej Slovenije, 2012), 94–99. Tomaž Pavlin, “Oris razvoja sokolske in partizanske organizacije na Slovenskem,” [An Outline of the Development of the Sokol and Partisan Organisation in Slovenia] in: Osnove športne rekreacije, ed. Miroljub Jakovljević. (Ljubljana: Športna unija Slovenije, 2013), 17, 18. 5 Šugman, Prelomno obdobje, 44. Tomaž Pavlin: Attainment of Slovenian Independence and Sport76 “seeking the organisational forms and focus of work”.6 For example, already in Feb- ruary 1990 Levovnik prepared a proposal on the reorganisation and formation of the Slovenian Olympic Committee,7 and a debate took place with regard to either a twofold organisation and separate sport and Olympic organisation or a single sport- Olympic organisation. At that time Slovenian sport was still quite closely connected to the Yugoslav sport. In February 1991, the further preparations and financing of the top-level athletes in the context of the Olympic cycle Albertville-Barcelona 1992 were discussed at the joint meeting of the “sofka” association and the Yugoslav Olym- pic Committee. Among other things it was underlined that the political develop- ments in the state should not influence the joint participation of Yugoslav athletes at important international competitions. At the same time this meant that the concept of preparations was also all-Yugoslav, and that this was supposed to ensure “opti- mum” preparations for all Yugoslav athletes, as there was only another year left to the Winter Olympics. In the context of the preparations, the Yugoslav athletes were also to appear in 1991at the Mediterranean Games (Athens) and the Universiade / World Student Games (Sheffield). However, despite the increasing political tensions the issue of the unresolved system of financing the Olympic candidates was still the “central problem”, which had been apparent ever since the first year of the Olympic cycle and only kept getting worse.8 At the beginning of April 1991, the ŠZS informed the “sofka” association and the Yugoslav Olympic Committee about the its plans to reorganise, and that the sports organisations in Slovenia had decided “to establish a Slovenian Olympic Commit- tee and soon appoint the initiative committee for its establishment, headed by the best Yugoslav athlete of all time – Miroslav Cerar”.9 In order to ensure the contin- ued international participation of Slovenian athletes, the ŠZS emphasised its “wishes that the Olympic Committee of Slovenia remained in the context of the Yugoslav Olympic Committee, unless the dissolution of Yugoslavia should take place”.10 Af- ter that, at its session on 18 April, the Presidency of the ŠZS adopted a decision on the establishment of the Olympic Committee, appointed the Initiative Committee for the Establishment of the Olympic Committee of Slovenia, and sent a Letter of Intent to the President of the International Olympic Committee J. A. Samaranch. In June 1991 the Initiative Committee (President Miroslav Cerar, Secretary Ivo Daneu, 6 Poročilo Predsedstva ŠZS o delu v obdobju 1990–1994 [Report of the Presidency of the Sports Association of Slovenia in the Period between 1990 and 1994]. – Private archive, Tomo Levovnik. 7 Organiziranost Slovenske športne zveze (Športne zveze Slovenije) Slovenskega olimpijskega komiteja, 25. 2. 1990 [Organisation of the Slovenian Sports Association (Sports Association of Slo- venia) and the Slovenian Olympic Committee, 25 February 1990]. – Private archive, Tomo Levovnik. 8 Zapisnik sa sastanka komisije za vrhunski sport i olimpijske pripreme SFKJ, 26. 2. 1991 [Min- utes from the meeting of the Commission for Top-Level Sport and Olympic Preparations of the Physi- cal Culture Association of Yugoslavia, 26 February 1991]. – Private archive, Tomo Levovnik. 9 Dopis ŠZS ZTKOJ in JOK, 10. 4. 1991 [Letter from the Sports Association of Slovenia to the Association of Physical Culture Organisations of Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav Olympic Committee, 10 April 1991]. – Private archive, Tomo Levovnik. 10 Ibid. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 77 members Evgen Bergant, M. Sc. Janez Kocjančič, Milan Jerman, Janez Sterle, Dr Rajko Šugman) prepared a working draft of the Olympic Committee rules, sent it to sport associations, and invited them to register their candidates for the authority bodies. After the attainment of the Slovenian independence this Committee paved the way for the establishment of the national Olympic Committee, the interna- tional Olympic recognition, and attendance of Slovenian athletes at the 1992 Winter Olympic Games in the French Albertville. Attainment of Independence and Dissolution With the declaration of the Slovenian independence on 25 June 1991, the pro- cess of separation from the Yugoslav associations in the field of sport began, but was prolonged by the Brioni Moratorium. On 26 June the aggression of the Yugoslav Army followed. At the time of the army attack quite a few Slovenian athletes were in the ranks of the Yugoslav teams abroad (the Mediterranean Games in Athens, the European Basketball Championship in Rome, the World Cup in kayak and canoe in Mezzano). Other athletes were at home during the summer competitions or prepar- ing for the competition season. For example, in the autumn hockey players would compete in the newly-organised Alpine League, an international league of the best Italian, Austrian and Slovenian clubs; while skiers, as usual, would compete in the World Cup and in a little over half a year at the Winter Olympics in Albertville. Al- ready on 27 June the ŠZS released a “recommendation” that all sports competitions in the territory of the Republic of Slovenia be postponed, and advised the Slovenian athletes not to participate at the competitions outside of Slovenia due to security reasons.11 Tomo Levovnik immediately resigned from his post as President of the Yugoslav Commission for Top-Level Sport. In his resignation note of 28 June 1991 he sternly emphasised that he was resigning “due to the brutal occupation of Slovenia and merciless killing of Slovenians by the Yugoslav Army.”12 Levovnik demanded of the Presidency of the ŠZS that it should “immediately recall all Slovenian athletes competing in the Yugoslav teams”13 due to the occupation by the Yugoslav Army. In the middle of the day on 28 June the ŠZS appealed to the Slovenian athletes that they should “leave the Yugoslav teams due to the brutal aggression of the Yugoslav Army and return home as soon as possible”, as it was “offensive for the Slovenian nation that the Slovenian athletes should represent the colours of Yugoslavia at in- 11 Stališče o športnih prireditvah in nastopih slovenskih športnikov, 27. 6. 1991 [The standpoint with regard to sporting events and performances of Slovenian athletes, 27 June 1991]. – Private archive, Tomo Levovnik. 12 Dopis T. Levovnika JOK z dne 28. 6. 1991 [Letter from T. Levovnik to the Yugoslav Olympic Committee of 28 June 1991]. – Private archive, Tomo Levovnik. 13 Dopis T. Levovnika ŠZS o odpoklicu športnikov z dne 28. 6. 1991 [Letter from T. Levovnik to the Sports Association of Slovenia with regard to the recall of athletes of 28 June 1991]. – Private archive, Tomo Levovnik. Tomaž Pavlin: Attainment of Slovenian Independence and Sport78 ternational competitions in such circumstances”.14 The athletes had to face a dif- ficult decision and, as the shooter Rajmond Debevec15 later explained for the Delo newspaper, every one of them “had to make up their own mind, in accordance with their own responsibility and moral and ethical principles, regardless of the conse- quences, even though each athlete faced a decision that might also ruin their career. Nevertheless the vast majority decided not to compete in Yugoslav teams at these competitions anymore.”16 The (Yugoslav) team leadership tried to persuade them to stay and, according to Debevec, tried to “make them realise that the situation is nevertheless not as dire as to call for such an ... extreme step. Naturally, they (the leadership – author’s note) only listened to radio Belgrade, while we have neverthe- less read foreign newspapers and called home, and therefore we were better and more objectively informed.” Bojan Levstik from Celje, otherwise the trainer of the Italian handball team, was of great help to them, because while the leadership claimed that “there aren’t any connections with the homeland, or they are at least very difficult to establish”, “Bojan’s phone worked perfectly, even for collect calls to Ljubljana. Without this the situation would have been even much more difficult”. Rajmond Debevec first explained his decision to leave to the member of the leadership Tomić, also the secretary of the shooting association. He connected Tomić with Levovnik using Levstik’s phone, and only then Tomić “believed that this was really happening at home.” As Debevec stated after his return to Slovenia, the majority of the leader- ship respected the decision of the Slovenian athletes not to compete. However, some of the leaders were upset and offended, and they threatened that these athletes’ fate – in so far as Yugoslav team competitions were concerned – was “sealed, and that even if the situation calms down and the relations are settled, they will never again be allowed to compete in the federal selection”. However, the trainers opposed such extreme notions as well.17 Similarly, Jure Zdovc left the European Basketball Cham- pionship in Rome, while Yugoslavia later played in the finals and won the European Championship. At the beginning of July 1991 a cease fire, negotiations, and the moratorium on secession agreed to in the Brioni Declaration followed. Slovenian athletes found themselves in a difficult position. The Yugoslav state was the holder of the inter- national sport membership in the international sport as well as the participant of international sports competitions, while the 1992 Olympics were also imminent. In the politically strenuous position, on 10 July 1991 the Expert Council of the ŠZS 14 Poziv Športne zveze slovenskim športnikom, 28. 6. 1991 [Appeal of the Sports Association to Slovenian athletes, 28 June 1991]. – Private archive, Tomo Levovnik. 15 E. B., “Naša odločitev ni mogla biti drugačna,” [Our Decision Could Not be Different] Delo, 4 July 1991. Rajmond Debevec was the President of the Council of Top-Level Athletes at the Association of Physical Culture Organisations of Slovenia / Sports Association of Slovenia. In Athens he took on the role of the coordinator of the action to leave Athens and was in contact with the Sports Association of Slovenia in Ljubljana and Tomo Levovnik. 16 E. B., “Naša odločitev ni mogla biti drugačna”. 17 Ibid. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 79 convened a joint meeting with the Council of Top-Level Athletes about the nor- malisation of the sport activities in the given situation. After the meeting the Expert Council of the ŠZS published an “appeal to Slovenian athletes” to remain active and emphasised “that in the time of the finalisation of the status of the Republic of Slovenia, competing for the Yugoslav state teams and in the federal championships remains completely legitimate and irreproachable”, as “even a short interruption of training and maintenance of the sport regime (...) can result in a significant as well as long-term decline in athletic capability”.18 After the expiry of the moratorium in the beginning of October 1991, Slovenia resumed its path towards independence and international recognition. In October the ŠZS convened an extended session and, among other things, appealed to the sport organisations to initiate a “separation”19 from the Yugoslav sport associations and initiate the proceedings for the membership in the international sport organisa- tions. In this context, for example the recognition in November 1991 by one of the main associations of the Winter Olympics – i.e. the International Ski Federation (FIS), where Janez Kocijančič was a member of the Presidency – was very significant. The proceedings of the national Olympic organisation and international mem- bership was led by the Initiative Committee. The Olympic Committee of Slovenia (hereinafter OKS) was established on 15 October 1991 with the signing of the Slo- venian Olympic Document, and Janez Kocijančič was elected as its President at the founding general meeting in the middle of December. The Olympic Document was signed by 29 national sport associations of the Olympic programme, 5 associations recognised by the International Olympic Committee, and two winners of Olympic gold medals – Leon Štukelj and Miroslav Cerar. Simultaneously the Initiative Com- mittee pursued the international recognition and the independent appearance of Slovenian athletes at the 1992 Olympics. It managed to negotiate a meeting in the middle of November with the President of the International Olympic Committee (hereinafter IOC) Juan A. Samaranch, at the seat of the IOC in Lausanne. At this important meeting the conditions for the independent participation in Alberville were agreed upon, which was related to the international political recognition of the Republic of Slovenia. According to the memories of a participant of this meeting Ra- jko Šugman, the “complicated international circumstances, especially in the former Soviet Union and Croatia ... demanded that the Initiative Committee be very careful with regard to the contents of the negotiations”. It was agreed that the members of the delegation would inform Samaranch of the situation and explain why Slovenians would not compete under the Yugoslav flag, and they would let the President of the IOC decide. Šugman emphasises that the delegation was aware that this could also be a “double-edged sword”, as Samaranch could propose that the Slovenian athletes 18 ŠZS, Strokovni svet za vrhunski šport: Poziv slovenskim športnikom [Sports Association of Slo- venia, Council of Top-Level Athletes: Apeal to Slovenian Athletes]. – Private archive, Tomo Levovnik. 19 ŠZS: Vsem republiškim strokovnim organizacijam, 30. 10. 1991 [Sports Association of Slove- nia: To All Professional Organisations of the Republic of Slovenia, 30 October 1991]. – Private archive, Tomo Levovnik. Tomaž Pavlin: Attainment of Slovenian Independence and Sport80 compete “with the Yugoslav athletes under the inscription Olympic Committee of Yugoslavia” or even under the Olympic flag.20 The meeting with Samaranch “behind closed doors” at the seat of the IOC took place on 18 November 1991. After the introductory diplomatic part the discussion resumed and in the end it was concluded that Slovenia would be able to compete at the Olympic Games, should it be recognised as a state by at least a few important countries. Three countries were specified: Germany, Spain and France. Samaranch advised the delegation to immediately file a request for recognition, so that he would able to refer to it at the sessions of the Executive Committee of the IOC in December 1991, while on 7 December a joint session would take place with the representatives of the winter sport disciplines – of which the FIS had already recognised the Ski As- sociation of Slovenia.21 On 28 November the Initiative Committee, now already in the name of the OKS, and the undersigned Miroslav Cerar sent a request to Sama- ranch in Lausanne for the recognition and attendance at the Olympic competitions. The request emphasised that the OKS was the “representative body of all Olympic sports in the Republic of Slovenia”, while the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia no longer existed, as “several sovereign states came into existence and at the time be- ing, between the two most populated nations a most cruel and bloody war is being fought. … Today the Republic of Slovenia maintains its status as an independent and sovereign state. It has its own undisputed territory, a homogenous population and its democratically elected multi-party government. The last soldier of the former Federal Army left Slovenia one month ago. Slovenia has its own currency and own passports, recognized already by twenty foreign states.” In the following points the current and historical nation-building role of sport was emphasised, also that “dur- ing the Second World War the sporting organisations were among the founders of the National Liberation Front, successfully initiating and leading the campaign of liberation from the foreign occupation.” The presence of Slovenians at the Olympic Games ever since Rudolf Cvetko in 1912 was underlined, and finally it was stated that “all associations of Olympic sports and sports recognized by IOC, signed the Slovenian Olympic Charter on 15th October 1991” and declared “their recognition of the Olympic spirit and the recognition of their obedience to the International Olympic Committee in the field of international sport.”22 At the end of 1991 and in the beginning of 1992 the Republic of Slovenia gained recognition, critical for its attendance of the Olympics, and on 17 January 1992 it received the IOC’s invitation to the Olympic Games.23 Thus the Slovenian athletes appeared under the Slovenian national flag for the first time in history at the parade of nations in the Albertville’s Olympic Arena. Half a year later Barcelona followed, and there the rowers won the first medals – bronze – for the independent Slovenia. 20 Šugman, Prelomno obdobje, 92, 93. 21 Ibid., 99, 100. 22 Dopis predsedniku MOK 28. 11. 1991 [Letter to the President of the International Olympic Committee, 28 November 1991]. – Private archive, Tomo Levovnik. 23 Šugman, Prelomno obdobje, 109. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 81 However, apart from the Olympic recognition the enrolment into the international sport associations also took place, and this completed the Slovenian international sport recognition. Dilemmas 1991 was undoubtedly “the historical year” for the Slovenian sport, as the report of the Presidency of the ŠZS emphasises for the period between 1990 and 1994. In the organisational sense it is perhaps comparable with the events at the end of World War I, with the first Slovenian sport and territorial organisation, Yugoslav organisa- tion, and entry into the international sport, as the Austro-Hungarian position had been quite specific. As far as the organisation of civil sport – especially of both the umbrella institutions, the OKS and the ŠZS – is concerned, 1994 is the turning point. At that time these organisations merged under the name Slovenian Olympic Committee - Association of Sports federations. The discussions in favour of and against the merging had been going on ever since 1992, and a similar situation was also notable at the European level. However, while describing the events during the emancipation of the Slovenian sport we should also bring the attention to a parallel process: the transition of the previous municipial sports associations into public bodies or organising of new pub- lic sport bodies and the expansion of the public sphere at the state and municipal level. This later gave rise to criticism with regard to the nationalisation of sport, or – as Šugman underlined in his study Modeli športa v svetu in podržavljanje športa (Models of Sport Abroad and the Nationalisation of Sport) (1999) – with regard to the “domination of the state over the civil sphere of sport”, which was allegedly “one of the most repulsive forms of the state intervening in this sphere”. Already in 1990 the tasks of the former self-management communities of interest were transferred to the republic or municipal bodies. The Republic Administration Act of 20 June 1991 reassigned sport in the previous physical culture sense to the newly-established Ministry of Education and Sport, Sport Division (today Sport Directorate). In 1992 the Ministry formed the Council of Experts for Sport as a consultative body for the preparation of opinions, evaluations, and practical implementation of various pro- posed measures. Soon the process of preparing the Sport Act was underway. It was sent to the first reading in 1995 and was rather severely criticised, especially because the authors of the Act, according to opposition, did not take the civil sphere into account, even though quite a few discussions and consultations had been organised. The journalist as well as sport professional Oto Giacomelli, who wrote for the Delo newspaper, was a stern critic and, for example, on 27 May 1996 he underlined that the state had established a “primate over sport” while only assigning a marginal role to the sphere of civil sport. The reproaches were aimed at the Ministry of Education and Sport and the Secretary of Sport at the time, Dr Janko Strel, but indirectly also at the Olympic Committee and its President, as “at the session of the Executive Com- mittee of the OKS, which took place only a day before the first reading of the pro- Tomaž Pavlin: Attainment of Slovenian Independence and Sport82 posed Sport Act in the Parliament, we could hear significantly more reconciliatory words about the relations between the Olympic Committee and the administrative body for sport as just a few weeks earlier.”24 On the basis of the above we have to ask ourselves about the division of authority between the public and private/civil sport sphere, which calls for a dedicated study, especially because the materials of the Slo- venian Olympic Committee & Sports Association have been preserved. Admittedly these materials are currently still in disarray, but this is negligible in view of the fact that in sport we far too often face a neglectful attitude to documentation and herit- age as well as a shortage of primary sources. A new hot topic in the second half of the 1990s was the Ownership Transfor- mation of the Lottery of Slovenia Act and the establishment of the foundation for the financing of sport organisations. According to, for example, the writing of Oto Giacomelli, this was “another slap in the face of sport” (he was referring to the club sport in the context of the Slovenian Olympic Committee – Association of Sports Federations), as the proposed Act would supposedly “marginalise” the role of the club sport and thus also the majority of the “related Slovenian associations of indi- vidual sports and all the local (municipal) sport associations”.25 However, it is a fact that not all sport organisations were members of the Slovenian Olympic Committee – Association of Sports Federations. In order to ensure a fuller picture of the state of sport we should also focus on the events according to the individual sport disciplines. In many disciplines the prob- lems were financial and administrative-organisational in nature. A few clubs even went in the red and then went bankrupt, and already in the 1990s ideas started forming about the club ownership according to, for example, the model of football clubs in Great Britain. The search for competition models was also pressing, espe- cially in the collective sports, based either on the Slovenian space (football, handball) or on the integration at the Alpine-Panonian (hockey, volleyball) or former Yugoslav space (basketball). The competition models kept changing and they still are, like for example the most recent changes in handball. The situation in the individual sports was a bit different. However, the situation in the recreational and “public” sport remained on par with the competitive sport, which was most exposed in the media. The former was carried out especially through the programmes or projects of the Institute for Sport, established by the state in 1994. We have already mentioned the field of recreation in the introduction, and scientifically this field has been monitored with the studies about the sport and recreational activities of Slovenians (the last study was carried out in 2009 and the first ones already in the 1980s). The studies attested to a quite stable continuity in the field of exercise, and, as far as certain activities are concerned, 24 Oto Giacomelli, “Športni sferi obrobna vloga. Državi primat nad športom,” [A Marginal Role for the Sphere of Sport. The State Primate over Sport] Delo, 27 May 1996. 25 Oto Giacomelli, “Še ena krepka zaušnica športu,” [Another Slap in the Face of Sport] Delo, 2 September 1996. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 83 changes have been registered, e.g. the increase in recreational football in the inde- pendent Slovenia.26 In conclusion let us emphasise another aspect of changes which we only men- tioned already above. These took place at the municipal level, where the positive or negative changes were frequently the result of the political or mayor’s will, which is clearly obvious from the example of the town of Domžale.27 The municipal changes shared the general principle of transforming the social into public-private, but with specific local characteristics. In certain municipalities the municipal Associations of Physical Culture Organisations or Sport Associations could be transformed into public bodies or institutions or municipal departments or even remained operational and faced the competition in the form of municipal agencies, like it happened in Lju- bljana, for example. However, we also have to pay attention to the time of changes, influenced also, for example, by the Sport Act, which, among other things, provided for the regularisation of the ownership of sports facilities, which were mostly taken over by the municipalities. The gymnastic halls and athletic grounds of the Partizan societies and the Partizan Slovenije association, which transformed into the Sports Union of Slovenia in 1993, were an exception. Their ownership transformation was accompanied by the stereotype about sport tycoons, which, however, has its own his- tory and would call for a more extensive text. The story of the property of gymnastic societies is related to the time after 1945, when the property of the Sokol organisa- tion and the Catholic gymnastic societies was transferred to the Physical Culture Association of Slovenia in accordance with the “act on transferring the property of physical education societies to the Association of Physical Culture Societies”. In ac- cordance with the reorganisations of physical culture after 1948, in 1952 the former property of gymnastic societies was transferred to the Partizan Slovenije, and simi- larly other sport facilities were taken over by the Sports Association, mountaineering facilities by the Alpine Association, and so on. As the Partizan association established later, this step was urgent, as in the beginning of the 1950s – simultaneously with the nationalisation policy – municipalities started showing appetites for cooperatives and commercial organisations with the aim of appropriating the right to manage the property of gymnastic societies, claiming that it was socially-owned. With the transi- tion after 1991, similar appetites were thwarted by the Sports Union of Slovenia, as this action blocked the aspirations of certain local societies to take over the property. Sources and Literature Archive sources: • Tomislav Levovnik’s private archive. 26 Krešimir Petrović, Franci Ambrožič, Boris Sila and Mojca Doupona, Športno rekreativna dejavnost v Sloveniji 1997. Primerjalna študija 1992–1997 [Sport and Recreation Activities in Slovenia 1997. A Comparative Study 1992–1997] (Ljubljana: Fakulteta za šport, 1998). 27 Domen Jarc, “Razvoj športa v občini Domžale med leti 1991–2011” [Development of Sport in the Domžale Municipality between 1991 and 2011] (diploma paper, Ljubljana, 2015). Tomaž Pavlin: Attainment of Slovenian Independence and Sport84 Literature: • E. B. “Naša odločitev ni mogla biti drugačna.” [Our Decision Could Not be Different] Delo, 4 July 1991. • Giacomelli, Oto. “Še ena krepka zaušnica športu.” [Another Slap in the Face of Sport] Delo, 2 September 1996. • Giacomelli, Oto. “Športni sferi obrobna vloga. Državi primat nad športom.” [A Marginal Role for the Sphere of Sport. The State Primate over Sport] Delo, 27 May 1996. • Jarc, Domen. “Razvoj športa v občini Domžale med leti 1991–2011.” [Development of Sport in the Domžale Municipality between 1991 and 2011] Diploma paper, Ljubljana, 2015. • Kocijančič, Janez. “Uvodne misli.” [Introductory Thoughts] In: Olimpijski komite Slovenije-Zdru- ženje športnih zvez 1991–2011. Športna zgodba, stkana iz dejavnosti tisočev, ed. Tomaž Pavlin, intro- ductory unpaginated pages. Ljubljana: OKS-ZŠZ, 2011. • Pavlin, Tomaž. “Dajati pobudo, priložnost in navad pravilnim telesnim vajam.” [Providing the Initiative, Opportunity and Habits for Correct Exercises] Šport, No. 3–4 (2013): 33–40. • Pavlin, Tomaž. “Ni pomembno zmagati, pač se dobro boriti ali slovenska olimpijska pot.” [It is Not Important to Win, but to Put Up a Good Fight or the Slovenian Olympic Path] In: Sabljanje, veščina, tradicija, šport. Zbornik ob 100-letnici osvojitve srebrne olimpijske medalje Rudolfa Cvetka, eds. Jože Podpečnik and Simona Pörš, 89–101. Ljubljana: Narodni muzej Slovenije, 2012. • Pavlin, Tomaž. “Oris razvoja sokolske in partizanske organizacije ter rekreacije na Slovenskem.” [An Outline of the Development of the Sokol and Partisan Organisation and Recreation in Slovenia] In: Osnove športne rekreacije, ed. Miroljub Jakovljević, 1–18. Ljubljana: Športna unija Slovenije, 2013. • Petrović, Krešimir, Franci Ambrožič, Boris Sila and Mojca Doupona. Športno rekreativna dejavnost v Sloveniji 1997. Primerjalna študija 1992–1997 [Sport and Recreation Activities in Slovenia 1997. A Comparative Study 1992–1997]. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za šport, 1998. • Šugman, Rajko. “Modeli športa v svetu in podržavljanje športa pri nas.” [Models of Sport Abroad and the Nationalisation of Sport in Slovenia] In: Stanje, odnosi in vrednote v slovenskem športu, eds. Aleks L. Vest and Rajko Šugman, 9–21. Ljubljana: OKS-ZŠZ, 1999. • Šugman, Rajko. Prelomno obdobje slovenskega športa 1988–1994. Prispevki za zgodovino slovenskega športa. [The Turning Point for the Slovenian Sport 1988–1994. Contributions to the History of Slovenian Sport] Ljubljana: Fakulteta za šport, 1999. Tomaž Pavlin SLOVENSKA OSAMOSVOJITEV IN ŠPORT P O V Z E T E K Slovenski šport je bil v jugoslovanski državi v republiškem merilu organizacijsko-strokovno osre- dotočen v Zvezi telesnokulturnih organizacij Slovenije, na drugi strani pa tesno vpet v jugoslovanskega in preko njega v mednarodni, saj so bile jugoslovanske zveze nosilke mednarodnih nastopov. Septem- bra 1990 se je Zveza telesnokulturnih organizacij Slovenije preimenovala v Športno zvezo Slovenije (ŠZS) in pripravljala reorganizacijo z ustanovitvijo nacionalnega olimpijskega telesa. Krovni izraz za to področje je bil vse do leta 1990 telesna kultura, nakar se je zgodila (terminološka) tranzicija v šport. S političnim zaostrovanjem so tudi v ŠZS razpravljali o nadaljnji športni poti in aprila 1991 je ŠZS obvestila jugoslovansko centralno zvezo o reorganiziranju z olimpijskim odborom, vendar v jugoslovan- skem okviru. Z agresijo Jugoslovanske armade po razglasitvi samostojnosti junija 1991 je ŠZS pozvala slovenske športnike, da zapustijo jugoslovanske reprezentance, po zaključku brionskega moratorija pa je pozvala športne organizacije k razdružitvi z jugoslovanskimi zvezami in da sprožijo postopke priznanja v mednarodnih športnih zvezah; pri tem je bilo pomenljivo mednarodno smučarsko priznanje novem- bra 1991. V primeru olimpijskega priznanja je ključno delo odigral Iniciativni odbor za ustanovitev nacionalnega olimpijskega telesa, ki se je novembra 1991 sestal tudi s predsednikom Mednarodnega olimpijskega komiteja J.A. Samaranchom, doma pa oktobra pripravil ustanovitev Olimpijskega komi- Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 85 teja Slovenije (OKS). Po mednarodnem priznavanju slovenske države konec leta 1991 in v začetku leta 1992 je OKS dobil povabilo na olimpijske igre v letu 1992. Kot je v letu 1994 poudarilo poročilo predsedstva ŠZS, je bilo leto 1991 nedvomno »zgodovinsko leto« slovenskega športa, vendar pa je vzporedno skladno s politično-ekonomsko tranzicijo potekal tudi proces vezan na tranzicijo družbenega v javno-zasebno. Naloge bivših (socialističnih) samoupravnih in- teresnih skupnosti so bile že v letu 1990 prenesene na republiške ali občinske organe, zakon o republiški upravi junija 1991 pa je šport prenesel na novo oblikovano Ministrstvo za šolstvo in šport, Sektor za šport (danes direktorat). V devetdesetih letih je nastopilo tudi vprašanje Zakona o športu s polemikami o podržavljanju športa in delitvijo oblasti v športu med javno in zasebno/civilno sfero, medtem ko so športne panoge iskale in vzpostavljale tekmovalne modele in se soočale s prvimi finančnimi težavami. Prispevek se osredotoča na pomembne korake športne osamosvojitve, športno reorganiziranje in sno- vanje nacionalnega olimpijskega komiteja, junijsko osamosvojitev 1991 in odmev v športu, nato pa nakaže dileme športne tranzicije. Damijan Guštin: Defence of the Republic of Slovenia 1991–2004: From Individual ...86 * Research Associate, PhD, Institute of Contemporary History, Kongresni trg 1, SI-1000 Lju- bljana, Slovenia, damijan.gustin@inz.si 1.01 UDC: 355.02(497.4)"1991/2004" Damijan Guštin* Defence of the Republic of Slovenia 1991–2004: From Individual to Collective Defence IZVLEČEK OBRAMBA REPUBLIKE SLOVENIJE 1991–2004: OD SAMOSTOJNE V KOLEKTIVNO OBRAMBO Republika Slovenija je svoj še ne docela vzpostavljen obrambni sistem po uspešni obrambi junija in julija 1991 oblikovala pod vplivom varnostne nestabilnosti južnega sosedstva, kjer je še pet let divjala vojna. Kot neodvisna država je razvijala svoj nacionalno-varnostni sistem v okolju oborožene nevtralnosti, a z željo, da se pridruži Natu in s tem preide v sistem kolektivne obrambe. Teritorialno obrambo je razvila v redno vojsko in jo 1994 preimenovala v Slovensko vojsko. V pogojih, ki so jih določale tako omejitve OZN (prepoved prodaje orožja) kot tudi lastne zmožnosti in razpoložljivi materialni resursi, je razvila enozvrstno vojsko, ki je temeljila na vojaški obvezi in veliki vojni sestavi, ki pa jo je postopoma zmanjševala. Leta 1993 je izbrala za strateški cilj kolek- tivno obrambo, in si prizadevala, da se vključi v Nato. Približevanje Natu in hkratne spremembe varnostnega okolja so narekovale številne reforme vojske in obrambnega sektorja. V procesu priprav na vključitev v Nato v letih od 2000 do 2004 je leta 2003 opustila naborniški sistem, Slovensko vojsko preuredila v poklicno vojsko s sestavom okoli 7600 poklicnih vojakov, podčastnikov in ča- stnikov in maloštevilno prostovoljno rezervo kot dopolnilom. Ključne besede: varnost, obramba, TORS, Slovenska vojska, nacionalnovarnostni sistem RS, Slovenija ABSTRACT Following the successful defence of the country in June and July 1991, the Republic of Slo- venia developed its partly unestablished defence system in the light of the instability of the coun- try’s southern neighbourhood that continued to be ravaged by war for the next five years. As an independent country, Slovenia developed its system of national defence in the context of armed neutrality, but with a desire to join Nato and thus transition to a system of collective defence. The Territorial Defence was developed into a regular army and renamed as the Slovenian Armed Forces in 1994. In the circumstances dictated both by restrictions imposed by the UN (arms embargo) as well as the country’s own capacities and available material resources, Slovenia devel- oped a single-type army based on national service and initial large numbers that were gradually Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 87 reduced. In 1993, the country decided to pursue collective defence as a strategic goal and initi- ated efforts to join Nato. As Slovenia moved closer to Nato and as the security of its immediate environment changed, numerous reforms of the Army and of the defence sector loomed. During Slovenia’s preparations to join Nato from 2000 to 2004, the country abandoned its national service system in 2003 and reformed the Slovenian Armed Forces into a professional army num- bering about 7600 professional soldiers, NCOs and officers, as well as an additional limited voluntary reserve force. Key words: security, defence system, Territorial Defence of Republic of Slovenia, Slovenian Armed Forces, national security system, Republic of Slovenia Defending the Independence and the Slovenian Defence System in 1991 As early as on the second day of its existence as an independent country, Slovenia was, on 26 June 1991, already forced to defend itself with force, as it tried to preserve its independence. The state leadership described the intervention of the Yugoslav People’s Army as an act of aggression. The armed conflict with the Yugoslav People’s Army was limited, of low intensity and short in duration. The Brijuni Agreement, signed a week after the cease-fire on 2 July 1991 that ended the conflict, codified the cease-fire as an institutional armistice whose observance would be monitored by the European Community. Following a decision by the Presidium of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on the (temporary) retreat of the Yugoslav People’ Army from Slovenia on 18 July 1991, the Republic of Slovenia became a de facto independent country, despite a three-month moratorium.1 By 26 October 1991, when the last remnants of the Yugoslav People’s Army’s forces left the territory of the Republic of Slovenia, Slovenia was an independent, sovereign country, although as yet unrecognised by the majority of the world’s countries (i.e. only recognised by 4) and still facing serious threats to its security. The defence system that Slovenia established in autumn 1990 successfully stood the test of war in June 1991. However, the system of national security was developed only to the degree allowed by the situation of Slovenian secession, when the country was still intertwined with the Yugoslav system of national security, which meant that the Slovenian defence system was only able to separate itself from the unified Yugoslav system as much as the circumstances allowed. The system was based on a creative adaptation of the Yugoslav defence system and included those elements that were within the jurisdiction of the republics, which, as Yugoslavia underwent a serious crisis, were able to claim for themselves at least part of its (otherwise federal) 1 Božo Repe, Jutri je nov dan. Slovenci in razpad Jugoslavije (Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2002). Tomaž Kladnik, ed., Vojaška obramba Slovenije 1990–1991 (Ljubljana: Defensor, 2011). Tomaž Kladnik, Slo- venska vojska v službi domovine (Ljubljana: Defensor, 2006) 26–32. Damijan Guštin: Defence of the Republic of Slovenia 1991–2004: From Individual ...88 powers. The defence forces thus consisted of three elements, the Territorial Defence, the People’s Militia and the Civil Protection Service.2 To defend the country’s in- dependence, these forces were able to call upon 70,000 conscripts of the Territorial Defence (just prior to the start of the war, the number available was increased by a few thousand by transferring younger conscripts from the Yugoslav People’s Army to the Territorial Defence), about 9,000 active and reserve members of the Militia, and the Civil Protection Service. In actuality, about 35,000 members of the Territorial Defence and 7100 members of the Militia were mobilized.3 After the cease-fire agreement was signed on 8 July 1991, armed forces were never again used to defend the country, in spite of serious threats to its safety and the outbreak of the war in neighbouring Croatia in the autumn of the same year. While the three-month moratorium on Slovenian independence which was included in the peace treaty did represent an obstacle, it did not prevent the coordination of urgent defence matters. After the Federal Presidium of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia decided on 18 July to temporarily recall the Yugoslav People’s Army’s units and institutions from Slovenia, the Slovenian defence system was able to act more freely. The further development of the defence and security system of Slovenia thus proceeded in peace, even though Slovenia remained positioned at the edge of the warring Western Balkans and subject to measures of the international commu- nity pertaining to the area of the former Yugoslavia, most notably an embargo on the purchase of arms. The first order of business was thus to build up the defence system. The strategy for the development of the Slovenian defence system oscillated between the only system possible at the time – a defence by means of own armed forces and other un- armed entities – and the emerging wishes for Slovenia to join the collective defence system represented by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato). On 6 October 1991, after more than three months, the retreat of the Yugoslav People’s Army forces was finally over. By gaining its independence, the Republic of Slovenia became a rather small country, both in terms of the standard quantitative criteria as well as in terms of recognising that it could ensure its own safety only by relying on other countries and international organizations and institutions.4 “The Time of Enthusiasm”5– Development of the Security and Defence System in 1991–1993 In autumn 1991, senior officials of the Slovenian defence structures prompted the continuation of the development of the defence system. In terms of the internal 2 Kladnik, ed., Vojaška obramba Slovenije, 14, 15. 3 Ibid., 15, 16. 4 See: Špela Kranjc, “Članstvo v NATO. Študija primerov Slovenije in Estonije” (diplomsko delo, Fakulteta za družbene vede, 2009), 9. 5 Alojz Šteiner, Slovenska vojska med tranzicijo in transformacijo (Ljubljana: Slovenian Armed Forc- es, Military Schools Centre, 2015), 53. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 89 development of the Slovenian security and defence structures, this period had started as early as prior to the country’s declaration of independence on 25 June 1991.6 Security threats to the country remained high, as war raged across neighbouring Croatia, with battles being fought immediately across the south-eastern Slovenian border until at least January 1992. In terms of Slovenian security and defence policy, the fact that the Republic of Croatia was the weaker side in its conflict with the Yugo- slav People’s Army and the Serbian population (of the Republic of Serbian Krajina) and at the same time a partner (ally) that irrevocably lost the trust of the Slovenian state authorities on 26 June 1991 was troubling, as it precluded any future alliances. For a while it seemed quite possible that the forces of the Yugoslav Army would reap- pear at the southern border. A part of Slovenian armed forces was thus assigned to protect it. This was one of the reasons why Slovenia, under an arms embargo that ap- plied to the whole area of former Yugoslavia, began helping Croatia and later Bosnia by supplying them with arms. However, this turned into an arms trade managed by the Slovenian Ministry of Defence by summer 1991. Eventually, the competent state authorities became the immediate sellers, dealers and sometimes brokers of mate- rial, including not just what had been captured from the Yugoslav People’s Army or contained in their or the Territorial Defence stockpiles, but also arms purchased on the grey market.7 However, in doing so, Slovenia generally proceeded with aware- ness of its own arms requirements, which the country was able to largely cover using confiscated or relinquished materiel previously used by the Yugoslav People’s Army. Using the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, adopted in December 1991, the country defined its defence system at the highest level, while leaving the de- termination of the detailed structure of its armed forces to further legislation. The Constitution expressly limited the use of force to the defence of state sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Constitution legislated parliamentary control over the Slovenian armed forces and the possibility of conscientious objection to military service. The only remaining mention of the previously well-supported demilitarized national defence was the following non-binding comment: “In the provision of se- curity the state proceeds principally from a policy of peace, and an ethic of peace and non-aggression.”8 Slovenia legislated defence using armed forces and thus provided 6 The Defence and Protection Act (Zakon o obrambi in zaščiti) was passed on 29 March 1991 and the Military Service Act (Zakon o vojaški dolžnosti) on 6 April 1991; the symbolic first contingent of recruits was also conscripted before the declaration of independence, on 15 May 1991. See: Kladnik, ed., Vojaška obramba Slovenije, 87. 7 Matej Šurc, Prevarana Slovenija. Domoljubje, zapisano z ničlami (Ljubljana: Sanje, 2016). Matej Šurc and Blaž Zgaga, V imenu države. Trilogija: book 1: Odprodaja (Ljubljana: Sanje, 2011). Matej Šurc and Blaž Zgaga, V imenu države. Trilogija: book 2: Preprodaja (Ljubljana: Sanje, 2011). 8 Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 33/1991, 28 December 1991, Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, Article 124. The alternative pacifist idea of guaranteeing safety without an army, which was the subject of a political clash in the spring of 1991, was thus abandoned. See Anton Grizold, “Obrambni sistem republike Slovenije. Stanje in perspektive nadaljnjega razvoja,” in: Zbornik strokovno znanstvenih razprav (Ljubljana: Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Slovenia, December 1991), 161–181. Damijan Guštin: Defence of the Republic of Slovenia 1991–2004: From Individual ...90 a basis for its concept of armed neutrality. However, both the political elite and the public were already talking about initiatives to join Nato, which was believed to be necessary to guarantee Slovenia’s sovereignty in light of the wars raging nearby.9 The structure of the Territorial Defence of the Republic of Slovenia, which re- tained its original name in spite of efforts to change it to Slovenian Army, remained unchanged, as the Defence Act was not amended for a while either. The formation of the army initially remained the same as during the war, i.e. with 7 regional head- quarters and 26 subordinate area headquarters of the Territorial Defence. The Slo- venian army remained primarily territorial, but, inasmuch as it was possible under the embargo and with limited financial resources, it continued to develop branches and services it was lacking; i.e. artillery, armoured unites, the air force. Arms left in Slovenia by the Yugoslav People’s Army, including about 140 tanks, were of great help in this regard. The systems and doctrines of General People’s Defence and Social Self-Protection were abandoned. The creation of a new military tradition based on the new foundation of the “War for Slovenia” and the part played by Slovenian forces in the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was also well under way.10 The Army was manned through general compulsory military service.11 Conscrip- tion resumed in 1992. That year, 8151 conscripts finished their training in the Ter- ritorial Defence of the Republic of Slovenia, followed by 10,000 to 12,000 annually, as those who had not served their military duty in the years when Slovenia was gaining independence were conscripted as well. The Defence Act from April 1991 already gave conscripts the right to conscientious objection and thus to serve their duty in non-military contexts. 7 conscripts exercised this right in 1992; in the fol- lowing years, their numbers increased and truly balooned only after 1997.12 The seven-month training (which actually only lasted six months) during military service was of a dual nature, with one part taking place at education centres and the other in peace-time units of the Territorial Defence. The army was professionally reinforced with commissioned and non-commissioned officers of the Yugoslav People’s Army, as the Territorial Defence employed virtually every officer who heeded the appeal of the Presidium of the Republic of Slovenia and defected to the Territorial Defence by 1 July 1991. Of the 1893 employees of the Territorial Defence at the end on 1991, 1278 had previously served in the Yugoslav People’s Army.13 Another objective of the development was to increase the professional core of the armed forces and establish a professional military unit, the so-called 1st Special 9 Anton, Bebler, “Pot Slovenije v Nato = Slovenia’s road to Nato,” Bilten Slovenske vojske 11, No. 3 (November 2009): 107. 10 Cf. Vladimir Prebilič and Jelena Juvan, “(Ne)obstoj slovenske vojaške identitete,” Sodobni vojaški izzivi 14, No. 1 (2012): 55–67. 11 At the time, the Army had at its disposal slightly over 15,000 conscripts every year. Cf. Andrej Lovšin, “Obrambni sistem in kadri od leta 1991 do 2003, 2,” Slovenska vojska 12, No. 1, 16 January 2004. 12 Ibid. 13 Marijan Kranjc, Slovenska vojaška inteligenca (Grosuplje: Grafis Trade, 2005), 408. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 91 Brigade MORiS, established in October 1992, that was not a part of the Territorial Defence but rather answered directly to the Ministry of Defence. The armed forces of the Territorial Defence of the Republic of Slovenia numbered 77,000, but only 5 % of these were regular peacetime forces.14 Political parties were banned from the armed forces, and professional employ- ees – primarily commissioned and non-commissioned officers – were not allowed to be party members or to partake in any party-related activities while in uniform. However, this does not mean that political influences and opinions could not be felt in the functioning of the defence system. Following the example of the countries of Western Europe, the army came under civilian control, specifically under control of the Parliament. The army, which had won the 1991 war, enjoyed a high level of public trust, with state authorities further deliberately developing its positive public image. Citizens saw the armed forces of their country as an important and non-problematic part of the state structure and expressed a higher than average level of trust in it.15 On 3 February 1992, the Presidium of the Republic of Slovenia approved the proposed General Plan for the Organization, Outfitting, Arming and Training with- in the Territorial Defence of the Republic of Slovenia. According to the Plan, the Territorial Defence would have 45,000 members, 18,000 of whom would be in the manoeuvre forces, i.e. the special brigade, the missile and helicopter brigade, seven infantry brigades, four armoured and mechanized battalions, an anti-tank division and a support artillery division. The professional part of the army would consist of 1350 commissioned officers, 1550 non-commissioned officers and 1700 privates. The special brigade would be wholly professional.16 The Plan was the first complex programme that laid out a tangible strategy for the development of the Slovenian army. In the following years, the Territorial Defence attained the goals that had part- ly already been set and implemented when the Plan was approved. Transformation into a Classic National Army The years from 1993 to 1995 were a time of normative efforts to transform the Territorial Defence into a classic national army that would be able to defend Slove- nian sovereignty on its own, even though the state leadership simultaneously already initiated the efforts to move closer to Nato and to eventually join it. The Resolution on the Basis for the Concept of National Security of the Republic of Slovenia was 14 Šteiner, Slovenska vojska med tranzicijo in transformacijo, 53. Grizold claims 87,000 members of the armed forces and 3000 regular employees. 15 Tomaž Repnik, “Odnos civilne družbe do Slovenske vojske v obdobju 1991–2006” (diplomsko delo, Fakulteta za družbene vede, 2006). 16 Kladnik, ed., Vojaška obramba Slovenije, 18–19. “Pomembnejši utrinki iz zgodovine Slovenske vojske od prevzema popolne suverenosti nad slovenskim ozemljem do danes – 20 let ponosni nase in v ponos Sloveniji,” retrieved on 7 June 2016, http://www.slovenskavojska.si/fileadmin/slovenska_vojska/ pdf/sporocila/20let_zgod.pdf. Damijan Guštin: Defence of the Republic of Slovenia 1991–2004: From Individual ...92 adopted in December 1993.17 The Resolution emphasized that “[f ]or the Republic of Slovenia as part of a new international reality and a country located in the im- mediate vicinity of the Balkans crisis area, provision of national security is a matter of primary importance.”18 The Slovenian army was defined as a defence force of the Republic of Slovenia whose aim was to deter any attacks on the country and to co- ordinate and implement military defence in the event of outside aggression or other forceful interventions of foreign military forces against Slovenia. The Resolution de- fined three primary ways in which Slovenia could be threatened: through a military attack by an outside force, through internal threats including possible attempts of a violent transformation of the social order, and through threats to the environment. Slovenian Armed Forced were in charge of military defence against a potential out- side attack, while civil defence was tasked with civilian defence. Security was sup- posed to be ensured by a security system whose main parts were the Ministry of the Interior and two intelligence and security services. On the other hand, a system of protection and rescue was set up to protect against environmental dangers.19 Joining Nato, i.e. transitioning to collective defence, was first set as a national policy goal a year before, when it was also approved by the General Assembly. In January 1994, Nato published a call for participation in a pre-joining preliminary programme called Partnership for Peace (Partnerstvo za mir).20 At the same time, with a resolution amendment passed in January 1994, joining Nato was defined as an important objective of Slovenian national defence, even though the resolution focused primarily on political and diplomatic cooperation and only secondarily on military cooperation.21 Slovenia joined the Partnership for Peace programme as early as 30 March 1994. Next year saw the creation of the first Individual Partnership Pro- gramme, which both determined Slovenia’s political objectives and stated the military and other capacities Slovenia could offer to Nato.22 This period is also characterized by high internal tensions between the security services of the Ministry of the Inte- rior and the Ministry of Defence, with suspicions of a planned coup and with the removal from office of the Minister of Defence in March 1994.23 New defence legislation was passed on 20 December 1994, after more than a year of discussion and coordination.24 “The Defence Act provided a comprehensive 17 Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 71/1993, 30 December 1993. 18 Ibid., item 11. 19 Ibid. Cf. Anton Grizold, “Nejasen namen. Resoluciji o izhodiščih zasnove nacionalne varnosti Republike Slovenije na rob,” Primorski dnevnik 49, No. 88, 1993. 20 NATO, Official texts: Partnership for Peace Invitation Document, 10–11 January 1994, retrieved on 7 October 2016, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24468.htm?mode=pressrelease. 21 Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 2/1994. David Humar, Ivan Mikuž, Samo Zanoškar, Dean Groff and Leon Holc, “Integration of the Slovenian armed forces into NATO and EU military structures,” Bilten Slovenske vojske 11, No. 2 (2009): 60. 22 Ibid., 61. Šteiner, Slovenska vojska med tranzicijo in transformacijo, 78. 23 Cf. Janez Janša, Okopi. Pot slovenske države 1991–1994 (Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 2014). 24 Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 82/94, Defence Act. Cf. Božo Repe, Milan Kučan: prvi predsednik (Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2015), 404–06. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 93 framework for the defence system, primarily in terms of organization, structure, tasks and other issues pertaining to the Slovenian Armed Forces as a classic military organization as well as in terms of civil defence. The Act also settled matters sig- nificant for the organization and planning of defence, which came under the sole authority of the state. The Defence Act separated the defence system from the system of protection against natural and other disasters, except in cases where the systems complemented each other.”25 Pursuant to the Act, the Territorial Defence of the Republic of Slovenia was renamed as the Slovenian Armed Forces the following year. After the adoption of an amendment to the Military Service Act, an important change was implemented in regard to the training of conscripts.26 In September 1996, education centres were abolished and the conscripted recruits trained within military units. That way, the Slovenian Armed Forces were able to increase the num- bers of their peacetime units. This was also the first time that additional funds were envisioned for arms purchases, while the so-called Basic Development Programmes were used to define the armament and equipment requirements in detail.27 In August 1995, Croatia achieved military victory with Operation Storm, thus stabilizing Slovenia’s southern neighbourhood and greatly decreasing the security and military threats faced by Slovenia.28 Hoping for NATO In late 1990s, the direction and forms of development of the national security system of the Republic of Slovenia were mostly determined by strategies for the ac- cession of Slovenia to the European and Euro-Atlantic institutional frameworks, i.e. the European Union and Nato. In addition to Slovenia, all former members of the Warsaw Pact and the newly formed Baltic states wanted to join Nato as well; they expected the organization to involve them in its system of collective security and thus solve all their security problems, from issues regarding doctrine and development to structural matters. However, unlike the Slovenian political elite, the population continued to show significant support for the concept of armed neutrality, and the idea that the country should join Nato’s system of collective defence was met with some doubts and resistance.29 In 1996, the so-called individual dialogue was used to prepare the involvement of 25 “Defence Act: draft from 13 April 2016, EVA 2016-1911-0001,” retrieved on 10 October 2016, http://www.mo.gov.si/fileadmin/mo.gov.si/pageuploads/pdf/predpisi/obramba/v_pripravi/ZO- brMedresorsko_20160413.pdf. 26 Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 94/95, Military Service Act – official consoli- dated text. 27 Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 13/94, Act Providing Funds for the Realization of Basic Development Programmes of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Slovenia in 1994–2007. 28 Jože Pirjevec, Jugoslovanske vojne: 1991–2001 (Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 2003). Ozren Žunec, “Operacije Bljesak i Oluja,” in: Rat u Hrvatskoj i Bosni i Hercegovini: 1991–1995, eds. Branka Magaš and Ivo(Zagreb: Jesenski i Turk and Sarajevo: Dani, 1999), 93–110. 29 Cf. Bebler, “Pot Slovenie v NATO = Slovenia’s road to NATO,” 111, 112. Damijan Guštin: Defence of the Republic of Slovenia 1991–2004: From Individual ...94 Slovenian Armed Forces in the process of planning and assessment in which reforms and reorganizations of the defence system were being determined. Particular atten- tion was paid to the issue of compatibility with old member states.30 Among the results of the process of joining the collective defence system was the decision for Slovenia to participate in peacekeeping operations in various crisis areas all over the world. The first such intervention began in 1997, when the first 25 members of the Slovenian Armed Forces and two members of the Police were sent to participate in the ALBA peacekeeping operation in Albania.31 Slovenian request to join was turned down at the Madrid session of Nato in 1997.32 The following period of operation of the Slovenian defence system was wholly dedicated to continuing the process of accession to Nato. As the reason be- hind the rejection was the fact that the Slovenian army hadn’t implemented the necessary reforms, the country, in order to finally and surely attain the membership, resumed political efforts and undertook a number of military reorganizations. In 1998, the country developed the National Strategy for the Accession of Slovenia to Nato. The effects of joining Nato were stated as follows: “Accession of Slovenia to Nato would improve the security of the Republic of Slovenia and contribute to the country’s long-term development.”33 As part of the accession process, Slovenia effected or had to implement a number of structural reforms of its military and the defence system in general. The main prin- ciples of the reforms were determined by the Strategy of Military Defence of the Re- public of Slovenia drafted in 1998. The strategy proposed a re-ordering of the armed forces into rapid reaction forces, main defence forces and auxiliary defence forces. The strategy also anticipated an increased permanent force bolstered by professional soldiers. Another important aspect of the strategy was cooperation with allied forces. In 1998, Slovenia was also the first candidate country to host the Cooperative Adventure Exchange-98 military exercise which was also used to assess the candidate state’s lo- gistical and support capacities. In 1999, Nato adopted the Membership Action Plan, which included Slovenia.34 This formed the basis on which Slovenia, starting in 2000, developed its annual na- tional programme for the attainment of membership in Nato. National programmes 30 Šteiner, Slovenska vojska med tranzicijo in transformacijo, 78. Š. Kranjc, “Članstvo v NATO,” 29, 30. 31 Jelena Juvan, “Mirovne operacije kot sredstvo zagotavljanja nacionalne varnosti?” (Defence Re- search Centre of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Ljubljana), retrieved on 2 July 2016, http://www.fvv.um.si/DV2010/zbornik/nacionalna_varnost/juvan_doc.pdf. Jelena Juvan, “Slovenska vojska v mirovnih operacijah,” in: Mirovne operacije in vloga Slovenije, ed. Ljubica Jelušič (Ljubljana: Faculty of Social Sciences, 2005), 175–86. Klemen Grošelj, Slovenija v svetu mirovnih operacij (Lju- bljana: Založba FDV, 2007), 124–40. 32 Šteiner, Slovenska vojska med tranzicijo in transformacijo, 83. 33 “National Strategy for the Accession of the Republic of Slovenia to Nato,” (February 1998), retrieved on 4 June 2016, http://nato.gov.si/slo/dokumenti/nacionalna-strategija.pdf. 34 Šteiner, Slovenska vojska med tranzicijo in transformacijo, 83. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 95 encompassed matters of politics and the economy, defence and the military, and of security, as well as legal and financial issues, which means that the reforms carried out in order to join the military alliance were extremely complex and also extended to areas other than defence. The reforms were carried out in dialogue with Nato’s struc- tures. The four-year period that preceded Slovenia’s accession to Nato, with its four annual national programmes, was the main period of adjustment for the Slovenian Armed Forces.35 In February 2000, the General Long-Term Plan for the Development and Outfitting of the Slovenian Armed Forces (Splošni dolgoročni program razvoja in opremljanja Slovenske vojske – SDPRO SV) was adopted, further determining the organizational and technical aspects of outfitting the Slovenian Armed Forces in a ten-year period.36 Adapting to NATO At the beginning of the new millennium, the issues of Slovenian security and defence became less acute. The conflict in the immediate Yugoslav neighbourhood had settled, and after the Croatian victory in Operation Storm and the Dayton Peace Agreement regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina, peace returned to the Western Bal- kans, with the exception of Kosovo. National defence became a function without a tangible goal, and security threats were minimal.37 This resulted in a diminishing focus on security and defence and in dwindling care for the defence of the coun- try. This change of circumstances coincided with processes of modernization within Nato that were being implemented since the end of the Cold War. The central aspect of these changes was the shift of security threats from military to non-military and the resulting need to transform armed forces from high-manpower militaries to pro- fessional forces with smaller numbers. Mass armies of citizens were unsuited for new security threats, so almost all Nato member countries transitioned to professional armed forces. From 2000 onward, Slovenia carried out the second cycle of adaptations to the Western armies in Nato. The adaptations or reforms extended to three important areas: 1. organizational changes to forces, differentiation between mobile and immobile forces; 2. separation of operational command and strategic command (including physical separation: Force Command in Vrhnika and General Staff in Ljubljana); 35 “Slovenija in NATO: kronologija slovenskega vključevanja v NATO,” Kronologija včlanjevanja, retrieved on 12 June 2016, http://nato.gov.si/slo/slovenija-nato/. 36 Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 32/2000, 1483, 13 April 2000. 37 According to a representative public opinion survey carried out by the Defence Research Centre in 2003, only 14 % of respondents felt threatened in any way. 42.5 % of those surveyed believed that it was unlikely for Slovenia ever to need an army again. In a similar study carried out in 2001, this belief was only shared by 31 %. – “Slovenci se počutimo varne,” Slovenska vojska 12, No. 1, 16 January 2004. Damijan Guštin: Defence of the Republic of Slovenia 1991–2004: From Individual ...96 3. discontinuation of the system of conscription and establishment of a professional army. In 2002 Slovenia was finally invited to begin accession negotiations for Nato membership. This signalled the beginning of rapid changes for the Slovenian Armed Forces: decrease of reserves to less than 50 % of the previous numbers, gradual dis- continuation of conscription and creation of a professional army, development of forces that could participate in the allied contingent. After a decade of decreases, the defence budget again increased to almost two percent of the GDP. Among the most visible aspects of the reform of the Slovenian Armed Forces was the suspension of manning the forces through conscription and the establishment of a professional army. Slovenia abolished compulsory military service in 2003, a year before the country had planned to do so and a mere two years after the idea was first proposed. The last generation of conscripts to serve military duty left their barracks on 15 October 2003.38 However, adapting to Nato’s standards didn’t only encompass military policy documents but was also reflected in frequent military reforms that pertained to ei- ther certain segments of armed forces or to the whole military – beginning with amendments to the Defence Act that regulated the participation of the country in the system of collective defence at a normative level, stating that national defence “is also being realized through the joining and active involvement of the country in international security associations based on international treaties”. The structure of forces within the army and the military intelligence and security activities were changed as well. The amendment also instituted voluntary service in the contractual reserve formation. With regard to professional soldiers, provisions regulating mili- tary service were improved and special working conditions were regulated as well.39 Pursuant to these amendments, the manpower of the Slovenian Armed Forces was decreased from 47,000 to 30,000 people. District territorial headquarters and some of the operational commands were abolished. The Force Command was estab- lished in 2003. Units of rapid response forces were given priority to be manned by professional soldiers. The rapid and constant changes to the Slovenian Armed Forces had a negative impact as well, as various reform measures had unwanted effects. Numerous solu- tions were barely given a chance before being reformed again. Changes to various units and especially commands were sometimes left unfinished, be it due to material limitations or rapidly changing circumstances. As the professional part of the armed forces had too many commissioned and non-commissioned officers and too few privates, the military mostly offered employ- ment to the latter. Gradually the numbers of the Slovenian Armed Forces increased towards the target of 8000. By the end of 2001, there were 5043 of them, but by the end of 2005, the number already increased to 7316. In the same period, the num- 38 Lovšin, “Obrambni sistem in kadri od leta 1991 do 2003, 2.” 39 Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 47/2002, Act Amending the Defence Act. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 97 ber of professional soldiers increased from 707 to 2918.40 The status of soldiers as public employees was problematic as well, as it was often unsuitable for professional soldiers. After the initial increase, when the numbers of the voluntary contractual reserves reached about 1400, replenishment of forces stagnated. In 2005, the reserves con- sisted of 7917 conscripts. Service in the military was voluntary and possible for both men and women, and a couple hundred volunteers took advantage of this each year.41 Slovenian Armed Forces Outside Slovenia One of the most visible forms of operation of the Slovenian Armed Forces was their participation in so-called “crisis response operations”, i.e. in missions in crisis areas. From the first such case in 1997 onward, the presence of Slovenian Armed Forces abroad as part of missions led by the UN, the European Union or Nato in- creased, and such cooperation became a mainstay of the army’s operation. Another important part of the army’s activities was its participation in missions in the area of former Yugoslavia, particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 2005, members of Slovenian Armed Forces were thus involved in six such operations, with their par- ticipation being most numerous in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan.42 As members of the Slovenian Armed Forces left for various crisis areas, their numbers increased, so did the intensity of their assignments. However, in all peacekeeping missions, members of Slovenian Armed Forces were integrated with larger units under foreign command.43 Joining Collective Defence – Objective Attained and the Beginning of a New Period The voices that were critical of the idea of joining Nato led the national politi- cal elite to call a referendum on this issue while simultaneously campaigning in its support. Slovenia was only the second country to decide for such a procedure. At the referendum held on 23 March 2003, joining Nato was supported by 66.08 % of those who voted, and this result provided the political elite with enough support to implement the final steps of the process.44 Six days later, on 29 March 2004, Slove- 40 “Letno poročilo Ministrstva za obrambo za leto 2005. Mors, 27 May 2014,” retrieved on 5 May 2016, http://www.mo.gov.si/fileadmin/mo.gov.si/pageuploads/pdf/ministrstvo/letno_porocilo_2005. pdf. 41 Ibid., 15, 16, 31. “Prvih sto prostovoljcev,” Slovenska vojska, 12, No. 1, 1. 42 “Letno poročilo MORS za leto 2005,” 16–18. 43 Juvan, Mirovne operacije kot sredstvo zagotavljanja nacionalne varnosti?, 175–86. Grošelj, Slo- venija v svetu mirovnih operacij, 124–40. 44 “Poročilo o izidu glasovanja o izidu referenduma o pristopu Republike Slovenije k Organizaciji Severnoatlantske pogodbe (NATO), ki je bil 23. marca 2003,” Referendumski rezultati, retrieved on 8 October 2016, http://nato.gov.si/slo/slovenija-nato/referendum/rezultati/. Damijan Guštin: Defence of the Republic of Slovenia 1991–2004: From Individual ...98 nia ratified the accession agreement and became a member of Nato.45 For the Slove- nian defence system, this signalled the end of a difficult and sometimes contradictory journey towards becoming a part of the European defensive alliance – though on its margin – as well as a part of the ring around the crisis area of former Yugoslavia (Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia and Albania) that now consisted of Slovenia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece, along with Italy across the Adriatic Sea. The security configuration in the area was thus greatly improved, although not yet completely in place, as there were already signs that the countries that were at the time still isolated would eventually be in- cluded as well. Sources and Literature • “Defence Act: draft from 13 April 2016, EVA 2016-1911-0001.” Retrieved on 10 October 2016. http://www.mo.gov.si/fileadmin/mo.gov.si/pageuploads/pdf/predpisi/obramba/v_pripravi/ZObr- Medresorsko_20160413.pdf. • “Letno poročilo Ministrstva za obrambo za leto 2005.” Mors, 27 May 2014. Retrieved on 5 May 2016. http://www.mo.gov.si/fileadmin/mo.gov.si/pageuploads/pdf/ministrstvo/letno_poroci- lo_2005.pdf. • “National Strategy for the Accession of the Republic of Slovenia to Nato.” February 1998. Retrie- ved on 4 June 2016. http://nato.gov.si/slo/dokumenti/nacionalna-strategija.pdf. • “Pomembnejši utrinki iz zgodovine Slovenske vojske od prevzema popolne suverenosti nad sloven- skim ozemljem do danes – 20 let ponosni nase in v ponos Sloveniji.” Retrieved on 7 June 2016. http://www.slovenskavojska.si/fileadmin/slovenska_vojska/pdf/sporocila/20let_zgod.pdf. • Bebler, Anton. “Pot Slovenije v Nato = Slovenia’s road to Nato.” Bilten Slovenske vojske 11, No. 3 (November 2009): 105–16. • Grizold, Anton. “Nejasen namen. Resoluciji o izhodiščih zasnove nacionalne varnosti Republike Slovenije na rob.” Primorski dnevnik 49, No. 88, 1993. • Grizold, Anton. “Obrambni sistem republike Slovenije. Stanje in perspektive nadaljnjega razvoja.” In: Zbornik strokovno znanstvenih razprav, 161–81. Ljubljana: Ministry of the Interior of the Repu- blic of Slovenia, December 1991. • Grošelj, Klemen. Slovenija v svetu mirovnih operacij. Ljubljana, Založba FDV, 2007. • Humar, David, Ivan Mikuž, Samo Zanoškar, Dean Groff and Leon Holc. “Integration of the Slo- venian armed forces into NATO and EU military structures.” Bilten Slovenske vojske 11, No. 2 (2009): 59–81. • Janša, Janez. Okopi. Pot slovenske države 1991–1994. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 2014. • Juvan, Jelena. “Mirovne operacije kot sredstvo zagotavljanja nacionalne varnosti?.” Defence Rese- arch Centre of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Ljubljana. Retrieved on 2 July 2016. http://www.fvv.um.si/DV2010/zbornik/nacionalna_varnost/juvan_doc.pdf. • Juvan, Jelena. “Slovenska vojska v mirovnih operacijah.” In: In: Mirovne operacije in vloga Slovenije, ed. Ljubica Jelušič, 175–186. Ljubljana: Faculty of Social Sciences, 2005. • Kladnik, Tomaž, ed. Vojaška obramba Slovenije 1990–1991. Ljubljana: Defensor, 2011. • Kladnik, Tomaž. Slovenska vojska v službi domovine. Ljubljana: Defensor, 2006. • Kranjc, Marijan. Slovenska vojaška inteligenca. Grosuplje: Grafis Trade, 2005. • Kronologija včlanjevanja. “Slovenija in NATO: kronologija slovenskega vključevanja v NATO.” Re- trieved on 25 June 2016. http://nato.gov.si/slo/slovenija-nato/kronologija/ 45 “Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of the Republic of Slovenia,” NATO – Official text: Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of the Republic of Slovenia, 26-Mar.- 2003, available at: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_20315.htm. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 99 • Lovšin, Andrej. “Obrambni sistem in kadri od leta 1991 do 2003, 2.” Slovenska vojska 12, No. 1, 16 January 2004. • NATO, Official texts: Partnership for Peace Invitation Document, 10–11 January 1994. Retrieved on 7 October 2016. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24468.htm?mode=pressrelease. • Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia. Ljubljana: Uradni list Republike Slovenije. • Pirjevec, Jože. Jugoslovanske vojne: 1991–2001. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 2003. • Prebilič, Vladimir and Jelena Juvan. “(Ne)obstoj slovenske vojaške identitete.” Sodobni vojaški izzivi 14, No. 1 (2012): 55–67. • Referendumski rezultati. “Poročilo o izidu glasovanja o izidu referenduma o pristopu Republike Slovenije k Organizaciji Severnoatlantske pogodbe (NATO), ki je bil 23. marca 2003.” Retrieved on 8 October 2016. http://nato.gov.si/slo/slovenija-nato/referendum/rezultati/. • Repe, Božo. Jutri je nov dan. Slovenci in razpad Jugoslavije. Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2002. • Repe, Božo. Milan Kučan: prvi predsednik. Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2015. • Repnik, Tomaž. “Odnos civilne družbe do Slovenske vojske v obdobju 1991–2006.” Diplomsko delo, Fakulteta za družbene vede, 2006. • Slovenska vojska 12, No. 1, 1. “Prvih sto prostovoljcev.” • Slovenska vojska 12, No. 1, 16 January 2004. “Slovenci se počutimo varne.” • Špela Kranjc, “Članstvo v NATO. Študija primerov Slovenije in Estonije.” Diplomsko delo, Fakul- teta za družbene vede, 2009. • Šteiner, Alojz. Slovenska vojska med tranzicijo in transformacijo. Ljubljana: Slovenian Armed Forces, Military Schools Centre, 2015. • Šurc, Matej and Blaž Zgaga. V imenu države. Trilogija: book. 1: Odprodaja. Ljubljana: Sanje, 2011. • Šurc, Matej and Blaž Zgaga. V imenu države. Trilogija: book. 2: Preprodaja. Ljubljana: Sanje, 2011. • Šurc, Matej. Prevarana Slovenija. Domoljubje, zapisano z ničlami. Ljubljana: Sanje, 2016. • Žunec, Ozren. “Operacije Bljesak i Oluja.” In: Rat u Hrvatskoj i Bosni i Hercegovini: 1991–1995, eds. Branka Magaš and Ivo Žanić, 93–110. Zagreb: Jesenski i Turk and Sarajevo: Dani, 1999. Damijan Guštin OBRAMBA REPUBLIKE SLOVENIJE 1991–2004: OD SAMOSTOJNE V KOLEKTIVNO OBRAMBO P O V Z E T E K Republika Slovenija je svoj obrambni sistem začela oblikovati še v okviru jugoslovanske federativne države in še pred tem, ko je najavila svojo osamosvojitev. Takoj po razglasitvi neodvisnosti je ta še ne docela vzpostavljen obrambni sistem uspešno prestal preizkušnjo, ko je bila 26. junija 1991 prisiljena v obrambo z oboroženo silo. Nadaljnji razvoj obrambno-varnostnega sistema Slovenije je po premirju in umiku sil JLA iz Slovenije potekal v mirnodobnih razmerah, čeprav je bila Slovenija še dolgo na robu bojujočega se zahodnobalkanskega prostora. Dogradnja obrambnega sistema je sledila edini mo- žni smeri, obrambi s svojo oboroženo silo in z drugimi neoboroženimi strukturami, a željo, da bi se Slovenija vključila v kolektivno obrambo Severnoatlantskega pakta (Nato), saj je bila tipična majhna država, ki je svojo obrambo lahko zagotavljala le deloma. Razvoj je sledil dvema dolgima in obsežni- ma razvojnima procesoma: obrambno-varnostni sistem Slovenije je bilo treba dokončati in oblikovati glede na novo dejstvo neodvisne države; prevladujoča želja slovenske državne elite, da Slovenija preide na kolektivno obrambo, ki jo je predstavljala edina še delujoča vojaška zveza, Severnoatlantski pakt, pa ji je določila poglavitno smer, saj se je že od leta 1993 prizadevala za sprejem v NATO. Med tema procesoma pa so se vojske drugih evropskih držav temeljito spremenile; prilagodile so se spremenjenim varnostnim grožnjam, postale so manjše, fleksibilne, poklicne vojske, čemur se je poskušala prilagoditi tudi Slovenska vojska. Slovenski obrambni sistem se je v devetdesetih razvil tako po opremljenosti kot po organiziranosti, vendar pa so številne reforme obrambnega sistema in vojske sledila šele po letu 1997, ko Slovenija ni uspela s svojo prošnjo za sprejem v Natovo kolektivno obrambo, in zlasti po letu 1999, ko je Nato sprejel Akcijski načrt za članstvo, ki je vključeval tudi Slovenijo. Najbolj vidne reforme so Damijan Guštin: Defence of the Republic of Slovenia 1991–2004: From Individual ...100 zadevale njen obseg in strukturo. V začetku novega tisočletja je začel slabeti varnostni in obrambni imperativ Slovenije, saj se je sosednji zahodnobalkanski prostor umiril. Posledica tega sta bili opuščanje skrbi za obrambo in zmanjšanje pomena varnosti in obrambe. Slovenija je od leta 2000 do končnega sprejetja v Nato leta 2004 izvedla drugi ciklus prilagajanja zahodnim armadam. Prilagajanje je zajelo tri pomembna področja, prilagoditev organizacije sil, ločitev med premakljivimi in nepremakljivimi sila- mi; ločitev operativne ravni poveljevanja od strateške (poveljstvo sil na Vrhniki, generalštab v Ljubljani) in opustitev naborniškega sistema in uvedba poklicne vojske. Leta 2002 je Slovenija končno dobila povabilo k pristopnim pogajanjem za članstvo v Natu. S tem so se začele hitre spremembe: zmanjšanje rezervne sestave na manj kot 50 odstotkov prejšnjega sesta- va, odpravljanje naborniškega sistema, odprava obveznega služenja vojaškega roka, ki je bilo izvedeno 2003, eno leto pred predvidenim rokom, in uvajanje poklicne vojske, snovanje sil, ki bi sodelovale v zavezniškem kontingentu. Delež izdatkov za obrambo se je po desetletju upada spet približal dvema odstotkoma BDP. Uvedena je bila zgolj poklicna vojska z okoli 7600 poklicnimi vojaki, podčastniki in častniki, ter dopolnilna pogodbena rezerva, ki pa je ostala maloštevilna. Vzporedno s spremembami je referendum o vstopu v Nato s 66,08 odstotka glasovalcev za vstop dal politično-državni eliti dovolj veliko podporo za sklepne poteze vključevanja. Slovenija je 29. marca 2004 z ratifikacijo pristopnega sporazuma postala članica Nata in s tem dosegla zastavljeni cilj, prešla v kolektivno obrambo. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 101 1.01 UDC: 2-185.57:930:323(497.4)"1990/2016" Bojan Godeša* Reconciliation instead of History1 IZVLEČEK SPRAVA NAMESTO ZGODOVINE Razprava obravnava vprašanje sprave, ki je od srede osemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja v sloven- ski družbi postajalo vse bolj prisotno in je vrhunec doseglo s slovesnostjo v Kočevskem rogu julija 1990. Že pred tem sta izjavi o tem vprašanju podala predsedstvo SRS in slovenska pokrajinska škofovska konferenca, ki pa sta se vsebinsko znatno razlikovali. Predsedstvo SRS je poudarjalo, da je smisel narodne in državljanske umiritve predvsem v vzpostavitvi »takih razmer v političnem in javnem življenju Slovenije, ko preteklost ne bo več obremenjevala medčloveških odnosov«, medtem ko je izjava škofovske konference poudarjala, da »edino resnica nas more osvoboditi, biti podlaga za spravo in omogočiti pot k pomiritvi«. Različno razumevanje vprašanja sprave je v zadnjih petindvajsetih letih privedlo do tega, da se nasprotja in ideološke delitve v slovenski družbi z vsako spravno deklaracijo le še poglabljajo. Ključne besede: druga svetovna vojna, sprava, kulturni boj, zgodovinopisje, revizija ABSTRACT The discussion focuses on the issue of reconciliation, which had become increasingly notable in the Slovenian society since the middle of the 1980s and culminated in the ceremony in the Kočevski rog forest in July 1990. Even before that solemn event, the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia and the Slovenian Regional Episcopal Conference gave statements with regard to this is- sue, which, however, differed from each other significantly. The Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia emphasised that the purpose of the national and civil appeasement was especially to establish “such a situation in the political and public life of Slovenia where the past no longer represents a burden for interpersonal relations”, while the statement of the Episcopal Conference underlined that “only the truth can set us free, represent the basis for reconciliation, and pave the way towards appeasement”. In the last twenty-five years the different ways of understanding the question of reconciliation led to the oppositions and ideological divisions in the Slovenian society deepening even further with every reconciliatory declaration. * Research Counsellor, PhD, Institute of Contemporary History, Kongresni trg 1, 1000 Ljublja- na, Slovenia, bojan.godesa@inz.si 1 Braco Rotar, “Sprava namesto zgodovine,” [“Reconciliation Instead of History”] Razgledi, 27 May 1994. Bojan Godeša: Reconciliation instead of History102 Keywords: World War II, reconciliation, cultural struggle (»Kulturkampf«), historiography, revision On 8 July 1990 a ceremony took place in the Kočevski rog forest, attended by the highest representatives of the political and public life, including the President of the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia. The Metropolitan Archbishop Dr Alojzij Šuštar held a mass. The solemn event was supposed to be the “first step towards appeasement, so very important for the Slovenian nation and its state”, which would contribute to the “establishment of such a situation in the political and public life of Slovenia where the past no longer represents a burden for interpersonal relations”.2 Before that, on 4 March 1990, the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Slove- nia published a statement on the national and civil appeasement,3 substantiated with the words “that in this serious and pivotal moment of the transformation into a pluralist democratic system we are obliged to address the issue which the public sees as the problem of the ‘national reconciliation’”.4 In the opinion of the Presidency of the Socialist Re- public of Slovenia, the purpose of this discussion should be to “contribute to the establishment of such a situation in the political and public life of Slovenia where the past no longer represents a burden for interpersonal relations of today and tomorrow. This is the problem of the national and civil appeasement 45 years after the end of the war. In the interest of public well-being, the national politics should aim to eliminate any possibility of a contemporary division of the society.”5 The statement of the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia represented a substantial turning point in the attitude towards reconciliatory processes, as it el- evated this issue to the level of state institutions. Namely, until then the reconcilia- tory initiatives had come exclusively from the ranks of the civil society. On 9 May 1990 (in April 1990 the first free and democratic elections in Slovenia after 1927 took place), the newly-elected President of the Assembly France Bučar opened his inaugural address with the following words: 2 Božo Repe, Viri o demokratizaciji in osamosvojitvi Slovenije. 2. del. – Slovenci in federacija [Re- sources on the Democratisation of Slovenia and its Attainment of Independence. Part 2 – Slovenians and the Federation] (Ljubljana: Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2003), 21. 3 The statement was drawn up on the basis of a draft, written by the historian Janko Pleterski, a member of the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia (1988-1990). Pleterski later explained his attitude towards reconciliation in the article “O NOB in spravi,” [“On the National Liberation Struggle and Reconciliation”] in: Narodnoosvobodilni boj v slovenskem narodnem spominu. Slovenski zbornik 2007, eds. Janez Stanovnik et al. (Ljubljana: GO ZZB NOB Slovenije, 2007), 23–31. 4 “Narodna umiritev kot pogoj za mirno sožitje” [“National Appeasement as a Condition for Peaceful Coexistence”], Delo, 5 March 1990, 1, 2. 5 Ibid. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 103 “More than feeling dutifully thankful for the trust invested in me as I was chosen to be the President of this respectable Assembly, I am, above all, thoroughly shaken by the awareness of the historical and fatal importance of the turning point that the current moment represents for the Slovenian nation. By constituting this Assembly we can assume that the civil war that has been beleaguering and hindering us for almost half a century is finally at an end.”6 In such an atmosphere the newly-elected President of the Presidency of the Re- public of Slovenia Milan Kučan, in his address of the Members of Assembly, ex- plained the reasons for the necessity to carry out the reconciliatory process with the following words: “The Presidency of Slovenia recently adopted a statement on the national and civil appease- ment. This was soon followed also by the statement of the Slovenian Episcopal Conference on the national reconciliation. These actions went a long way towards the reconciliation of all Slovenians and towards ensuring a rightful peace among us, in order to prevent the forebod- ing ghosts of the past – divisions, treason, hatred and civil war – from still being summoned today. The purpose of the reconciliation, which is a historical necessity and our cultural and civilisational duty, is to eradicate our painful obsession with the past, because we must live on. Nations preoccupied with the past threaten their present and give up their future. Reconcilia- tion can neither be achieved nor experienced by those who keep hating. We can only achieve it by consciously and responsibly refraining from inciting new hatred from the old ashes. Without trying to fix or conceal our history, we are duty-bound to correct the injustice where that is still possible and apologise to each other for whatever was wrong with our actions during the war and after it. The whole nation can come to terms with its own history only if we allow history to finally become the past, if we finally bury our dead, and if we forgive. (…) I am firmly convinced, as are all members of the Presidency of Slovenia, that this very Assembly, in this form and in this pivotal time, has been called upon to finally take this historical step, so crucial for our nation, and acknowledge that all Slovenians are entitled to their homeland. We should prevent any of the future generations, born into the world burdened by the hatred of others, from having to endure the task of purification, reconciliation and appeasement.”7 A few days after the statement of the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia, but still before the elections in April, at a session on 13 March 1990 the Slovenian Regional Episcopal Conference released a Statement on the National Rec- onciliation as well.8 In the introduction this Statement welcomes the gesture of the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia as an important step towards “ad- 6 Rosvita Pesek, Bučar (Celovec/Klagenfurt: Mohorjeva, 2016), 186, 187. 7 Milan Kučan’s address of the Members of the Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia on 9 May 1990, after the first free parliamentary democratic elections in Slovenia, acquired on 5 September 2016, http://www2.gov.si/up-rs/2002-2007/bp-mk.nsf/dokumenti/09.05.1990-90-92. 8 France Martin Dolinar, Resnici na ljubo. Izjave ljubljanskih škofov o medvojnih dogodkih [Truth Be Told. Statements of the Ljubljana Bishops about the Wartime Events] (Ljubljana: Družina, 1998), 31–34. Bojan Godeša: Reconciliation instead of History104 dressing this vital question and the future of the Slovenian nation”. However, at the same time it emphasises that “in our statement we do not want to comment on the individual claims of the Presidency’s statement. A public discussion should contribute to this.”9 The Statement goes on to say: “In the opinion of the Slovenian Regional Episcopal Conference, appeasement is a goal that the Church shall pursue to the best of its ability, and it wishes to honestly cooperate with everyone who holds this goal dear. However, appeasement cannot be ordered or forced. Reconciliation is the only path towards this goal, and without it there cannot be a permanent and true appease- ment. Therefore reconciliation is the first and most crucial task. (…) As far as this is concerned, we should first take into account the reconciliation with the dead and then the reconciliation with the living. The latter cannot exist without the former. (…) In order to ensure the recon- ciliation among the living – the only way to ensure national appeasement, we should, in our opinion (...) ascertain the full and comprehensive historical truth about all the events since the beginning of the last war until today. Only truth can set us free and serve as the basis for reconciliation, which would allow for appeasement. Thus the primary task is to objectively ascertain and publish all the facts, in so far as that is possible, on the basis of documents and testimonies. The unresolved past cannot simply be forgotten or erased, especially as until now so many fabrications have been spread, or it has not been possible to determine and reveal the truth at all.”10 For the solemn reconciliatory event in the Kočevski rog forest, organised at the initiative of Spomenka Hribar,11 the Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia adopted a decision about the concept: it would be a state and Church event with a religious ceremony and two speakers (the President of the Presidency of the Republic of Slo- venia and the Slovenian Metropolitan Archbishop).12 On 2 July 1990, shortly before the reconciliatory ceremony in the Kočevski rog forest, the Pravičnost in mir (Justice and Peace) commission released a statement entitled For a Deeper Understanding of Reconciliation, signed by Anton Stres. It ex- pressed the expectations of the Roman Catholic Church in Slovenia with regard to the question of reconciliation far more directly: “Before the funeral ceremony of those killed in the Kočevski rog forest, our community as well as the emigrant public still strongly expresses numerous and sometimes very diverse attitudes 9 Ibid. An extensive public discussion then also in fact took place. Boris Mlakar prepared the intro- ductory foundations for the survey entitled “Z narodno spravo – konec državljanske vojne?,” [“National Reconciliation – the End of the Civil War?”] Borec. Revija za zgodovino, antropologijo in književnost, No. 5-6-7 (1990): 582–716, which was one of the most resounding surveys at the time. 10 Ibid. 11 Zdenko Roter, Padle maske. Od partizanskih sanj do novih dni [Masks Removed. From the Par- tisan Dreams to the New Days] (Ljubljana: Sever & Sever, 2013), 412, 413. 12 Božo Repe, Milan Kučan, prvi predsednik [Milan Kučan, the First President] (Ljubljana: Mo- drijan, 2015), 282, 283. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 105 towards the so-called reconciliation. There are many misunderstandings and imprecise assess- ments of the intentions of either side. Therefore it is appropriate that we might once again clar- ify the purpose of the funeral ceremony in Kočevski rog and explain the connection between this event and reconciliation, which will undoubtedly take much longer. The Kočevski rog forest is the resting place of the people killed by the side, victorious in the war, in order to simply erase them from our memory. With the funeral ceremony we want to restore the most basic human dignity owed to the dead: that they are counted among the dead and that they have their own graves. (…)We are aware of the fact that this does not conclude, but merely begins the process of reconciliation. As it is, reconciliation cannot be ensured without truth, as thorough as possible: and the path towards this truth is still long. We will only be able to reach it by overcoming a variety of preconceptions, especially the prejudice stemming from our different ideologies. (…) Therefore we cannot agree with those who believe that the past should simply be forgotten. That would mean that we just want to cover up rather than heal the wound. Even worse: it would mean that the injustice should be left uncorrected – which is the same as agreeing to it. Of course, it is clear that it will not be possible to completely right all the wrongs. However, also for this reason we are morally bound to try and do at least what we can.”13 With this official standpoint the Roman Catholic Church in Slovenia joined the reconciliatory efforts and started acting as an advocate of the undisclosed victims’ interests. In relation to the state it attempted to assert itself as an equal partner and partly also as the only true representative of the Slovenian nation or at least as its supreme moral authority. A variety of civil initiatives may have surfaced with regard to the question of rec- onciliation, at least in the initial period, for example those proposed by the United under the Linden Tree of Reconciliation civil society (Združeni ob lipi sprave, Stan- islav Klep) or the New Slovenian Covenant (Nova slovenska zaveza). However, these were more or less variations that were basically identical as the standpoints expressed by the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church in Slovenia in 1990. Otherwise the reconciliation initiative had already been taken in the pivotal days of May 1945. At its session at Tabor on 3 May 1945, the National Committee for Slovenia had drawn up a “proclamation” calling upon “all Slovenians to ensure a general reconciliation in order to release and unite all the modest and weakened national forces, tied up in the internal strife, as in this historical moment they are needed for the purpose of ensuring the highest national goals”.14 As it happened, the Slovenian anti-communists, in the shadow of collaboration, felt the need to call for “general reconciliation” shortly before they emigrated. At that time – as the Allies refrained from responding to all the appeals while the German authorities still remained in 13 “Za globlje razumevanje sprave. Izjava komisije Pravičnost in mir (prof. dr. Anton Stres),” [“For a Deeper Understanding of Reconciliation. The Statement of the Justice and Peace Commission (Pro- fessor Dr Anton Stres)”] Družina, 8 July 1990, 13. 14 Bože Repe, Mimo odprtih vrat. Izbrani dokumenti o dejavnosti okupatorjevih sodelavcev na Slov- enskem [Past the Open Door. Selected Documents about the Activities of the Occupiers’ Collaborators in Slovenia] (Ljubljana: Založba Borec, 1988), 171. Bojan Godeša: Reconciliation instead of History106 charge – according to the President of the National Committee Jože Basaj the anti- communists realised that “this authority was only a shadow, and therefore we decided to disappear from Ljubljana as soon as possible, because the front lines were getting closer suspiciously quickly”.15 Before that, throughout the period of the occupation, the two hostile camps had not appealed to any reconciliation. Only a few initiatives to nego- tiate a cease-fire had been undertaken, including the efforts of Lojze Ude, which had been the most sensible yet unsuccessful nevertheless.16 Among the political emigra- tion in exile, the wish for reconciliation would sporadically appear among individual people (for example Vinko Levstik, Ciril Žebot). Otherwise the political emigration took part in the developments in its homeland mostly through the Slovenian World Congress, established at its constitutive sitting on 27 and 28 June 1991 in Ljubljana and envisioned as an “all-Slovenian organisation, connecting and uniting Slovenians at home and abroad on the basis of the dedication to Slovenianism regardless of their world- view, political and other differences.”17 The issue of the national reconciliation was at the centre of this organisation’s attention ever since its establishment, and it was also listed in its statute as one of its main goals.18 After 1990, when reconciliation was the main topic for a while, this issue became less prominent as the attention of the public focused on the realisation of the Slove- nian emancipation. However, the reconciliatory efforts at the time failed to overcome the ideological divisions.19 It soon became clear that they actually widened the rift. The commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II in 1995 represented an important symbolical turning point in the intensification of the ideo- logical schism. Thus the statement of the Slovenian Episcopal Conference entitled Služiti resnici, pravici in spravi (In the Service of Truth, Justice and Reconciliation) also includes the following: “World War II has been etched in the memory of our nation not only as a sad period of the occupation, but also as a period of the profound division of the nation and the war between brothers. This horrific wound caused by the national discord has not yet healed, and even 50 years after the end of the war we remain incapable of carrying out the essential acts of the national reconciliation. (…) We feel that the current authorities do not show enough motiva- 15 Boris Mlakar, “Protirevolucionarni tabor in konec vojne,” [“The Anti-Revolutionary Camp and the End of the War”] in: Slovenska novejša zgodovina. Od programa Zedinjene Slovenije do mednarodnega priznanja Republike Slovenije 1848–1992, eds. Jasna Fischer et al. (Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 2005), 777. 16 Bojan Godeša, “Lojze Ude in poskus vzpostavitve premirja med drugo svetovno vojno,” [“Lojze Ude and the Attempt to Establish a Cease-Fire During World War II”] Acta Histriae, No. 3 (2013): 283–90. 17 Documentation from the opening session of the Slovenian World Congress, Ljubljana, 27 and 28 June 1991 (Ljubljana: Slovenian World Congress, Conference for the Republic of Slovenia, 1994), 3. 18 Ibid. 19 Božo Repe, Jutri je nov dan. Slovenci in razpad Jugoslavije [Tomorrow is Another Day. Slovenians and the Dissolution of Yugoslavia] (Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2002), 127. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 107 tion and do not provide enough opportunities to explore our recent history and to right the injustices.”20 The interpretation of the ceremony in the Kočevski rog forest in 1990, as it was expressed at the 70th anniversary of the end of the war by the Ljubljana Auxiliary Bishop Anton Jamnik, should be understood in light of the unrealised expectations of the Roman Catholic Church in Slovenia as well. Jamnik stated the following: “This event was carefully orchestrated. Throughout the years, until today, it kept being launched and ‘spun’ by all sorts of media in Slovenia and abroad, thus creating – or, to put it more suc- cinctly, manipulating – the public opinion, conveying an impression that the Kočevski rog cer- emony was a so-called ‘reconciliatory ceremony’ with Archbishop Šuštar and President Kučan as partners in this reconciliation. Such an explanation in fact ‘took root’ among the people, but it was merely manipulation as a result of well-calculated pragmatism. It was a scam that persists even today.”21 Lojze Peterle also believes that the reconciliatory ceremony in Kočevski rog suppos- edly contained “elements of deception”.22 A very similar viewpoint was expressed also by Jože Pučnik at the 33rd Draga Study Days in 1998.23 The President of the Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia at the time, Milan Kučan, stated the following about the issue of reconciliation and the ceremony in Kočevski rog: “How did you expect that the process of reconciliation would continue after Archbishop Alojzij Šuštar and I shook hands? I saw the reconciliatory ceremony as a pious and not a po- litical act. However, in Slovenia the opinion prevailed that this was a political problem in need of a political solution. Is this why you refused to support the Pahor‘s Resolution of 1997, written by Spomenka Hribar? Having learned from my experience with the reconciliatory ceremony in Kočevski rog and the intentional diminishment of its significance, my opinion was that the situation was not yet ready for such a resolution. Otherwise I think that resolutions are not the proper way of addressing this question. I see reconciliation as the maturity of the na- tion, capable of saying at a certain moment: This is our history, our past. It happened, with all its good and its bad. We have to take it as our own and live with it. Resolutions, symbols and 20 Dolinar, Resnici na ljubo, 34–38. 21 Anton Jamnik, “Kdor trdi, da sprava ni možna, je obupal nad človekom,” [“Whoever Claims that Reconciliation is Impossible has Given Up on Humanity”] Slovenski čas (monthly supplement of the Družina newspaper), June 2015. 22 Jernej Vrtovec, Vloga nadškofa Šuštarja pri osamosvojitvi Slovenije [The Role of Archbishop Šuštar in the Attainment of the Slovenian Independence] (Celje: Društvo Mohorjeva družba, Celjska Mohor- jeva družba, 2016), 96. 23 Jože Pučnik, “Sprava kot izhodišče za civilno rast Slovencev iz naroda v državo,” [“Reconcilia- tion as the Basis for the Civil Growth of Slovenians from a Nation into a State”] in: Biti to kar si. 33. študijski dnevi Draga 98, eds. Sergij Pahor, Saša Martelanc and Marij Maver (Trst: Mladika, 1999), 137, 138. Bojan Godeša: Reconciliation instead of History108 monuments are fine, but they will not lead to any results by themselves. For as long as reconcili- ation is not in the interest of the politics, it will not happen. I see reconciliation especially as an intimate human act. However, I often ask myself whether anything can be more reconciliatory among Slovenians as the joint creation of the state and the current responsibility for its future. Unfortunately, Slovenian politics refused to recognise this act as an act of reconciliation. Oth- erwise I am convinced that what Slovenia lacks is an anti-fascist agreement, and this impedes reconciliation as I understand it. The current Slovenian politics is not able to reach such an agreement, hence the difficulties in defining the attitude towards totalitarianisms.”24 In the biography Milan Kučan, prvi predsednik (Milan Kučan, the First President), Božo Repe assesses that “the reconciliatory ceremony was one of the most sensitive as well as far-sighted Kučan’s acts in his first term”.25 In accordance with the reconciliatory efforts that the Church circles associated with the demands for the clarification of the wartime events, among the historians – at least some of them – this aspiration has expressed itself in a specific manner. The efforts to ensure “balance”26 were characteristic of the first period. However, after the year 2000 demands emerged to adopt the interpretation that the opponents of the Partisan movement had established already during World War II, maintained in emigration and transplanted to their homeland with the advent of interpretative pluralism as the only credible explanation of the wartime events. In line with the principle where anti-communism equals democracy, the advocates of such theories, appearing with the motto “the triumph of the defeated”, remain convinced that they are the ultimate moral victors of the internal conflict during the war.27 However, such outlook on the wartime events in fact does not bring anything new to the Slovenian historiography and, of course, the whole of the Slovenian soci- ety in the interpretative sense, and we can hardly define it as a revision. Such efforts are actually precisely opposite to what a revision should bring: new thematisation and problematisation of the wartime past. The aforementioned example of decon- structing the myths in order to construct new ones only involves the schematic, ideological and biased efforts to rehabilitate the side that lost the war: the Slovenian forces burdened with collaboration.28 In 1995 a group of historians,29 at the request of the National Assembly of the 24 “Milan Kučan,” in: Slovenija in pika!, eds. Boštjan Furlan, Ožbej Peterle and Marko Balažic (Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 2016), 209–11. 25 Repe, Milan Kučan, 281. 26 Janja Slabe, “Narodna sprava v slovenskih časopisih,” [“National Reconciliation in the Slove- nian Press”] Borec. Revija za zgodovino, antropologijo in književnost, No. 630–634 (2006): 9–60. 27 Bojan Godeša, Spremembe v vrednotenju druge svetovne vojne na Slovenskem po padcu berlin- skega zidu. Lecture at the Historical Seminar of the Scientific Research Institute of the Slovenian Acad- emy of Sciences and Arts in Ljubljana on 12 May 2016, [Changes in the Assessment of World War II in Slovenia after the Fall of the Berlin Wall] acquired on 10 June 2016, https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=KkpyJ2GKuI8. 28 Ibid. 29 Zdenko Čepič, Tone Ferenc, Aleš Gabrič, Bojan Godeša, Boris Mlakar, Dušan Nećak, Jože Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 109 Republic of Slovenia, even prepared a scientific report about the contemporary his- tory of Slovenians entitled Key Characteristics of the Slovenian Politics 1929-1955,30 which was supposed to represent the historiographical foundation for the way in which the National Assembly would address certain open questions about the recent past. However, even this attempt to elevate the discussion from the political sphere to the scientific level failed to appease the passions involved in the examination of the unresolved past. Generally the more reconciliatory and well thought-out emphases, opposing the widespread atmosphere of the cultural struggle, were exceedingly rare. Let me under- line, for example, the speech of the President of the Government at the time, Janez Janša, at Mala gora on the Day of Uprising against Occupation in April 200531 and the discussion during the relocation of the mortal remains of Bishop Rožman to the minster in the spring of 2013.32 Even this most likely took place only because the President of the State Kučan refused to let Rožman’s reburial turn into a political manifestation.33 Throughout this time, the Federation of Associations of National Liberation War Veterans (hereinafter the ZZB) has had a clear, consistent and principled standpoint with regard to reconciliation – a term that it always uses merely in quotation marks. As it is, the ZZB uses the term “appeasement”, which was already used in the State- ment of the Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia. In its Statement of the Federation of War Veterans about the Values, the Presidency of the ZZB for the values of the Na- tional Liberation Struggle of Slovenia summed up its standpoint with regard to this issue at the session on 6 October 2015: “So, what is the difference between APPEASEMENT and ‘reconciliation’? The fact that the attempt to criminalise the Partisan movement is being referred to as ‘reconciliation’ (...) speaks for itself. (…) The wartime and post-war executions of the disarmed adherents of the occupa- tion military and police units has often been condemned and expressly regretted by the ZZB34 Prinčič, Janko Prunk, Božo Repe, Anka Vidovič-Miklavčič, Peter Vodopivec and Milan Ževart. 30 Zdenko Čepič et al., eds., Ključne značilnosti slovenske politike v letih 1929–1955. Znanstveno poročilo [Key Characteristics of the Slovenian Politics 1929-1955. Scientific report] (Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 1995). 31 Govor predsednika Vlade RS Janeza Janše | SDS, [A speech by the President of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia Janez Janša | SDS] acquired on 10 June 2016, http://www.sds.si/novica/ govor-predsednika-vlade-rs-janeza-janse-3264. 32 Jožica Grgič, “Kočljivi medvojni položaj ljubljanskega škofa. Zgodovinarja Dolinar in Godeša o Rožmanu,” [“The Awkward Wartime Position of the Ljubljana Bishop. Historians Dolinar and Godeša on Rožman”] Delo, 12 April 2013, 3. Aleksander Kolednik, “Griesser-Pečarjeva: Rožman si je priza- deval, da bi narod s čim manjšimi izgubami prebrodil vojno,” [“Griesser-Pečar: Rožman strived to ensure that the nation could make it through the war with as few losses as possible”] (11 April 2013), acquired on 10 June 2016, http://siol.net/novice/slovenija/griesser-pecarjeva-rozman-si-je-prizadeval- da-bi-narod-s-cim-manjsimi-izgubami-prebrodil-vojno-159685. 33 Repe, Milan Kučan, 431. 34 Speaking about this issue, we should also mention the contribution written by Janez Stanovnik, the long-time President of the ZZB for the Values of the National Liberation Struggle of Slovenia, Bojan Godeša: Reconciliation instead of History110 (...) The ZZB has frequently expressed and emphasised its non-discriminatory view to the respectful burial of all the dead. However, at the same time it has resolutely opposed the exploi- tation of these issues, especially the piety towards the dead, in order to reignite the ideological and political conflicts. (…) Through various manipulations, ‘reconciliation’ has attempted to rehabilitate the Home Guard movement and associate it with the resistance; and abusing the reverence towards the dead has become an important part of this strategy! Therefore ‘reconcili- ation’ is not a ‘precondition’ for appeasement, but rather its opposite.”35 The efforts to ensure reconciliation as the basic characteristic of resolving the war- time past in the last 25 years can be defined synthetically with the finding that Božo Repe used years ago as a title for a discussion of his: Reconciliation as the Cultural Struggle.36 The result of this fact is also completely evident today: with every recon- ciliatory declaration the conflicts and ideological divisions in the Slovenian society are only deepening.37 Who is responsible for such a state of affairs in the Slovenian society? The answer may not be completely unequivocal, as it seems that such a situation actually suits many people on both sides, in a way. However, differences were already evident in the very definition of the foundations of the reconciliatory process in the aforemen- tioned statements of the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia and the Slovenian Episcopal Conference. While the former focuses especially on the aspect of piety involved in reconciliation and recommends that the resolution of the pressing issues from the past be depoliticised, in this regard the Roman Catholic Church has made very resolute demands for the re-evaluation of the past, which it has supported with the line of reasoning that “only truth can set us free and function as the basis for reconciliation, which would allow for appeasement”.38 Despite these very obvious dif- ferences, today it is completely clear that the core of the problem nonetheless lies especially in the manner of dealing with the past, which is still seen in a number of diverse ways in the Slovenian society. In view of the fact that until the events related to the fall of the Berlin Wall a biased image of World War II had been dominant in Slovenia, it became clear that this war should nevertheless be interpretatively up- dated and placed in a new balance. In fact, this should actually be beyond any doubt. “Obvojni poboji in narodna pomiritev,” [“Wartime Executions and the National Appeasement”] in: Slovenski zbornik 2014. Narodnoosvobodilni boj in današnji čas, eds. Janez Stanovnik et al. (Ljubljana: Zveza združenj borcev za vrednote NOB Slovenije, 2014), 91–99. 35 “Statement of the Presidency of the ZZB about the values of the National Liberation Struggle of Slovenia, adopted at the session on 6 October 2015,” Sporočila. Zveza združenj borcev za vrednote NOB Slovenije, No. 10 (October 2015): 2, 3. 36 Božo Repe, “Sprava kot kulturni boj,” [“Reconciliation as the Cultural Struggle”] in: Onstran demokracije. Izjave in stališče Liberalne akademije po letu 2005, ed. Božidar Flajšman (Ljubljana: Libe- ralna akademija, 2009), 93–101. 37 Bojan Godeša, “Social and Cultural Aspects of the Historiography on the Second World War in Slovenia,” Sozialgeschichte und soziale Bewegungen in Slowenien / Social History and Social Move- ments in Slovenia. Mitteilungsblatt des Instituts für soziale Bewegungen 41 (2009): 111–25. 38 Dolinar, Resnici na ljubo, 31–34. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 111 However, what had at its initial stages been a completely legitimate demand to clarify the past has not developed into a constructive dialogue, aimed at a comprehensive analysis of the wartime events by means of an unbiased, scientifically irreproachable method. As it happened, the demands for “reconciliation on the basis of truth” soon turned into a struggle for the interpretative dominance in the Slovenian society and did not always adhere to scientific standards. In this sense the process was an attempt to assert the methods that Braco Rotar shrewdly described with the title of his con- tribution Reconciliation Instead of History39 in the survey conducted by the Razgledi magazine, entitled What Has Happened to Our History? If we keep our distance and look at how the reconciliatory issues have developed after the time when the question of the national reconciliation became topical in the Slovenian society, especially thanks to Spomenka Hribar, and until today, we can ascertain that the predictions of the analysts of the contemporaneous State Security Service have largely come true. These analysts assessed, already back in 1986, that the “goal of the ‘national reconciliation’ is to ensure that the defeated forces have enough space for rehabilitation and consolidation”.40 Thus it is characteristic for the advocates of the “emigrant” interpretation or, as they claim themselves, for the supporters of the new, ideologically unburdened views that they operate extremely confidently, often even aggressively; and first and fore- most their side keeps bringing up the topics that should supposedly still be studied or re-evaluated. In a part of the Slovenian historiography the emigrant explanation has in fact asserted itself as a credible interpretation of the wartime events. In the name of the “struggle for the truth”, ever since the ideological relaxation in the middle of the 1980s its advocates have in fact – by selectively emphasising certain topics – dic- tated the orientation according to which the developments during World War II in Slovenia should be understood. On the other hand, after the fall of the Berlin Wall the left has suffered an identity crisis and gone on the defensive: it seems as if it lacks any vision and that it is unable to find solutions to problems, related to the attitude towards the past which is seen as disputable by the society. Many adherents of the left have experienced significant dif- ficulties with accepting the fact that interpretative pluralism has become completely legitimate also in the Slovenian society. Therefore – at least as far as the exploration of the ambiguous periods of the recent history is concerned – one of the basic char- acteristics of the representatives of the left is their exceedingly defensive posture. In the interpretative sense it is also possible to note a lack of innovative approaches in the substantive as well as methodological sense. However, in contrast with such trends, visibly present in the Slovenian society, the newest analyses of this issue, carried out by the author of this text, have refuted 39 Rotar, “Sprava namesto zgodovine.” 40 SI AS 1931, box 3085, “Nacionalno pomirenje” kao deo taktike unutrašnjeg i spoljnjeg nepri- jatelja (analitički osvrt) [“National Reconciliation” as a Part of the Tactics of our Internal and External Enemy (Analytical Viewpoint)”]. Belgrade, 4 March 1986. Bojan Godeša: Reconciliation instead of History112 the “emigrant” theory in its entirety: not only as biased and black-and-white, but also as a completely implausible explanation without any basis in scientifically-veri- fiable facts.41 The most blatant example of imposing such interpretations, historically com- pletely preposterous according to the scientific standards, expressed itself in the de- mand for the renewal of the proceedings against the Ljubljana Bishop Dr Gregorij Rožman. As it was, the rehabilitation of Bishop Rožman had been the primary goal of the Roman Catholic Church in Slovenia all along. Janko Pleterski commented on these endeavours with the following words: “By no means will they let the man42 remain in history, they would rather forge him into a weapon for their current political struggle, use him as an object, a kind of a battering ram, for this struggle.”43 Ever since 1995 official efforts had been invested in the exhumation of Rožman’s mortal remains and reburial in his homeland, and the precondition of the Church was his rehabilita- tion, as “first we have to annul the unjust process against Rožman – otherwise Bishop Rožman should remain buried at the Franciscan cemetery in Lemont”.44 In the context of the imposition of such conditions, the Vatican State Secretary Cardinal Angelo Soldano explained the viewpoint of the Vatican in written correspondence with the then President of the State Kučan, “that the reburial should depend on Rožman’s legal and political rehabilitation”.45 Naturally, such endeavours do not only call for the re- evaluation of Rožman‘s wartime role, but rather, in view of the symbolic significance and his vital role in the time of the occupation, also for the rehabilitation of all that he stood for during the war. One of the key arguments for the proposal on the renewal of the judicial process against Rožman was the alleged “new evidence”. This evidence supposedly exonerated the convicted Bishop, of course. Some of this evidence had in fact existed already during the initial trial, but the military court refused to take it into account regardless of being aware of it. However, it is true that also other, new and aggravating evidence came to light later. This evidence was not taken into ac- count and suitably placed in the contemporaneous historical context by the authors of the historical expertise, consisting of two independent parts46 and written by two authors, which represented the historical basis for the proposal on the renewal of the criminal proceedings in the “Rožman Case”. It is a fact that this evidence – especially certain published diplomatic and military documents originating in Germany, Italy 41 The problem of the actions of (especially) the Catholic Camp at the beginning of the Axis Power aggression against Yugoslavia was explored in Bojan Godeša, Čas odločitev. Katoliški tabor in začetek okupacije [Time of Decisions: Catholic Camp and the Beginning of the Occupation] (Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 2011). 42 Referring to Bishop Rožman. 43 Janko Pleterski, “Uvodna beseda,” [“Introduction”] in: Škof Rožman v zgodovini, eds. Janez Stanovnik, Slavko Grčar and Hardvik Pirnovar (Ljubljana: Društvo piscev zgodovine NOB Slovenije, 2008), 6. 44 Repe, Milan Kučan, 431, 432. 45 Ibid. 46 France M. Dolinar and Tamara Griesser-Pečar, Rožmanov proces [The Rožman Process] (Lju- bljana: Družina, 1996). Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 113 and the Vatican – would have made it much easier for the court, had it had these documents at its disposal at the time, to pass a much more transparent judgement, which would have been, from the viewpoint of its historical credibility, impossible to refute even according to the legal order and values of the today‘s Slovenian soci- ety.47 Even though the results of this research had not yet been presented at the time, President Kučan’s opinion, expressed in the correspondence with the Vatican State Secretary Cardinal Sordano, was that the reburial should not be based on the legal and political rehabilitation of Bishop Rožman. Instead it should be seen merely as a pious act, stemming from Rožman’s right to his grave.48 In view of the most recent historiographical discoveries, this opinion has nevertheless turned out to be much more appropriate, also from the viewpoint of the historical credibility. In the discussion Slovenian Historical Burden that the German historian Joachim Hösler, who also wrote a few monographs on the Slovenian history, prepared for the needs of the German politics, Hösler establishes the following: During World War II nationalism meant survival for the Partisans and the Home Guard. Today it functions as an ideology of reconciliation. In this regard the ‘national unity’ and ‘collective identity’ are merely illusions of reality, supported by intellectuals and politicians. Democratic and plural societies cannot and simply do not need to become ‘one’. Much can be achieved already with an open and civilised discussion about the conflict of interests”.49 However, this way of shedding light on the wartime developments has not pre- vailed in the Slovenian society. It seems that the opinion closest to Hösler‘s – at least as far as the question of the national reconciliation is concerned – is that of Spomenka Hribar, who, in her essay Guilt and Sin in the middle of the 1980s, estab- lished the problem of reconciliation as a socially-relevant question.50 In the Razgledi magazine in 1994, Hribar argued for a completely different standpoint with regard to the role of reconciliation, as it was understood (especially) in the Church circles. She emphasised the following: “Not many issues involve as many misunderstandings as the question of reconciliation, since the dominant opinion is that reconciliation: 1) is related to the past and it is supposedly meant to ‘manage’ the past affairs; and 2) concerns the wartime opponents, which should thus ‘rec- oncile’, and they should achieve this by admitting to a single interpretation (the Truth) about 47 Bojan Godeša, “O političnem delovanju ljubljanskega škofa dr. Gregorija Rožmana v prvih mesecih okupacije,” [“On the Political Activity of the Ljubljana Bishop Dr Gregorij Rožman in the First Months of the Occupation”] Zgodovinski časopis, No. 2 (2013): 152–70. Bojan Godeša, “O škofovi odgovornosti,” [“On the Bishop›s Responsibility”] Mladina, 31 July 2015, 29. Bojan Godeša, “Enega mita ni mogoče zamenjati z drugim,” [“One Myth Cannot be Replaced by Another”] (Interview by Ženja Leiler), Delo, 27 May 2016, 21. 48 Repe, Milan Kučan, 431, 432. 49 Joachim Hösler, “Sloweniens historische Bürde,” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 2006, 46. 50 Spomenka Hribar, “Krivda in greh,” [“Guilt and Sin”] in: Kocbekov zbornik, ed. Dimitrij Rupel (Maribor: Založba Obzorja, 1987), 6–68. Bojan Godeša: Reconciliation instead of History114 the dispute. According to such reasoning it is logical that reconciliation is actually supposed to involve the political rehabilitation or even victory of what has until now been the unstated truth against the opposite side, or that the ‘new’ truth is supposed to be a kind of a combina- tion of both interpretations. As this is impossible, of course, we can establish that reconciliation is an unattainable goal, a dream, an ideology, an eternal imperative, the work of Sisyphus, and after all – ‘that reconciliation’! And what does reconciliation have to do with the past? Nothing at all! The past is what it used to be! There is nothing to change and revise. It is the task of the historians to explore the past and keep explaining it again and again, from new viewpoints. Meanwhile, reconciliation matters to us, here and now, because we have a future ahead of us. It is a new beginning, a consensus that the future will not be like the past, because that would be devastating! Reconciliation is not the eradication of differences, but rather quite the opposite – an a priori assent to these differences. Therefore it presupposes diversity: various political standpoints, obstacles, interpretations of history and one‘s own role in it, ideas and dreams about the future, personal truths, political interests – the only presupposition of all these dissimilarities is that people – those who subscribe to and declare all these legitimate and humanly justifiable differences – wish to and want to live in harmony. In this sense – and only in this sense – reconciliation also involves an attitude towards the past, as it consciously puts an end to one period and begins another. If this is not so – if reconciliation does not exist – the old keeps dragging on!”51 Sources and Literature Archive sources: • SI AS, Arhiv Republike Slovenije: º SI AS 1931, Republiški sekretariat za notranje zadeve. Literature: • “Izjava Predsedstva ZZB NOB Slovenije o vrednotah, sprejeta na seji 6. oktobra 2015.” [Statement of the Presidency of the ZZB about the values of the National Liberation Struggle of Slovenia, adopted at the session on 6 October 2015] Sporočila. Zveza združenj borcev za vrednote NOB Slo- venije. October 2015, 10. • “Milan Kučan.” In: Slovenija in pika!, eds. Boštjan Furlan, Ožbej Peterle and Marko Balažic, 189– 213. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 2016. • “Z narodno spravo – konec državljanske vojne?.” Borec. Revija za zgodovino, antropologijo in knji- ževnost 42, No. 5-6-7 (1990): 582–716. • Čepič, Zdenko, Tone Ferenc, Aleš Gabrič, Bojan Godeša, Boris Mlakar, Dušan Nećak, Jože Prinčič, Janko Prunk, Božo Repe, Anka Vidovič-Miklavčič, Peter Vodopivec and Milan Ževart. Ključne značilnosti slovenske politike v letih 1929-1955. Znanstveno poročilo. [Key Characteristics of the Slo- venian Politics 1929-1955. Scientific report] Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 1995. • Delo, 5 March 1990, “Narodna umiritev kot pogoj za mirno sožitje.” [“National Appeasement as a Condition for Peaceful Coexistence”] • Dolinar, France Martin and Tamara Griesser – Pečar. Rožmanov proces. [The Rožman Process] Lju- bljana: Družina, 1996. 51 Spomenka Hribar, “‘Sprava ni konsenz o preteklosti, temveč o prihodnosti’ (Kaj se je zgodilo s slovensko zgodovino? (6. del)),” [“‘Reconciliation is Not a Consensus about the Past, It is a Consensus about the Future’ (What has Happened to the Slovenian History? (Part 6))”], Razgledi, 13 May 1994, 18, 19. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 115 • Dolinar, France Martin. Resnici na ljubo. Izjave ljubljanskih škofov o medvojnih dogodkih. [Truth Be Told. Statements of the Ljubljana Bishops about the Wartime Events] Ljubljana: Družina, 1998. • Družina, 8 July 1990, 13, “Za globlje razumevanje sprave. Izjava komisije Pravičnost in mir (prof. dr. Anton Stres).” [“For a Deeper Understanding of Reconciliation. The Statement of the Justice and Peace Commission (Professor Dr Anton Stres)”] • Godeša, Bojan. “Enega mita ni mogoče zamenjati z drugim.” [“One Myth Cannot be Replaced by Another”] (Interview by Ženja Leiler). Delo, 27 May 2016. • Godeša, Bojan. “Lojze Ude in poskus vzpostavitve premirja med drugo svetovno vojno.” [“Lojze Ude and the Attempt to Establish a Cease-Fire During World War II”] Acta Histriae 21, 3 (2013): 283-90. • Godeša, Bojan. “O političnem delovanju ljubljanskega škofa dr. Gregorija Rožmana v prvih mese- cih okupacije.” [“On the Political Activity of the Ljubljana Bishop Dr Gregorij Rožman in the First Months of the Occupation”] Zgodovinski časopis 67, No. 2 (2013): 152–70. • Godeša, Bojan. “O škofovi odgovornosti.” [“On the Bishop‘s Responsibility”] Mladina, 31 July 2015. • Godeša, Bojan. “Social and cultural aspects of the historiography on the Second World War in Slovenia,” Sozialgeschichte und soziale Bewegungen in Slowenien / Social History and Social Mo- vements in Slovenia. Mitteilungsblatt des Instituts für soziale Bewegungen 41, (2009): 111–25. • Godeša, Bojan. Čas odločitev. Katoliški tabor in začetek okupacije. [Time of Decisions: Catholic Camp and the Beginning of the Occupation] Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 2011. • Godeša, Bojan. Spremembe v vrednotenju druge svetovne vojne na Slovenskem po padcu berlinskega zidu. [Changes in the Assessment of World War II in Slovenia after the Fall of the Berlin Wall] Lecture at the Historical Seminar of the Scientific Research Institute of the Slovenian Academy of Scien- ces and Arts in Ljubljana on 12 May 2016. Acquired on 10 June 2016. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=KkpyJ2GKuI8. • Govor predsednika Vlade RS Janeza Janše | SDS. [A speech by the President of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia Janez Janša | SDS] Acquired on 22 June 2016. http://www.sds.si/novica/ govor-predsednika-vlade-rs-janeza-janse-3264. • Gradivo otvoritvenega zasedanja Svetovnega slovenskega kongresa, Ljubljana, 27. in 28. junija 1991. Ljubljana: Svetovni slovenski kongres, Konferenca za R. Slovenijo, 1994. • Grgič, Jožica. “Kočljivi medvojni položaj ljubljanskega škofa. Zgodovinarja Dolinar in Godeša o Rožmanu.” [“The Awkward Wartime Position of the Ljubljana Bishop. Historians Dolinar and Godeša on Rožman”] Delo, 12 April 2013. • Hösler, Joachim. “Sloweniens historische Bürde.” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 2006, 46. Acquired on 22 June 2016. http://www.bpb.de/apuz/29421/sloweniens-historische-buerde?p=all. • Hribar, Spomenka. “Krivda in greh.” [“Guilt and Sin”] In: Kocbekov zbornik, ed. Dimitrij Rupel, 6–68. Maribor: Založba Obzorja, 1987. • Hribar, Spomenka. “‘Sprava ni konsenz o preteklosti, temveč o prihodnosti’ (Kaj se je zgodilo s slovensko zgodovino? (6. del)).” [“‘Reconciliation is Not a Consensus about the Past, It is a Con- sensus about the Future’ (What has Happened to the Slovenian History? (Part 6))”] Razgledi, 13 May 1994. • Jamnik, Anton. “Kdor trdi, da sprava ni možna, je obupal nad človekom.” [“Whoever Claims that Reconciliation is Impossible has Given Up on Humanity”] Slovenski čas (monthly supplement of the Družina newspaper), June 2015. • Kolednik, Aleksander. “Griesser - Pečarjeva: Rožman si je prizadeval, da bi narod s čim manjšimi izgubami prebrodil vojno” [“Griesser-Pečar: Rožman strived to ensure that the nation could make it through the war with as few losses as possible”] (11 April 2013). Acquired on 10 June 2016. http:// siol.net/novice/slovenija/griesser-pecarjeva-rozman-si-je-prizadeval-da-bi-narod-s-cim-manjsimi- -izgubami-prebrodil-vojno-159685. • Kos, Stane, Stalinistična revolucija na Slovenskem, I. Rim: Samozaložba, 1984. • Levstik, Vinko. Tri odprta pisma k narodni spravi. Rim, 1968. • Milan Kučan; Spravna slovesnost v Kočevskem rogu [Milan Kučan; the reconciliatory ceremony in Kočevski rog]. Acquired on 10 June 2016. http://www2.gov.si/up-rs/2002-2007/bp-mk.nsf/doku- menti/08.07.1990-90-92. Bojan Godeša: Reconciliation instead of History116 • Mlakar, Boris. “Protirevolucionarni tabor in konec vojne.” In: Slovenska novejša zgodovina. Od pro- grama Zedinjene Slovenije do mednarodnega priznanja Republike Slovenije 1848-1992, eds. Jasna Fischer, Žarko Lazarević, Ervin Dolenc, Jurij Perovšek, Bojan Godeša, Zdenko Čepič and Aleš Gabrič, 773–78. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 2005. • Pesek, Rosvita. Bučar. Celovec: Mohorjeva, 2016. • Pleterski, Janko, “Uvodna beseda.” [“Introduction”] In: Škof Rožman v zgodovini, eds. Janez Sta- novnik, Slavko Grčar, Hardvik Pirnovar, 5–6. Ljubljana: Društvo piscev zgodovine NOB Slovenije, 2008. • Pleterski, Janko. “O NOB in spravi.” [“On the National Liberation Struggle and Reconciliation”] In: Narodnoosvobodilni boj v slovenskem narodnem spominu: slovenski zbornik 2007, ed. Janez Sta- novnik, Slavko Grčar and Hardvik Pirnovar, 23–31. Ljubljana: GO ZZB NOB Slovenije, 2007. • Pučnik, Jože. “Sprava kot izhodišče za civilno rast Slovencev iz naroda v državo.” [“Reconciliation as the Basis for the Civil Growth of Slovenians from a Nation into a State”] In: Biti to kar si. 33. študijski dnevi Draga 98, eds. Sergij Pahor, Saša Martelanc, Marij Maver. Trst: Mladika, 1999. • Repe, Božo. “Sprava kot kulturni boj.” [“Reconciliation as the Cultural Struggle”] In: Onstran demokracije. Izjave in stališče Liberalne akademije po letu 2005, ed. Božidar Flajšman, 93–101. Lju- bljana: Liberalna akademija, 2009. • Repe, Božo. Jutri je nov dan. Slovenci in razpad Jugoslavije. [Tomorrow is Another Day. Slovenians and the Dissolution of Yugoslavia] Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2002. • Repe, Božo. Mimo odprtih vrat. Izbrani dokumenti o dejavnosti okupatorjevih sodelavcev na Sloven- skem. [Past the Open Door. Selected Documents about the Activities of the Occupiers‘ Collabora- tors in Slovenia] Ljubljana: Založba Borec, 1988. • Repe, Božo. Viri o demokratizaciji in osamosvojitvi Slovenije. 2. del. – Slovenci in federacija. [Reso- urces on the Democratisation of Slovenia and its Attainment of Independence. Part 2 – Slovenians and the Federation] Ljubljana: Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2003. • Rotar, Braco. “Sprava namesto zgodovine,” [“Reconciliation Instead of History”] Razgledi, 27 May 1994. • Roter, Zdenko. Padle maske. Od partizanskih sanj do novih dni. [Masks Removed. From the Partisan Dreams to the New Days] Ljubljana: Sever & Sever, 2013. • Rozman, Branko. “Vizije in meje narodne sprave.” In: Čez prepad revolucije. 24. študijski dnevi Draga 89, 81-111. Trst: Mladika, 1990. • Slabe, Janja. “Narodna sprava v slovenskih časopisih.” [“National Reconciliation in the Slovenian Press”] Borec. Revija za zgodovino, antropologijo in književnost 58, 630–634 (2006): 9–60. • Stanovnik, Janez. “Obvojni poboji in narodna pomiritev.” [“Wartime Executions and the Natio- nal Appeasement”] In: Slovenski zbornik 2014. Narodnoosvobodilni boj in današnji čas, eds. Janez Stanovnik, Slavko Grčar, Matjaž Kmecl, Jože Pirjevec, Maca Jogan, Božo Kovač and Mitja Klavora (Ljubljana: Zveza združenj borcev za vrednote NOB Slovenije, 2014), 91–99. • Vrtovec, Jernej. Vloga nadškofa Šuštarja pri osamosvojitvi Slovenije. [The Role of Archbishop Šuštar in the Attainment of the Slovenian Independence] Celje: Celjska Mohorjeva družba, 2016. Bojan Godeša SPRAVA NAMESTO ZGODOVINE P O V Z E T E K Kot temeljno značilnost razčiščevanja medvojne preteklosti v zadnjih 25 letih lahko prizadevanja za spravo v sintetični obliki sklenemo z ugotovitvijo: z vsako spravno deklaracijo se nasprotja in ideološke delitve v slovenski družbi le še poglabljajo. Kdo je odgovoren za tako stanje v slovenski družbi? Odgovor sicer ne more biti povsem enoznačen, glede na to, da se zdi, da takšne razmere na neki način pravzaprav ustrezajo mnogim na obeh straneh. Razlike so bile razvidne že v opredelitvi izhodišč za spravni proces v omenjenih izjavah predsedstva SRS in Slovenske škofovske konference. Medtem, ko prva izpostavlja predvsem pietetni vidik spravnega de- Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 117 janja ter priporoča depolitizacijo pri reševanju perečih vprašanj iz preteklosti, pa je RKC v tem pogledu zelo odločno postavila zahtevo po prevrednotenju preteklosti, kar so utemeljevali, da “edino resnica nas more osvoboditi, biti podlaga za spravo in omogočiti pot k pomiritvi”. Kljub tem zelo očitnim razlikam, je danes vendarle že povsem jasno, da je jedro problema vendarle predvsem v načinu obrav- nave preteklosti, o kateri v slovenski družbi sicer obstajajo zelo razlikujoče se ocene. Glede na to, da je do dogodkov, povezanih s padcem berlinskega zidu, prevladovala pristranska podoba druge svetovne vojne na Slovenskem, je postalo jasno, da jo je vsekakor treba interpretativno posodobiti in spraviti v novo ravnovesje. O tem pravzaprav ne bi smelo biti nobenega dvoma. Vendar se v osnovi popolnoma legitimna zahteva po razčiščevanju preteklosti ni razvila v prevlado konstruktivnega dialoga, ki bi bil z nepristranskim, znanstveno neoporečnim pristopom usmerjen k celoviti obravnavi medvojnega doga- janja. Kmalu se je namreč zahteva “po spravi, katere pogoj je resnica”, sprevrgla v boj za interpretativno prevlado v slovenski družbi, ki ne upošteva vedno znanstvenih meril. Razlaga zagovornikov medvojnega s kolaboracijo obremenjenega protikomunističnega tabora se je tudi v delu slovenskega zgodovinopisja po osamosvojitvi uveljavila kot verodostojna interpretacija medvojnega dogajanja. Vendar so najnovejše poglobitve v to problematiko, ki jih je opravil pisec teh vrstic, “emigrantsko” tezo v celoti ovrgle, in to ne le kot pristransko in črno-belo, temveč kot popolno- ma neverodostojno razlago, ki nima podlage v znanstveno preverljivih dejstvih. Najbolj prepričljivo se je neverodostojnost te interpretacija pokazala v zahtevi po sodni in politični rehabilitaciji ljubljanskega škofa dr. Gregorija Rožmana. Eden ključnih razlogov za predlog po obnovitvi procesa proti Rožmanu naj bi bili tudi “novi do- kazi”, ki naj bi seveda razbremenjevali obsojenega škofa. Vendar v zgodovinski ekspertizi Rožmanov proces, ki je predstavljala historiografsko podlago predloga za obnovo kazenskega postopka v “zadevi Rožman”, avtorja nista upoštevala oz. nista na ustrezen način umestila v tedanji historični kontekst vseh dosegljivih dokumentov. Dejstvo je, da bi ti dokumenti, ki so bili odkriti kasneje, sodišču, če bi z njimi razpolagalo, olajšali podati mnogo bolj transparentno obsodbo. Te ne bi bilo moč na podlagi historiografske verodostojnosti zavrniti niti s stališč pravnega reda, niti z vidika političnih vrednot, na katerih temelji današnja slovenska demokratična in pluralna družba. Rožman je bil leta 2007 in nato 2009 sicer sodno rehabilitiran zaradi očitnih postopkovnih napak v procesu leta 1946. Sicer pa na podlagi omenjenih razkritij sodobne slovenske historiografije za Rožmanovo politično rehabilitacijo ne obstajajo nikakršni razlogi, ki bi izvirali iz znanstveno preverljivih dejstev. Vesna Gotovina: Archival Materials of the State Authorities Related to the Processes of ...118 * Head, Sector for the Protection of Government Administration Records after 1945, Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia, Archives of the Republic of Slovenia, Zvezdarska 1, SI–1127 Ljubljana, vesna.gotovina@ gov.si 1.01 UDC: 930.25:94(497.4)"1991" Vesna Gotovina* Archival Materials of the State Authorities Related to the Processes of Democratisation and the Attainment of Independence of Slovenia IZVLEČEK ARHIVSKO GRADIVO DRŽAVNIH ORGANOV O PROCESIH DEMOKRATIZACIJE IN OSAMOSVAJANJA SLOVENIJE Večji del arhivskega gradiva o procesih demokratizacije in osamosvajanja Republike Slovenije se še vedno hrani pri ustvarjalcih ali imetnikih arhivskega gradiva. Arhivska zakonodaja predpi- suje, da se gradivo izroča najkasneje trideset let po nastanku. Zato avtorica v prispevku opozarja tudi na nekatere nevarnosti, ki ogrožajo arhivsko gradivo, še neprevzeto v pristojne arhive. Ključne besede: arhivsko gradivo, osamosvojitev Slovenije, dostopnost arhivskega gradiva, ohranjenost arhivskega gradiva ABSTRACT The major part of the archival materials related to the processes of democratisation and the at- tainment of independence of the Republic of Slovenia is still in the custody of the creators or holders of the archival materials. According to the archival legislation the materials are to be submitted to the archives not later than thirty years after their creation. Therefore the author of this contribution also points out various threats endangering the archival materials which are yet to be acquired by the competent archives. Keywords: archival materials, attainment of independence of Slovenia, accessibility of archival materials, preservation of archival materials Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 119 1 Introduction One of the basic tasks of the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia is the preserva- tion of the archival materials produced by the highest state administration, justice administration and legislative bodies during the implementation of their functions. What are archival materials? Archival materials are documentary materials with a long-term importance for history, other sciences and culture, or for the legal certain- ty of individuals; they constitute a cultural monument.1 Since the attainment of in- dependence this definition has been extended in the part referring to the “long-term importance for the legal certainty of individuals”. In Slovenia the public archival materials are kept in the national archives (the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia), regional archives (regional and historical), and archives of the local self-governing communities. As archivists who appraise documentary materials on the basis of archival princi- ples and appraisal criteria governed by law2, we keep asking ourselves which contents and sorts of documentary materials – produced in extreme quantities in this day and age – should be preserved for the next generations. The burden of responsibil- ity has become even heavier as our historical period represents a turning point and we ourselves, in a certain way, also shape the image of the times we live in. We are well-aware of this extremely important mission. Therefore the materials produced by some of the most important bodies in relation to the most important events from the period of the attainment of independence and democratisation of Slovenia are almost entirely defined as a cultural monument (the condition of the materials is also taken into account).3 The archivists who cooperate with the creators of the archival materials have to prepare “written expert instructions on the selection of archival materials from docu- mentary materials” for each public body and update these instructions each time the body is restructured. Completely new expert instructions have to be prepared in the event of a major restructuring of the administration.4 With the entry into force of the Decree on Administrative Operations in 2005, documentary materials gain the 1 ZVDAGA, Article 2. 2 ZVDAGA, Article 40. The criteria for evaluation: requirements of historiography, other sciences and culture; needs of persons for permanent legal certainty; importance of the contents of the materials; specificity of events and phenomena at a certain point in time; specificity of places or regions; impor- tance of public bodies; importance of the author; significance of the materials from the viewpoint of cultural diversity; originality of documents and their duplication (the materials most perfectly reflecting the contents are specified); originality of data and information; representative selection – samples; con- dition and volume of materials created; intrinsic and external characteristics of the materials (language, artistic value, means of recording); other criteria as specified by the competent archives. 3 For example, all materials kept by the Ministry of Defence have been declared as archival mate- rials up to and including 1991. The materials, created during the operations of the Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia, will be treated in a similar manner. 4 These are always reviewed by commissions. Commissions consist of the members of the compe- tent archive and the public body for which the expert instructions are being verified. Vesna Gotovina: Archival Materials of the State Authorities Related to the Processes of ...120 status of archival materials even before they are actually created.5 Archival materials are acquired by archives in the original form, without any technological limitations, arranged, registered, in comprehensive and complete sets and in accordance with the technical provisions. Selecting and accessioning archive materials in digital form represents a specific challenge for the archival science, as it requires additional efforts in order to maintain accessibility, usefulness, integrity, authenticity and sustainability in comparison with the materials in paper (physical) form. Therefore the archival legislation lays down additional expert and technical in- structions for the selection of digital materials. 2 Archival Fonds and Types of Archival Materials of Public Authorities Immediately after the attainment of independence of Slovenia we began to ac- quire the archival materials produced until 1990 by the administrative6 and other bodies that were abolished at that time. 2.1 The most important archival fonds bearing witness to the processes of democratisation and the attainment of independence Researchers and other users of archival materials can access the basic data on ar- chival fonds that are already registered in guides. They are published on the websites of the relevant archives and updated regularly. Therefore this contribution only states some of the most important fonds and collections for: 2.1.1 Political history research: – Government of Slovenia7 (1945–1992). Transcriptions of the first government are not open for research. Access to these materials is subject to approval by the Government of the Republic of Slovenia following a proposal from the archival commission. – Assembly of Slovenia8 (1943–1990). The materials are accessible in their entirety with the exception of submissions and appeals containing protected personal data. – Presidency of Slovenia9 (1974–1990). The materials are accessible in their en- tirety with the exception of applications and appeals of individuals and data on clemencies granted to prisoners. 5 Filing plans with retention periods and provisions on the archival materials are implemented in the information systems for the management of documentary materials. 6 E.g. the Republic Committee for Veterans and Disabled Servicemen, materials of the self-man- agement communities of interest, etc. 7 SI AS 223. 8 SI AS 1115. 9 SI AS 1944. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 121 – Republic Electoral Commission10 (1963–2000). The materials are accessible in their entirety. They also comprise data on the first multiparty elections, the elec- tions of the Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia in 1990, and the presidential elections in 1992. – The collection on plebiscite of 1990.11 The materials are accessible in their en- tirety. All documentation related to the plebiscite and its implementation has been declared a cultural monument. – Government of the Republic of Slovenia Public Relations and Media Office12 (1972–2001). The materials are accessible in their entirety. – Protocol Service of the Republic of Slovenia (1945–1991).13 The materials are accessible in their entirety. – Office of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for National Minorities14 (1974–2012). The materials contain protected personal data. – Office of the Republic of Slovenia for Immigration and Refugees15 (1974–2012). The materials contain protected personal data. – Council for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms16 (1987–1995). The materials contain protected personal data. – Commission for Relations with Religious Communities17 (1953–1991). The materials contain protected personal data. 2.1.1 Economy, agriculture and transport research: – Agency for the Audit of the Ownership Transformation of Companies18 (1993– 2004); – Social Accounting Service19 (1974–2002); – Ministry of Transport and Communications20 (1975–1996); – Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia21 (1987–2003); – Ministry of Economic Relations and Development22 (1994–2002); – Ministry of Finance23 (1945–1993); – Republic Committee for Agriculture, Forestry and Food of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia24 (1972–1991); 10 SI AS 142. 11 SI AS 1210. 12 SI AS 2057. 13 SI AS 2055. 14 SI AS 2046. 15 SI AS 2113. 16 SI AS 2120. 17 SI AS 1211. 18 SI AS 316. 19 SI AS 1214. 20 SI AS 2115. 21 SI AS 2053. 22 SI AS 2089. 23 SI AS 1116. 24 SI AS 1233. Vesna Gotovina: Archival Materials of the State Authorities Related to the Processes of ...122 – Republic Committee for Industry and Construction of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia25 (1965–1991); – Farmland and Forest Fund26 (1918–2014); – Slovenian Roads Agency27 (1967–2008). 2.1.2 Culture, education and science research: – Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia28 (1967– 2004). The materials contain protected personal data. – Slovenian Research Agency29 (1986–2005); – Ministry of Education and Sport30 (1982–2003). The materials contain protect- ed personal data. 2.1.4 Defence policy research The Archives of the Republic of Slovenia signed an agreement with the Minis- try of Defence of the Republic of Slovenia on the extension of the deadline for the submission of the archival materials older than 30 years until 31 December 2025 at the latest. That is the reason why the majority of these materials is not yet available to the public. The relevant Ministry departments are continuously cooperating with the Archives, arranging and describing the materials according to the instructions in order to complete the transfer. 3 Arrangement of Documentary and Archival Materials 3.1 Arrangement of the materials in the custody of creators and holders With the establishment of the new state, administrative operations31 continued in the context of individual government departments and did not involve any such significant changes as might have been expected. We can merely observe that the bod- ies were repeatedly renamed in a very short period of time.32 These kinds of changes usually cause problems for archivists when it comes to the creation of fonds.33 We can point out the clerical operations in the Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia as 25 SI AS 1265. 26 SI AS 2133. 27 SI AS 2079. 28 SI AS 2003. 29 SI AS 2033. 30 SI AS 2026. 31 Vladimir Žumer, Poslovanje z zapisi. Upravljanje in hramba dokumentarnega gradiva, klasifikaci- jski načrti za razvrščanje gradiva z roki hrambe in elektronska hramba gradiva v digitalni obliki (Ljubljana: Planet GV, 2008). 32 For example Republic Committee for Education, Schooling and Physical Culture (16 May 1990 – 22 June 1990), Republic Secretariat for Education, Schooling and Physical Culture (23 June 1990 – 27 June 1991) and Ministry of Education and Sport (28 June 1991 – 14 May 1992). 33 Archival fonds is the archival material, created during the operations of a single legal entity, natural person or family. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 123 an extremely interesting example of administrative operations. Despite the change of the state regime and the transition from the delegate system to the multiparty system, session documents are the only materials we are able to classify according to terms of office – to the period before and after the first multiparty elections. The materials pertaining to the legislative procedure or the adoption of laws are arranged according to the contents of acts until 2008, regardless of the terms of office. Therefore we are not able to differentiate between the legislative procedure materials of the Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia and the National Assembly, established in 1992. Similar also applies to the operations of the other highest administrative and state bodies. As it is evident from the already acquired archival fonds, we have not decided to classify the fonds according to the period before and after the establishment of the Republic of Slovenia. The process of the dissolution of Yugoslavia and recognition of Slovenia was not a momentary, instantaneous event which would cause major and radical changes in the operations of the state authorities. The most profound and expected changes are apparent only in the administrative operations of the new ministerial fields of defence and foreign policy. The quality of documentary and archival materials arrangement fell alarmingly precisely during the processes of democratisation and attainment of independence. Since 1962 the materials were classified34 according to the content and on the basis of the prescribed filing plan. This plan became inadequate already at the end of 1980s and in the beginning of 1990s in terms of contents, especially due to the old, so-called socialist terminology (e.g. socio-political organisation, self-management, etc.). There- fore the existing filing plan was quickly abandoned, and public authorities were left to their own devices and innovativeness in clerical operations. For quite some time no one in the state was concerned with clerical operations and documentary materi- als management despite the warnings, expressed by the archives, that such treatment greatly endangered archival materials.35 Some state authorities even went so far in their operations that they completely abandoned classification when they introduced electronic registers. They were convinced that with modern technology it would be possible to search for data directly in the contents, which turned out to be completely inappropriate. The global expansion of electronic services also resulted in the emer- gence of the international standards36 for the management of documentary materials. Slovenia re-established the single filing plan for public authorities in 200537. The period of incoherent and inconsistent classification of materials according to the con- tents in the public administration thus lasted approximately fifteen years. This means 34 Rajka Bućin, Klasifikacijski sustavi u spisovodstvu uprave. Povijesni razvoj i suvremena stremljenja (Zagreb: Hrvatski državni arhiv, 2015), 176–241. 35 Vesna Gotovina, “Sistemi poslovanja s spisi v Sloveniji od leta 1955 dalje,” Arhivi 16, No. 1-2 (1993): 53. 36 ISO 15489 – Information and documentation – Records management. 37 Vladimir Žumer, “Klasifikacijski načrti za razvrščanje dokumentacije z roki hranjenja,” in: Tehnični in vsebinski problemi klasičnega in elektronskega arhiviranja, eds. Ivan Fras and Nina Gostečnik (Radenci, 2013), 353–68. Vesna Gotovina: Archival Materials of the State Authorities Related to the Processes of ...124 that we shall encounter major problems when selecting and accessioning the archival materials for the archives. Even today it is apparent that the materials from the period of the attainment of independence are poorly preserved. For example, there are no transcriptions, stenographic records, etc. in the session documents files of the most important state authorities. It is very likely that many problems will also arise with regard to the preservation of sound recordings. The administrative operations of the highest state authorities were unsupervised for almost fifteen years. Even today only the archives and the Culture and Media Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia deal with this matter. Between 2007 and 2015 only two preventive inspections38 of docu- mentary and archival materials management were performed at all the ministries. Until 2006 the archival legislation did not include penal provisions for damaging or destroying archival materials. These provisions were only enforced with the Protec- tion of Documents and Archives and Archival Institutions Act, but the penalties for infringements involving the non-implementation of the Act are merely symbolic.39 3.2 Arrangement of archival materials in the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia In the past decades the archives acquired many archival materials which were not properly arranged and registered, especially due to the prevailing opinion that it was best to keep such materials safe in the archives as well, as they could be destroyed in the custody of creators and holders due to inappropriate handling. In view of the bad experience with the materials of the predecessors of the Ministry of the Interior and the intelligence services, such decisions were relatively justified. Nonetheless, the archival materials which have not been arranged and registered in detail repre- sent a great burden for the archivists who work with the more recent materials. The quantity of these materials is vast, therefore the expert arrangement and description processes are exceptionally slow. 4 Accessibility of Archival Materials Slovenia has one of the most liberal policies with regard to accessing the archival materials already kept in the archives.40 Researchers can use the materials free of charge which is rather uncommon in the majority of European countries.41 With the amendment of the Protection of Documents and Archives and Archival Institutions Act42 of 2014, the archival materials, acquired by the archives before the formation 38 Dragan Matić, “Stanje varstva arhivskega in dokumentarnega gradiva na slovenskih ministrst- vih,” in: Tehnični in vsebinski problemi klasičnega in elektronskega arhiviranja, 275–85. 39 ZVDAGA, Article 92 (from EUR 2000 to EUR 5000). 40 Kersten Jedlitschka, “Arhiv Stasija – preteklost in sedanjost,” in: Primeri različnih praks v slov- enskih arhivih: 25. zborovanje, eds. Zdenka Bonin and Marjan Vogrin (Ljubljana: Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2011), 19–31. 41 Everyone is also allowed to take digital photos of the archival materials free of charge. 42 ZVDAGA, Article 65. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 125 of the Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia on 17 May 1990, became accessible in their entirety – including the materials labelled with various levels of inaccessibility. Regarding these materials the archives only provide for the protection of personal data related to health status; sexuality; victims of crimes against sexual inviolability, matrimony, family and youth; perpetrators of crimes and offences except for the crimes and offences committed by persons prosecuted for opposing the one-party regime; as well as religious belief and ethnic adherence.43 The documents contain- ing the aforementioned data shall become accessible 75 years after their creation or 10 years after the death of the concerned individual, if the date of death is known and unless otherwise stipulated by other laws.44 The Government of the Republic of Slovenia can also grant claimants access to these materials on the basis of the prior opinion of the archival commission.45 5 The Attitude of the State and Its Policies towards the Archives and Archival Materials as a Cultural Monument The archival materials related to the formation of the Slovenian state in the his- torical period when Slovenians finally became a nation with their own independent and sovereign state represent a national treasure of the highest degree and are of exceptional importance for the preservation of national identity. The experience of the archival science demonstrates that people who have led this country since its establishment have not been sufficiently aware of this fact. The archives have not acquired any new buildings in 25 years, and the national archives have been waiting for almost as long for the renovation of the old barracks near the Poljanska cesta street.46 The attitude towards archives, demonstrated by other countries that share a similar destiny, is substantially different. For example, Slovakia and the Czech Republic47 have built completely new archives where they can preserve their national treasure. Archival legislation, adopted in 2006, represented a severe impediment for the development of the archival science as well. It significantly increased the jurisdictions of the national archives in the field of digital materials without ensuring enough suitably-trained staff to carry out these tasks. The flawed legislation, which was not written by the archival science at the time, later resulted in two referendums. For this 43 Bojan Cvelfar, “O dostopnosti arhivskega gradiva v javnih arhivih pred in po uveljavitvi ZVDAGA-A,» in: Arhivi na razpotju: 27. zborovanje, ed. Jure Volčjak (Ptuj: Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2015), 8–17. 44 Vanja Pfajfer and Gregor Jenuš, “Novela ZVDAGA - korak naprej? Dostop do arhivskega grad- iva z osebnimi podatki doma in na tujem,” in: Arhivi na razpotju, 18–29. 45 Igor Omerza, “Stališče z vidika uporabnika: Novela arhivskega zakona – kratka predzgodovina in posledice,» in: Arhivi na razpotju, 33. 46 Jedert Vodopivec, “Analiza stanja v slovenskih javnih arhivih,” in: Arhivski depoji v Sloveniji, ed. Jedert Vodopivec (Ljubljana: Arhiv Republike Slovenije, 2008), 9–32. 47 Jozef Hanus and Emília Hanusová, “Archival building – the basic condition for proper function- ing of the archives,” in: Tehnični in vsebinski problemi klasičnega in elektronskega arhiviranja, 217–24. Vesna Gotovina: Archival Materials of the State Authorities Related to the Processes of ...126 reason we had to focus on political issues48 for quite a few years instead of solving the professional archival challenges brought about by the digital age and the rapid development of various new technologies. After all, in the last twenty-five years archives have played an exceedingly impor- tant role. They were part of momentous processes, resulting from the emancipation and the change of the social order. The archival materials kept in the archives became extremely important for proving the rights of the state and individuals during the implementation of the legislation on denationalisation, righting the injustices suf- fered by the victims of wartime and post-war violence, etc. However, the archival science has not taken adequate advantage of this situation, as it has failed to ensure the deserved position for the national archives in the Republic of Slovenia. 5.1 Frequent restructuring of the public administration endanger archival materials The very frequent restructuring of the public administration represents a severe danger for the archival materials kept by the state authorities, including those at- testing to the democratisation and the formation of the state. In the last few years individual state bodies were abolished and re-established, while their duties were redistributed among the administrative bodies. This resulted in the documentary and archival materials being moved between locations. Every disorganised relocation represents an extreme risk for these materials. They can get mixed up; the initial ar- rangement is not preserved; they can get lost or even destroyed. Furthermore, all of the above results in huge financial expenses for repeated arrangement and descrip- tion, while considerable compensations may result from the individual proceedings conducted by the administrative bodies in case of loss or destruction of the materials. Archival materials, created in digital form, are subject to an even greater risk as the materials on classic media. The latter may always be rearranged and described, which is what the creators of archival materials are doing for a number of years be- fore submitting the archival materials to the archives. On the other hand, in case of digital materials inappropriate storage may result in complete loss in a single reckless moment, if these materials are not handled properly ever since their creation.49 In certain cases the practice to date has turned out to be extremely inappropri- ate. Therefore every newly-formed government should precisely and unambiguously define the handling of documentary and consequently also archival materials since their very creation and during every subsequent restructuring. Moreover, suitable facilities for the storage of these materials for at least thirty years should be ensured. Perhaps this could also be achieved by designating the facilities for the storage of 48 Dragan Matić, “Arhivska javna služba med politiko in stroko,” in: Primeri različnih praks v slovenskih arhivih, 7–18. 49 Tatjana Hajtnik, Celovit pristop k pretvorbi elektronskih dokumentov v obliko za dolgoročno hram- bo (Maribor: Fakulteta za elektrotehniko, računalništvo in informatiko, 2016), 145. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 127 permanent collections (archives), where these materials could be kept until their submission to the competent archives, similarly as this matter is arranged in Austria, Germany, and in certain other EU countries. 6 In Place of Conclusion Archival materials are already waiting for the researchers of all aspects of histori- ography and other sciences and attracting them to the archives. Every analysis of the contemporary archival materials calls for great enthusiasm, professionalism, and espe- cially impartiality. The events and individual documents should be highlighted with all the accessible sources and from all angles, despite the historical distance of merely a quarter of a century. In order to underline the above, let me refer to the analysis of an extremely important document, signed on 6 December 1990 in the Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia by all the political parties and groups of delegates. On the same day the delegates passed the Plebiscite on the Sovereignty and Independence of the Republic of Slovenia Act with an overwhelming majority. I am referring to the Agreement of the Political Parties and Groups of Delegates of the Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia on the Joint Action at the Plebiscite on the Sovereignty and Independence of the Republic of Slovenia. The parties and groups of deputies agreed on thirteen points, stated on three pages. The responsible representatives of the parties and groups signed the last page of the document. As the names and surnames of the signatories were not recorded on a single document, not all of them are still discernible today – only twenty-five years later. Meanwhile, the name and surname50 of one of the signatories of the Agreement, stated on the cover or folder that contains the document, is wrong. Thus the error, which had already been published in literature beforehand, was only discovered at the twenty-fifth anniversary of the signing of this Agreement by subse- quently checking the television recordings and oral testimonies of the signatories of the Agreement. The lack of historical distance is not always negative: in this concrete case it turned out to be very useful for fixing the inadvertent mistake. Sources and Literature Archive sources: • SI AS, Arhiv Republike Slovenije: º SI AS 142 – Republic Electoral Commission, 1963–2000. º SI AS 223 – Government of Slovenia, 1945–1992. º SI AS 316 – Agency for the Audit of the Ownership Transformation of Companies, 1993– 2004. º SI AS 1115 – Assembly of Slovenia, 1943–1990. º SI AS 1116 – Ministry of Finance, 1945–1993. º SI AS 1210 – The collection on plebiscite of 1990. º SI AS 1211 – Commission for Relations with Religious Communities, 1953–1991. º SI AS 1214 – Social Accounting Service, 1947–2002. 50 The name Vitomir Gros was stated for the Liberal Party instead of Franc Golija. Vesna Gotovina: Archival Materials of the State Authorities Related to the Processes of ...128 º SI AS 1233 – Republic Committee for Agriculture, Forestry and Food of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia, 1972–1991. º SI AS 1265 – Republic Committee for Industry and Construction of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia, 1965–1991. º SI AS 1944 – Presidency of Slovenia, 1974–1990. º SI AS 2003 – Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia, 1967–2004. º SI AS 2046 – Office of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for National Minorities, 1974–2012. º SI AS 2053 – Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia, 1987–2003. º SI AS 2055 – Protocol Service of the Republic of Slovenia, 1945–1991. º SI AS 2057 – Government of the Republic of Slovenia Public Relations and Media Office, 1972–2001. º SI AS 2089 – Ministry of Economic Relations and Development, 1994–2002. º SI AS 2113 – Office of the Republic of Slovenia for Immigration and Refugees, 1957–2010. º SI AS 2115 – Ministry of Transport and Communications, 1975–1996. º SI AS 2120 – Council for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1987– 1995. º SI AS 2026 – Ministry of Education and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia, 1982–2003. º SI AS 2033 – Slovenian Research Agency, 1986–2005. º SI AS 2079 – Slovenian Roads Agency, 1967–2008. º SI AS 2133 – Farmland and Forest Fund, 1918–2014. • ZVDAGA, Protection of Documents and Archives and Archival Institutions Act, Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 30/06, 51/14. Note: In the archival science, the materials in fonds are referred to as SI AS and the number of fonds or collection. ARS is the old code for the current AS. SI is the code for Slovenia. Further examples of references to the fonds and collections of other archives: e.g. SI ZAC (Celje His- torical Archives), SI ZAL (Ljubljana Historical Archives), SI PAK (Koper Regional Archives). Literature: • Bućin, Rajka. Klasifikacijski sustavi u spisovodstvu uprave. Povijesni razvoj i suvremena stremljenja. Zagreb: Hrvatski državni arhiv, 2015. • Cvelfar, Bojan. “O dostopnosti arhivskega gradiva v javnih arhivih pred in po uveljavitvi ZVDA- GA-A.” In: Arhivi na razpotju: 27. zborovanje, ed. Jure Volčjak, pp. 8–17. Ptuj: Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2015. • Hajtnik, Tatjana. Celovit pristop k pretvorbi elektronskih dokumentov v obliko za dolgoročno hrambo. Maribor: Fakulteta za elektrotehniko, računalništvo in informatiko, 2016. • Gotovina, Vesna. “Sistemi poslovanja s spisi v Sloveniji od leta 1955 dalje.” Arhivi 16, No. 1-2 (1993): 45–54. • Hanus, Jozef and Hanusová Emília. “Archival building – the basic condition for proper functio- ning of the archives.” In: Tehnični in vsebinski problemi klasičnega in elektronskega arhiviranja, pp. 217–26. Radenci, 2011. • Jedlitschka. Kersten. “Arhiv Stasija – preteklost in sedanjost.” In: Primeri različnih praks v slovenskih arhivih: 25. zborovanje, eds. Zdenka Bonin and Marjan Vogrin, pp. 19–31. Ljubljana: Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2011. • Matić, Dragan. “Arhivska javna služba med politiko in stroko.” In: Primeri različnih praks v sloven- skih arhivih: 25. zborovanje, eds. Zdenka Bonin and Marjan Vogrin, pp. 7–18. Ljubljana: Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2011. • Matić, Dragan. “Stanje varstva arhivskega in dokumentarnega gradiva na slovenskih ministrstvih.” In: Tehnični in vsebinski problemi klasičnega in elektronskega arhiviranja, pp. 275–85. Radenci, 2007. • Omerza, Igor. “Stališče z vidika uporabnika: Novela arhivskega zakona – kratka predzgodovina in posledice.” In: Arhivi na razpotju: 27. zborovanje, ed. Jure Volčjak, pp. 30–35. Ptuj: Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2015. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 129 • Pfajfer, Vanja and Gregor Jenuš. “Novela ZVDAGA - korak naprej? Dostop do arhivskega gradiva z osebnimi podatki doma in na tujem.” In: Arhivi na razpotju: 27. zborovanje, ed. Jure Volčjak, pp. 18–29. Ptuj: Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2015. • Vodopivec, Jedert. “Analiza stanja v slovenskih javnih arhivih.” In: Arhivski depoji v Sloveniji, ed. Jedert Vodopivec, pp. 9–32. Ljubljana: Arhiv Republike Slovenije, 2008. • Žumer, Vladimir. “Klasifikacijski načrti za razvrščanje dokumentacije z roki hranjenja.” In: Tehnični in vsebinski problemi klasičnega in elektronskega arhiviranja, eds. Ivan Fras and Nina Gostečnik, pp. 353–68. Radenci, 2013. • Žumer, Vladimir. Poslovanje z zapisi. Upravljanje in hramba dokumentarnega gradiva, klasifikacijski načrti za razvrščanje gradiva z roki hrambe in elektronska hramba gradiva v digitalni obliki. Ljubljana: Planet GV, 2008. Vesna Gotovina ARHIVSKO GRADIVO DRŽAVNIH ORGANOV O PROCESIH DEMOKRATIZACIJE IN OSAMOSVAJANJA SLOVENIJE P O V Z E T E K Namen prispevka je predstavitev varstva arhivskega gradiva najpomembnejših državnih organov, ki je nastalo v procesih demokratizacije in osamosvajanja Slovenije. Arhivsko gradivo je dokumentarno gradivo, ki ima trajen pomen za zgodovino, druge znanosti in kulturo ali trajen pomen za pravno varnost oseb; arhivsko gradivo je kulturni spomenik. Najpo- membnejše naloge arhivske stroke in arhivistov, ki se ukvarjajo z novejšim arhivskim gradivom so tudi vrednotenje, prevzemanje in ohranjanje arhivskega gradiva o procesih demokratizacije in osamosvajanja Slovenije. Bliža se 30 letni rok za izročitev arhivskega gradiva, zato na nekaterih najpomembnejših državnih organih že danes potekajo vsi potrebni in zakonsko predpisani postopki (urejanje, odbiranje, popisovanje, tehnično opremljanje..) za predajo arhivskega gradiva v Arhiv RS. Veliko arhivskega gradiva državnih organov iz obdobja konca osemdesetih in začetka devetdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja, je že danes shranjenega v nacionalnem arhivu. Med najpomembnejše arhivske fonde in zbirke lahko štejemo naslednje: Vlada Republike Slovenije (1945 do 1992), Skupščina Sloveni- je (1943 do 1990), Predsedstvo Slovenije (1974 do 1990), Republiška volilna komisija (1963 do 2000), Zbirka plebiscit 1990, Urad Vlade RS za informiranje (1972 do 2001), Protokol RS (1945 do 1991), Urad Vlade RS za narodnosti (1974 do 2012), Svet za varstvo človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin (1987 do 1995). Znanstveniki, raziskovalci in drugi uporabniki lahko že danes na izvirnih arhivskih virih preučujejo različna področja življenja in dogodkov enega najpomembnejših zgodovinskih obdobij na teritoriju današnje Republike Slovenije. Gradivo prevzeto v arhive omogoča raziskovanje politične, gospodarske, socialne, šolske… zgodovine ter pomembnih procesov – npr. spremembe družbene ure- ditve, uvedbe večstrankarskega sistema, postopkov denacionalizacije in privatizacije družbene lastnine. Dostop do arhivskega gradiva v arhivih določa arhivska zakonodaja. Ta opredeljuje varovane osebne podatke in določa roke nedostopnosti, in sicer 75 letni od nastanka dokumenta ali 10 letni po smrti osebe na katero se nanašajo podatki. V arhivih niso 40 let dostopni tajni podatki, ki jih morajo javno- pravne osebe, ki izročajo tovrstno arhivsko gradivo ob izročitvi natančno opredeliti. Vlada RS imenuje Arhivsko komisijo, ki na podlagi vloge raziskovalca ali raziskovalne inštitucije lahko odobri dostope tudi do omenjenega gradiva. Arhivsko gradivo, ki je še vedno shranjeno pri ustvarjalcih in imetnikih, ogrožajo tudi nekateri dejavniki, na katere arhivska stroka ves čas opozarja. To so predvsem zelo pogoste reorganizacije uprave. Predpisi ob samih reorganizacijah ne opredeljujejo natančnih postopkov ravnanja z dokumentarnim in arhivskim gradivom ob razdružitvah, združitvah ali ukinitvah posameznih organov. Največja nevarnost, ki ogroža arhivsko gradivo, so neustrezni prostori za hrambo arhivskega gradiva tako pred prevzemom v arhive, kot tudi kasneje. V Sloveniji se večina arhivov srečuje s problematiko pomanjkanja ustreznih arhivskih prostorov. Andrej Pančur, Mojca Šorn: Smart Big Data: Use of Slovenian Parliamentary Papers ...130 * Research Associate, PhD, Institute of Contemporary History, Kongresni trg 1, SI-1000 Lju- bljana, Slovenia, andrej.pancur@inz.si ** Research Associate, PhD, Institute of Contemporary History, Kongresni trg 1, SI-1000 Lju- bljana, Slovenia, mojca.sorn@inz.si 1.01 UDC: 328: 930.25:004.9 Andrej Pančur,* Mojca Šorn** Smart Big Data: Use of Slovenian Parliamentary Papers in Digital History IZVLEČEK PAMETNI MASIVNI PODATKI: UPORABA SLOVENSKIH PARLAMENTARNIH DOKUMENTOV V DIGITALNI ZGODOVINI Avtorja v prispevku opozorita na problem velikih količin digitalnih zgodovinskih virov, s katerim se bodo srečavali raziskovalci sodobne zgodovine. Bolj nadrobno predstavita slovenske parlamentarne dokumente kot primer pametnih masivnih podatkov. Avtorja menita, da velikih količin tega digitalnega gradiva zgodovinarji ne bodo mogli obdelovati samo z uporabo klasičnih zgodovinskih metod, temveč bodo morali začeti uporabljati še metode in orodja, ki jih razvija digitalna zgodovina, digitalna humanistika in tudi jezikoslovne tehnologije. Ključne besede: digitalna humanistika, digitalna zgodovina, Slovenija, parlament ABSTRACT The paper calls attention to the problem of massive amounts of digital historical sources that will eventually be faced by researchers of contemporary history. Slovenian parliamentary papers are then presented in detail as an example of smart big data. The authors believe that historians will be unable to process massive amounts of such digital materials using only standard historiographi- cal methods and will be forced to start using methods and tools developed by digital history, digital humanities and also language technologies. Keywords: digital humanities, digital history, Slovenia, parliament Big Data Big data is the buzzword of the decade. However, the very ubiquity of the term both in the industry, the media as well as in the academic community has led to big data being defined in various ways. Furthermore, big data in the humanities is not Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 131 the same as big data in natural sciences.1 This paper uses the definition according to which historical big data is described as follows; • large volumes of data, particularly texts that cannot be read within a reasonable time frame, and • information that only allows us to reach new conclusions through the use of digital methods.2 Large amounts of computer-readable data are gradually becoming the reality of modern historiography. The late Roy Rosenzweig, one of the pioneers of digital his- tory, warned as early as 2003 that historiography, instead of working within the scarcity paradigm of historical records, will have to start facing the problem of an excess of resources.3 Up to now, historiography has mostly had to deal with the lack of resources, their incompleteness and often also with high costs of acquiring ad- ditional sources. Today, on the other hand, historians can access new digitized and digital sources quickly and effectively. Although a lion’s share of analogue materials has not been and is unlikely to be digitized within reasonable time,4 the materials emerging today are increasingly created in the digital form. This is the reason why, for example, the Slovenian archives are currently working hard on establishing a Slovenian electronic archive – e-ARH.si.5 Consequently, the problem of (over)abun- dance of historical resources is also emerging in the studies of contemporary history,6 including the history of the Republic of Slovenia after 1991.7 The massive amount of digital materials has spurred the creation and spreading of digital humanities, which use digital methods and tools to address new research questions.8 In the following sections, the paper uses the example of Slovenian parlia- 1 Christof Schöch, “Big? Smart? Clean? Messy? Data in the Humanities,” Journal of Digital Hu- manities 2, no. 3 (2013), accessed on 25 September 2016, http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/2-3/ big-smart-clean-messy-data-in-the-humanities/. 2 Shawn Graham, Ian Milligan and Scott Weingart, Exploring Big Historical Data. The Historian’s Macroscope (London: Imperial College Press, 2015), accessed on 28 September 2016. http://www.the- macroscope.org. 3 Roy Rosenzwig, “Scarcity or Abundance? Preserving the Past in a Digital Era,” American Histori- cal Review 108, no. 3 (2003): 735–62. 4 Gerben Zaagsma, “On Digital History,” BMGN – Low Countries Historical Review 128, no. 4 (2013): 19–23. 5 Tatjana Hajtnik, “Strategija razvoja slovenskega javnega elektronskega arhiva ’e-ARH.si’,” Knjižnica 55, no. 1 (2011): 40, 41, 44. Bojan Cvelfar et al., Strategija in izvedbeni načrt razvoja slov- enskega elektronskega arhiva 2016–2020 (Ljubljana: Archives of the Republic of Slovenia, 2016), 10. 6 Peter Haber, “Zeitgeschichte und Digital Humanities,” in: Zeitgeschichte – Konzepte und Meth- oden, eds. Frank Bösch and Danyel Jürgen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 47–66. 7 Jure Gašparič, “Pisati politično zgodovino Republike Slovenije,” in: Četrt stoletja Republike Slovenije – izzivi, dileme, pričakovanja, eds. Jure Gašparič and Mojca Šorn (Ljubljana: Institute of Con- temporary History, 2016), 30. 8 Sandra Collins et al., ALLEA E-Humanities Working Group Report. Going Digital: Creating Change in the Humanities (Berlin: All European Academies, 2015), 9, accessed 19 July 2016, http:// www.allea.org/Content/ALLEA/WG%20E%20Humanities/Going%20Digital_digital%20version. pdf. Devon Elliot, Robert MacDougall and William J. Turkel, “New Old Things. Fabrication, Physical Computing, and Experiment in Historical Practice,” Canadian Journal of Communication 37 (2012): Andrej Pančur, Mojca Šorn: Smart Big Data: Use of Slovenian Parliamentary Papers ...132 mentary papers to present the advantages and drawbacks of the digital historiography methods in the analysis of big historical data. In this context, the digital history is understood as part of the digital humanities, which is primarily concerned with on- line distribution and presentation of historical sources using various computer tools, especially for mapping, network software and, last but not least, text analysis.9 The paper focuses mainly on the possibilities for the use of text analysis methods and tools. Slovenian Parliamentary Papers Parliamentary papers are a rich source of data used by different academic disci- plines including historiography. In some European countries, a large part of these papers is already accessible in digital form, mostly in PDF format.10 Both researchers and the public can avail themselves of the materials from parlia- mentary institutions located within today’s Slovenia and from parliamentary institu- tions whose members once included representatives from Slovenia. While it is true that most of the materials are currently only available in analogue form, an increasing amount has already been digitized and made available to the public: • Austrian National Assembly (1861–1918);11 • Styrian Provincial Assembly (1848–1914);12 • Carniolan Provincial Assembly (1861–1869);13 • Yugoslav legislative bodies 1919–1939, 1942–1953;14 • People’s Assembly of the People’s Republic of Slovenia (1947–1963);15 • Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia (1963–1990);16 • National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia, from 1990 until today.17 122, accessed 19 July 2016, http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/2506. 9 Stephen Robertson, “The Differences between Digital Humanities and Digital History,” in: De- bates in Digital Humanities 2016, eds. Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein (Minneapolis and Lon- don: University of Minnesota Press, 2016). 10 Agiatis Benardou, Alastair Dunning, Martin Schaller and Nephelie Chatzi Chatzidiakou. Re- search Themes for Aggregating Digital Content. Parliamentary Papers in Europe (Europeana Cloud, 2015), 6. 11 “Parlamentaria,” ALEX – Historische Rechts- und Gesetzestexte, accessed on 30 September 2016, http://alex.onb.ac.at/sachlichegliederung.htm. 12 “Landtag Steiermark – stenographische Sitzungsberichte,“ Das Land Steiermark, accessed on 30 September 2016, http://www.landesarchiv.steiermark.at/cms/ziel/111284715. 13 “Provincial Assembly of Carniola 1861–1918,” SIstory – History of Slovenia, accessed on 30 September 2016, http://hdl.handle.net/11686/menu719. 14 “Stenographical minutes of the executive and legislative bodies, Yugoslavia,” SIstory – History of Slovenia, accessed on 30 September 2016, http://hdl.handle.net/11686/menu396. 15 “Shorthand minutes of the People’s Assembly of the People’s Republic of Slovenia (1947–1963),” SIstory – History of Slovenia, accessed on 30 September 2016, http://hdl.handle.net/11686/menu407. 16 “Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia (1963–1990),” SIstory – History of Slovenia, ac- cessed on 30 September 2016, http://hdl.handle.net/11686/menu408. 17 “Seje Državnega zbora – Po datumu,” Republic of Slovenia: National Assembly, accessed on 30 September 2016, https://www.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/Home/deloDZ/seje/sejeDrzavnegaZbora/PoDatu- muSeje/. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 133 With the exception of the documents from the National Assembly, which are being published in the HTML format, all documents have been published in PDF. Chart 1 shows the number of words contained in parliamentary speeches for each parliamentary term of the Slovenian parliament which are archived in PDF at the History of Slovenia – SIstory portal (36 million words) and in HTML at the Nation- al Assembly website (69 million words). Up until 1974, minutes of the sessions also included extensive attachments (10.5 million words), which were later published in a special serial publication titled Poročevalec. From 2010 onward, Poročevalec has been regularly accessible at the National Assembly website,18 where visitors can also look through archived issues from 2006 to 2010.19 Other issues of Poročevalec (1974– 2006) are going to be digitized within three years by the Institute of Contemporary History that manages the History of Slovenia – SIstory portal. As of this moment, the Institute has already managed to digitize issues of Poročevalec from 1974 to 1996, which together contain almost 37 million words (see Chart 1). 18 “Gradivo DZ,” Republic of Slovenia: National Assembly, accessed on 30 September 2016, https:// www.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/Home/deloDZ/Porocevalec/GradivaDZ. 19 “Arhiv Poročevalec od 14.4.2006 do 15.7.2010,” Republic of Slovenia: National Assembly, ac- cessed on 30 September 2016, https://www.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/Home/deloDZ/Porocevalec/arhivPo- rocevalec. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 M ill io ns speeches annexes Poročevalec Chart 1: Number of words in parliamentary speeches (1947–1990), attachments (1947–1974) and Poročevalec (1974–1996) at the History of Slovenia – SIstory portal and the number of words in parliamentary speeches at the National Assembly website (1990–2011); in millions of words per parliamentary term Andrej Pančur, Mojca Šorn: Smart Big Data: Use of Slovenian Parliamentary Papers ...134 Searching It is clear that no researcher is able to read that much text in its entirety. Research- ers thus only read those parts that they consider relevant for their research. In doing so, they read the selected parts of the text carefully, from word to word, or quickly skim over the pages looking for relevant parts of the text. However, such research is generally based on the assumption that the researchers will find what they are look- ing for in the text. Researchers thus determine the text they are looking for, as well as the context of their research, in advance. In doing so, they necessarily lean on their previous comprehensive or inadequate knowledge of the area of study.20 In history as well as in other humanities, such methods are of course completely acceptable and often yield useful results. A number of good studies has been cre- ated in such a manner using materials from the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia.21 Most researchers in the humanities thus primarily understand digital materials in terms of easier and quicker access to desired information.22 In the case of materials from the National Assembly, researchers can make use of a search en- gine that allows them to filter their results according to search modules. In a similar manner, researchers can search for older parliamentary materials at the History of Slovenia – SIstory portal. Most researchers in the humanities first use search engines to identify sources and then do a full text keyword search. This means that studies are no longer conducted only vertically, from top to bottom, where a researcher only reads canonical texts and browses previously organized data collections. Rather, studies are being conducted in a bottom-up manner, with researchers looking for parts of text pertinent to their research that they would otherwise not have read. However, this research method has its limitations. The researcher must know the search queries in advance, and these can differ from modern thought patterns. Inasmuch as the researcher does not carefully examine every search result, the results are always lacking proper context.23 Despite these limitations, a full text keyword search can yield very useful results. A good example of such research is the article War in Parliament: What a Digital Ap- proach Can Add to the Study of Parliamentary History whose authors used carefully 20 Federico Nanni, Hiram Kumper, and Simone Paolo Ponzetto, “Semi-Supervised Textual Analy- sis and Historical Research Helping Each Other. Some Thoughts and Observations,” International Jour- nal of Humanities and Arts Computing 10, no. 1 (2016): 73, 74. 21 Jure Gašparič, Državni zbor 1992–2012. O slovenskem parlamentarizmu (Ljubljana: Institute of Contemporary History, 2012). Jure Gašparič, Slovenski parlament. Politično-zgodovinski pregled od začetka prvega do konca šestega mandata (1992–2014) (Ljubljana: Institute of Contemporary History, 2014). Rosvita Pesek, Osamosvojitev Slovenije (Ljubljana: Nova revija, 2007). 22 Lisa Spiro, “Access, Explore, Converse: The Impact (and Potential Impact) of the Digital Hu- manities on Scholarship,” in: Keys for architectural history research in the digital era, eds. Juliette Hueber and Antonio Mendes da Silva 3 (2014). 23 Robertson, “The Differences between Digital Humanities and Digital History.” Bob Nicholson, “The Digital Turn. Exploring the methodological possibilities of digital newspaper archives,” Media History 19, no. 1 (2013): 66, 67. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 135 selected search queries and a search engine to systematically check to which extent the Boerenpartij (Farmers’ Party) was described as “wrong” in all Dutch parliamen- tary debates between 1958 and 1982.24 The article was written as part of the War in Parliament project. The results of this project clearly showed that satisfactory research results can only be obtained if we are familiar not only with the advantages but also with the shortcomings of digital research methods.25 Smart Big Data One of the prerequisites for the War in Parliament project to be successful was the use of partly structured data in the XML format, which allowed for the search results to be filtered by speaker’s name, by party, by time period, structure of the text, etc.26 What was used was thus not big data in the form of plain text, but rather smart data. Smart data may be structured or partly structured, and compared to im- plicit big data, smart data is explicit, marked, enriched and described by metadata. The creation of smart data is often a labour-intensive process that requires human intervention.27 As we have seen, parliamentary papers represent extremely extensive data col- lections. We thus cannot expect to be able to reveal their explicit content merely through precise manual annotation. The dilemma necessarily encountered by re- searchers in the use of digital parliamentary papers was succinctly stated by Christof Schöch: “I believe the most interesting challenge for the next years when it comes to dealing with data in the humanities will be to actually transgress this opposition of smart and big data. What we need is bigger smart data or smarter big data, and to create and use it, we need to make use of new methods. So, how can we enrich big data sufficiently to make more intelligent queries possible? How can we speed up the process of creating smart data so that we can produce larger volumes of it?”28 At the same time, Schöch calls our attention to two possible ways of making big data smarter: through automatic annotation and through crowdsourcing. In prac- tice, parliamentary papers proved very suitable for automatic annotation. In particu- lar, parliamentary debates were written down in a format that has changed very little 24 Hinke Piersma et al., “War in Parliament. What a Digital Approach Can Add to the Study of Parliamentary History,” DHQ: Digital Humanities Quarterly 8, no. 1 (2014). 25 Hinke Piersma and Kees Ribbens, “Digital Historical Research. Context, Concept and the Need for Reflection,” BMGN – Low Countries Historical Review 128, no. 4 (2013): 87–90, 100, 101. 26 “War in Parliament,” NIOD, accessed on 30 September 2016, http://www.niod.nl/en/projects/ war-parliament. 27 Schöch, “Big? Smart? Clean? Messy? Data in the Humanities,” 4. 28 Ibid., 10. Andrej Pančur, Mojca Šorn: Smart Big Data: Use of Slovenian Parliamentary Papers ...136 with time.29 This is one of the reasons why various research projects often annotate parliamentary debates using the XML markup language. Among others, sessions of the British parliament (Hansard) from 1803,30 the Dutch parliament from 1803,31 the Spanish parliament from 1977,32 the Czech parliament from 199333 and the Polish parliament from 199334 are all available in the XML format. The following sections of this article will present the use of Slovenian parliamen- tary papers, particularly the minutes of parliamentary debates, in digital history. A number of cases will be presented to illustrate the huge potential of smart big data in contemporary history studies. As an example, 2.7 million words of the minutes of parliamentary debates in the Chamber of Associated Labour of the Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia from 1990 to 1992 have been annotated using the XML format.35 In doing so, it was decided that the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) Guide- lines should be used,36 as these are the de facto standard for the encoding of texts in digital humanities.37 Automatic conversions were carried out using XSL stylesheets created specifically for the project. However, annotation was also carried out by hand, not just auto- matically. The reason for this was that automatic conversions can also contain an- notation errors. Attempts were made to find these errors and remove them through an upgrade of XSL stylesheets. There were also some parts of text that could only be annotated manually. Using such semi-automatic annotation, brief sessions could be marked up in 30 minutes, while those of medium length usually took up to two hours and the longest (over 200,000 words) up to four hours. Speeches were marked in accordance with the TEI module for performance texts (speech, speaker, stage direction). Other annotations included the structure of the assemblies and type of 29 Maarten Marx, “Advanced Information Access to Parliamentary Debates,” Texas Digital Library 10, no. 6 (2009): 2, 3. 30 “Hansard archive (digitised debates from 1803),” www.parliament.uk, accessed on 30 Septem- ber 2016, http://www.hansard-archive.parliament.uk/. 31 Maarten Marx and Anne Schuth, “DutchParl. The Parliamentary Documents in Dutch,” in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, eds. Nicoletta Calzolari et al. (Valetta: LREC, 2010), 3670–77. 32 Carlos Martin-Dancausa and Maarten Marx. “Parliamentary documents from Spain,” in: Pro- ceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, eds. Nicoletta Calzolari et al. (Valetta: LREC, 2010). 33 Miloš Jakubíček and Vojtěch Kovář. CzechParl, “Corpus of Stenographic Protocols from Czech Parliament,” in: Proceedings of Recent Advances in Slavonic Natural Language Processing, RASLAN 2010, eds. Petr Sojka and Aleš Horák (Tribun EU, 2010), 41–46. 34 Maciej Ogrodniczuk, “The Polish Sejm Corpus,” in: LREC 2010, Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, eds. Nicoletta Calzolari et al. (Istanbul, 2012), 2219–23. 35 “SlovParl,” GitHub, accessed on 30 September 2016, https://github.com/SIstory/SlovParl. 36 TEI Consortium, TEI P5: Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Interchange (Text Encod- ing Initiative Consortium, 2016). 37 For example, the German Research Community (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) demands that any texts being digitized be encoded using the TEI guidelines, if at all possible. Deutsche For- schungsgemeinschaft, DFG Practical Guidelines on Digitisation (Bonn: Deutsche Forschungsgemein- schaft, 2013), 31. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 137 sessions, individual sessions, topics of individual sessions and dates and duration of sessions. Links were created to tables of contents and lists of speakers.38 Based on such annotated minutes of sessions, researchers can carry out various types of fundamental analyses.39 Over 2.7 million words were thus spoken in 13,894 speeches at 54 sessions. At the longest, 36th session, which lasted eight days, the total duration of speeches was 29 hours and 3 minutes, and the session was adjourned no less than 21 times. On the other hand, the total duration of speeches at the briefest, 9th session was only one hour. The longest uninterrupted span was 460 minutes, while the average (median) duration of speeches between two interruptions was 90 minutes. Connection to External Data However, TEI documents annotated in such a manner also have some shortcom- ings that preclude precise analysis of the speeches. Initial analyses of the speeches of various speakers were carried out based on their first and last names. A single person, whose name might be written differently in other cases, is thus treated as two or more different people. On the other hand, people with identical first and last names are automatically considered the same person. Various historical records were thus used to manually verify and sanitize the lists of MPs, ministers and other invited speakers. These data are contained in a separate TEI document. 38 Andrej Pančur, “Označevanje zbirke zapisnikov sej slovenskega parlamenta s smernicami TEI,” in: Zbornik konference Jezikovne tehnologije in digitalna humanistika, eds. Tomaž Erjavec and Darja Fišer (Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani, 2016), 142–48. 39 Jure Gašparič, “Slovenian Socialist Parliament on the Eve of the Dissolution of the Yugoslav Federation. A feeble “ratification body” or important political decision-maker?,” Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino 55, no. 3 (2015): 54. Chart 2: Number of words spoken in the Chamber of Associated Labour of the Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia (1990/92) by organization membership; in % Chamber of Associated Labour 81 % Socio-Polical Chamber 0 % Chamber of Municipalies 0 % Government 9 % others 10 % unknown number of words in the debates Andrej Pančur, Mojca Šorn: Smart Big Data: Use of Slovenian Parliamentary Papers ...138 Data connected in such a manner can, for example, be used to determine the provenance of speakers in the Chamber of Associated Labour (see Chart 2). In do- ing so, we find that almost 20 % of the words were spoken by various representa- tives of the Government and other rapporteurs associated with the legislation that was being passed by the Assembly. As President and Vice-President of the Chamber of Associated Labour, Jože Zupančič (President, 735,166 words) and Bogo Rogina (Vice-President, 114,418 words) together spoke as much as 38.3 % of all words spoken by the MPs of the Chamber of Associated Labour. Among other MPs of the Assembly, Jože Arzenšek (106,000 words), Roman Jakič (69,111 words) and Andrej Šter (67,005) were the most verbose. Then there was the silent Jože Košak who only managed to say 14 words during his term. Speeches of the MPs can obviously also be analysed according to the parties they belonged to (see Table 1). MPs who were, at the start of their term, members of the DEMOS coalition thus spoke 21.5 % of all words, opposition MPs spoke 23.3 %, while the numerous independent MPs (including the President of the Chamber) spoke as much as half of all words. Lists of MPs, members of the Government and other speakers can also be used to formulate research questions connected to additional variables: first and last name, gender, date and place of birth, date and place of death, education, profession, resi- dence, organization membership. Answers to complicated research questions are possible in part thanks to the newly created TEI file that includes a thematic index of the topics dealt with by the Chamber. The creation of this table of contents used data from existing topics and tables of contents, which were then annotated according to the new scheme. The Political parties No. speekers No. words Percent Percent SDZ → DS 3 30762 1,4 21,5 SDZ → NDS 2 85246 3,8 SDSS 9 118899 5,4 SKD 6 86135 3,9 SKZ → SLS 8 88439 4 ZS 1 11901 0,5 DEMOS 1 56858 2,6 ZKS-SDP → SDP 17 231148 10,4 23,3ZSMS → LDS 9 236388 10,6 SZS → SSS 3 49708 2,2 Independent 19 1109636 50 50 SOPS → Independent 1 114418 5,2 5,2 Unknown 1 736 0 0 Table 1: Number of words spoken by members of political party; Chamber of Associated Labour of the Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia (1990/92) Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 139 data was first categorized in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly (see Chart 3).40 The largest category, Acts and Procedures, was classified in accordance with the thematic index of the Legal Information System of the Republic of Slovenia.41 Based 40 “Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly (PoDZ-1),” Republic of Slovenia: National Assem- bly, accessed on 30 September 2016, https://www.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/en/Home/ODrzavnemZboru/ PristojnostiInFunkcije/RulesoftheProcedureText. 41 “Tematsko kazalo” [Thematic Index], PIS: Pravno-informacijski sistem [PIS: Legal Information System], accessed on 30 September 2016, http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pravniRedRSDrzavniNivoKaza- laTematskoKazalo. Number of words Percent Constitutional regime of the Republic of Slovenia 497575 21,8 Foreign affairs and international relations 27417 1,2 Interior and administrative law 67156 2,9 Civil law 24017 1,1 Criminal law 5925 0,3 Economic order 403880 17,7 Public finance 482764 21,1 Economic activities 165752 7,3 Non-economic activities 550466 24,1 Environment an spatial planning 43803 1,9 Protection against natural and other disasters 14960 0,7 Table 2: Main topic categories within Acts and Procedures as per the thematic index of the Legal Information System of the Republic of Slovenia Chart 3: Thematic index of the speeches in the Chamber of Associated Labour of the Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia (1990/92); No. of words by topic as per the categorization in the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly 0 % 10 % 81 % 9 % Constung Organisaon and funconing Acts and procedures Relaons towards other state authories number of words in the debates Andrej Pančur, Mojca Šorn: Smart Big Data: Use of Slovenian Parliamentary Papers ...140 on data annotated in such a manner, it is easily determined that over a fifth of all speeches were associated with the legislation pertaining to the constitutional arrange- ments in the Republic of Slovenia (see Table 2). The greatest amount of discussion was stirred up by the Ownership Transforma- tion of Companies Act, which resulted in 520 speeches containing over 100,000 words (see Table 3). On the other hand, debate regarding the Act Ratifying the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Slovenia and the Federal Council of the Swiss Confederation on the Abolishment of Visas was extremely brief, consisting of only 46 words. Data Enrichment: Natural Language Processing (NLP) Another extremely extensive category was the category named Initiatives, Sug- gestions and Questions from the MPs (102,858 words). However, the category is too broad to allow any conclusions about its actual content based solely on the title. Natural language processing technologies can be of some help in this regard. For example, the topic modelling method can be used to search for word patterns in the text, which can in turn assist with determining the semantic meaning of various parts of the text. One of the most popular (among historians as well as other researchers)42 tools used in such analyses is MALLET.43 Although the results were incomplete, MALLET was nonetheless successfully used to discern a number of topics within the Initiatives, suggestions and questions category: customs duties, healthcare, the environ- ment, strikes, banks, etc. A tool that searched the text for named entities (people, places and organizations) 42 Shawn Graham, Scott Weingart and Ian Milligan, “Getting Started with Topic Modeling and MALLET,” Programming Historian (2 September 2012). 43 Andrew McCallum, MALLET: A Machine Learning for Language Toolkit (2002). No. of words No. of speeches Ownership Transformation of Companies Act 103870 520 The Law on Budget of the Republic of Slovenia for the year 1992 97175 511 Cooperatives Act 61616 379 The Law on Budget of the Republic of Slovenia for the year 1991 52121 314 Military Service Act 51112 365 Pension and Disability Insurance Act 47801 261 The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia 43004 267 Sales Tax Act 37795 192 Health Services Act 37238 201 Table 3: Longest discussions on individual topics (in the category of Acts and Procedures) Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 141 yielded much better results. Named entity recognition was carried out using the Stanford NER for the Slovenian language.44 It should come as no surprise that those 44 Nikola Ljubešić et al., “Combining Available Datasets for Building Named Entity Recognition Models of Croatian and Slovene,” Slovenščina 2.0 1, no. 2 (2013): 35–57. place name No. Percent Slovenija 2978 26,2 Republika Slovenija 2153 18,9 Jugoslavija 579 5,1 Evropa 534 4,7 Ljubljana 270 2,4 Maribor 244 2,1 Hrvaška 241 2,1 Nemčija 182 1,6 Italija 170 1,5 Avstrija 167 1,5 Poročevalca 132 1,2 Celje 103 0,9 Skupščine 94 0,8 Beograd 91 0,8 Irak 89 0,8 Komisija 82 0,7 Srbija 82 0,7 Koper 55 0,5 Lendava 53 0,5 Ptuj 51 0,4 Republika Hrvaška 51 0,4 Demos 49 0,4 Kranj 42 0,4 Logatca 38 0,3 Republiškem 38 0,3 Francija 37 0,3 Švica 36 0,3 Madžarska 34 0,3 Združene države Amerike 33 0,3 Piran 31 0,3 other named entities 2639 23,2 11378 100,0 Table 4: List of the 30 most common place names in speeches in the Chamber of Associated Labour of the Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia (1990/92) as identified by the Stanford NER for the Slovenian language Andrej Pančur, Mojca Šorn: Smart Big Data: Use of Slovenian Parliamentary Papers ...142 who were most often named in the speeches of MPs were the other MPs. It is also unsurprising that the place name used most often by speakers in the Slovenian par- liament was Slovenia. Table 4 thus shows that the Stanford NER for the Slovenian language recognized 11,378 place names in parliamentary speeches, 45 % of which were identifiable as Slovenia or the Republic of Slovenia. However, a detailed look at the table quickly reveals that the place names identified by Stanford NER for the Slovenian language also included names of organizations (Assembly, Commission, DEMOS) and other names (Poročevalec). These results clearly indicate that history researchers should never simply copy the results of natural language processing (NLP) technologies. At its current level of development, the technology is far from infallible. For example, the Stanford NER for the Slovenian language has 85 % precision when annotating persons, while its precision is below 80 % when it comes to places.45 The following warning must thus truly be taken to heart: “Historians need to be aware that, in addition to verifying reliability of sources as is common in their field, they also need to take the reli- ability of NLP methods into account when working with automatically extracted information.”46 The authors of this paper are certain that the most effective way to achieve this would be through close collaboration with computational linguists. The existing TEI documents that had been encoded in accordance with the TEI module used for per- formance texts were thus subsequently converted into TEI documents wherein the text was annotated in accordance with the speech transcription TEI module. Such documents can then be furnished with linguistic annotations at a later time. Com- putational linguists have thus already provided part-of-speech tagging for the text of the speeches. The corpus has been imported into the No Sketch Engine concordance base47 and all TEI documents are accessible at the CLARIN.SI repository.48 45 Ljubešić, “Combining Available Datasets for Building Named Entity Recognition Models of Croatian and Slovene,” 48. 46 Antske Fokkens et al., “BiographyNet: Methodological issues when NLP supports histori- cal research,” in: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evalua- tion (LREC’14), eds. Nicoletta Calzolari et al. (Reykjavik: European Language Resources Association (ELRA), 2014), 3734. 47 “SlovParl (parlament RS 1990–1992),” NoSketch Engine, accessed on 30 September 2016, http://nl.ijs.si/noske/all.cgi/corp_info?corpname=slovparl. Tomaž Erjavec, “Korpusi in konkordančniki na strežniku nl.ijs.si,” Slovenščina 2.0 1, no. 1 (2013): 24–49. 48 Tomaž Erjavec, Jan Jona Javoršek and Simon Krek, “Raziskovalna infrastruktura CLARIN.SI,” in: Proceedings of the 17th International Multiconference Information Society – IS 2014: Language Technol- ogies, eds. Tomaž Erjavec and Jerneja Žganec Gros (Ljubljana: IJS, 2014), 19–24. Andrej Pančur, Mojca Šorn and Tomaž Erjavec, Slovenian parliamentary corpus SlovParl 1.0 (2016), distributed by Slovenian language resource repository CLARIN.SI, http://hdl.handle.net/11356/1075. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 143 Conclusion This article has attempted to show, based on a number of fundamental analyses of the minutes of the sessions of the Chamber of Associated Labour of the Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia (1990/92), that future historians will be unable to process the increasing amounts of digital materials using standard historiographical methods and will be forced to start supplementing these with methods and tools developed by digital humanities. In doing so, most historians will still rely on various tools de- veloped by digital historians in order to simplify the work of their colleagues who are unfamiliar with digital humanities. At the same time, digital historians will also have to be aware of the limitations of the use of tools developed by other fields, includ- ing language technologies. On the other hand, historians who have started learning the basics of programming languages are increasingly establishing themselves in the field.49 The reason for this is that this is the only way to extract additional useful re- search results from existing digital sources. This is also the manner in which most of the analyses presented by this paper were carried out. At the same time, the authors of this article are well aware that in addition to new knowledge supplied by digital history, it remains indispensable for researchers to be very familiar with research domain. It can thus be anticipated that future research of contemporary history will take place through fruitful collaboration of experts from a multitude of different fields. Sources and Literature Dataset: • Pančur, Andrej, Mojca Šorn and Tomaž Erjavec. Slovenian parliamentary corpus SlovParl 1.0 (2016). Distributed by Slovenian language resource repository CLARIN.SI. http://hdl.handle. net/11356/1075. Literature: • Benardou, Agiatis, Alastair Dunning, Martin Schaller and Nephelie Chatzidiakou. Research Themes for Aggregating Digital Content. Parliamentary Papers in Europe. Europeana Cloud, 2015. Accessed 28 September 2016. http://pro.europeana.eu/files/Europeana_Professional/Projects/Project_list/ Europeana_Cloud/WP1%20Research%20Needs/research-themes-for-aggregating-digital-con- tent-parliamentary-papers.pdf. • Collins, Sandra, Natalie Harrower, Dag Trygve Truslew Haug, Beat Immenhauser, Gerhard Lauer, Tito Orlandi, Laurent Romary and Eveline Wandl-Vogt. ALLEA E-Humanities Working Group Report. Going Digital: Creating Change in the Humanities. Berlin: All European Academies, 2015. Accessed 19 July 2016. http://www.allea.org/Content/ALLEA/WG%20E%20Humanities/ Going%20Digital_digital%20version.pdf. • Cvelfar, Bojan, Tatjana Hajtnik, Miroslav Novak, Nada Čibej and Drago Trpin. Strategija in iz- vedbeni načrt razvoja slovenskega elektronskega arhiva 2016 – 2020. Ljubljana: Arhiv Republike Slovenije, 2016. • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. DFG Practical Guidelines on Digitisation. Bonn: 49 Nanni et al., “Semi-Supervised Textual Analysis and Historical Research Helping Each Other,” 63–68. Graham et al., Exploring Big Historical Data: The Historian’s Macroscope. Andrej Pančur, Mojca Šorn: Smart Big Data: Use of Slovenian Parliamentary Papers ...144 Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, 2013. Accessed 19 July 2016. http://www.dfg.de/formu- lare/12_151/12_151_en.pdf. • Elliot, Devon, Robert MacDougall and William J. Turkel. “New Old Things: Fabrication, Physical Computing, and Experiment in Historical Practice.” Canadian Journal of Communication 37 (2012): 122. Accessed 19 July 2016. http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/2506. • Erjavec, Tomaž, Jan Jona Javoršek and Simon Krek. “Raziskovalna infrastruktura CLARIN.SI.” In: Proceedings of the 17th International Multiconference Information Society – IS 2014: Language Tech- nologies, edited by Tomaž Erjavec and Jerneja Žganec Gros, 19–24. Ljubljana: IJS, 2014. Accessed 30 September 2016. http://nl.ijs.si/isjt14/proceedings/isjt2014_03.pdf. • Erjavec, Tomaž. “Korpusi in konkordančniki na strežniku nl.ijs.si.” Slovenščina 2.0 1, no. 1 (2013): 24-49. Accessed 19 July 2016. http://slovenscina2.0.trojina.si/arhiv/2013/1/Slo2.0_2013_1_03. pdf. • Fokkens, Antske, Serge ter Braake, Niels Ockeloen, Piek Vossen, Susan Legêne and Guus Schreib- er. “BiographyNet: Methodological issues when NLP supports historical research.” In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14), edited by Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Hrafn Loftsson, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk and Stelios Piperidis, 3728–35. Reykjavik: European Lan- guage Resources Association (ELRA), 2014. Accessed 30 September 2016. http://www.lrec-conf. org/proceedings/lrec2014/pdf/1103_Paper.pdf. • Gašparič, Jure. “Slovenian Socialist Parliament on the Eve of the Dissolution of the Yugoslav Fed- eration. A feeble “ratification body” or important political decision-maker?.” Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino 55, no. 3 (2015): 41–59. Accessed 19 July 2016. http://ojs.inz.si/pnz/article/view/123. • Gašparič, Jure. “Pisati politično zgodovino Republike Slovenije.” In: Četrt stoletja Republike Slovenije – izzivi, dileme, pričakovanja, edited by Jure Gašparič and Mojca Šorn, 27–37. Ljubljana: Institute of Contemporary History Institute of Contemporary History, 2016. • Gašparič, Jure. Državni zbor 1992 – 2012. O slovenskem parlamentarizmu. Ljubljana: Institute of Contemporary History, 2012. • Gašparič, Jure. Slovenski parlament: politično-zgodovinski pregled od začetka prvega do konca šestega mandata (1992-2014). Ljubljana: Institute of Contemporary History, 2014. Accessed 19 July 2016. http://hdl.handle.net/11686/26950. • Graham, Shawn, Ian Milligan and Scott Weingart. Exploring Big Historical Data: The Historian’s Macroscope. London: Imperial College Press, 2015. Accessed 28 September 2016. http://www.the- macroscope.org. • Graham, Shawn, Scott Weingart and Ian Milligan. “Getting Started with Topic Modeling and MALLET.” Programming Historian (2 September 2012). Accessed 19 July 2016. http://program- minghistorian.org/lessons/topic-modeling-and-mallet. • Haber, Peter. “Zeitgeschichte und Digital Humanities.” In: Zeitgeschichte – Konzepte und Methoden, edited by Frank Bösch and Danyel Jürgen, 47–66. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. Accessed 19 July 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.14765/zzf.dok.2.269.v1. • Hajtnik, Tatjana. “Strategija razvoja slovenskega javnega elektronskega arhiva ’e-ARH.si’.” Knjižnica 55, no. 1 (2011): 39–56. http://revija-knjiznica.zbds-zveza.si/Izvodi/K1101/Hajtnik.pdf • Jakubíček, Miloš and Vojtěch Kovář. CzechParl. “Corpus of Stenographic Protocols from Czech Parliament.” In: Proceedings of Recent Advances in Slavonic Natural Language Processing, RASLAN 2010, edited by Petr Sojka and Aleš Horák, 41–46. Tribun EU, 2010. Accessed 19 July 2016. http://www.muni.cz/research/publications/914313. • Ljubešić, Nikola, Marija Stupar, Tereza Jurić and Željko Agić. “Combining Available Datasets for Building Named Entity Recognition Models of Croatian and Slovene.” Slovenščina 2.0 1, no. 2 (2013): 35–57. • Martin-Dancausa, Carlos and Maarten Marx. “Parliamentary documents from Spain.” In: Pro- ceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, edited by Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk, Stelios Piperidis, Mike Rosner and Daniel Tapias. Valetta: LREC, 2010. Accessed 19 July 2016. https://www.researchgate. net/publication/239585911. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 145 • Marx, Maarten and Anne Schuth. “DutchParl. The Parliamentary Documents in Dutch.” In: Pro- ceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, edited by Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk, Stelios Piperidis, Mike Rosner and Daniel Tapias, 3670–77. Valetta: LREC, 2010. Accessed 19 July 2016. http://www. lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2010/pdf/263_Paper.pdf. • Marx, Maarten. “Advanced Information Access to Parliamentary Debates.” Texas Digital Library 10, no. 6 (2009): 1–11. Accessed 19 July 2016. https://journals.tdl.org/jodi/index.php/jodi/article/ view/668. • McCallum, Andrew Kachites. MALLET: A Machine Learning for Language Toolkit. 2002. Accessed 19 July 2016. http://mallet.cs.umass.edu/. • Nanni, Federico, Hiram Kumper and Simone Paolo Ponzetto. “Semi-Supervised Textual Analysis and Historical Research Helping Each Other: Some Thoughts and Observations.” International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 10, no. 1 (2016): 63–77. Accessed 19 July 2016. http:// dx.doi.org/10.3366/ijhac.2016.0160. • Nicholson, Bob. “The Digital Turn: Exploring the methodological possibilities of digital newspaper archives.” Media History 19, no. 1 (2013): 59–73. Accessed 30 September 2016. http://dx.doi.org /10.1080/13688804.2012.752963. • Ogrodniczuk, Maciej. “The Polish Sejm Corpus.” In: LREC 2010, Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, edited by Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry De- clerck, Mehmet Uğur Doğan, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk and Stelios Piperidis, 2219–23. Istanbul, 2012. Accessed 19 July 2016. http://www.lrec-conf.org/pro- ceedings/lrec2012/pdf/653_Paper.pdf. • Pančur, Andrej. “Označevanje zbirke zapisnikov sej slovenskega parlamenta s smernicami TEI.” [Encoding the Slovenian Parliament Session Minutes in Line with the TEI Guidelines] In: Zbornik konference Jezikovne tehnologije in digitalna humanistika [Proceedings of the Conference on Lan- guage Technologies & Digital Humanities], edited by Tomaž Erjavec and Darja Fišer, 142–48. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani, 2016. Accessed 5 October 2016. http://nl.ijs.si/isjt16/proceedings-en.html. • Pesek, Rosvita. Osamosvojitev Slovenije. Ljubljana: Nova revija, 2007. • Piersma, Hinke and Kees Ribbens. “Digital Historical Research: Context, Concept and the Need for Reflection.” BMGN – Low Countries Historical Review 128, no. 4 (2013): 78–102. • Piersma, Hinke, Ismee Tames, Lars Buitinck and Maarten Marx. “War in Parliament. What a Digital Approach Can Add to the Study of Parliamentary History.” DHQ: Digital Humanities Quarterly 8, no. 1 (2014). Accessed 30 September 2016. http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/ vol/8/1/000176/000176.html. • Robertson, Stephen. “The Differences between Digital Humanities and Digital History.” In: De- bates in Digital Humanities 2016, edited by Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 2016. Accessed 25 September 2016. http://dhdebates. gc.cuny.edu/debates/text/76. • Rosenzwig, Roy. “Scarcity or Abundance? Preserving the Past in a Digital Era.” American Historical Review 108, no. 3 (2003): 735–62. • Schöch, Christof. “Big? Smart? Clean? Messy? Data in the Humanities.” Journal of Digital Humani- ties 2, no. 3 (2013). Accessed 25 September 2016. http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/2-3/big- smart-clean-messy-data-in-the-humanities/. • Spiro, Lisa. “Access, Explore, Converse. The Impact (and Potential Impact) of the Digital Humani- ties on Scholarship.” In: Keys for architectural history research in the digital era, edited by Juliette Hueber and Antonio Mendes da Silva. 2014. Accessed 25 September 2016. https://inha.revues. org/4925. • TEI Consortium. TEI P5: Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Interchange, Text Encoding Initiative Consortium, 2016. Accessed 19 July 2016. http://www.tei-c.org/Guidelines/P5/. • Zaagsma, Gerben. “On Digital History.” BMGN – Low Countries Historical Review 128, no. 4 (2013): 3–29. http://www.bmgn-lchr.nl/articles/10.18352/bmgn-lchr.9344/. Andrej Pančur, Mojca Šorn: Smart Big Data: Use of Slovenian Parliamentary Papers ...146 Andrej Pančur, Mojca Šorn PAMETNI MASIVNI PODATKI: UPORABA SLOVENSKIH PARLAMENTARNIH DOKUMENTOV V DIGITALNI ZGODOVINI P O V Z E T E K Avtorja v uvodu opozoriva na dejstvo, da velika količina računalniško berljivih podatkov postaja stvarnost in neizogibno dejstvo tudi v zgodovinopisju, pri čemer poudariva, da je prav ta fenomen spod- budil nastanek in uveljavitev digitalne humanistike, ki s pomočjo digitalnih metod in orodij odgovarja na nova raziskovalna vprašanja. Ker so parlamentarni dokumenti bogat vir podatkov, ki ga uporabljajo različne discipline v hu- manistiki, med drugim tudi v zgodovinopisju, avtorja v nadaljevanju predstaviva primer uporabe par- lamentarnih debat v digitalni zgodovini. Predstavljeni primeri so ilustrativni vzorci, s pomočjo katerih hočeva prikazati ogromen potencial, ki ga lahko imajo pametni množični podatki v raziskavah sodobne zgodovine. Vzorčno sva v XML formatu označila 2,7 milijona besed parlamentarnih debat v Zboru združenega dela Skupščine Republike Slovenije v letih 1990–1992. Pri tem sva se odločila uporabiti Smernice Text Encoding Initiative (TEI), ki so v digitalni humanistiki de facto standard za kodiranje tekstovnih besedil. Avtomatske pretvorbe sva izvajala s pomočjo XSLT stilov, napisanih posebej za ta projekt. Ker avtomatske pretvorbe lahko vsebujejo tudi napačne označbe, je označevanje potekalo delno tudi ročno. S tem delno avtomatskim označevanjem sva krajše seje lahko označila v pol ure, za daljše seje sva po navadi porabila do dve uri, za najdaljše (več kot 200000 besed) pa do štiri ure. Govore sva označila v skladu s TEI modulom za dramska besedila (govor, govorec, didaskalija). Označila sva še strukturo zborov in vrste sej, posameznih sej, vsebinskih sklopov posameznih sej, datumov in časovnega poteka sej. Naredila sva povezave na kazala vsebine in sezname govorcev. Na podlagi tako označenih zapisnikov sej lahko raziskovalci naredijo različne vrste osnovnih analiz. V 13894 govorih je bilo na 54 sejah tako skupaj izgovorjenih več kot 2,7 milijonov besed. Na najdaljši – 36. seji – so v osmih dnevih skupaj govorili 29 ur in 3 minute, pri čemer so sejo kar enaindvajsetkrat prekinili. Na najkrajši – 9. seji – pa so nasprotno skupaj govorili samo eno uro. Največ so neprekinjeno govorili 460 minut, v povprečju (mediana) pa so neprekinjeno govorili uro in pol. Osnovne analize zapisnikov torej pokažejo, da v prihodnosti zgodovinarji vedno večjih količin digi- talnega gradiva ne bodo več mogli obdelovati samo z uporabo klasičnih zgodovinskih metod, temveč bodo morali začeti uporabljati metode in orodja, ki jih razvija digitalna humanistika. Večina zgodovi- narjev se bo pri tem (še naprej) zanašala na različna orodja, ki jih razvijajo digitalni zgodovinarji z namenom, da olajšajo delo svojim kolegom, ki se ne ukvarjajo z digitalno humanistiko. Pri tem pa bodo digitalni zgodovinarji morali poznati omejitve, ki jih prinaša uporaba orodij, razvitih v okrilju drugih disciplin, med drugim tudi jezikovne tehnologije. Avtorja prispevka se dobro zavedava, da je za kakovostne analize poleg novih znanj, ki jih prinaša digitalna zgodovina, neobhodno potrebno tudi temeljito poznavanje raziskovalne domene. Zato lahko predvidimo, da bo raziskovanje sodobne zgo- dovine potekalo v znamenju plodnega sodelovanja strokovnjakov iz različnih področij. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 147 * Research Counsellor, PhD, Institute of Contemporary History, Kongresni trg 1, SI-1000 Lju- bljana, Slovenia, zdenko.cepic@inz.si 1.01 UDC 341.231(497.4)"1941/1991" Zdenko Čepič* Before That: The Formation of Slovenian Statehood prior to Its Independence IZVLEČEK PRED TEM: NASTAJANJE SLOVENSKE DRŽAVNOSTI PRED SAMOSTOJNO DR- ŽAVO REPUBLIKO SLOVENIJO Avtor v članku esejistično obravnava vprašanje nastajanja slovenske države v »kratkem« 20. stoletju kot predhodnice samostojne in neodvisne Republike Slovenije. To dejanje, razumljeno kot razdružitev, je imelo pravno pa tudi politično izhodišče v samoodločbi kot načelu, na katerem je bila ustvarjena jugoslovanska država in na osnovi katerega je Republika Slovenija z njo pretrgala državnopravne vezi. Pregledno predstavi trikratno izvedbo samoodločbe kot načina vstopa Sloven- cev v okvir jugoslovanske države (1918, 1943/45) oziroma izstopa iz nje (1990/91). Vsaka od sa- moodločb je imela drugega nosilca, so pa po namenu in svoji vsebini med seboj vzročno povezane, saj je bila vsaka predhodna pogoj za uspešnost naslednje. Zlasti brez druge, na kateri je temeljila t. i. druga Jugoslavija (1943/45–1991), ne bi bilo tretje, s katero je bila leta 1991 ustanovljena samostojna in neodvisna slovenska država. Ključne besede: Slovenija, osamosvojitev, samoodločba, ustava, Jugoslavija ABSTRACT In his article, the author discusses the formation of Slovenia in the “short” 20th century as the predecessor of the independent and sovereign Republic of Slovenia. The establishment of the Re- public of Slovenia as an independent and sovereign state is considered a dissolution or the opposite of the unification into the Yugoslav state in 1918 and 1943/45. The break-up was legally and politically based in self-determination, a principle on which the Yugoslav state was formed and on the grounds of which the Republic of Slovenia severed its political and legal ties with Yugoslavia. The author thoroughly examines the three instances in which self-determination was exercised as a way in which the Slovenians either entered the Yugoslav state (1918, 1943/45) or departed from it (1990/91). Although the principle of self-determination was asserted by a different entity in each of these instances, their purpose and substance are connected in terms of cause as each previous instance served as a prerequisite for the success of the next. Especially without the second instance of self-determination, which served as the basis for the second Yugoslavia (1943/45–1991), it would Zdenko Čepič: Before That: The Formation of Slovenian Statehood prior to Its Independence148 be impossible to achieve the third self-determination, which led to the formation of the independ- ent and sovereign state of Slovenia in 1991. Keywords: Slovenia, attainment of independence, self-determination, constitution, Yugoslavia The Republic of Slovenia was established as an “independent and sovereign state” on 25 June 1991, when the Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia adopted the Basic Constitutional Charter on the Independence and Sovereignty of the Re- public of Slovenia. The preamble of this legal document, which constituted and still constitutes (!) “the birth certificate” of the Republic of Slovenia, or the Slovenian “declaration of independence”, stated that the Slovenian Parliament made such a decision taking into account, among other reasons, the fact that “the Republic of Slovenia had already been a state under the hitherto valid constitutional order and has exercised only a part of its sovereign rights within the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”.1 This meant that, within Yugoslavia, Slovenia was a state with its own sovereign rights, some of which had been transferred to the federal state. It clearly follows from the preamble of the Basic Constitutional Charter on the Inde- pendence and Sovereignty of the Republic of Slovenia that the beginnings of the Slovenian statehood do not date to 25 June 1991; rather, the already existing state of Slovenia became sovereign and gained independence from Yugoslavia, and the Republic of Slovenia assumed “all the rights and duties which were transferred to the authorities of the SFRY under the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia and the Constitution of the SFRY”. Regardless of anyone who doubts the development or the dialectic (which need not be equated with dialectical materialism), it is important to know that some- thing already existed before the Slovenian “Big Bang”, i.e. prior to the attainment of independence, namely that Slovenia had already been a state and that everything that happened throughout the period of the second Yugoslavia influenced and de- termined nearly every aspect of the creation of the independent and sovereign Slo- venian state. As blasphemous as it might sound, the formation of the independent Slovenia is not merely the result of the events taking place in the years prior to its establishment, i.e. the events and the entire political and social process which could be denoted as democratisation, consisting of several factors and not all of them aris- ing from the “opposition” (as to when the opposition formed as an organised factor, the “oppositionals” might provide a variety of answers). The Slovenian state, the Republic of Slovenia, had been formed throughout the entire “short” 20th century. Slovenia was on the path to statehood for nearly fifty years, and it still had a few decades to go before reaching true statehood. In fact, the 1 Uradni list Republike Slovenije [Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia], 1–3, 25 June 1991. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 149 path towards independence took a long time even for the “short” 20th century, as the period between the end of WWI and the fall of the Berlin Wall was called by Eric Hobsbawm, a delineation that corresponds perfectly with the period of the Yugoslav state. The “Yugoslav period” of Slovenian history provided the opportunity to take steps towards national autonomy. The independent and sovereign Slovenia, emancipated from Yugoslavia, did not come into existence from nothing. Only nothing comes from nothing, which is why it is important to be aware that Slovenian statehood has its own history and historical experience, as well as its own social and political players. The independent Republic of Slovenia was not achieved through revolution but rather an evolution in terms of its gradual formation. The “national revolution”, if understood in the sense of the American War of Independence waged in order to gain independence from Great Britain, actually took place half a century earlier. The path towards the state was closely connected with the nation’s emancipation, achieving a status equal to that of other nations in Yugoslavia after the Slovenian nation evolved from being a nation for itself to a nation for other nations as well. This occurred during WWII and in the circumstances relating to that period, which also involved the fight to prevent the old ways from returning. Slovenia was established as a state in a war, through military activity of those who decided to lead a national liberation struggle against the occupying forces (primarily against them, but also against their fellow country- men after the latter decided to join the occupying forces in their effort to preserve their political position). The formation of Slovenia’s statehood is connected with the national liberation struggle during WWII. With regard to the war commonly called the Ten-Day War or the Independence War, it should be noted that Slovenia did not achieve emancipation from Yugoslavia through war, with the army or military activities, although all this coincided with the attainment of independence and the severing of constitutional and legal ties with the Yugoslav state. The war and the related military activities following Slovenia’s independence were the result of the Republic of Slovenia “leaving” the Yugoslav state. This was something that the Yugoslav authorities wished to prevent, whereby the tasks normally carried out by the police were entrusted to the army, in order to prevent the seizure of control over the external borders of the Republic of Slovenia, since these borders were considered the borders of the Yugoslavia. War was not the cause for independence, but its consequence. The attainment of independence trig- gered a reaction by a significant factor of the state from which the Republic of Slove- nia separated or seceded, namely the Yugoslav Army, which had had a fundamental impact on the Yugoslav state ever since its creation in late 1918. Before the Republic of Slovenia was established as an independent state, it was a state within the federal Yugoslavia. Bearing an identical name, which in itself con- tained no indication of the political system but merely denoted the form of gov- ernment, it existed for a relatively brief period of time. This name was adopted on 8 March 1990 by the Slovenian Assembly elected in 1986, i.e. a self-governing, delegate and socialist assembly, which voted for an amendment to the Constitution Zdenko Čepič: Before That: The Formation of Slovenian Statehood prior to Its Independence150 adopted in February 1974.2 This amendment to the Slovenian Constitution, which changed the name of the state, defined the Republic of Slovenia, in accordance with the amendment of late September 1989, as the “state founded on the sovereignty of the Slovenian nation and Slovenia’s people”. The same was already stated in the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia adopted on 28 February 1974. In this Constitution, Slovenia was clearly denoted as a state, while the previous Con- stitution, which was adopted on 9 April 1963, defined it as a “national socialist democratic community”.3 However, the first Constitution of Slovenia, then called the People’s Republic of Slovenia, defined Slovenia as “a people’s state, republican in form”. In any case, Slovenia held the status of a state constitutionally throughout the entire period of the second Yugoslavia. In this respect, the reason for such status was also important, namely the right to self-determination. This principle, or right, which also includes the right to secession and unification with other nations, was also a constitutional category in all Slovenian (as well as Yugoslav) constitutions in force during the second Yugoslavia. This fundamental right, which enabled the second, “AVNOJ” Yugoslavia to be created at all, was incompatible with the first Slovenian Constitution (the first ever in the entire historical development of the Slovenian nation) when it was written explicitly, but it was “hidden” in the fundamental prin- ciples of all subsequent constitutions. In the second Yugoslavia, self-determination was a constitutional category. In the first Constitution of late January 1946, this right was written down in the clearest of terms, right under Article 1, namely that the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia was formed “on the basis of the right to self-determination, including the right of secession”.4 The right to self-determination, as a starting point for the creation of the federal Yugoslavia, was understood in a variety of ways throughout the entire period of the state, especially with regard to its “permanence”. There was a lack of consensus as to whether this was a permanent right or a “one-time” right to be exercised for the purposes of unification. Those who supported the “restricted use” of the right to self-determination, the majority of which came from Serbia, found it “contentious” that the inseparable element of self-determination was the right to secession and unification with other nations. For them, this was a point of concern ever since the beginning of the second Yugoslavia, when its first Constitution was being written in late 1945 and early 1946. That particular period even witnessed a dispute as to whether the right to self-determination, including the right to secession, should be mentioned in the Constitution at all.5 The viewpoint argued by Edvard Kardelj, the 2 Uradni list Republike Slovenije [Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia], 8–402, 16 March 1990. 3 Uradni list Socialistične federativne republike Jugoslavije [Official Gazette of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia], 14–209, 10 April 1963. 4 Uradni list Socialistične federativne republike Jugoslavije [Official Gazette of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia], Constitution of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia of 1945, 10–73, 1946. 5 Aleš Gabrič, “Nacionalno vprašanje v Jugoslaviji v prvem povojnem obdobju – The National Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 151 principal advocate of self-determination as a permanent right, prevailed, thus secur- ing self-determination as a “permanent” right and a fundamental starting point, or a prerequisite, for establishing the second Yugoslavia. The air of “contentiousness” surrounding the right to self-determination would resurface upon every crisis in the Yugoslav federation, since the right to secession as an inseparable part of the right to self-determination was “permanently” debatable and unacceptable for Serbian poli- ticians. This was manifested once again upon the last crisis relating to the federal nature of Yugoslavia in the 1980s, which saw the resurfacing of the conflict, although it was constantly present in the second Yugoslavia, regarding the interpretation of its federal nature, namely the question and application of centralism on the one hand, and, on the other, the understanding of the federal nature in light of the increased importance and status of the states forming the federal state. The question of self-determination remained one of the essential issues through- out all political events in the final phase of Slovenia’s Yugoslav period, in the late 1980s, when the question of democratisation of the Yugoslav state was, for Slove- nians, closely related to the question of independence, and the manner and pace of achieving it. It was, in fact, the key to the process and the actual attainment of independence of the Republic of Slovenia. For the Slovenian history, the 20th century, commonly labelled as the century of (world) wars, was also the century in which Slovenia achieved its statehood. To a large extent, this was connected (in terms of cause and effect) with wars, more specifically with both world wars. States disintegrate and emerge in and due to wars. Slovenia’s statehood, such as it was in the 20th century, developed in war. More precisely, because of a war – World War II. The establishment of an independent and sovereign state was also connected with a war, or at least with military activity, whereby the war or military action following Slovenia’s independence was the result of independence already attained. The way wars influenced Slovenia’s statehood as it was manifested in the 20th century and how they enabled it is not in significant relation with the military ac- tion, but more with the political dimensions, which are always present in wars. The political categories that could be classified as the consequences of wars, specifically WWI, include self-determination. The self-determination we know and tend to in- voke today resulted from the political events during WWI and the disintegration of the state in which the Slovenians lived at the time. This includes the well-known fourteen points presented (in his address before the U.S. Congress) by President Woodrow Wilson in early 1918. For the Slovenians and other nations under Austria- Hungary, Point 10 was especially important, stating these nations should be free to develop autonomously.6 Question in Yugoslavia in the Immediate Postwar Period,” in: Jugoslavija v hladni vojni: zbornik z znanstvenega posveta Jugoslavija v hladni vojni = Yugoslavia in the Cold War: the collection of papers at the Scientific Conference Yugoslavia in the Cold War (Ljubljana: Institute of Contemporary History and Toronto: University, 2004), 404–10, 426–33. 6 “The people of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and Zdenko Čepič: Before That: The Formation of Slovenian Statehood prior to Its Independence152 War thus provided the chance for self-determination, which the Slovenians exer- cised three times over the course of the “short” 20th century. On two occasions, it was connected with war, WWI and WWII, while in the third instance self-determination served as the basis for emancipation from Yugoslavia and led to the military activi- ties of the Yugoslav Army and the defence-related activities of the Slovenian Army and Police. All instances of self-determination were related to the Yugoslav state. The first two were decisions for Yugoslavia, i.e. for the Slovenians to join the common state along with other South Slavic nations, while the third concerned the Slove- nians’ departure from Yugoslavia in favour of an independent and sovereign state. These were, therefore, national and legal turning points executed on the basis of the right to self-determination over the course of three periods – in 1918, 1943/45 and 1990/1991. All three instances of self-determination had common points in terms of connections, causality and sequence. The third self-determination would not have happened without the second one, and the second one would not have happened without the first. In each of the periods in question, self-determination was exercised through a different political entity, whichever represented the people and the nation at that particular time. This, however, does not mean that political and ideological inclinations towards someone in a particular period justify omitting any act of self- determination, or even rejecting it as though it had not occurred. Self-determination can be understood as self-determination of a people, which is where its original meaning actually comes from. It assures democracy in deci- sion-making regarding a political regime (democracy vs. autocracy) and the form of government (republic vs. monarchy). This type of self-determination, where the emphasis is on the people, is about the expression of the people’s democratic tenden- cies within the political and the entire social sphere, while the self-determination of a nation is about decisions regarding the state framework in which the said nation wants to exist or with whom they would like to live in a joint state. It is about the sovereignty of a nation among other nations. This was the self-determination that shaped the Slovenian nationality in the “short” 20th century and served as the ba- sis for achieving independent statehood. The plebiscite on Slovenia’s independence, which took place in December 1990 and provided legitimacy to the independence efforts, i.e. the separation, as it reflected the will of the Slovenian voters (i.e. of the people), posed a clear question on the ballot: “Should the Republic of Slovenia become an independent and sovereign state?” The people made the decision regard- ing the statehood or, rather, the state in which they would like to live. No one asked them about the state’s system of government since it went without saying that such changes would be in line with the views of the authorities, that they would be adopted in a parliamentary procedure and that they would reflect the wishes of the parliamentary majority. Self-determination, which we understand and accept as a way of creating a na- assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development.” See Fourtheen Pounts – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtheen_Pounts. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 153 tion’s sovereignty and independence, was a means for establishing the states in which the Slovenians lived, as well as of the state in which we live now. Based on self-deter- mination, its principle as well as practice, the Slovenians achieved their statehood. The first effect of self-determination was experienced upon and after the end of WWI. The first instance when Slovenians exercised the right to self-determination in the 20th century was related to the unification with the other two South Slavic nations recognised at the time, of which one even had a state of their own. This self- determination (although the question remains as to whether this was the self-deter- mination of a people or of a nation) served as the foundation for the formation of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs as a Yugoslav para-state, as well as the creation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Self-determination was exercised by the party representing Slovenian political Catholicism (the Slovenian People’s Party or SLS), which was the strongest political party in Slovenia. Although presented with the terms almost in a “take it or leave it” manner, SLS, with its politics and the deci- sion regarding the unification under a Yugoslav state, “led” the Slovenians into the “promised land”. At least they imagined that the unification/joining would mainly bring about positive things, however, the extent to which these expectations were realised is another matter. Although the terms for joining the Yugoslav state were very indicative of how the Serbs understood the process, their unwavering policy, which set the terms of unification, was clear and necessary for Yugoslavia because of the historical circumstances. There was but little manoeuvring space for anything other than “unification” under the given terms. The right to self-determination was exercised after the end of WWI in 1918 when the Slovenians became Yugoslavians, by nationality and citizenship. At the time, a Yugoslav state was created and formed, in which the Slovenians lived without their statehood. From a formal and legal point of view, they were, in fact, also without their own national independence and sovereignty. Although Slo- venians considered themselves as a nation, they were not regarded as such by others in terms of constitutional organisation. They were merely a tribe of the “Yugoslavian nation comprised of three nations”. Nevertheless, the first Yugoslavian state was an essential prerequisite for the second one, which was formed on different founda- tions, with a different type of self-determination in terms of substance and practice. Today, the first Yugoslavia is regarded as positive (for ideological reasons rather than factual, historical ones) and as a welcome model for the Slovenian “present” due to its political organisation, which was founded in parliamentary democracy (how it actually functioned and was misused is another matter) and with capitalism as an economic system. The political and economic foundations of this Yugoslav state, to which the Slovenians contributed their national name in its first denomination, but in which they were unable to develop due to the state’s constitutional centralism and unitarism, were said to be equal – democratic. However, the extent of actual democracy (which existed formally) can be questioned. In comparison to the second Yugoslavia, where the communists were in power, the first Yugoslav state is consid- ered a positive historical experience due to democracy, even though the Slovenians Zdenko Čepič: Before That: The Formation of Slovenian Statehood prior to Its Independence154 were not even regarded as a nation, let alone able to achieve any level of statehood. The second Yugoslavia, in contrast, could not be deemed as positive on account of its political system, i.e. monism, although it provided the Slovenians with the chance of statehood, which they were able to use to form an independent and sovereign state. In this respect, the second Yugoslavia has undoubtedly had a greater significance than the “democratic” first Yugoslavia. Not considering the second instance of self- determination (the second Yugoslavia), the first instance of self-determination had no direct impact on the third, i.e. the emancipation from Yugoslavia. Between them was the period of the second Yugoslavia, which was completely different from the first Yugoslav state in terms of government and political organisation. It was kinder to the Slovenian nation as the Slovenians were recognised as a nation and had their own state. The second Yugoslavia was established on a clear understanding and appli- cation of the right to self-determination of a nation as a principle which also includes the right to secession and unification with other nations. From this principle, on which the second Yugoslavia was created and organised as a federation, the third self-determination of the Slovenians originated, signifying the split from the Yugoslav state and the creation of an independent and sovereign Slovenian state. The principle behind the creation of the second Yugoslavia and its organisation, the constitutional right to self-determination, were the prerequisites that enabled the independence of the Republic of Slovenia. This was also taken into account by the Badinter Commission, which, for the purposes of the peace confer- ence on Yugoslavia, ruled that Yugoslavia broke apart and that this did not involve Slovenia’s secession but a separation based on self-determination as a Yugoslav con- stitutional category. The break-up could not have taken place without the prior uni- fication into a new, AVNOJ Yugoslavia, i.e. without the creation of this state and, especially, the manner of its creation or renewal. The second (AVNOJ) Yugoslavia was established taking into account self-determination. The creation of the Slovenian statehood within the political activities of the Slo- venian liberation movement actually took place from the autumn of 1941, when the Slovenian National Liberation Committee was established as a body of power, to the appointment of the National Government of Slovenia on 5 May 1945. Throughout this process in which the Slovenian state was established, the focus was on authority, i.e. national authority. Based on the principle of a nation’s right to self-determina- tion, which presupposes the recognition of nations living in Yugoslavia, the libera- tion movement established Yugoslavia as a federal state. Based on self-determination of a nation, the nations actually entered a state formation comprised of these na- tions/their states. The self-determination of a nation, its chance or, rather, its right to decide on a type, as well as on the organisation of state they would like to live in, included the right to leave this state, i.e. the right to secession. The second Yugoslav state was established and functioned based on such understanding of self-determina- tion of a nation. The understanding and interpretation of self-determination, which helped establish the second Yugoslavia, were a constant source of legal and political conflicts. Disagreements mainly arose with regard to the consummation or utilisa- Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 155 tion of the right to self-determination. Some people (mostly Serbians) believed that this right could only be exercised once, and that it had been exercised in the forma- tion of the second Yugoslavia, which was organised as a federation. This issue became a political constant, resurfacing upon every crisis of relations among the nations and their states within Yugoslavia, which occurred quite often. The Slovenian state was formed in a state which suffered a collapse after 45 years of existence due to the differing views on the state, more specifically its organisation, and due to the inclinations of one nation to rule over the others. One of the key reasons for this turn of events was the constant revisiting of views on the state and its beginnings, returning to the time of “unification”, which some understood as an expansion of Serbia rather than the creation of a new state. Returning to and invok- ing the past and the rights and merits from times gone by turned out to be a poor political move, which was based on the lack of understanding or merely people’s own understanding of the creation and existence of the Yugoslav state. Among the opponents of such views, this stirred up responses that were reflected in the exercise of the right to self-determination and the right to secession. This was the foundation for the third instance of self-determination by the Slovenians, which was directed against Yugoslavia, since it was the decision for Slovenia as an independent state. Denying the significance of the second self-determination by the Slovenians is therefore not credible from the professional (historiographical and legal) aspect. This is especially true regarding the political aspect. The purpose of the second self-deter- mination, which led to the formation of the second Yugoslavia, was the same as in the first instance, which enabled the Yugoslav state to be created at all – to establish a Yugoslav state in which the Slovenians would have their position, role and standing. However, the first and the second Yugoslav state differed in the organisation of the state, which was the result of taking into account the right to self-determination, and they both involved different political players who determined the type of govern- ment, especially the political and the economic system. The principals involved in the second self-determination bear no political and ideological responsibility nowa- days because they were primarily communists. This must not mean, however, that their contribution to the formation of Slovenian statehood, which they had helped establish during WWII and which served as a foundation or, rather, a prerequisite for the possibility of the third self-determination, should be concealed. The fact that the second Slovenian self-determination in the 20th century was supported by the organisation of the Slovenian nation’s resistance against the occupying forces and that this self-determination, as regards self-determination of a nation, was based on the communists’ view of resolving the national question by establishing equality among the nations in the Yugoslav state, cannot diminish the significance of the self- determination itself or the result thereof, which was reflected in the federal system of the Yugoslav state. In order for this to have been possible, the Slovenian statehood needed to be established. The Slovenian nation achieved this feat through the po- litical efforts of the liberation movement during WWII. This was, in fact, the first expression of the Slovenian statehood, of the Slovenian state in the entire historical Zdenko Čepič: Before That: The Formation of Slovenian Statehood prior to Its Independence156 development of the Slovenian nation and of the territory in which this nation lives. In the sequence of the three instances of Slovenian self-determination, which led to the independent and sovereign state of Slovenia, all three are important. One would not exist without the others. The end depended on the beginning. There is no doubt that the second self-determination during WWII created the conditions in which Slovenians could exercise their right to self-determination for the third time, when the Republic of Slovenia became an independent and sovereign state. Sources and Literature • Čepič, Zdenko. “Slovenija, Moja država: država in državnost v mislih in dejanjih slovenske politike: (dejstva in mnenja).” In: Osamosvojitev 1991: država in demokracija na Slovenskem v zgodovinskih razsežnostih, eds. Mitja Ferenc, Jurij Hadalin and Blaž Babič, 5–36. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete, 2011. • Ferenc, Tone. “Oblikovanje slovenske (federalne) države 1941–1944”. In: Slovenci in prihodnost: zbornik prispevkov z znanstvenega posveta na SAZU (9–11 November 1994), eds. Bogo Grafenauer, et al., 213–23. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, 1995. • Fourteen Points – Wikipedia. Accesed 4 July 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtheen_Po- unts. • Gabrič, Aleš. “Nacionalno vprašanje v Jugoslaviji v prvem povojnem obdobju = The national que- stion in Yugoslavia in the immediate postwar period.” In: Jugoslavija v hladni vojni / Yugoslavia in the cold war: zbornik z Znanstvenega posveta Jugoslavija v hladni vojni, Ljubljana, 8.–9. maja 2000 / The collection of papers at the Scientific Conference Yugoslavia in the Cold War, Ljubljana, 8–9 May 2000, 403–24, 425–48. Ljubljana: Institute of Contemporary History and Toronto: University / Ljubljana: Institute of Contemporary History and Toronto: University, 2004. • Godeša, Bojan. Slovensko nacionalno vprašanje med drugo svetovno vojno. Ljubljana: Institute of Contemporary History, 2006. • Jović, Dejan. Jugoslavija – država koja je odumrla: uspon, kriza i pad Četvrte Jugoslavije: (1974.– 1990.). Zagreb: Prometej and Beograd: Samizdat B92, 2003. • Lusa, Stefano. Razkroj oblasti: slovenski komunisti in demokratizacija države. Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2012. • Milosavljević, Olivera. Jugoslavija kao zabluda. Srpska strana rata: trauma i katarza u istorijskom pamćenju, 1. Beograd: Samizdat B92, 2002. • Perovšek, Jurij. Samoodločba in federacija: slovenski komunisti in nacionalno vprašanje 1920–1941. Ljubljana: Institute of Contemporary History, 2012. • Petranović, Branko and Momčilo Zečević. Jugoslovenski federalizam: ideje i stvarnost. Beograd: Pro- sveta, 1987. • Pleterski, Janko. “Država dveh domovin: historiografski premislek.” Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino, No 2 (2013): pp. 161–73. • Pleterski, Janko. Nacije, Jugoslavija, revolucija. Ljubljana: Komunist, Državna založba Slovenije, 1986. • Ramet, P. Sabrina. Tri Jugoslavije – izgradnja države i izazov legitimacije 1918.–2005. Zagreb: Gol- den marketing – Tehnička knjiga, 2009. • Repe, Božo. Jutri je nov dan. Slovenci in razpad Jugoslavije. Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2002. • Repe, Božo. Milan Kučan, prvi predsednik. Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2015. • Repe, Božo. Viri o demokratizaciji in osamosvojitvi Slovenije. Volume 2: Slovenci in federacija. Ljublja- na: Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2003. • Režek, Mateja. Med resničnostjo in iluzijo. Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2005. • Self-determination – Wikipedia. Accesed 4 July 2016. https://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determi- nation. • Slovenska novejša zgodovina: Od programa Zedinjena Slovenija do mednarodnega priznanja Republike Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 157 Slovenije 1848–1992. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga Založba and Institute of Contemporary History, 2005. • Šnuderl, Makso, Dokumenti o razvoju ljudske oblasti v Sloveniji. Ljubljana: Uradni list Ljudske re- publike Slovenije, 1949. • Uradni list Federativne ljudske republike Jugoslavije [Official Gazette of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia], 1946. • Uradni list Ljudske republike Slovenije [Official Gazette of the People’s Republic of Slovenia], 1947. • Uradni list Republike Slovenije [Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia], 1990, 1991. • Uradni list Socialistične federativne republike Jugoslavije [Official Gazette of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia], 1963, 1974. • Uradni list Socialistične republike Slovenije [Official Gazette of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia], 1963, 1974. • Vodopivec, Peter. Od Pohlinove slovnice do samostojne države: slovenska zgodovina od konca 18. stole- tja do konca 20. stoletja. Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2002. • Vodušek Starič, Jerca. Prevzem oblasti 1944–1946. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 1992. • Zasedanje Ustavotvorne skupštine: 29 novembar 1945 – 1 februar 1946: stenografske beleške. Beograd: Izdanje Prezidijuma Narodne skupštine, 1946. Zdenko Čepič PRED TEM: NASTAJANJE SLOVENSKE DRŽAVNOSTI PRED SAMOSTOJNO DRŽAVO REPUBLIKO SLOVENIJO P O V Z E T E K Slovenska samostojna in neodvisna država, Republika Slovenija, je nastajala vse “kratko” 20. sto- letje. Za njo je bila slabega pol stoletja dolga pot državnosti, pred njo pa še nekaj desetletij poti do državnosti. Dejansko je bila pot do samostojne slovenske države dolga za celo t. i. kratko 20. stoletje, ki ga je na eni strani omejeval konec prve svetovne vojne, na drugi pa padec berlinskega zida, kar se časovno povsem ujema s časom jugoslovanske države. “Jugoslovansko obdobje” slovenske zgodovine je dalo možnost za korak v državno samostojnost. Dvajseto stoletje, ki ga radi označujemo kot stoletje svetovnih vojn, je bilo v slovenski zgodovini tudi stoletje slovenske državnosti. Ta pa je v veliki meri povezana – vzročno-posledično – z obema svetovnima vojnama. Nastanek samostojne in neodvisne države leta 1991 pa je tudi povezan z vojno ali vsaj z vojaško dejavnostjo. Pri tem pa je bila vojna ali vojaško dogajanje, ki je sledilo osamosvojitvi Slovenije, posledica že izvedene osamosvojitve. Vojna oziroma vojaške dejavnosti so bile na eni strani zaradi nepriznavanja slovenske osamosvojitve, na drugi pa za obrambo le-te. Samostojna Republika Slovenija ni izraz revolucije, ampak evolucije njenega postopnega nastanka. Pot do države je bila tesno povezana z dosego narodove emancipacije, s pridobitvijo enakopravnega po- ložaja z drugimi narodi v Jugoslaviji. To pa se je zgodilo v času druge svetovne vojne. Nastanek slovenske državnosti je povezan z osvobodilnim bojem v času druge svetovne vojne. Nastanek Republike Slovenije kot samostojne in neodvisne države 25. junija 1991, ko je Skupšči- na Republike Slovenije sprejela Temeljno ustavno listino o samostojnosti in neodvisnosti Republike Slovenije, je v slovenski politiki, pravu in tudi zgodovinopisju razumljen kot razdružitev, kot nasprotje združitve v jugoslovansko državo tako leta 1918 kot 1943/45. Razdružitev kot združitev je imela pravno pa tudi politično izhodišče v samoodločbi kot načelu, na katerem je bila ustvarjena jugoslovanska država in na osnovi katerega je Republika Slovenija z njo pretrgala državnopravne vezi. Do združitve oziroma nastanka jugoslovanske države je prišlo v “kratkem” 20. stoletju dvakrat, prvič po koncu prve svetovne vojne, drugič pa v času druge svetovne vojne oziroma po njenem koncu. Nastala je jugoslovanska dr- žava, ki je imela v dveh časovnih obdobjih, med svetovnima vojnama in po drugi svetovni vojni, dve glede na politični sistem, obliko vladavine in organizacijo države med seboj povsem različni podobi. V obeh jugoslovanskih državah je imela Slovenija drugačen položaj, v prvi je bila upravna enota sicer centralizirane jugoslovanske države in je želela doseči politično in upravno avtonomijo, v drugi pa je bila Zdenko Čepič: Before That: The Formation of Slovenian Statehood prior to Its Independence158 v položaju države, ki pa je vrsto svoje suverenosti prenesla na osrednjo jugoslovansko državno oblast in se je za “vrnitev” te suverenosti ves čas borila. V vsem obdobju druge Jugoslavije je Slovenija imela ustavno status države. Glede tega je bil po- memben tudi razlog zanj sklicevanje na pravico do samoodločbe. To načelo oziroma ta pravica, katere sestavni del je tudi pravica do odcepitve in združitve z drugimi narodi, je bila tudi ustavna kategorija vseh slovenskih (tudi jugoslovanskih) ustav, ki so veljale v času druge Jugoslavije. Samoodločba je bila v drugi Jugoslaviji ustavna kategorija. Samoodločba kot način ustvarjanja narodove suverenosti in samostojnosti je bila sredstvo za obli- kovanje držav, v katerih smo Slovenci živeli, in države, v kateri živimo zdaj. Na osnovi samoodločbe, njenega načela in tudi prakse smo Slovenci dosegli svojo državnost. V 20. stoletju so bile za Slovence v zvezi z njihovo državnostjo pomembne tri samoodločbe. Prva samoodločba Slovencev je bila povezana z vstopom v državo z drugima takrat priznanima južnoslovanskima narodoma. Šlo je za nastanek in obli- kovanje jugoslovanske države, v kateri so Slovenci živeli brez svoje državnosti. Druga samoodločba je bila glede vstopa in oblikovanja t. i. druge Jugoslavije, federativno organizirane. Za to je bil pogoj upo- števanje samoodločbe naroda. Za slovensko državnost ima druga Jugoslavija nedvomno večji pomen kot prva Jugoslavija. Do slovenskega naroda je bila druga Jugoslavija bolj prijazna, saj so Slovenci bili priznani kot narod in so dobili svojo državo. Tretja samoodločba pa je odločitev za samostojno državo, za kar je bil pravni, tj. ustavni pogoj v ustavnosti druge Jugoslavije. V sosledju slovenskih samoodločb, ki so na koncu pripeljale do samostojne in neodvisne države Slo- venije, so pomembne vse tri. Dejstvo pa je, da je druga samoodločba, tista iz časa druge svetovne vojne, ko je nastala druga Jugoslavija zaradi dejstva upoštevanja pravice do samoodločbe, ustvarila pogoje za tretjo. Tisto, s katero je Republika Slovenija postala samostojna in neodvisna država. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 159 * Research Counsellor, PhD, Institute of Contemporary History, Kongresni trg 1, 1000 Ljublja- na, Slovenia, jurij.perovsek@inz.si 1.01 UDC: 930:94(497.4)"1991" Jurij Perovšek* What to Say? – Marking the 25th Anniversary of Slovenian Independence IZVLEČEK KAJ REČI? – OB PETINDVAJSETLETNICI SLOVENSKE OSAMOSVOJITVE V prispevku avtor opozarja na negativne plati družbenega, političnega in gospodarskega ra- zvoja v Republiki Sloveniji po njeni osamosvojitvi. Izstopa t. i. divja privatizacija nekdanjega družbenega in državnega premoženja, ki so ji bili vodilo nepošteni nameni, okoriščanje in pohlep, pri čemer je manjši del prebivalstva zelo obogatel. Za to nosita velik del odgovornosti pravni sis- tem in politika, ki nista pripravila ustreznih zakonov. Politika ne uživa zaupanja, ki je temelj demokracije. V družbi se je uveljavil narcistični tip človeka, ki želi čim bolj poskrbeti zase in pri tem odrivati druge, »šefovske etaže« v podjetjih pa neusmiljeno pobijajo socialni čut. Družbo pre- tresajo hudi ideološki spori in preprečujejo nacionalno soglasje o etičnem temelju slovenske države in smotrom njenega obstoja. Tiste, ki so ob osamosvojitvi s polnimi pljuči zadihali narodno čustvo in pričakovali zgodovinski dvig slovenstva, je tak razvoj razočaral. Zgodovinopisje in psihiatrija sta o omenjeni problematiki v zadnjih letih opravila več kvalitetnih, tudi monografskih, obravnav. Ključne besede: osamosvojitev, privatizacija, politika, ideološkost, narcistična družba, zgodo- vinopisje, psihiatrija ABSTRACT In his paper, the author points out the negative aspects of the social, political and economic development in the Republic of Slovenia, following its independence. What stands out is the uncon- trolled privatisation of former public and state property, which was rooted in dishonest intentions, profiteering and greed, and resulted in a small part of the population becoming very rich. The legal system and the politics are largely to blame for the situation, as they failed to prepare suitable laws that would prevent it from happening. Trust, the very foundation of democracy, is not something that would currently be associated with the politicians. The society has witnessed the rise of narcis- sistic characters who only care for their own well-being and who trample over others, while the companies’ executives are doing their best to eradicate any social concern. Society is being shaken by severe ideological conflicts, which prevent a national consensus on the ethical foundation of the Slovenian state and the purpose of its existence. Those who fully embraced the national sentiment and expected a historic rise of Slovenianism when Slovenia became independent were disappointed Jurij Perovšek: What to Say? – Marking the 25th Anniversary of Slovenian Independence160 by such development of events. In recent years, historiography and psychiatry have been examining the issue in a number of publications, including monographs. Key words: independence, privatisation, politics, ideology, narcissistic society, historiography, psychiatry It was already evening on 15th January 1992, when I was walking along Vegova Street, headed for the Institute of Contemporary History in Ljubljana, after spend- ing the day reviewing historical materials at the National and University Library. I first heard and then saw an exemplar meandering in the middle of the street, crying out: “Slovenia, I love you so! I would give half of my life for you!” – “As would I, as would I!” it crossed my mind, but I derailed the train of thought. My profession as a historian prevented me from giving into the intoxicating sensation brought about by the fact that, on that day, Slovenia was internationally recognised by the states of the European Community. I subsequently recalled this event on several occasions and tried to assess the unfinished thought of that day. I witnessed the “offering” on Vegova Street after spending time with the Sloveni- ans who lived in the first Yugoslav state. Therefore, it makes sense that, while making a list of the years of Slovenian independence, which fulfilled the promise of a “success story” for a while, I was faced with the question of what Slovenians revealed about themselves after leaving multinational states in which they ultimately saw their na- tional and democratic demise. Given our historical position after 1991, the question is even more engaging, since we are not ruled neither by Vienna or Belgrade, nor by any single-party political system. We do, however, feel the influence of Brussels and the Euro-Atlantic powers. After turning from the Austrian south to the Yugoslav north in 1918, the Sloveni- ans expected to find themselves in the “promised land”. They had dreamt and written about it before the above-mentioned change.1 But the reality was somewhat differ- ent. Autonomy was not attained, the nations were constitutionally wiped out and merged into a Serbian-Croatian-Slovenian nationality, the same name was given to the official language, there were no more Slovenian regiments (a Slovenian military force was, however, formed in the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs in November 1918), and Slovenian soldiers were dispersed across the entire Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, i.e. Yugoslavia. The belief that the toxic battles fought among political parties were at their end, which was expressed by a liberal politician Albert Kramer in his address to the leader of the Catholic Vseslovenska ljudska stranka (Pan-Slovenian People’s Party) Dr Anton Korošec, when he visited Ljubljana on 23 1 Jurij Perovšek, Liberalizem in vprašanje slovenstva. Nacionalna politika liberalnega tabora v letih 1918–1929 [Liberalism and the Question of Slovenianism. National Policy in the Liberal Camp from 1918 to 1929] (Ljubljana: Modrijan, 1996), 46–65. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 161 and 24 March 1918,2 did not come true. Almost 20 years later, the Maribor-based newspaper Neodvisnost revealed that “Slovenians no longer consider themselves as a unit but as a mixture of different tribes without any sense of community, who are engaged in a fierce, insensitive and brutal fight against extermination. These tribes include the clericals, liberals, Marxists, and others, whatever they may be called. The fire of passion and hatred is stoked by the media which is daily poisoning our society. No supreme and unalterable national principles, no clear and firm objectives can therefore be found in it and in our public.”3 There were still Carniolan and Styrian people to be found, even though Ivan Hribar, in October 1918, expected that the people of Slovenia would “all (…) simply be Slovenians”.4 There was, however, cultural and economical progress but the Sava river flowed “downstream”, which was “patriotic” as written by the very young Mitja Ribičič in 1927.5 Comfort was sought in the notion of the Slovenian people being hard- working, honest, reliable, kind-hearted and generally non-problematic, i.e. in the attributes which supposedly illustrated the truth of their civilisational image. We should not forget to mention the political parties, organisations and associations, which multiplied across the Slovenian territory. Those with federalist inclinations tended to mention the North American countries and Switzerland as national mod- els to be emulated. Historiography clarified the above issues rather well, while the contemporaries of the first 22-year-Yugoslav period managed to prepare two extensive, comprehensive presentations of the then Slovenian development This shows the extent of their in- terest in the subject matter. The collections entitled Slovenci v desetletju 1918–1928 (Slovenians in the decade 1918–1928) (1928) and Spominski zbornik Slovenije : ob dvajsetletnici Kraljevine Jugoslavije (Memorial booklet of Slovenia : the twentieth an- niversary of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia) (1939) are still considered to be two definitive works of academic literature. And our twenty-five years? Slovenians have taken up an international legal posi- tion – the Republic of Slovenia. The Slovenian language retained its official nature from the second Yugoslavia; once again, the Slovenians got their own army and wit- nessed several remarkable cultural and sports-related successes at home and abroad; the media developed further, and, as for the economy, we will mention that later; however, Sava river does not necessarily seem to flow downstream when it leaves the Slovenian territory any more. Slovenians were taking leave as the “objects of history who caught a cold.”6 Tomaž Šalamun, who coined this description, repeated it in 2 “Praznik slovenskega ženstva” [Slovenian Women Day], Slovenski narod, 26 March 1918, 2. 3 “Neodvisnost” [Independence], Neodvisnost, 1 December 1936, 1. 4 Ivan Hribar, “Uprava Jugoslavije” [Yugoslavia administration], Slovenec, 15 October 1918, 2. 5 Mitja Ribičič, “Patriotizem” [Patriotism], Učiteljski tovariš, 13 January 1927, 2. 6 Tomaž Šalamun, “Duma 1964,” Naši razgledi, 9 May 1964, 178. Jurij Perovšek: What to Say? – Marking the 25th Anniversary of Slovenian Independence162 his speech marking the Slovenian cultural holiday – the Prešeren Day, in 2000. He described Slovenia as a “beautiful, relatively rich, lively and creative country. The people are friendlier, the changes are profound, the language is fresh and stimulating (...). The wonder of a civilis- ing momentum is happening here with great force. We are actualised to such a degree that we will hopefully no longer yearn for the watchful eyes of protective big brothers, and we will maintain our sovereignty and democracy. The wisdom of the people can also be seen in them refusing to follow its elites if they stray, but simply relieving them of their duty.”7 What was created was “a flawed paradise”8 The ideological “tribes” remained, us- ing new tools being, along with the old ones – the experiences of the second world conflict and of the attainment of independence as well as of the previous society, which was saturated with “organisation, politics, matter, ideology, and everything of importance in the world, it was the World.” This is how Taras Kermauner perceived the then society.9 While some fully embraced the national sentiment and expected the historic rise of Slovenianism and its ethical acknowledgement and “everyone was invited to participate” – as Šalamun described it,10 the new Slovenian world witnessed the open season – a hunting season for predators engaging in privatisation, accumulation of weapons, ruthless politics and the like. The aptness of circuses with- out bread, i.e. either political or ideological wars, including what was practically an online civil war, was never under question. What is more, the lack of cognitive pow- ers and a greater focus on money, adrenaline and human indifference, as opposed to the spirit, attest to such significant decline in values. Slovenians failed to become “moral juggernauts”, as the nation’s fulfilment was envisaged by Edvard Kocbek.11 Intolerance and aggression prevailed, Slovenians did not succeed in morally with- standing the civilising momentum. These two topics were best dealt with by one of the leading Slovenian experts in the field of psychoanalysis, Dr Matjaž Lunaček, and an observer of Slovenians, the academic named Niko Grafenauer. When asked about which type of personality is the most characteristic for the Slovenian society at this moment, Lunaček replied: 7 Tomaž Šalamun, “Govor na prireditvi ob slovenskem kulturnem prazniku 2000” [Speech at the event held for the Prešeren Day 2000], in: Prešernov sklad 2000 [Prešeren’s Fund 2000] (Ljubljana: upravni odbor Prešernovega sklada, 2000), 4, 5. 8 Marko Bucik, ”Raj z napako. Slovenija leta 2041. V kakšni državi si želim živeti čez 25 let in kako priti do nje?” [A flawed paradise. Slovenia in 2041. In what kind of country do I want to live in 25 years and how to achieve it?], Delo, 7 June 2016, 5. 9 Taras Kermauner, “Vladimir Bartol – predhodnik današnje slovenske moderne literature” [Vladi- mir Bartol – the predecessor of today’s modern Slovenian literature], in: Vladimir Bartol, Demon in Eros. Al Araf [Demon and Eros. Al Araf ] (Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 1974), 441. 10 Šalamun, “Govor 2000,” 4. 11 Edvard Kocbek, “Slovenski človek” [The Slovenian Man], Dejanje 1, No. 1 (1938): 2. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 163 “Most definitely the narcissistic one since the social environment enables or even de- mands to develop a personality of such type. Everybody endeavours to take care of them- selves by pushing others away. Due to the increasing workload we can, to some extent, talk about obsessiveness.” The generation who grew up in a system that slowly slipped into today’s situation lacks ethical and moral norms. “Inculpability and impertinence are the biggest mis- chiefs in our society.” Besides that, the politicians are completely ignorant of the real situation in the country. Just like the clergy, the politicians should visit a psychoana- lyst to “develop an awareness of their deeds. Being in touch with reality is, in fact, an aspect that is developed only to a limited extent in a narcissistic population. Compared to other professions of special significance, politicians mainly possess a combination of ambitious- ness and a steep career upward trajectory. The situation of this kind is anything but stable. However, it is a marvellous opportunity for the functioning of narcissists.” However, the employers who encouraged the crisis of values, also took advantage of this. If we take history into consideration, “we find that worker’s rights increased due to huge efforts and extensive sacrifices. But then neoliberalism came and brought with it the possibility to exploit the workers to a great extent. Employers do not feel any moral obligation towards their employees with there being such vast amounts of unemployed people. It is a regressive process and a torpedoing of society and of a state in which employers try to establish their own order. Countries with tradition are able to fight this, while Slovenia is merely letting it all hap- pen freely. Despite legal standards that regulate the attitude of employers towards employ- ees, there have always been options to circumvent the law.”12 This enables “the ruling caste” to ruthlessly suppress social sense and silence the em- ployees’ voices, while mobbing casts its victims into social isolation; in it, they fall into a complex state of anxiety, depression and addiction that prevents them from functioning normally, resulting in a substantial diminution of the quality of their lives.13 Even though there are legal instruments which exist to protect employees from mobbing in the EU and Slovenia,14 only a few have the courage to resort to 12 Matjaž Lunaček, “Največje zlo v naši družbi sta nekrivdnost in brezsramnost” [The Biggest Evil in Our Society are Blamelessness and Shamelessness], acquired 8 June 2016, http://siol.net/novice/ siol/psihoanalitik-matjaz-lunacek-najvecje-zlo-v-nasi-druzbi-sta-nekrivdnost-in-brezsramnost-242309. 13 Matija Grah, Borut Škodlar and Bojana Avguštin Avčin, “Na robu obupa, na robu blaznosti. Mobing, psihično nasilje na delovnem mestu” [At the edge of despair, at the edge of insanity. Mobbing, psychological harassment at work], Delo: sobotna priloga, 10 March 2012, 10, 11. 14 MOBING, acquired 29 June 2016, http://www.mobing.si/slo/pravna_ureditev.html. Jurij Perovšek: What to Say? – Marking the 25th Anniversary of Slovenian Independence164 these laws. Niko Grafenauer shared a similar point of view a while ago, believing that the suicide in Slovenia now exists only in one comprehensive form. The reason for this situation cannot be attributed to anyone other than us. We are what we are – quar- rellers, clique members, thieves, cynics, show-offs etc. In short, we are provincials without any vision and without any sense of civic self-responsibility. “It does not matter what others do to us,” once said Dušan Pirjevec, “but it is important what we do to ourselves.”15 Obviously, the consolation from the first (and also the second) Yugoslavia does no longer apply. The same goes for comparisons with other nations, as we are only responsible for ourselves. We need to take a look in the mirror. And Hribar’s soul, intertwined with celestial global dynamics, as he wrote in his farewell letter on 18 April 1941,16 still awaits the Slovenians (which is probably why those who hear this national signifier when travelling around the world don not seem to want to acknowledge each other). However in an interview for Misteriji magazine, a pamphlet on the verge of medicine and other sciences, conducted in May 2014, Slovenian ambassador Bojan Grobovšek talks about his book entitled Zakaj Slovenija ni Švica (Why Slovenia is not Switzerland), in which he speaks in favour of rendering the Slovenian language as half as important in terms of being the official language. According to Grobovšek, “it would probably be extremely good for Slovenia to in- troduce another official language – English, to be exact – next to Slovenian.”17 Less than three weeks after the 25th anniversary of independence, on 15 July 2016 – after the first reading of the Act amending the Higher Education Act as proposed by the Slovenian government, the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia adopted the amendment of the aforementioned law with 46 votes for and 15 against. The adoption of the amendment permits teaching in foreign languages, namely Eng- lish, at Slovenian universities. For now, this amendment serves as a legal basis for neglecting Slovenian in tertiary education. This might even result in a paradoxical situation in which lectures by Slovenian professors for Slovenian students at Slove- nian universities would be held in English. The reason for this subservient linguistic suicide is not rooted abroad but in those Slovenian university circles who consider Slovenian as less appealing in terms of business. “Reading room exaltation” cannot be a form of resistance to this phenomenon, according to the opinion expressed in a parliamentary discussion on 15 July by Saša Tabaković, a member of the Stran- ka modernega centra political party.18 If the amendments of the proposed bill are adopted in the aforementioned law, we can illustrate Dr Boris A. Novak’s opinion on the position of the culture expressed fifteen years ago by declaring that the Slove- 15 Niko Grafenauer, “Smo vaška srenja brez vizije in državljanske odgovornosti” [We are a village community without a vision and civic responsibility], Delo: sobotna priloga, 29 November 2011, 26. 16 Vasilij Melik, “Ivan Hribar in njegovi Spomini” [Ivan Hribar and his Memories], in: Ivan Hri- bar, Moji spomini: II del [My memories: part II] (Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 1984), 654. 17 Bojan Grobovšek, “Zakaj Slovenija ni Švica” [Why is Slovenia not Switzerland], Misteriji 21, No. 250 (2014): 25. 18 21st regular session of the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia, 15 July 2016. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 165 nian language is exposed to a threat by the state itself.19 At the round table entitled “Zagovor slovenščine (Defending Slovenian language)” held on 13 July 2016 at Slov- enska matica in Ljubljana, Boris A. Novak, a poet, essayist, stage director, lecturer at the Department of Comparative Literature and Literary Theory at the Faculty of Arts Ljubljana, Slovenian, cosmopolitan, guest lecturer at American universities, and translator of more than ten languages, including from Slovenian to English and back, expressed his disapproval towards Anglicising changes and amendments in the Act Amending the Higher Education Act.20 Fifteen years ago he said: “No foreigner and no other culture are more harmful to Slovenian culture than Sloveni- ans themselves. If politics becomes cynical, only praises consumerism and treats culture (and language – note by J. P.) with ignorance, then our future is looking bleak. I believe we are bad at opening up to and shutting off from others. Instead of being open to new things when needed, our attitude resembles the one of a provincial introvert. And then whenever there is an opportunity for us to protect our cultural identity dauntlessly, we are willing to trade it in for a small amount of money. This petty tradesman mentality could cost us a fortune.”21 We must mention Anton Korošec’s words from 13 March 1923 about Slovenian unwillingness to drown in the seas of Serbo-Croatian culture (currently English cul- ture): “Who could blame us?”22 – At this point we should emphasise that, in reality, Slovenians should protect the Slovenian language even more, since less and less peo- ple are able to express themselves verbally or in written form in proper Slovenian, not to mention the universal disrespect of intellectual work. A historian and politician, Dr Drago Lončar wrote, in his renowned work Politično življenje Slovencev (The Political Life of Slovenians) which was published in 1921, about how Slovenians “managed to escape the yoke of foreign subordination. Now the history has given the Slovenians a mission to prove that they are capable of the greatest human art form: to govern themselves.”23 At that time, the other- wise down-to-earth Lončar exaggerated as he wrote down the date of July 1921, the month which followed the approval of the centralist and unitarian Vidovdan Constitution, under the introduction to his book. Seven decades later, the situation changed. That was the actual time of “the greatest human art form”. Some of the 19 Boris A. Novak, “V slovenskem nacionalnem značaju je premalo mediteranskega duha” [There is too little Mediterranean spirit in the Slovenian national character], Primorski dnevnik, 7 August 2001, 8. 20 Boris A. Novak, “Zagovor slovenščine” [Defending Slovenian language], Avdio/video | za govor SLOVENŠČINE, acquired 18 September 2016, http://www.zagovor-slovenscine.si/audiovideo/, 3rd and 4th part. 21 Novak, “V slovenskem nacionalnem značaju je premalo mediteranskega duha,” 8. 22 “Veličasten shod javnih in zasebnih nameščencev” [Impressive rally of the public and private post-holders], Slovenec, 15 March 1923, 2. 23 Dragotin Lončar, Politično življenje Slovencev: od 4. januarja 1797. do 6. januarja 1919. leta [The Political Life of Slovenians: from 4 January 1797 to 6 January 1919] (Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 1921), 129. Jurij Perovšek: What to Say? – Marking the 25th Anniversary of Slovenian Independence166 art pieces in which it manifests itself in Slovenia have already been mentioned here. Nonetheless, the systems of the state are in operation and the state is a part of the international environment, while we’ve also witnessed a meteoric rise of some politi- cal parties in the last couple of years. These findings offer a great variety of possibilities for research. The branch of sci- ence that made the most out of these possibilities is politology. These topics were also addressed in the Pogovori o prihodnosti Slovenije (Talks about the future of Slovenia) held at the cabinet of the President of the Republic of Slovenia, Janez Drnovšek, in years 2003–2005 (in years 2009–2011 there were also three talks held by the Presi- dent of the Republic, Dr Danilo Türk)24 and by the circle of Nova revija magazine (Kdo smo in zakaj imamo državo (Who we are and why we have a state) (1996), Ura evropske resnice za Slovenijo (The Time for the European Truth for Slovenia) (1997), Nekaj je treba storiti (Something has to be done) (2003)).25 The process of democra- tisation and attainment of independence that took place during the 80s and at the beginning of the 90s was carefully studied by historiography. For the period that followed, historians can not offer much due to the lack of funding for research pro- jects that would focus on these times. Nonetheless, we are proud of two exceptional monographs on the transition of Slovenian economy from socialism to capitalism in the years between 1990 and 2004 or the Slovenian parliamentarism between 1992 and 2012 written by two researches from the Institute of Contemporary History, Dr Aleksander Lorenčič26 and Dr Jure Gašparič.27 Important findings were also made by a professor from the Faculty of Arts at the University of Ljubljana, Dr Božo Repe. In his book about the first president of the Republic of Slovenia, Milan Kučan, Repe illustrated the political development of the Republic of Slovenia until 2002 by de- scribing Kučan’s activities.28 Even flames cannot destroy this writing.29 24 COBISS / OPAC, view 18 June 2016, http://www.cobiss.si/scripts/cobiss?ukaz=getid&lani=si. Search parameter Pogovori pri predsedniku republike, 1–3. 25 France Bučar et al., “Kdo smo in zakaj imamo državo. Pobuda za ponovno presojo slovenskega narodnega položaja” [Who are we and why do we have a country. Initiative for a reassessment of the Slovenian national situation], Nova revija 15, No. 167 (1996), supplement Ampak, 2–6. Drago Jančar et al., Ura evropske resnice za Slovenijo [The Time for the European Truth for Slovenia] (Buenos Ai- res: Svobodna Slovenija, 1997). Barbara Brezigar et al., “Nekaj je treba storiti. Državljanska pobuda” [Something has to be done. The citizens’ initiative], Dolenjski list, 6 March 2003, 20. 26 Aleksander Lorenčič, Prelom s starim in začetek novega. Tranzicija slovenskega gospodarstva iz socializma v kapitalizem (1990–2004) [The end of an old regime and the beginning of a new one. Slo- venian economy’s transition from socialism to capitalism (1990–2004)] (Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2012). 27 Jure Gašparič, Državni zbor 1992–2012. O slovenskem parlamentarizmu [National Assembly 1992–2012. About the Slovenian parliamentarianism] (Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2012). 28 Božo Repe, Milan Kučan, prvi predsednik [Milan Kučan, the First President] (Ljubljana: Mo- drijan, 2015). 29 This is a reference to the unsuccessful burning of the mentioned book on 19 December 2015 in front of Milan Kučan’s residence in Ljubljana. The book burning was organised by a small group of citizens of the Republic of Slovenia. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 167 Nevertheless, to summarise the main findings of the monographs which we pointed out, it is necessary to emphasize that the transition of the economy and the transition to an environment more open in terms of society and trade, deserve to be treated positively from the historical stance regardless of the wild privatisation that casts a shadow over this process. The main reason for such intense privatisation of social and national property was in the lack of legal bases from the very beginning. What is more, despite the warnings of competent institutions, the Slovenian Parlia- ment (often a political “rooster coop”– note by. J. P.) chose not to react. Between the years 1990 and 2004 the social property suffered a loss higher than 104 billion tolars. A small percentage of the population definitely managed to pile up a fortune in that period. The government then was a group of amateurs and neither the politics nor the experts could handle this situation (something similar happened in other transi- tion countries). It turned out that many Slovenian companies were run by dishon- est and greedy managers whose main objective was profiteering. Many whom these fraudulent deeds are attributed to acquired their fortune by legal means. This can mostly be attributed to the legal system and politics as the National Assembly did not adopt the much needed laws. Today’s situation in society and the economy is not a result of yesterday’s events or occurrences in the past couple of years. The answers to why this has happened should be sought at the beginning of our transition period. Slovenia didn’t only choose the market economy, but also chose capitalism and eve- rything that goes with it. Slovenian capitalism still has social overtones, but a capital- ism adjusted to human needs, like the one we had imagined, is just an illusion.30 We believe that the leading Slovenian analyst of social, cultural and political phenomena in Slovenia, Dr Janez Markeš, made a good observation by saying that the symptom of a “new neoliberal Slovenia” occurred. Gradually and inconspicuously, this symp- tom is ousting the solidarity from a society that, in the end, does not care for growing inequalities. With the intention to eliminate the old socialist regime, the society does not perceive the solidarity as an essential part of itself.31 Another significant emphasis from Markeš’s findings is that it is “important to determine what Slovenia as a state should look like in the future as it is becoming more and more obvious that growing inequalities and diminishing solidar- ity do not contribute to anything. However, the everyday speeches by ministers are still dominated by economic issues. Besides that, there is a shortage of political debates that would revolve around concepts of a socially strong state which would show effort to di- minish social inequality.” It seems that after many years of defunding social programmes, 30 Lorenčič, Prelom s starim in začetek novega, 444–46, 448, 451, 452. 31 Janez Markeš, “Let nad nekim gnezdom” (Flying over a nest), Delo: sobotna priloga, 27 August 2016, 7. Jurij Perovšek: What to Say? – Marking the 25th Anniversary of Slovenian Independence168 “it is time to rethink which type of capitalism is best suitable for Slovenia. Two things are clear: the inequality is growing to the extent that it is no longer acceptable, even though it is unnoticeable to many, and that to speak of neoliberalism as of an immense illusion that does not contribute to the state in any way and that may, in the form of extreme social situations, nationalism and other phenomena, cause almost irreparable damage, is of public interest. It appears that capitalism deserves a second chance to promote innova- tion and develop business flexibility and capabilities. However, in the last two decades, capitalism is being substituted with neoliberalism, a self-referencing ideology of elites that Slovenia, due to its size, will never be able to have. And it seems right that Slovenia is free of elites, as they are a mockery to humanism and to the freethinking view on life which is considered as a basic value and protected by the constitution.”32 The analysis of the transition in politics is the topic of interest of the second monograph that primarily addresses the question of trustworthiness. In the political emotional rhetoric of the modern state, trustworthiness has played quite a signifi- cant role from the 19th century onwards. “Trust is the most essential aspect of life. Everything is based on trust, it even became a part of the constitutional system.” The opinion polls carried out during the year serve to determine the level of trust in political institutions. The results show that the National Assembly is considered less trustworthy, as it is always among the least trusted. On the scale of trustworthiness, only the political parties are traditionally lower. If we look at the prime minister instead of the government as a whole, we can notice that the prime minister enjoys a higher degree of trust, while the president of the republic is considered as the most trustworthy. This is not surprising, as people are not exactly familiar with a single politician’s doings. They remember only the improprieties, mistakes and scandals that accompany the parliament’s actions. In addition, politicians are not members of unions or assemblies (they do have their own association). They deal with their rivals in an uncensored and unsympathetic way, unlike in any other profession. The question remains: how long and to what extent can trust be left to wither, if it is supposed to be one of the pillars of democracy.33 This might be closely related to the fact pointed out in the third monograph: that the first president of the republic tried to reach the so-called Third National Concensus (after the national unification at the plebiscite for Slovenia’s independence and the adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia). This was an agreement with the purpose to determine what to do with the people and the state after the independence and after joining the Euro- Atlantic Group. The consensus on ethical foundations of Slovenia and the sense of its existence were not reached. However, even upon the termination of his presidency, Kučan invested a lot of effort into reaching this consensus.34 32 Ibid. 33 Gašparič, Državni zbor 1992–2012, 296, 300, 301. 34 Repe, Milan Kučan, prvi predsednik, 500, 581. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 169 What is there to say at the end? There is an enormous amount of work to be done and the longer Slovenia remains independent, the more work will have to be carried out. Hopefully, it will be carried out not only by implementing new approaches based on anthropological-interpretative and theoretical bases that avoid historical aspects and often remain unfulfilled, but also by considering the public opinion and citizens’ needs. Here is to hoping that this wish has its consequences. Just like Dr Karel Triller, a prominent representative of the Liberal Narodna napredna stranka (National Progressive Party) hoped in 1906, when elaborating on the programme of his party.35 I also owe you an explanation about the other half of my life: according to the principle of freedom of choice, I have kept it. I do not know what the person from Vegova Street did with his half. Sources and Literature Electronic sources: • 21th regular meeting of the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia. TV Slovenija, III pro- gramme, 15 July 2016. • COBISS / OPAC. View 18 June 2016. http://www.cobiss.si/scripts/cobiss?ukaz=getid&lani=si. • Lunaček, Matjaž. “Največje zlo v naši družbi sta nekrivdnost in brezsramnost” [The Biggest Evil in Our Society are Blamelessness and Shamelessness]. Acquired 8 June 2016. http://siol.net/ novice/siol/psihoanalitik-matjaz-lunacek-najvecje-zlo-v-nasi-druzbi-sta-nekrivdnost-in-brezsra- mnost-242309. • MOBBING. Acquired 29 June 2016. http://www.mobing.si/slo/pravna_ureditev.html. Literature: • Bučar, France. “Kdo smo in zakaj imamo državo. Pobuda za ponovno presojo slovenskega naro- dnega položaja” [Who are we and why do we have a country. Initiative for a reassessment of the Slovenian national situation]. Nova revija 15, No. 167 (1996), supplement Ampak, 2–6. • Gašparič, Jure. Državni zbor 1992–2012. O slovenskem parlamentarizmu [National Assembly 1992–2012. About the Slovenian parliamentarianism]. Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2012. • Grobovšek, Bojan. Zakaj Slovenija ni Švica [Why is Slovenia not Switzerland]. Tomišelj: Alpeme- dia, 2014. • Grobovšek, Bojan. “Zakaj Slovenija ni Švica” [Why is Slovenia not Switzerland]. Misteriji 21, No. 250 (2014): 25, 26. • Jančar, Drago et al. Ura evropske resnice za Slovenijo [The Time for the European Truth for Slovenia]. Buenos Aires: Svobodna Slovenija, 1997. • Kermauner, Taras. “Vladimir Bartol – predhodnik današnje slovenske moderne literature” [Vladi- mir Bartol – the predecessor of today’s modern Slovenian literature]. In: Vladimir Bartol, Demon in Eros: Al Araf [Demon and Eros: Al Araf ], 423–45. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 1974. • Kocbek, Edvard. “Slovenski človek” [The Slovenian Man]. Dejanje 1, No. 1 (1938): 1–3. • Lavrič, Jože, Josip Mal and France Stelè, eds. Spominski zbornik Slovenije. Ob dvajsetletnici Kra- ljevine Jugoslavije [Memorial booklet of Slovenia. The twentieth anniversary of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia]. Ljubljana: Jubilej, 1939. • Lončar, Dragotin. Politično življenje Slovencev: od 4. januarja 1797. do 6. januarja 1919. leta [The Political Life of Slovenians: from 4 January 1797 to 6 January 1919]. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 1921. 35 Karel Triller, “Pred shodom narodnonapredne stranke” [Before the Assembly of the National Progressive Party], Slovenski narod, 23 March 1906, 2. Jurij Perovšek: What to Say? – Marking the 25th Anniversary of Slovenian Independence170 • Mal, Josip, ed. Slovenci v desetletju 1918–1928. Zbornik razprav iz kulturne, gospodarske in politične zgodovine [Slovenians in the decade 1918–1928. A collection of papers on cultural, economical and political history]. Ljubljana: Leonova družba, 1928. • Melik, Vasilij. “Ivan Hribar in njegovi Spomini” [Ivan Hribar and his Memories]. In: Ivan Hribar, Moji spomini: II del [My memories: part II], 619–61. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 1984. • Novak, Boris A. “Zagovor slovenščine” [Defending Slovenian language]. Avdio/video | za govor SLOVENŠČINE. Acquired 18 September 2016. http://www.zagovor-slovenscine.si/audiovideo/, 3rd and 4th part. • Perovšek, Jurij. Liberalizem in vprašanje slovenstva. Nacionalna politika liberalnega tabora v letih 1918–1929 [Liberalism and the Question of Slovenianism. National Policy in the Liberal Camp from 1918 to 1929]. Ljubljana: Modrijan, 1996. • Repe, Božo. Milan Kučan, prvi predsednik [Milan Kučan, the First President]. Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2015. • Šalamun, Tomaž. “Govor na prireditvi ob slovenskem kulturnem prazniku 2000” [Speech at the event held for the Prešeren Day 2000]. In: Prešernov sklad 2000 [Prešeren’s Fund 2000], 3–5. Lju- bljana: upravni odbor Prešernovega sklada, 2000). Newspaper sources: • Brezigar, Barbara et al. “Nekaj je treba storiti. Državljanska pobuda” [Something has to be done. The citizens’ initiative]. Dolenjski list, 6 March 2003, 20. • Bucik, Marko. “Raj z napako. Slovenija leta 2041. V kakšni državi si želim živeti čez 25 let in kako priti do nje? “ [A flawed paradise. Slovenia in 2041. In what kind of country do I want to live in 25 years and how to achieve it?]. Delo, 7 June 2016, 5. • Grafenauer, Niko. “Smo vaška srenja brez vizije in državljanske odgovornosti” [We are a village community without a vision and civic responsibility]. Delo: sobotna priloga, 29 November 2011, 24–26. • Grah, Matija, Borut Škodlar and Bojana Avguštin Avčin. “Na robu obupa, na robu blaznosti. Mo- bing, psihično nasilje na delovnem mestu” (At the edge of despair, at the edge of insanity. Mobbing, psychological harassment at work]. Delo: sobotna priloga, 10 March 2012, 10, 11. • Hribar, Ivan. “Uprava Jugoslavije” [Yugoslavia administration]. Slovenec, 15 October 1918, 2. • Markeš, Janez. “Let nad nekim gnezdom” [Flying over a nest]. Delo: sobotna priloga, 27 August 2016, 7. • Neodvisnost, 1 December 1936, 1. “Neodvisnost” [Independence]. • Novak, Boris A. “V slovenskem nacionalnem značaju je premalo mediteranskega duha” [There is too little Mediterranean spirit in the Slovenian national character]. Primorski dnevnik, 7 August 2001, 8. • Ribičič, Mitja. “Patriotizem” [Patriotism]. Učiteljski tovariš, 13 January 1927, 2. • Slovenec, 15 March 1923, 2. “Veličasten shod javnih in zasebnih nameščencev” [Impressive rally of the public and private post-holders]. • Slovenski narod, 26 March 1918, 2. “Praznik slovenskega ženstva” [Slovenian Women Day]. • Šalamun, Tomaž. “Duma 1964.” Naši razgledi, 9 May 1964, 178. • Triller, Karel. “Pred shodom narodnonapredne stranke” [Before the Assembly of the National Pro- gressive Party]. Slovenski narod, 23 March 1906, 2. Jurij Perovšek KAJ REČI? – OB PETINDVAJSETLETNICI OSAMOSVOJITVE P O V Z E T E K V letih slovenske samostojnosti, ki so nekaj časa zdržala pretvorbo v “zgodbo o uspehu”, smo se srečali tudi z vprašanjem, kaj so o sebi razkrili Slovenci po odhodu iz večnacionalnih držav, v katerih so po svojem končnem spoznanju videli nacionalni in demokratični potop. To vprašanje je v zgodovin- Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 171 skem položaju po letu 1991 še toliko bolj pritegujoče, ker nad nami ni ne dunajskega, ne beograjskega pokrova in ne pokrova prejšnje monistične politične oblasti. Po odhodu iz Avstro-Ogrske monarhije v Kraljevino Srbov, Hrvatov in Slovencev/Jugoslavijo leta 1918 so Slovenci pričakovali, da bodo prišli v “zaželeno deželo”. A ni bilo tako. Z avtonomijo ni bilo nič, narode so ustavno izbrisali in prelili v srbsko-hrvaško-slovensko narodnost, uradni jezik je nosil prav tako ime, t. i. slovenskih polkov iz avstrijske dobe ni bilo več, slabih dvajset let kasneje, na tedanji državni pra- znik 1. decembra 1936, pa je mariborska Neodvisnost k temu še zapisala, da se Slovenci “ne čutimo skoraj več kot enota, ampak kot mešanica različnih plemen, med katerimi ni nobene skupnosti, ampak je samo neizprosen, brezobziren in brutalen boj do iztrebljenja. Ta plemena so ,klerikalci’, ,liberalci’, ,marksisti’ in drugi, kakor se že vsi imenujejo. Vlogo podpihovanja strasti in sovraštva pa vrši naš od teh strank odvisni tisk, ki dan za dnem zastruplja naše ozračje. Zato ni v njem, in po njem tudi v naši javnosti, nikjer nobe- nih vrhovnih in nespremenljivih narodnih načel, nikjer nobenih jasnih in trdnih ciljev.” In naših petindvajset let? Slovenci so dosegli meddržavnopravni položaj – Republiko Slovenijo, nji- hov jezik je iz druge Jugoslavije prenesel svoj uradni značaj, dobili smo svojo vojsko, kultura in šport sta požela več izjemnih uspehov v tujini, mediji so se še bolj razvili. Slovenci so se poslavljali kot “prehlajeni predmet zgodovine”. Avtor omenjene oznake Tomaž Šalamun je to izrekel v slavnostni besedi ob slo- venskem kulturnem prazniku leta 2000. Slovenijo je videl kot lepo, relativno bogato, živo in ustvarjalno deželo. Čudež civilizacijskega pospeška se je dogajal z veliko silo. Vendar je nastal “raj z napako”. Ideološka “plemena” so ostala in poleg starih uporabljajo še nova orodja boja – izkušnjo drugega svetovnega spopada, prejšnje družbe in zdaj še slovenske osamosvojitve. V novem slovenskem svetu je, medtem ko so tisti, ki so s polnimi pljuči zadihali narodno čustvo in pričakovali zgodovinski dvig slovenstva, nastopila “the open season”: lovska sezona olastninjevalnih in drugih predatorjov. Prikladnost iger brez kruha – ideoloških in političnih vojn, vključno s tisto, skorajda državljansko, na spletu, za tako početje ni (bila) vprašljiva. Ob tem pomanjkanje spoznavnih moči, po- tovanja v denar, adrenalin, človeško brezbrižnost in čimmanj v duhá, govorijo o veliki vrednostni oseki. O tem sta najbolje spregovorila eden vodilnih slovenskih psihoanalitikov dr. Matjaž Lunaček in premi- šljevalec slovenstva akademik Niko Grafenauer. Prvi je na vprašanje, kateremu tipu pacienta ta trenutek ustreza slovenska družba, predlani odgovoril: “Zagotovo narcističnemu, saj družbeno okolje to omogoča, celo zahteva. (…) Generacija, že odrasla v sistemu, ki je drsel v današnjo situacijo, nima razvitih etičnih in moralnih norm. “Največje zlo v naši družbi sta nekrivdnost in brezsramnost.” Podobno je leta 2011 ugotovil Niko Grafenauer, ki se mu glede na položaj, ki ga zaznava, “slovenski samomor prikazuje le še v eni sami celostni obliki. Za to stanje pa ni več kriv nihče drug od nas, saj smo, kakršni smo – prepirljivci, klikaši, tatovi, ciniki, nastopači itd. – skratka srenja brez vizije in državljanske samoodgovornosti.” Ob tem je leta 2014 veleposlanik Bojan Grobovšek zagovarjal še razpolovitev veljave slovenskega uradnega jezika. Po njegovem “bi bilo za Slovenijo morda zelo dobro, če bi se poleg nacionalnega uradnega jezika slovenščine uvedlo še en uradni jezik, konkretno angleščina”. V resnici pa bi bilo dobro, če bi pazili na slovenščino, saj njeno znanje v govoru in pisavi postaja vedno bolj oddaljena dobrina. O povedanem je mnogo raziskovalnih izzivov. Najbolj jim je nasproti stopila politologija, zgodili pa so se tudi Pogovori o prihodnosti Slovenije pri predsedniku republike dr. Janezu Drnovšku v letih 2003–2005 in predsedniku dr. Danilu Türku v letih 2009–2011, ter dejanja kroga Nove revije (Kdo smo in zakaj imamo državo (1996), Ura evropske resnice za Slovenijo (1997), Nekaj je treba storiti (2003)). V proces demokratizacije in osamosvojitve konec osemdesetih in v začetku devetdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja se je kvalitetno poglobilo zgodovinopisje. Za kasnejši čas zgodovinarji še ne moremo pokazati veliko, tudi zaradi nedodeljenih gmotnih sredstev za izvedbo nanj osredinjenih raziskovalnih projektov. Vseeno pa se lahko pohvalimo z odličnima monografijama raziskovalcev Inštituta za novejšo zgodovino v Ljubljani – dr. Aleksandra Lorenčiča (Prelom s starim in začetek novega: tranzicija slovenskega gospodar- stva iz socializma v kapitalizem (1990–2004), 2012) in dr. Jureta Gašpariča (Državni zbor 1992–2012: o slovenskem parlamentarizmu, 2012). Zunaj inštituta je slovenski politični razvoj po letu 1992 v svojo knjigo Milan Kučan, prvi predsednik (2015) vključil profesor Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani dr. Božo Repe. Dela je pred nami veliko in čim dlje bo živela Slovenija, tem več ga bo. Upajmo, da kljub “antro- pološko-interpretativnim”, raznovrstnim resničnemu zgodovinskemu tkivu ogibajočim se teoretskim in dostikrat le v literaturi slonečim novim pristopom, tudi s posluhom za narod in njegove probleme. Price: 20 EUR Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 173 Reviews and Reports Twenty-five Years of the Republic of Slovenia – Challenges, Dilemmas and Expectations. Ljubljana, 15 and 16 June 2016 The Institute of Contemporary History organised a symposium detailing (the first) 25 years of Slovenia as a state, thus commemorating the 25th anniversary of the independent Republic of Slovenia. Even though 25 years is a relatively short period from the historical perspective, it poses a special challenge to researchers of contem- porary history, since many events took place in the young country from 1991 to 2016 and there are many things that require a systematic analysis. Two and a half decades after Slovenia became independent, some of the well- established researchers detected and defined issues related to the study of the independent Slovenia. The issues regarding archival and other documentary ma- terials were usually at the forefront; these were followed by methodological is- sues relating to time distance, the issue of various sources and those concerning the options for presenting this period, and the need to attract reviews and studies from other fields that dealt with contemporariness. A diplomat at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and historian, Dr Janez Šumrada, was the first author to treat the subject of Slovenian independence; he wrote a paper called Foreign Policy – International Recognition, UN, EU, NATO, and OECD (Zunanja politika – mednarodno priznanje, OZN, EU, NATO in OECD). In this work, he summarised and to a certain extent questioned some issues relat- ed to the politics of the most important countries with regard to the recognition of the independent Republic of Slovenia. In light of the infrastructure of the Social Science Data Archives, Chairman of the Social Science Data Archives, Dr Janez Štebe, dealt with the legitimacy of the in- ternational recognition of Slovenia, hav- ing written a paper titled Legitimacy of the International Recognition of the Republic of Slovenia: the Use of the Social Science Data Archives (Legitimnost mednarodne- ga pridruževanja države Slovenije: primer izkoriščanja Arhiva družboslovnih podat- kov). In the paper, he introduced a few possibilities for the use of data available in the Social Science Data Archives and at providers, which are associated with the Archives, for the purpose of analysing the issue of Slovenia’s international recogni- tion. Dr Jure Gašparič from the Institute Reviews and Reports174 of Contemporary History dealt with the issue of how to tackle the research and records from recent history by writing the paper The Writing of the Political His- tory of the Republic of Slovenia (Pisati politično zgodovino RS). He discovered that people mistrusted politicians and parties from the very beginning, and asked the questions of how the political institutions acted, how they developed, and how they adapted themselves to the world and the times that changed consider- ably over the twenty years. Dr Simona Kustec Lipicer from the Faculty of Social Sciences, who is currently a Member of Slovenian Parliament, evaluated mod- ern party-based and parliamentary democracies in her paper titled Evaluation of Modern Party-based and Parliamentary Democracy: a Prediction Based on Past Experience (Vrednotenje strankarske in parlamentarne demokracije današnjega časa: pogled naprej skozi pretekle izkušnje). This work chronologically shows and evaluates the political situation in parliamentary democracy since the first parliamentary elections in the independent Slovenia in 1992. Afterwards, Dr Zdenko Čepič from the Institute of Contemporary History showed how Slovenian statehood had been formed even prior to gaining inde- pendence in his paper titled Before That – the Formation of Slovenian Statehood in the Period before its Independence (Pred tem – nastajanje slovenske državnosti pred samostojno državo). In the form of an essay, he discussed the issue of the formation of Slovenia in the “brief” 20th century as the predecessor of the in- dependent Republic of Slovenia. Dr Aleksander Lorenčič, the Director of the Ptuj-Ormož Regional Museum, stressed the key issues of researching Slovenia’s economic transition in his paper Studying Economic Transition – Challenges, Dilemmas and Results (Proučevanje gospodarske tranzicije – izzivi, zagate in re- zultati), which showed the challenges, dilemmas, and findings that he faced when researching and studying Slovenia’s economic transition. On the other hand, Dr Damijan Guštin wrote about the security aspect of the young Slovenia in a paper titled Security and Defence of the Republic of Slovenia – Dilemmas and Solu- tions (Varnost in obramba Republike Slovenije – dileme in rešitve). The defence system of the young state was established in 1991 and was formed under the influence of war and the instability of regional security. Slovenia developed its national security system, it developed its Territorial Defence into a regular army in 2004, and abolished the selective service system and restructured its army into a professional army while in the process of joining NATO between the years 2000 and 2004. Dr Tomaž Pavlin from the Faculty of Sport presented Slovenian sports in light of the transition in a paper titled “Sports Story Woven by Thousands” (The Independence and Sport & Transition and Dilemmas) (“Športna zgodba, stkana iz dejavnosti tisočev” (Osamosvojitev in šport, tranzicija in dileme)), re- vealing key moments that came before independence and the first preparations for sports independence. The first day of the conference was concluded by Dr Jurij Perovšek from the Institute of Contemporary History with his paper What to Say? (Kaj reči?) and his thoughts on the “Slovenian” 20th century and inde- pendent Slovenia. In his paper, the author pointed out the negative aspects of the Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino LVI - 3/2016 175 social, political and economic development in the Republic of Slovenia following its attainment of independence. On the second day of the conference, Vesna Gotovina from the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia discussed the issue of archival materials of state authorities from the period of fighting for independence in the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia in her paper titled National Authorities’ Archival Materials on the Pro- cess of the Slovenian Independence (Arhivsko gradivo državnih organov o pro- cesih osamosvajanja Slovenije), and she came to the conclusion that the majority of archival materials about the democratisation process and the process of gain- ing independence of the Republic of Slovenia is still held by those who created or own the archival materials. Dr Kaja Širok, the Director of the National Museum of Contemporary History, emphasised the collection management policies at the museum after 1991 and the materials of the National Museum of Contemporary History in her paper titled The Object and the Memory: A Perspective on Muse- ums’ Collection Management Policy and Acquisition of Historical Materials in the Past 25 Years (Predmet in spomin: Pregled na muzejske zbiralne politike in pridobivanje historičnega gradiva zadnjega četrt stoletja). She mainly discussed the restatement of the mission and collection management policies of museums after 1991. Dr Andrej Pančur and Dr Mojca Šorn from the Institute of Contem- porary History presented the use of National Assembly materials in digital hu- manities in a paper titled Digital Approach to Parliamentary History: the use of the Slovenian National Assembly Materials in Digital Humanities (Digitalni pristop k parlamentarni zgodovini: uporaba gradiva Državnega zbora v digitalni humanistiki) and warned about the issue of comprehensive amounts of digital historical sources, which will be encountered by those researching the history of the Republic of Slovenia. Dr Bojan Godeša from the Institute of Contempo- rary History discussed the issue of the significance of World War II in the inde- pendent state of Slovenia in his paper titled Instead of Reconciliation, a Cultural War– Significance of World War II in Slovenian Society in the Independent State (Namesto sprave kulturni boj – mesto druge svetovne vojne v slovenski družbi po osamosvojitvi). His paper also discussed the issue of reconciliation, the presence of which has been growing in Slovenian society since the mid-1980s. Dr Jurij Hadalin from the Institute of Contemporary History studied the historiographic discourse about the second Yugoslavia after 1991 in a paper titled Unwanted Her- itage? Historiographic Discourse about (the Second) Yugoslavia (Nezaželena dediščina? Historiografski diskurz o (drugi) Jugoslaviji). In his paper, he tried to show the understanding of the second Yugoslav state in Slovenian historiography and in society, as Yugoslav history had remained an entirely political and not so much a professional topic in Slovenia. As the final paper at the conference, Dr Janez Markeš, a reporter for the Delo newspaper, presented his paper The 25 years of Slovenian Statehood: does History Repeat itself as a Farce? (Četrt stoletja slovenske države: se zgodovina ponavlja kot farsa?), in which he dis- cussed the repetition of history from mid-18th century until now. Reviews and Reports176 The authors attempted to show the issues of the first 25 years of Slovenian statehood, each from their own perspective. The papers, when suitably extended and adapted scientifically, were recently published in a book with the same title as the symposium – Twenty-five Years of the Republic of Slovenia – Challenges, Dilemmas and Expectations. Filip Čuček UDC 94(497.4)”18/19” UDK ISSN 0353-0329