Page 110 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 110
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 5–6
current example: in Slovenia, as elsewhere in Europe, this “orientation”
confusion typically presents us with the problem that I am going to de-
scribe in the rest of this paragraph, and that was most clearly visible after
the parliamentary election, in Slovenia in 2018, when the governing coa-
lition was composed of numerous heterogeneous and small political par-
ties. Despite the explicit, substantive as well as declarative competitive-
ness of all political parties that managed to enter Parliament, their only
common characteristic was in the unified qualification of the one new-
ly-formed party (established in June 2017) called the Left (Levica). Only
because no other party (in Slovenia) was located even farther left from it,
this political party has been considered the “extreme left” by all political
actors and most of the media, although neither in its programme nor its
actions has there been anything that would distinguish the Left from the
classical social-democratic parties that existed for most of the 20th centu-
ry.1 The third case of erroneous designation occurs through blurring the
difference between the general and the specific; this shift often leads to
the hasty equalisation of radicalism with terrorism, merely due to the as-
sumption that any terrorism is at the same time also radicalism (which it
is) – but the reverse is not always true. Not every form of radicalism ad-
vocates the use of terrorism, as the first is a general concept, while the sec-
ond is a specific one (by analogy with fruit/apple, building/house, justice/
equality, etc.). This supports the point that one of the biggest problems
in examining radicalism and extremism “lies in the fact that these social
phenomena are dynamic and, in order to be analysed in a scientifically ob-
jective manner, they must be examined in the specific temporal, spatial
and socio-political context” (Đorić, 2016: p. 215).
Modernisation and Pluralism
In addressing the subject in the title, I will consider this general warning
expressed in three more concrete points:
1 It is true, however, that the Left party is more to the left than its most proximate competitor,
that is, the Social Democrats party [Socialni demokrati], after the latter’s once social-democratic
profile was diluted by the party’s declared, decisive and actual move to the political centre,
where now (in Slovenia) most parliamentary parties try to hold their positions. There are
two reasons for the Social Democrats’ turn to the right in the past quarter of the century.
Firstly, due to their susceptibility to neoliberalism, and secondly their premeditated attempt
to destigmatise themselves from the socialist system in which this party was constituted
(under the then name The League of Communists of Slovenia - Zveza komunistov Slovenije). This
is not to be considered mimicry, but the transition philosophy of the “Visegrad Group” of
former socialist countries: Social Democrats – to survive in such nations – saved themselves
from the stigma of impersonating the former one-party regime by proving that they were the
trustworthy followers of the neoliberalism that replaced the collapsed system of the Eastern
bloc.
108
current example: in Slovenia, as elsewhere in Europe, this “orientation”
confusion typically presents us with the problem that I am going to de-
scribe in the rest of this paragraph, and that was most clearly visible after
the parliamentary election, in Slovenia in 2018, when the governing coa-
lition was composed of numerous heterogeneous and small political par-
ties. Despite the explicit, substantive as well as declarative competitive-
ness of all political parties that managed to enter Parliament, their only
common characteristic was in the unified qualification of the one new-
ly-formed party (established in June 2017) called the Left (Levica). Only
because no other party (in Slovenia) was located even farther left from it,
this political party has been considered the “extreme left” by all political
actors and most of the media, although neither in its programme nor its
actions has there been anything that would distinguish the Left from the
classical social-democratic parties that existed for most of the 20th centu-
ry.1 The third case of erroneous designation occurs through blurring the
difference between the general and the specific; this shift often leads to
the hasty equalisation of radicalism with terrorism, merely due to the as-
sumption that any terrorism is at the same time also radicalism (which it
is) – but the reverse is not always true. Not every form of radicalism ad-
vocates the use of terrorism, as the first is a general concept, while the sec-
ond is a specific one (by analogy with fruit/apple, building/house, justice/
equality, etc.). This supports the point that one of the biggest problems
in examining radicalism and extremism “lies in the fact that these social
phenomena are dynamic and, in order to be analysed in a scientifically ob-
jective manner, they must be examined in the specific temporal, spatial
and socio-political context” (Đorić, 2016: p. 215).
Modernisation and Pluralism
In addressing the subject in the title, I will consider this general warning
expressed in three more concrete points:
1 It is true, however, that the Left party is more to the left than its most proximate competitor,
that is, the Social Democrats party [Socialni demokrati], after the latter’s once social-democratic
profile was diluted by the party’s declared, decisive and actual move to the political centre,
where now (in Slovenia) most parliamentary parties try to hold their positions. There are
two reasons for the Social Democrats’ turn to the right in the past quarter of the century.
Firstly, due to their susceptibility to neoliberalism, and secondly their premeditated attempt
to destigmatise themselves from the socialist system in which this party was constituted
(under the then name The League of Communists of Slovenia - Zveza komunistov Slovenije). This
is not to be considered mimicry, but the transition philosophy of the “Visegrad Group” of
former socialist countries: Social Democrats – to survive in such nations – saved themselves
from the stigma of impersonating the former one-party regime by proving that they were the
trustworthy followers of the neoliberalism that replaced the collapsed system of the Eastern
bloc.
108
