JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS     57 
 
 
 
 
 
PARLIAMENTARY LEADERSHIP – PROBLEMS, 
DILEMMAS AND OPPORTUNITIES OF 
LEGISLATIVE LEADERS: THE CASE OF SLOVENIA 
 
 
Drago ZAJC
1
 
………………………………………………………………………….………………………………… 
 
Parliamentary leadership deserves special attention since it is 
connected with the decision making process in the parliament as 
the key poitical institution. Though the parliamentary leadership is 
bounded by strict rules determined in the constitutions the real 
power of parliamentary leaders may me different from the formal. 
Speakers political and managerial skills are neccessary when 
parliament is exposed to increased government interventions or 
becomes the scene of unprincipled fights among the politicians. The 
study of the characteristics of parliamentary leadership in one of 
the new democratic parliaments in Central Europe, the Slovene 
National Assembly brings evidence of the importance of outside 
factors like the process of integration of Slovenia into the EU and 
the economic crisis, including the recent migrant crisis, demanding 
quick adaptations to new situations and building broad consensus 
for the swift passing of new legislation. 
 
Key words: parliament; leadership; speakers; competences and 
power; outside factors. 
 
 
 
1 INTRODUCTION: THE CONCEPT OF POLITICAL AND 
PARLIAMENTARY LEADERSHIP  
 
Leadership is not clearly defined and is at the same time a highly contested 
concept. It resembles other social science concepts related to power, influence, 
authority and control (Elgie 1995, 2), while it is less associated with 
cooperation and example. In political science it can be connected with positions 
of authority that individuals have on different levels of the state structure which 
may have influence on or even determine the outcome of any decision making 
process. The study of political leadership in all of its forms deserves special 
attention since it gives us the answers why political institutions operate in 
certain way.  
 
                                                 
1 
Dr. Drago ZAJC, associate professor at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, 
Slovenia. 

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS     58 
 
 
Among a number of competing definitions of political leadership the most 
acceptable for an empirical research is the definition of leadership as a process 
in which leaders exercise control over the decision making process (Edinger 
1975, 257). This definition is based on the broad concept of political process, 
involving the selection of public issues, putting them on the political agenda, 
processing them in the parliament, taking binding decisions in the form of laws, 
and controlling the effects of legislative output. We may therefore discern 
different kinds of leadership exercised in different arenas – head of state 
leadership, cabinet leadership, legislative leadership, judicial leadership, and 
leadership of political parties. There are also distinctions among the various 
types of leadership, such as individual and collective or transactional and 
transforming leadership, which may be characteristic of particular arenas. 
While the executive leadership deals mainly with different public policy issues 
which are being formulated in legislative proposals, the legislative leadership 
concentrates on the procedural aspects of the decision making process in the 
parliament in which decisions on policies are made or altered. Legislative 
leaders, i.e. presiding officers or speakers whose prerogatives are based on 
specific delineation of powers between the executive and the parliament are 
ensuring that parliamentary business runs smoothly. Exercising their control, 
they have to respond to their unique leadership environment consisting of fixed 
institutional structures, long-term historical conditions like political culture, 
and even short term political demands (Elgie 1995, 8). 
 
The studies of political leadership have been usually limited to executive 
leadership, i.e. leadership of heads of states and prime ministers, and have dealt 
with the role of presiding officers or parliamentary speakers only occasionally. 
Our study is a small contribution to this rather neglected research area. One of 
the reasons for such investigation is also the current crisis of political 
(especially parliamentary) leadership in contemporary states. 
 
 
2 MODELS OF PARLIAMENTARY LEADERSHIP  
 
Leading the parliament as the central and most sensitive institution of a 
political system is one of most important leadership positions in any democratic 
political system and is of extreme importance for the quality of democratic life 
and political stability of any state. Nevertheless, parliamentary leadership 
remains one of the less understood aspects of legislative process (Squire in Ham 
2005, 100). 
 
There is no definite model of parliamentary leadership since it varies from 
country to country and is changing with time. It does however have its own 
characteristics and purposes, such as the promotion of institutional autonomy, 
the development of internal organization or the interpretation and enforcement 
of parliamentary rules in the legislative process (Sinclair 1995, 21). Its 
particular goals are also the development of fairness and good faith among all 
members of parliament, contributing to the spirit of cooperation and the 
respect of minority (Grad 2013, 15). Unlike all other leaders, the parliamentary 
leaders are granted power by the majority of freely elected deputies formed by 
their co-partisans or coalition allies. 
 
Parliamentary leaders operate within the confines of a system where freedom 
of action is bounded by strict rules determined in the constitutions and in the 
parliamentary standing orders (Laundy 1989). Formal power of the speaker 
reflects the democratic character of the political system and can be measured 

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS     59 
 
 
by various indicators, which may be combined. The speaker’s power index may 
combine (a) procedural competences or prerogatives (planning parliamentary 
work and placing matters on the parliamentary agenda, determining the type of 
procedure, appointing the relevant standing committees which are going to deal 
with the bills in the first or second reading, fixing the time schedule of readings, 
etc.), (b) competences connected with presiding the sessions of parliament 
(determining the manner and the length of discussion, stimulating democratic 
discourse and maintaining order), (c) the protection of its autonomy against the 
executive and (d) the representation of the parliament on the outside (Clucas 
2001, 327; Grad 2013, 199). While the weak or undefined powers may 
complicate decision making process and postpone decisions the strong formal 
powers may have serious consequences for the democratic nature of legislative 
process, allowing for the curtailment of democratic practices, including 
shortening of parliamentary debates and acceleration of legislative procedures 
(Cox 2006, 144). Powerful speakers may direct parliamentary business and win 
legislative battles more easily, although this is done frequently at the expense of 
the minority rights. Speaker’s individual role in the leadership may be affected 
by particular collegiate bodies (Bergougnous 1997, 92), composed of the 
leaders of political party groups and other members with mostly consultative 
functions.  
 
Researchers are pointing to the fact that the real power of parliamentary 
leadership may be quite different from the formal: informal power may be 
greater or smaller, depending on the speaker’s personality, his professional 
background, previous political experiences or the length of time s/he has had 
this function. The speaker’s real power depends primarily on his/her particular 
political skills to accommodate different interests or make compromises in 
order to prevent or overcome the blockades of decision-making. At the same 
time the position requires a lot of organizational abilities and experience. In 
order to achieve their particular aims, the speakers may use different methods – 
(a) changing situation, (b) postponing the problems to a later time, (c) 
providing side benefits to some groups of deputies in order that they ignore the 
problem, and (d) hiding the problems with rhetoric, personal charm or 
intimidation. Speaker’s political and managerial skills are particularly necessary 
when the parliament becomes the scene of ideological struggles among the 
parties or unprincipled fights among politicians without personal or political 
culture. The role of the speaker is therefore far from routine: s/he may be 
innovative in agenda setting by giving priority to urgent matters, by solving 
procedural hurdles or by finding the minimum possible understanding among 
the fiercely competing sides in order to avoid the complete defeat of one of the 
sides. S/he may also use innovative approaches when a member violates 
regulations and require the member to conform to the rule (Sturgis 1993, 88). 
By innovative interpretation of the rules s/he may also be contributing to the 
procedural standards (Laundy 1989, 53).  
 
According to parliamentary scholars and members of parliaments 
parliamentary leadership is always influenced by the environment in which the 
leaders operate (Richman 2010, 213). There are a number of contextual and 
other factors like (a) fixed institutional structures and rules determining the 
power of the parliament vis-a-vis the executive. A new parliament like the 
Slovene National Assembly may have a stronger role exercising substantial 
influence in the process of government formation where every candidate for 
ministerial position has to present her/his views in the relevant standing 
committee before the government is formally invested. A parliament can also 
dispose of strong means for the control of the government like interpellations of 
individual ministers or of the whole government, which may or may not be 

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS     60 
 
 
supported by the speaker in practice. Though neither constitutional nor 
procedural rules determined in the standing orders could be an accurate guide 
to political practice. Another important factor is (b) political culture giving 
different emphasis to the role of individual. In countries with more 
individualistic political culture similar levels of powers of the speakers with less 
formal regulation of behaviour were developed, while others conveyed greater 
and strict prerogatives to speakers (ibid., 222). The third important factor is (c) 
the level of professionalization of parliamentary members (Squire 2007, 213). 
The lack of personal experience has contributed to the conflict behaviour and 
lower consensus building capacity (Olson 1994, 117). Higher 
professionalization is diminishing the need for frequent interventions of the 
speakers into legislative procedures and makes the parliamentary business 
more expedient. Parliaments with higher professionalization of deputies also 
tend to have more bills introduced and greater passage rates. 
Professionalization of the deputies also contributes to the (d) constructive 
relationship between opposition parties and coalition. Where the constructive 
relationship has been developed the share of unanimously approved legislation 
at final readings has increased. In the new democratic countries this 
relationship frequently became conflictual, preventing realistic and pragmatic 
approaches to the solving of urgent problems. Opposition parties have been 
frequently using all ways for delegitimation of coalition governments trying 
also to block the legislative process by other means, including the demands for 
extraordinary sessions and calls for referendums (Zajc 2016, 21).  
 
The most decisive factor in the parliamentary environment influencing the 
behaviour of the speakers has been in the recent time (e) the increase of 
government intervention. Such intervention, representing continuous pressure 
on parliaments and their leaders, may greatly increase in the case of economic 
or other crisis. The outbreak of economic crisis in 2008 has changed the 
previous agendas of parliaments and demanded more acts to be passed in a 
shorter time even by extraordinary procedures. The time for discussion of most 
important matters and acts has become shorter, a number of dilemmas 
remaining unresolved and questions unanswered. Such circumstances 
demanded particular abilities and continuous efforts from parliamentary 
leaders in order to guarantee the swift passage of urgent bills while ensuring 
the legitimacy of the legislative procedures. They have had to take special care 
to build consensus among the deputy groups of coalition and opposition.  
 
Every attempt to study the leadership of contemporary parliaments has to take 
into account the different stages of legislative process. One of the particularly 
important stages is the first stage of planning parliament’s work and agenda 
setting. The viable legislative programs may be made primarily on the basis of 
the governments’ legislative programs (based on coalition agreements) and 
timetables, demanding a good cooperation between the speaker and the 
government and prompt realization of the desired policy changes (Pogorelec 
2016, 21). There may also be initiatives for legislative regulation from other 
proposers, which may be included on the schedule, depending on the time 
available for additional items. In the second stage the speaker’s task is to ensure 
democratic debate on all issues related to the introduced bills and to streamline 
the legislative processes in order to maximize the likelihood of passing the bills, 
taking care about the amount of the workload and the determined time limits. 
The leadership is finally important also in the third stage when final decisions 
are taken since it depends on the speaker how particular matters will be put to 
the vote - by direct voting or by ballot vote (Sturgis 1993, 144) and when the 
voting takes place with regard to other important matters and even how the 
voting will be recorded. 

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS     61 
 
 
  
Scholars of parliamentarism at the same time agree that it is difficult to measure 
the power of leadership. Various researchers including the institutionally 
determined rules, the level of legislative professionalization and policy-making 
challenges or government interventionism, have tested a number of variables. 
Some additional variables were used like the number of parliamentarians, the 
size of the population or even the number of non-governmental organizations 
and lobbyists. Even though these tests were not sufficiently elaborated, some 
indexes combined various variables, which have not been adequate and 
applicable in different situations and in different legislatures. They also differed 
regarding the level of legislating institutions (national or sub-national) and 
their results have been often contradictory (Clucas 2001, 212). Only partial 
indications were found in the sense that higher legislative professionalism leads 
to a weaker leadership or that intensive government interventionism in the 
periods of economic crisis may be associated to stronger leadership power. A 
stronger indication found was that a great number of policy making challenges 
may block the policy making process and the smooth passage of bills by 
overwhelming the legislative workload. A consequence may be that the speaker 
resorts to extraordinary procedures and the shortening of the debates. Some of 
these variables may be tentatively tested also on the example of the leadership 
of individual parliaments like the Slovene National Assembly. 
 
 
3 PARLIAMENTARY LEADERSHIP IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF 
SLOVENIA 
 
In our attempt to study the characteristics of parliamentary leadership in one of 
the new democratic parliaments in Central Europe we will take into 
consideration the whole context of parliamentarization and concentrate on 
several most important variables which have been influencing the behaviour of 
speakers which were exposed in previous analyses of the Slovene National 
Assembly. They also correspond to the variables used by the authors of some 
representative studies of parliamentary leadership (Olson, Cox, Sturgis, etc.). 
We will later try to analyse whether the behaviour of the speakers has 
contributed to the efficiency of the legislative process and to the stability of the 
Slovene parliament.  
 
The institutional variable 
 
The National Assembly of Slovenia is among structurally diversified working 
parliaments
2
 – besides the speaker, who is elected by majority of votes of all 
deputies by ballot vote, there are at least two structures taking over a part of 
the tasks connected with leadership, the working bodies and the deputies’ 
groups. On the top level is the speaker as an individual leader (according to Art. 
84 of the Slovene Constitution) bearing complex responsibilities and 
prerogatives determined in the renewed standing orders of 2002. His main 
prerogatives correspond to the prerogatives, which constitute the basis of the 
speaker’s Institutional Powers, therefore may be measured in formal way.  
 
The prerogatives of the speaker of the National Assembly determined in the 
                                                 
2
 The National Assembly (Državni zbor) is the main chamber of the Slovene parliament 
established by the Slovene Constitution of 1991 (Art. 80), composed of 90 representatives of the 
citizens elected according to the principle of proportional representation with four-percent 
treshold. The National Assembly adopts laws and other decisions and ratifies treaties. Laws may 
be proposed by government, or by any deputy or at least 5.000 citizens (Art. 88).  

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS     62 
 
 
standing orders are to represent the National Assembly and to convene and 
chair its sessions. S/he also has to maintain the relationship with the 
government of RS and the State Council,
3
 the president of Slovenia and other 
state bodies, and to take care of the cooperation with the parliaments of other 
states and international parliamentary institutions. S/he also delivers the 
matters to be dealt in the relevant standing committees (Art. 19). S/he is 
responsible for chairing the sessions impartially – determining the order of the 
discussants taking care that deputies of all deputy groups are represented (Art. 
67), allowing speech time for the deputies wanting to speak about the 
implementation of the Standing Orders (Art. 69) and to deputies who want to 
replicate previous discussants (Art. 79). He can adjourn the session and 
determine when it is going to continue (Art. 73). Taking care for the order on 
the session he may warn the deputies who speak about unrelated matters or 
insult others, close their discussion or order the removal of an undisciplined 
deputy from the session (Art. 76).  
 
A number of speaker’s prerogatives are being implemented in cooperation with 
speaker’s advisory body – the collegium, which has the power of taking 
decisions of procedural and organizational character (Kaučič and Grad 2003, 
199). The collegium, composed of the speaker, the deputy speakers, the leaders 
of deputy groups and the representative(s) of national minorities may decide 
on the number of seats of particular deputy groups in standing committees, on 
the proposals to pass a bill by urgent procedure or shortened procedure, and on 
the duration of the sessions of the National Assembly, including the time for 
debate on individual items on the agenda (Art. 21). The collegium also accepts 
the working program of the National Assembly for one year and the short-term 
program for two months, determining the days for the meetings of standing 
committees and sessions of the National Assembly. When determining these 
programs, the collegium considers the program of the Government of RS for the 
current year and proposals of the deputies, deputy groups and standing 
committees (Art. 23). The time for discussions of the deputies and other 
participants cannot be shorter than five minutes while the time for debates of 
deputy groups cannot be shorter than ten minutes unless the collegium does 
not decide otherwise (Art. 67 of standing orders). These provisions in standing 
orders referring to the powers of the Speaker may in general be compared to 
the provisions determining the power of speakers in other parliaments like 
German Bundestag, Italian Camera dei deputati, or Czech Poslanecka snemovna, 
which have similar collegiate organs with advisory functions (Igličar 2011, 
235). When making decisions, the number of seats of the deputy groups in 
favour or against is considered. Although the individual prerogatives seem to be 
formal or some even shared with the collegium, they give the speaker power to 
expedite parliamentary business with sufficient efficiency, i.e. to ensure the 
expediency of the legislative process in due time (the time the government or 
other proposer considers necessary). Even if they are sometimes unclear or 
insufficient, his prerogatives are also allowing him to perform his task with 
determination, and even to choose whether he will behave impartially as 
‘primus inter pares’ or as a representative of own political option (Mozetič 
1999, 95).  
 
While the speaker of the National Assembly, together with the collegium, is 
                                                 
3
 State Council (Državni svet) is the second chamber established by the Constitution (Art. 96) 
composed of 40 representatives of economic, professional and local interests. Its powers are to 
propose to the National Assembly the passing of laws, to convey to the National Assembly its 
opinions on all matters within the competences of National Assembly, to require the National 
Assembly to decide again on a given law before the proclamation and to require inquiries on all 
matters of public importance. 

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS     63 
 
 
exercising most important part of the leadership function, there are also some 
other bodies taking over particular leadership tasks. The standing committees 
composed proportionally with regard to the power relation between the 
coalition and opposition (Grad 2013, 206) carrying important responsibilities in 
the legislative process, serving as arenas of practical negotiations among party 
groups and making amendments to the bills and preparing reports for the 
plenary. Their leaders act as important decision makers on this level - 
determining the agendas, the allocation of the time for the discussion and the 
order of discussants, directing and closing discussion, etc. The standing 
committees are taking substantial control power over the legislative process in 
the first part of the second reading, when they prepare the text of the amended 
bill for the discussion on the plenary (which has been limited to the articles 
which have been changed). They also prepare the final version of the bills in the 
third reading of regular procedure when the voting takes place. Regardless of 
the fact that the leaders are chosen among more experienced members, the 
efficiency of the committees may be questioned since the average deputy is a 
member at least three committees. Another important body in the structure of 
the National Assembly are the deputy groups with the power of directing the 
work of the National Assembly. The leaders of party groups have taken 
particular responsibilities to prepare political positions of the groups regarding 
the matters on the agenda and the strategy of attaining the short time and long 
time goals of the group (Patzelt 1999, 51). Active participation of the members 
of deputy groups in the relevant committees when discussing policy matters is 
of utmost importance for the efficiency of legislative process having a direct 
impact on the quality of leadership of the whole parliament.  
 
The speaker and leaders of committees and deputy groups have particular 
competences in the legislative procedure, which may vary. The regular 
procedure consists of three readings, but the first may be skipped (Art. 121), 
while the second and the third reading may be joined if in the second reading 
less than 10% of the articles of the proposed law were amended (Art. 138). A 
much shorter urgent procedure may be used in the interests of state security 
and defence, in the case of natural disasters, or to prevent hardly reparable 
consequences for the functioning of the state (Art. 143). A shortened procedure 
is applied only when minor changes to the laws or simple adjustment of the 
laws to other legal norms are required (Art. 142). In the practice of the National 
Assembly, the speakers have almost regularly accepted the demands of the 
government to use urgent procedure in order to pass the proposed laws 
(almost half of the laws were passed by urgent procedure in the previous 
mandates).  
 
However, these formal competences and prerogatives of the speaker are 
creating an impression of greater power of the speaker in legislative process as 
s/he has in reality. In a very divided parliament, where each coalition has had 
only a small majority and where the relation between coalition and opposition 
is far from cooperative, the real power of the speakers has been depending to a 
great extent on their personal characteristics, political skills and longer 
experience. In fact, a number of speakers from 1990 were elected to this 
position without previous experiences (with the exception of the first) and with 
different professional profiles (most of the speakers had a degree in social 
sciences, two were doctors of medicine two had a degree in law and one in 
chemistry). Some had even not served as deputies before and speakership was 
also not the last job in their career.
4
 However they were quick learners and have 
                                                 
4
 The speakers of Slovene assemblies from 1990 on were dr. France Bučar, mag. Herman Rigelnik, 
Jožef Školč, dr. Marjan Podobnik, Feri Horvat, Borut Pahor, dr. France Cukjati, dr. Pavel Gantar, 

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS     64 
 
 
adapted to their position where they tried to act as ‘primus inter pares’ being at 
the same time perceived as agents of their political parties’ groups. We can find 
substantial differences among the speakers in their practical behaviour. Some 
speakers were stronger and others weaker regarding the planning of the work 
of the assembly, agenda setting, or organizing the legislative process, depending 
mainly on their legal knowledge. They were also using different means to cope 
with the problems, like supporting the parliamentary debates on critical issues 
or ignoring or postponing the problems, depending on their political experience 
obtained as members and leaders of former or new political parties. Some have 
been more skilful in chairing the sessions or maintaining order on the plenary 
sittings. There was also a difference among them regarding the use of different 
styles of leadership among the speakers belonging to the centre-left and centre- 
right coalition parties. While the speakers belonging to the centre-left used 
more often transaction style favouring the consensual decision making, the 
speakers of the centre-right were inclined to transformative style striving to 
achieve changes (Brezovšek 1999, 31). 
 
The influence of the outside factors 
 
There have been a number of outside factors having an impact on the 
functioning of the National Assembly and influencing the activity and behaviour 
of the speakers. One such factor was certainly the process of democratization of 
Slovenia, which was connected, with the process of separation from former 
Yugoslavia. The speaker of the transitional National Assembly, established after 
the first democratic elections in 1990, was taking enormous responsibilities for 
the correct and swift procedures and assuring parliamentary debate where all 
arguments could be heard. The assembly unanimously proclaimed the 
independence of Slovenia in June 1991 and in December of the same year 
passed the first Constitution of Slovenia, based on liberal values demanding 
modernization of the whole national legislation on specific legislative (policy) 
areas, including the replacement of huge number of previous socialist 
legislation. The speaker succeeded also to build consensus for the 
modernization of the ‘old’ standing orders and for the adoption of the new law 
on the elections to National Assembly (Zajc 2009, 34). 
 
The second factor was the process of integration of Slovenia into the EU. The 
accession was the greatest challenge for the National Assembly after the 
independence of Slovenia, demanding adaptation in various ways – from 
institutional, organizational and procedural to the harmonization of the huge 
parts of legislation with the EU law. The speakers of the National Assembly have 
assured the debates on all-important documents related to the accession, 
including the proposals for negotiating positions – a fact which contributed 
greatly to the smoother harmonization of legislation. In the period from 1997 to 
2004, almost 319 EU laws’ changing regulations on almost all legislative or 
policy areas were passed in the National Assembly, usually by urgent 
procedure. This practice, demanding great efforts of the speakers, proved to be 
successful since all MPs became much better informed about the EU legal 
framework and also of the role and practices of the National Assembly after the 
final entry of the country to the EU. The National Assembly has in 2003 also 
changed constitution (Art. 3a) by great majority, allowing for the transition of 
the execution of part of the sovereignty to the institutions of the EU. In 2002, 
the same National Assembly passed new standing orders, stressing the 
                                                                                                                                                                  
Ljubo Germič, dr. Gregor Virant and Janko Veber. The actual speaker dr. Milan Brglez, elected in 
National Assembly in 2014, is professor of International Law. Most of them belonged to the 
largest parliamentary group. 

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS     65 
 
 
principles of rationality and economy of the legislative process and giving more 
power to the leadership (Zajc 2004, 182). 
 
The most important external factor influencing the behaviour of the speakers 
was the economic crisis, which started in 2008. It demanded quick adaptation 
to the new situation by passing a number of bills dealing with national economy 
and financial system, unemployment, social situation of large groups of citizens 
etc., intended to alleviate its effects. The crisis demanded great efforts of the 
speakers to build consensus among party groups and to assure swift passage of 
the bills. The first bills intended to cope with the economic problems were 
passed in 2010 and 2011, but rejected on referendums in 2011. After the first 
early elections in 2011, the new National Assembly passed in 2012 the new law 
on the reform of pension system and the law on the reform of the labour market 
both without vote against. After the change of the prime minister by 
constructive no-confidence vote on 27
th
 of February 2013, the National 
Assembly (under the leadership of the new speaker) continued with the 
implementation of financial austerity measures. Complying with the demands of 
the EU, the deputies changed the constitution (Art. 148) on 24th May 2013, 
determining that the revenues and expenditures of state budgets have to be 
balanced medium-term without indebtedness. On the same day, the deputies 
made another change in the constitution (Art. 90, 97 and 99) in order to 
diminish the possibilities of calling a referendum on any matter - the right to 
initiate the referendum has also been limited to citizens. Both changes were 
passed with more than two-third majority. On the basis of this change, it finally 
passed the law on fiscal regulation with strict financial rules in 2015 (Zajc 2009, 
163). 
 
The economic crisis has created additional problems for efficient leadership, 
since a number of new surprise parties winning a substantial share of the votes 
on the first early elections in 2011 and also on the second in 2014 entered the 
National Assembly. A great number of new deputies (only 40% of the deputies 
were re-elected in 2011 and 35% in 2014) who had no previous experiences 
with parliamentary work have drastically diminished the efficiency of decision-
making and the quality of legislative output. The lack of experiences among the 
new deputies and deputy groups has been demonstrated by conflictual 
behaviour, weak argumentation and low capacity to negotiate. In situations 
where a great deal of new deputies have not had clear ideas of the complexity of 
their duties and rights, the speakers have had to make additional efforts to 
streamline the legislative process, to stress the parliamentary norms of 
behaviour and adjust the dynamics of legislative process to the capacities of the 
deputies. 
 
An additional external factor was the migrant crisis in 2015, demanding swift 
assessment of the unexpected wave of migrants directed through the Balkans 
and Slovenia to Germany and choosing appropriate measures to assure national 
security like changing the law on defence (allowing the police forces to join the 
military on the borders in particular situations for a limited time) by urgent 
procedure and passing a new law on asylum (the passing of the law, which also 
allowed the migrants coming from ‘safe’ countries to ask for asylum was fiercely 
obstructed by right-wing parties in opposition). In some of these cases the 
speaker could reach basic consensus of opposition parties, while in some other 
cases the opposition was bitterly attacking the coalition for accepting harmful 
solutions.  
 
The processes of democratization and entering the EU, altogether with the 
economic and migrant crisis including the economic and migrant crisis were 

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS     66 
 
 
characterised by huge government interventionism. The speakers could not 
resist the interventionism of coalition governments which insisted on quick 
passing of the introduced bills, a great number of them even by fast track 
procedure, which has, once an exception, become almost a rule. Being under 
constant pressure from the coalition governments, the speakers have almost 
constantly had great difficulties with planning legislative work, making viable 
working programs and agenda setting, while they could not avoid overloading 
the deputies with legislative work.  
 
TABLE 1: LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY – TYPE OF THE BILLS AND PROCEDURES BY 
MANDATES  
 
Source: Reports on the work of the National Assembly in particular mandates. 
* The fifth and sixth mandate were shortened because of early elections. 
** The first part of the seventh mandate (until December 2015). 
 
 
4 CONCLUSION  
 
Considering that the Slovene National Assembly has done an impressive work 
as a new parliament (a successor to the transitional Assembly of the Republic of 
Slovenia) in the last 25 years by passing a huge amount of new modern 
legislation, it would be difficult not to link it to the legislative leadership. The 
assembly and its speakers were faced by great policy making challenges in all 
periods - in the first period of intensive replacement of the former ‘socialist’ 
legislation and in the second period marked by the adaptation of the legislation 
to EU laws, as well as in the third period of economic crisis demanding quick 
adaptations to changing outside circumstances. While their powers as they 
were designed in Standing Orders were sufficiently strong to allow for efficient 
work in all stages of legislative process, the leadership has been also depending 
on the political skills, personal abilities, working styles and methods of the 
speakers. Lacking experience, the speakers were fast learners, obtaining 
knowledge from practice.  
 
Though they could hardly plan the work of the National Assembly and assure 
the legitimacy of legislative process and quality of the legislative output in the 
constantly changing situations. In our quick review of the factors influencing the 
behaviour of the speakers we find similar variables, which were detected in 
previous studies and on the first place the constant government 
interventionism. Due to the great pressures from the government to pass great 
number of proposed bills in a short time, the speakers complied allowing for 
fast track procedures, contributing to the greater passage rate at the expense of 
the fully argumentative debate.  
 
The second variable having an impact on the leadership in the period of 
assembly’s first 25 years was the diminishing level of professionalization 
among the deputies due to the emergence of new surprise parties entering the 
National Assembly in 2011 and 2014 with a great number of inexperienced 
deputies. Lower professionalization of the deputies has contributed to the slow 
adaptation to the parliamentary environment demonstrated by poor 
argumentation, and increase of the conflict behaviour, demanding frequent 
interventions of the speakers in the course of legislative process. Both variables 

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS     67 
 
 
could be connected with the existing distance between the National Assembly 
and the citizens. The public opinion polls do not confirm the expectation that 
the support to the National Assembly among the citizens would improve.
5
 Our 
observations have to be certainly tested by more thorough investigation.  
 
Although the parliamentary leaders like any other political leaders can be 
considered as a reflection of the time and economic or social circumstances in 
particular countries, or even in the wider European or global context, we could 
hardly claim that there is no similarity between the parliamentary leaders in 
the ECE countries or between them and the speakers of parliaments in the 
countries with longer parliamentary democracy. Needless to say, this is also a 
challenge for further investigation and research in the future. 
 
 
REFERENCES 
 
2007. Standing Orders of the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia. Ljubljana: 
Official Gazzette of the Republic of Slovenia, 92/07.  
Brezovšek, Marjan. 1999. Splošna organizacijska in upravljalska načela 
parlamentarnega vodenja (General Organizational Principles of Parliamentary 
Leadership). In Parlamentarno vodenje (Parliamentary Leadership), ed. Zajc, Drago, 
28–37. Ljubljana: Državni zbor RS. 
Bergougnous, Georges. 1997. Presiding Officers of Parliamentary Assemblies. Geneva: 
Interparliamentary Union. 
Cox, Gary. 2006. The Organization of Democratic Legislatures. In The Oxford Handbook 
of Political Economy, eds. Weingast, Barry R. and Donald A. Wittman. Oxford, New 
York: Oxford University Press. 
Clucas, A. Richard. 2001. “Principal-Agent Theory and the Power of State House 
Speakers”. Legislative Studies Quarterly 26 (2): 319–338. 
Edinger, Lewis. 1975. The Comparative Analysis of Political Leadership. Comparative 
Politics 7(2): 253–269. 
Elgie, Robert. 1995. Political Leadership in Liberal Democracies. Basingstoke: Macmillan. 
Grad, Franc. 2013. Parlamentarno pravo (Parliamentary Law). Ljubljana: Založba GV. 
Igličar, Albin. 2011. Zakonodajna dejavnost (Legislative activity). Ljubljana: Faculty of 
Law.  
Kaučič, Igor and Franc Grad. 2003. Ustavna ureditev Slovenije (Constitutional System of 
Slovenia). Ljubljana: Založba GV. 
Laundy , Philip. 1989. Parliaments in the Modern World. Aldeshot: Gover. 
Mozetič, Miroslav. 1999. Funkcije predsednika Državnega zbora (Functions of the 
Speaker of National Assembly). In Parlamentarno vodenje (Parliamentary 
Leadership), ed. Zajc, Drago. Ljubljana: Državni zbor RS. 
Olson, David. 1994. Democratic Legislative Institutions. A Comparative View. New York: 
M. E. Sharp Inc. 
Patzelt, Werner. 1999. Parlamentarno vodstvo v Nemčiji (Parliamentary Leadership in 
Germany). In Parlamentarno vodenje (Parliamentary Leadership), ed. Zajc, Drago. 
Ljubljana: Državni zbor RS. 
Pogorelec, Janez. 2016. Vloga strokovnih služb vlade in parlamenta v zakonodajni 
dejavnosti (The Role of the Government Services in Legislative Activity). In Odprta 
vprašanja zakonodajne dejavnosti (Open Questions of Legislative Activity), eds. 
Štajnpihler, Tilen, Igličar, Albin, Pavčnik, Marijan, Grad, Franc and Drago Zajc. 
Ljubljana: SAZU. 
Richman, Jesse. 2010. “The Logic of Legislative Leadership: Preferences, Challenges, and 
the Speaker's Powers”. Legislative Studies Quarterly 35(2): 211–233. 
Sinclair, Barbara. 1995. Legislative Leaders and Lawmaking. Baltimore: John Hopkins 
University Press. 
                                                 
5
 International research in the Autumn 2015 showed that only 12% of the interviewed citizens 
supported the National Assembly, while the average level of support to national parliaments in 
the EU member states was 27% (Source: Public Opinion in the EU, Standard barometer). 

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS     68 
 
 
Squire, Peverill and Keith Hamm. 2005. Chambers: Congress, State Legislatures and the 
Future of Legislative Studies. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.  
Squire, Peverill. 2007. “Measuring State Legislative Professionalism: The Squire Index 
Revisited.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 7(2): 211–227. 
Sturgis, Alice. 1993. The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure. New York: McGraw-
Hill. 
Zajc, Drago. 2004. Razvoj parlamentarizma – funkcije sodobnih parlamentov 
(Development of Parlamentarism – Functions of Contemporary Parliaments). 
Ljubljana: FSS Publishing House. 
Zajc, Drago. 2009. Sodobni parlamentarizem in process zakonodajnega odločanja 
(Contemporary Parliamentarism and the Process of Legislative Decision Making). 
Ljubljana: FSS Publishing House. 
Zajc, Drago. 2016. “Role of Opposition in Contemporary Parliamentary Democracies – 
The Case of Slovenia.” Journal of Comparative Politics 9(1): 19–35.