Page 128 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 128
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 5–6
In short, the case of Slovenia is an educative illustration of the influ-
ence that social context has on radicalisation, even when seemingly noth-
ing is wrong. Despite one of the lowest levels of inequality, and many other
very favourable factors, public opinion in Slovenia has become radicalised,
because of the growing distance between ordinary citizens and the po-
litical elites that run the country following a neoliberal plan. According
to the results of the survey outlined above, an aversion to democracy has
deepened with the majority of the population, who favour the option of
having a “strong leader that would fix things” instead of more democracy.
In 2015 – that is, several years after the end of the most recent economic
crisis – this attitude was expressed by as much as 62.4 % of the Slovenian
public, the highest level in Europe, while only 13 years ago this opinion
was held by much less than half the population (Dragoš, 2016: p. 45).26
Among those who would prefer to have an authoritarian leader over great-
er democracy, most are voters with low education, the unemployed, the re-
ligious, those over the age of 60, and those who live in poverty or close to
it (Toš & Vovk, 2014). In short, despite the relatively low degree of ine-
quality in Slovenian society, social factors are among the main ones linked
to the mainstream distrust of democracy. With regard to other contex-
tual reasons related to radicalisation, two other factors need to be not-
ed, namely social capital along with unfavourable psychological shifts re-
lated to what is usually uncritically idealised as the Slovenian “national
character”. While the indicator of the quality of social ties in Slovenia re-
mains below the European average27, it is with regard to “national charac-
ter” that Slovenians are markedly above the European average, and here
they value the most negative personal characteristics, which are related
to the concept of authoritarian personality. These characteristics are: sub-
missiveness, modestolatry,28 conformism and traditionalism. Despite the
already high measured values for these characteristics at the start of the
26 In these terms the statement of the current president of Slovenia, Borut Pahor, seems typical:
“With regard to running the governments, a certain world trend also needs to be considered.
We are witnessing the growing phenomenon of strong political leaders, also in countries
with long democratic traditions. For many people it is attractive to have a leader that can
compensate for the deficiencies of democracy. If democracy does not work, they say to
themselves, at least it is better to have a strong leader. Contrary to those that typically jump to
conclude that this leads to authoritarianism, I am not so sure that the two are interconnected.
People look for strong leaders for whom they believe would be able to fix things /…/ I am
reserved towards predictions of apocalypse in cases when a strong political personality takes
over leadership of the government” (Korljan, 2018).
27 Although slightly above the average of the former socialist countries.
28 It shows agreement with the statement: “It is important to be humble and modest, not to
draw attention.”
126
In short, the case of Slovenia is an educative illustration of the influ-
ence that social context has on radicalisation, even when seemingly noth-
ing is wrong. Despite one of the lowest levels of inequality, and many other
very favourable factors, public opinion in Slovenia has become radicalised,
because of the growing distance between ordinary citizens and the po-
litical elites that run the country following a neoliberal plan. According
to the results of the survey outlined above, an aversion to democracy has
deepened with the majority of the population, who favour the option of
having a “strong leader that would fix things” instead of more democracy.
In 2015 – that is, several years after the end of the most recent economic
crisis – this attitude was expressed by as much as 62.4 % of the Slovenian
public, the highest level in Europe, while only 13 years ago this opinion
was held by much less than half the population (Dragoš, 2016: p. 45).26
Among those who would prefer to have an authoritarian leader over great-
er democracy, most are voters with low education, the unemployed, the re-
ligious, those over the age of 60, and those who live in poverty or close to
it (Toš & Vovk, 2014). In short, despite the relatively low degree of ine-
quality in Slovenian society, social factors are among the main ones linked
to the mainstream distrust of democracy. With regard to other contex-
tual reasons related to radicalisation, two other factors need to be not-
ed, namely social capital along with unfavourable psychological shifts re-
lated to what is usually uncritically idealised as the Slovenian “national
character”. While the indicator of the quality of social ties in Slovenia re-
mains below the European average27, it is with regard to “national charac-
ter” that Slovenians are markedly above the European average, and here
they value the most negative personal characteristics, which are related
to the concept of authoritarian personality. These characteristics are: sub-
missiveness, modestolatry,28 conformism and traditionalism. Despite the
already high measured values for these characteristics at the start of the
26 In these terms the statement of the current president of Slovenia, Borut Pahor, seems typical:
“With regard to running the governments, a certain world trend also needs to be considered.
We are witnessing the growing phenomenon of strong political leaders, also in countries
with long democratic traditions. For many people it is attractive to have a leader that can
compensate for the deficiencies of democracy. If democracy does not work, they say to
themselves, at least it is better to have a strong leader. Contrary to those that typically jump to
conclude that this leads to authoritarianism, I am not so sure that the two are interconnected.
People look for strong leaders for whom they believe would be able to fix things /…/ I am
reserved towards predictions of apocalypse in cases when a strong political personality takes
over leadership of the government” (Korljan, 2018).
27 Although slightly above the average of the former socialist countries.
28 It shows agreement with the statement: “It is important to be humble and modest, not to
draw attention.”
126
