The Perception of the Alternative

The anti-government movement which emerged in the spring of 2020 is still ongoing.

Considering that the primary aim of the movement is the resignation of the current

government, it has not yet succeeded. However, the movement recently achieved concrete results, as a group of civil society organisations and environmental organisations forced a referendum to reject the government's amendments to the Waters Act, and mobilised enough voters to reject these amendments at a referendum on 11 July 2021. While the referendum concerned amendments to the law which would have weakened the protection of water and allowed for the construction of facilities that could pollute water sources, with more than 86% of votes against the amendments, the very high turnout and the result of the referendum were widely interpreted as a successful act of resistance against the government.²⁸³

The movement has resulted in some of the biggest and most sustained series of protests in the history of the nation, and has led to a considerable mobilisation of the public.

However, overall, the impact and success of the anti-government movement cannot be

sufficiently assessed at this time, partly because it is still ongoing and partly because its wider goals are not yet clearly defined. What can be considered, however, are possible implications of the movement's summoning of the legacy of the Alternative. Through its approaches, the

283 Vladimir Spasić, “Slovenia to Hold Referendum on Drinking Water on July 11,” Balkan Green Energy

anti-government movement points to a particular perception and understanding of the Alternative and its relationship to Slovenia’s transition. It is possible that this particular perception reflects the tragic turn of Slovenia’s transition. However, what should not be discounted here is the possibility that the outcome of Slovenia’s transition, the current position of culture, and transformations of those involved in the Alternative movement may indicate issues regarding the perception of the Alternative movement. For example, could the issue not lie in the way that the legacy of the Alternative has been devalued, disregarded and even co-opted in the process of transition, but that the perception of the movement’s actions and achievements is skewed?

It is worth noting that most of those involved in the Alternative movement, at least the more prominent groups and individuals, were young men. At the same time, due to the size of Slovenia’s cultural sector and the small pool of cultural workers and academics concerned with culture, many of those who were young students or artists directly involved in the movement, are now the authors of the publications on the Alternative. This raises the question of whether the Alternative’s true impact and influence in political processes is overestimated. Could the contemporary understanding of the Alternative be the result of romanticised reminiscences of rebellious acts by a few young angry men expressing their grievances with the system, which happened to resonate with the experiences of the wider youth population? If the legacy of the Alternative cultural movement does in fact include a particular notion of dissent that is closely tied with traditional ideas of masculinity, this could lead to the conclusion that in the year 2021, the legacy of the Alternative cultural movement is has become outdated and impotent.

Even so, it is not possible to predict the political impact of the anti-government movement, whether or not it will bring about any larger and meaningful changes, or how it might impact the position of culture and power of the public. Nonetheless, the movement’s

links to the Alternative can offer valuable insight on the impact of Slovenia’s transition on culture, and the shifting relationship between artistic and political practice. In particular, it points to the impact of the discourse of the post-communist transition, which appears to have been internalised by the anti-government movement.

The anti-government movement’s links to the Alternative point to a disappointment and dissatisfaction and with the outcome of Slovenia’s transition, and with the position of culture and the public in particular. Moreover, it points to a belief that the measures of the current government, the characteristics of Janšism which have intensified due to the pandemic and led to disproportionate and restrictive measures, the discreditation and revaluation of culture, press, civil society, all signal the nation’s shift from the West to the East, from democracy to authoritarianism, from modernity to backwardness, from the present to the past. This is indicated by the common rhetoric that that we, as a nation, are moving

“backward”, and thus toward Visegrád and to “the East”. As such, the echo suggests that the Alternative led Slovenia in “the right direction”, to the West, to modernity, to capitalism and democracy. Moreover, those involved in the protest movement like to describe Janša as “a hardworking disciple of communism” and compare him to Tito, which shows that the equation of communism = totalitarianism has caught on, and that even Janša’s biggest

‘opponents have internalised his anti-communist propaganda to such an extent that they themselves use it to discredit him politically’.²⁸⁴ The columnist N'toko points to how every Slovenian politician is obliged to define themselves as opposed to “all totalitarianisms” when they enter public life, and adds that the consequences of this discourse could also be seen in the 2020 protests, with numerous protesters carrying banners declaring them as “neither left nor right”.²⁸⁵ N’toko explains that this marks a definitive ideological victory for the Right,

284 N’toko, “Ukradena Zgodovina.”

285 Ibid.

and I would add that it is also a clear demonstration of the internalisation of the discourse of the post-communist transition.²⁸⁶