The Slovenian EU Accession Referendum: A Cat-and-Mouse Game

Abstract

This account reviews the background to, the campaign and the result of the Slovenian EU accession referendum. The authors ascertain that the ‘yes’ campaign was outstandingly well organised and synchronised, in stark contrast to the ‘no’ campaign, which was poorly organised and came across as representative of a narrow set of interests. Irrespective of this contrast, the large victory (almost 90 per cent) of the ‘yes’ camp was unexpected (as well as the relatively low turnout of 60.4 per cent). The two most important reasons for such a high level of support for the EU in the accession referendum can be traced back to the broad consensus among the political and social elite and the reorientation of the most well-known anti-EU actors to the NATO accession referendum which was held simultaneously. For this reason, account is taken of the Slovenian NATO accession referendum, but only to the extent that it influenced the campaign and result of the EU referendum.

Notes

Slovenians succeeded in establishing an independent state (the ancient state of Karantanija) relatively early, at the beginning of the seventh century of the first millennium, but they were unable – primarily due to the location of their territory and their small population – to preserve their independence throughout history (Prunk 1996). Irrespective of losing their own state in the early middle ages, they managed to preserve their unique culture and language through the centuries.

Known as the ‘Spanish Compromise’.

The Slovenian National Assembly amended Article 68 of the Constitution on 13 July 1997.

All former Yugoslav republics (including Slovenia) had their own (republic) constitutions which were legally subordinated to the Yugoslav Federal Constitution.

The plebiscite on independence was held on 23 December 1990. Among the 93.2 per cent of the electorate who voted, 95 per cent voted for a free and independent Slovenia (88.5 per cent of all eligible voters).

The Constitution regulates the Legislative Referendum and Confirmation of Constitutional Amendments by Referendum.

Citizens express their views about matters regulated by law in advance; the National Assembly is bound by the referendum result.

Citizens confirm the law adopted by the National Assembly and can challenge or bypass the parliamentary majority (government); the National Assembly is bound by the referendum result.

A consultative referendum is conducted on either the territory of the whole country or on a specific, narrower territory; the National Assembly is not bound by the referendum result.

Before starting to collect the 40,000 signatures, two additional requirements must be met: the initiator(s) have to submit 1,000 signatures of support and a clearly expressed issue (linked to a specific law), which should be the subject of the referendum. From 19 July 1994 to 11 September 2003, 48 initiatives or claims to call a referendum (excluding the EU and NATO accession referendums) were put into the procedure.

A kind of referendum on EU accession could already have been held in May 1997, before ratification of the Europe Agreement in the Slovenian Parliament. Movement 23 December put into the parliamentary procedure six initiatives to call a referendum (one initiative was also started by the MP Poljšak), but they were all blocked either on legal or procedural grounds. The President of Movement 23 December was sure that this happened because of the political elite's own interests: ‘It is a bit strange that a professor of constitutional law and the former (first) president of the democratic parliament who helped in the preparation of initiatives was unable to satisfy all the legal and procedural demands. At the time it would have been wiser for the political elite to allow us to start collecting the 40,000 signatures. Since we did not have the infrastructure and organisational resources we would not have been able to collect the demanded number of signatures and we would have humiliated ourselves' (Korun 2003).

According to the national longitudinal public opinion poll – Politbarometer – conducted in March 2002 by the Centre for Research of Public Opinion and Mass Communication at the Faculty of Social Sciences, 50 per cent of Slovenians felt they were well informed about the accession process.

On that date the NATO accession protocol was signed. Due to the relatively low and unstable support for NATO membership in Slovenia, the other NATO members were anxious to know the outcome of the referendum before signing this protocol.

Interview with Mr Potočnik, published in the Slovenian daily newspaper Vecer on 18 January 2003.

At the same time it was also agreed that there should be only one day of polling.

This demand was actually the single common point of agreement among the parliamentary opposition, together with the Eurosceptical Slovenian National Party and the Eurosceptical Movement 23 December, but their reasons were different. For the parliamentary opposition in particular, the main motivation was experience with events surrounding the consultative referendums on electoral systems conducted in 1996 – and bypassed by the parliamentary majority in 2000 – and the change of the Constitution.

The new article of the Constitution reads: ‘Pursuant to a treaty ratified by the National Assembly by a two-thirds majority vote of all deputies, Slovenia may transfer the exercise of part of its sovereign rights to international organisations which are based on the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, democracy and the principles of the rule of law and may enter into a defensive alliance with states which are based on respect for these values. Before ratifying an international treaty referred to in the preceding paragraph, the National Assembly may call a referendum. A proposal shall pass at the referendum if a majority of voters who have cast valid votes vote in favour of such. The National Assembly is bound by the result of such referendum. If such referendum has been held, a referendum regarding the law on the ratification of the treaty concerned may not be called’.

Movement 23 December opted for a plebiscite. Its call for a plebiscite had some effect in the mass media but was completely ignored by the political sphere and the public. The call for a plebiscite would mean that EU accession should be supported by a majority of all voters not just by a majority of voters who had cast a vote at the referendum.

The national broadcaster (TV Slovenia) and the biggest commercial (POP TV) TV stations prepared their own shows (‘confrontations’) presenting pro- and anti-EU accession cases.

According to Krajc (2003), journalists were constantly talking in two distinctive terms; about politics or politicians (pro-EU participants) and civil society (anti-EU participants) but these terms were used inaccurately since many civil society organisations were also pro-EU.

It is interesting to note that the current President of Slovenia was not among them, especially since he was premier from 1992 to 2002 and most heavily connected with the Slovenian EU accession negotiations.

In Slovenia, the financial aspects of referendum campaigns are not legally regulated. The financial resources presented here are based on data provided by the Government Public Relations and Media Office.

By contrast, the Slovenian government spent approximately €310,350 on the NATO accession referendum.

The Slovenian National Party was established in 1991. In the 1992 parliamentary elections the party got 10 per cent of the votes and 12 seats in the National Assembly. However, after entering parliament most of the deputies seceded from the party. Nevertheless, the Slovenian National Party confirmed its position as a parliamentary party at the 1996 and 2000 parliamentary elections.

The party also showed its opposition to the accession process in its 2000 elections promotional billboards on which the party president held a plucked chicken surrounded by EU stars. The picture's purpose was to emphasise it is better for Slovenia to enter the EU later and unwise to join immediately given the current EU conditions and that is better and nicer for us to live outside the EU.

Movement 23 December was established in 1996 due to the ‘harmful attitude of Slovenian politics to its own state and nation’ (as stated in its Programme). The movement is a non-party civil society association. The name of the movement is symbolic: on 23 December 1990 the plebiscite on Slovenia's independence was held, whereas on the same day one year later Slovenia also adopted its first democratic Constitution.

This is a paraphrasing of the well-known and popular slogan ‘Europe Now!’

His statement is also confirmed by the analysis presented here of the financial resources invested in the EU and NATO referendums.

Turnout levels at past parliamentary elections in Slovenia are as follows: 83.3 per cent in 1990, 85.8 per cent in 1992, 73.7 per cent in 1996, and 70.3 per cent in 2000 (Krašovec and Boh 2002). Turnout levels at past presidential elections in Slovenia are as follows: 83.5 per cent in the first round in 1990 and 76.9 per cent in the second round, 85.4 per cent in 1992, 68.6 per cent in 1997, 72.1 per cent in the first round in 2002 and 65.4 per cent in the second round in 2002 (source: www.rvk.si).

According to LeDuc (2002), referendums held on a less salient issue run the risk of lower voter participation. Blais (2000: 42) adds that ‘voters may often see the stakes of a referendum to be lower than stakes on elections’. In Slovenia turnout is also obviously related to referendums' salience and the importance given them by the public. The referendums on EU and NATO membership were clearly the most important for the public among all referendums since 86 per cent of citizens treated them as important. In second place were referendums on electoral systems (58 per cent of citizens considered them important) while other referendums were much less important (Taškar 2003).

According to Blais (2000), the stakes at the plebiscite were obviously perceived to be extremely important.

Civic duty is the overriding motivation for about half of those who vote and a clear majority of regular voters (Blais 2000: 112).

The Slovenian Public Opinion Poll conducted in 2003 revealed that a sense of civic duty was the main reason for electoral participation at local elections held in December 2002.

For example, Mr Černjak, President of the parliamentary party Slovenian Youth Party, officially announced that, due to his visit to Planica, he had voted during preliminary voting for the referendum.