Political transition and democracy in Slovenia

The paper analyses the three-stage model of democratisation elaborated in the ‘80s on the experience of transition of the South European (SE) countries. The model served as a tool for explaining democratisation in East European countries, however it did not allow sufficiently clear understanding of the process of transition in particular East Central European countries. It is argued that the real differences among the successful and unsuccessful post-communist countries in the process of transition are not expressed in formal (normative) indicators but in the actual practices which are a consequence of a set of factors like the level of economic development, autonomy of the civil society in the period before the crisis, and the democratic traditions of each country. Economic relations in the former Yugoslavia were seriously disrupted at the end of the ‘80s, and in the middle of 1990 the Yugoslav program of economic stabilisation failed and Yugoslavia as an economic system ceased to exist. Due to favourable socio-economic conditions, the pre¬-transition and transition started in Slovenia earlier than in other countries. The developments in Slovenia have been \u27a-typical\u27 compared with East Central Europe and also with the republics of the former Yugoslavia with the exception of Croatia

Political transition and democracy in Slovenia

The paper analyses the three-stage model of democratisation elaborated in the ‘80s on the experience of transition of the South European (SE) countries. The model served as a tool for explaining democratisation in East European countries, however it did not allow sufficiently clear understanding of the process of transition in particular East Central European countries. It is argued that the real differences among the successful and unsuccessful post-communist countries in the process of transition are not expressed in formal (normative) indicators but in the actual practices which are a consequence of a set of factors like the level of economic development, autonomy of the civil society in the period before the crisis, and the democratic traditions of each country. Economic relations in the former Yugoslavia were seriously disrupted at the end of the ‘80s, and in the middle of 1990 the Yugoslav program of economic stabilisation failed and Yugoslavia as an economic system ceased to exist. Due to favourable socio-economic conditions, the pre¬-transition and transition started in Slovenia earlier than in other countries. The developments in Slovenia have been \u27a-typical\u27 compared with East Central Europe and also with the republics of the former Yugoslavia with the exception of Croatia

Sposobnost slovenskega parlamenta sodelovati v procesu odločanja na ravni EU

Razvoj EU je ustvaril posebno vrsto 'delegirane demokracije', v kateri imajo večjo moč izvršilna telesa, medtem ko imajo nacionalni parlamenti le možnost posrednega vplivanja in nadzora svojih vlad, ko le-te sodelujejo v procesih odločanja na ravni EU. Parlamenti držav članic EU so se v novem okolju znašli različno, saj nekateri dovolj dobro izkoriščajo možnosti sodelovanja s svojimi vladami, kar pa je odvisno od vrste okoliščin in različnih dejavnikov. Državni zbor se je kot nov parlament samostojne države na svojo novo vlogo dovolj dobro pripravil že med pripravami na vključitev, saj je kot edini parlament držav kandidatk potrjeval pogajalska stališča. Zelo dobra je tudi njegova formalna in organizacijska pripravljenost (institutional capacity), medtem ko mu primanjkuje praktičnega znanja in izkušenj (cultural capacity)

PARLIAMENT OF SLOVENIA — PLURALISM AND FORMATION OF COALITIONS

Autor analizira rezultate slovenskih parlamentarnih izbora, održanih 10. studenoga 1996., smještajući ih u kontekst strukture političkih institucija i obilježja stranačkog sustava. Slovenski je ustavni sustav ustrojen kao parlamentarna demokracija, a parlament ima obilježja ograničenoga dvodomnog sustava, u kojem je gornji dom zasnovan na načelu funkcionalno-teritorijalne reprezentacije i ima ograničene ingerencije. Parlamentarni je stranački sustav određen sastavom donjeg doma, Narodne skupštine. Na prethodnim izborima 1992. čak je osam stranaka osvojilo mandate u parlamentu, što je rezultiralo pluraliziranim stranačkim sustavom, disperzijom političkog utjecaja stranaka i nužnošću formiranja koalicijske vlade. Sve do početka 1996. na vlasti je bila trojna, politički uravnotežena koalicija, okupljena oko centrističke stranke Liberalna demokracija Slovenije. Izlaskom reformiranih komunista iz vlade došlo je do pomicanja političke ravnoteže prema desnom centru. Pomak javnog mnijenja udesno zabilježen je i tijekom predizborne kampanje. Izbori, na kojima je sedam stranaka ušlo u parlament, proizveli su izrazito polarizirani stranački sustav: s jedne strane nalazi se koalicija triju desnih stranaka, a s druge strane liberali, kao najjača parlamentarna stranka, te ostale manje stranke. Jednaka distribucija mandata između ta dva pola stvorila je privremeni politički pat, koji otežava formiranje koalicijske vlade.The author analyzes the results of Slovenian parliamentary elections, held on November 10th 1996, within the context of the structure of political institutions and characteristics of the party system. The Slovenian constitutional system is a parliamentary democracy. The parliament consists of two houses. The upper house is based on the principle of functional and territorial representation with limited authority. The parliamentary party system is defined by the composition of the lower house, National Assembly. In the elections of 1992, as many as eight parties won places in the parliament, which resulted in the pluralized party system, the dispersion of the political clout of various parties and the necessity of forming a coalition government. Up to the beginning of 1996, the power was held by the tripartite, politically balanced coalition, gathered round a centrist party, Liberal Democracy of Slovenia. The withdrawal of the reformed communists from the government shifted the political balance towards centre right. The corresponding rightist shift of the public opinion was noted during the preelection campaign as well. The outcome of the elections, in which seven parties ran for the parliament, has been an extremely polarized party system: on the one hand, there is a coalition of three rightist parties, and on the other there are the liberals, as the strongest parliamentary party, and other smaller parties. The even distribution of mandates between these two poles has, for the time being, brought about the political stalemate, which stands in the way of forming a coalition government

ROLE OF SLOVENIAN PARLIAMENT IN THE PROCESS OF TRANSITION, LEGISLATIVE RECONSTRUCTION AND EU MEMBERSHIP

Slovenski Državni zbor moguće je svrstati među one nove parlamente srednje i istočne Europe koji nisu bili samo korisnici demokratizacije, nego su bili važni akteri u samom prelasku iz bivših socijalističkih sustava u demokratske. Bio je vrlo zaslužan za modernizaciju cijelog zakonodavstva u drugom razdoblju povezanom s europeizacijom i imao je veliku ulogu u procesu pristupanja Europskoj Uniji. Državni zbor je kao novi parlament nedvojbeno dosegnuo zadovoljavajući stupanj institucionalne i organizacijske sposobnosti. Postavlja se, međutim, pitanje njegove zbiljske subjektivne ili “kulturne sposobnosti”. Nedostatak tih sposobnosti među poslanicima u samom procesu uključivanja u EU katkad se očitovao velikim razlikama između načelne potpore EU i njezinim vrijednostima i bitnim razumijevanjem djelovanja njezinih institucija i ciljeva. U brojnim se prigodama mogla primijetiti i suprotnost između idealiziranih predodžbi o tome kako će poslije ulaska u EU sve biti jednostavnije i pesimističkih predviđanja o “potonuću” u EU. Slovenska parlamentarna elita uglavnom još nije posve razumjela da su tzv.“unutrašnja” pitanja umnogome postala europskim pitanjima, kao i to da su europska pitanja već postala “nacionalnim” pitanjima. No, s druge strane, premalo se razmišlja o tome koliko je sudjelovanje slovenskog parlamenta u uvjetima punopravnog članstva zapravo zahtjevno. Poslanici će biti podvrgnuti mnogo intenzivnijim tokovima informacija koje će dolaziti iz institucija EU-a, a vrijeme za reagiranje bit će sve kraće. To će dovesti do toga da će poslanici djelovati sve više “reaktivno”, a sve manje “aktivno”. Stoga pretpostavljamo da Državni zbor na početku svoga četvrtog mandata, neposredno nakon učlanjenja Slovenije u EU još nije dovoljno osposobljen za sudjelovanje, preko vlade, u procesu odlučivanja u EU kad je posrijedi brzo prihvaćanje potrebnih informacija i zauzimanja stavova ni u pogledu dobrog nadzora nad Vladom. Također, Državni zbor još uvijek nema dovoljno znanja za prijenos europskih politika u slovenske prilike, nedostaje mu iskustva, znanja i određene rutine za djelovanje u novim prilikama višerazinskog odlučivanja. U tim uvjetima nedostatka presedana zapravo pravi rad tek počinje.Slovenian state assembly can be categorized as one of those new parliaments in Central and Eastern Europe that were not only beneficiaries of democratization but also major actors in the transition from the former socialist into a democratic system. It was in the forefront of the modernization of the entire legislature in the second stage of Europeization and played a major role in the process of EU accession. The state assembly as a new parliament has undoubtedly reached a satisfactory level of institutional and organizational competence. The problem is, however, its genuine subjective or “cultural capacity”. The lack of such capacities among the delegates in the process of EU accession was occasionally manifested in a huge disparity between the lip service to the EU membership and its values and the real understanding of the functioning of its institutions and goals. On numerous occasions there was a marked contrast between the idealized perceptions about how after the EU accession everything was going to be simpler and the pessimistic predictions about “drowning” in the EU. The Slovenian parliamentary elite has not yet fuly grasped the reality that the so called “internal” issues have largely become the European issues or that the European issues have already become “national” issues. On the other hand, too little attention is paid to the question of how demanding the participation of the Slovenian parliament in the circumstances of the full membership really is. The representatives will be exposed to a much more intensive flow of information from the EU institutions and the reaction time will get shorter. This will mean that the delegates will increasingly respond “reactively” instead of “actively”. The conlusion is that the state assembly at the commencement of its fourth mandate and following Slovenia’s EU accession is not yet fully qualified to participate – via the government – in the process of EU decision-making from the perspective of a swift grasp of vital information and taking stands; neither is it in the position to properly monitor the government. Also, the state assembly is not conversant enough in translating the European politics into the Slovenian setting since it lacks the necessary experience, knowledge and routine in operating in the new circumstances of multilevel decision-making. Due to this lack of precedents, the real hard work is only beginning

National Parliaments of the New Member Countries in the EU – Adaptation of the Slovene National Assembly to the New Challenges

In the process of democratization, the national parliaments of Central and Eastern Europe first needed to adapt to the democratic norms and principles set by Western European countries and organizations. Before an individual state could enter the EU, the parliaments had to align the entirety of their national legislation with EU legal standards. Further, national parliaments had to incorporate the supranational decision-making models practiced in the EU. Each of the parliaments of the 2004 entrant countries has chosen different models of participation in the decision-making process at the EU. The Slovenian example shows that its National Assembly (Državni zbor), long an active participant in country’s accession process, has chosen a model that secures it a relatively strong role in dealing with EU matters, similar to that of some Scandinavian parliaments. The National Assembly adopted an anticipatory examination of the EU draft legislation and put the main focus on the special Committee on EU Affairs. Statistical data shows that the Slovene parliament, during the last mandate (2004-2008) did not adequately use its full range of opportunities to become an active player in the process of formulating and passing legislation at the EU-level. The National Assembly further missed an opportunity to direct or influence the activities of government representatives at the EU-level. Thus, EU matters remained separate from the national context. On the basis of previous accession countries acclimation to the EU, it is possible to conclude that parliaments during their first mandates after the country’s entry into the EU are not yet able to develop a parliamentary-EU dimension. These assumptions indicate a need to prepare some ‘recipes’ to mollify problems for future EU member states

Formation of the Parliament and the Question of One or More Houses

Oblikovanje parlamenta in vprašanje eno- ali večdomnost