|
A MODEL OF DEVELOPMENT FOR SLOVENIA
Conference about the Human Development Report, UMAR (United Nations Development Project),
Address by the President of the Republic Milan Kucan
Ljubljana, Cankarjev dom, 9 March 1999
"Thus, as it is according to macroeconomic indicators, Slovenia is also ranked highly among the 175 countries of the world according to the human development index: in 1995 it was placed 35th. Such a ranking is to a great extent not only a result of its development through the nineties, but also – particularly in comparison with other Central and East European countries – a result of its relatively high level of economic development and social standards at the end of the eighties," the president quoted data from the Human Development Report, a report carried out by the UNDP.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The report being discussed at today’s conference, which has justifiably received such high estimation, has arrived at the right time. Slovenia needs it for a number of reasons, or at least I am convinced so. I would like to take this opportunity to address at least two of those reasons.
The first is that this report will promote reflection on the models of development that are to guide Slovenia self-confidently through the clearly differing views of the future seen today, and allow it to reliably respond to the challenges of this era at the turn of the century. All these years after independence I have been warning that Slovenia faces a unique conceptual crisis: that the historic project of independence, that is the creation of an independent Slovene state that has united all Slovenes and given them self-confidence and self-respect, should be followed by a project of national development, the project of the future identity of the Slovene state. Through the constitution, when we achieved a consensus for the second and for now the last time, we obtained a constitutional legal framework that would also allow us to carry out this project of a modern, social state based on the rule of law, arising from our own interests on a modern, philosophically valid basis. I do not think that this work should only be starting now. We do have some national programmes, and a range of strategies, projects and studies; we also have the national strategy for accession to the EU and the national programme for adopting the acquis communautaire. These are all important elements in the ascent of the project of national development about which I am speaking. But we have still not answered the basic questions of the philosophy of Slovenia’s development, which can only be done specifically within Europe’s philosophy of development, to say nothing of achieving the necessary social and political consensus on the issue. Only this, the third consensus, would give the right meaning and enduring vital significance to the first two – those on independence and on the constitution. The consequences are familiar. Much effort is expended with little result and low ambitions. Our endeavours are not, or at least not sufficiently, aimed at the same strategic objectives, they are not coordinated, they lack the necessary and sufficient analytical and material basis, and thus they fail to provide the synergistic effect needed and anticipated.
The second reason lies in the disparity – to put it simply – between what is said and what is done. When I read, hear or talk about the level of success of the transition in Slovenia as measured by macroeconomic indicators, it is still assessed more or less favourably. Assessments of the success of vital reforms are less favourable. But when I talk to people – as I often do and as I like to do – when I talk to the directors and presidents of the boards of companies, to the employees of companies, to businesspersons and to other people, particularly those seeking their first job or those between jobs, their view and perception of the success of the macroeconomic indicators and Slovenia’s development on that basis are often different, and the level of success as measured by macroeconomic indicators becomes at the least highly relative. Companies and people set their own priorities, which are dictated to them by the rapid changes and circumstances in the world of business and in life. Their priorities are frequently at odds with the priorities that party politicians and the authorities in Slovenia have, or those that they intend to set. In the whole maelstrom of transition – I will not get into the actual definition of transition, or what anyone under transition actually understands – it is as if mankind and the development of mankind have become of secondary importance. It is as if mankind and the development of mankind, dignity and welfare, and security are no longer the basic purpose, value and guideline of the transition, while people are increasingly becoming an object in the process of transition, and the transition is in any case becoming sufficient in itself and sufficient for political purposes.
I therefore especially see the value of the report and today’s conference in posing the question of where in the haste of the transition, in its swarm and throng, and in the overblown and politically overheated construction of a new system of values we have lost the human element. Are the objectives of the plebiscite, which they confirmed during the creation of the independent state with such a large majority, being realised for Slovene men and women and the citizens of Slovenia? Have the fervour, the developmental impetus and the social energy liberated and released by independence been exploited to “do the right thing”, to provide substance to the new form of the state? Has Slovenia become or is it at least becoming a partner in the rise of the concept of the Europe of the third millennium: is it a bridge between the nations of Western Europe and those of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe? Are we building our republic on the fundaments of human dignity with the constant rule of human rights in accordance with our Central European civilisational traditions? Does Slovenia have the optimal structure of large, medium and small businesses on the global market, with highly motivated management personnel who know how to find the creative balance between labour and capital, through active ownership and highly developed co-management, and encouragement of the energies of well-trained employees in their work and in participating in the management of companies; can we yet boast of an elite industrial core with excellent brands, and the predominance of service activities in gross domestic product? Is our state organised and decentralised on a modern basis, with a highly professional, efficient and thus not excessively costly public administration serving citizens and their initiatives? And by no means least: does the state have well-developed and effective instruments in place for maintaining a dynamic social and political equilibrium? Do we live in a country that respects all kinds of successful work, and human creativity and the uniqueness of each personality, with a background of equal opportunities and emphasis on the role of education based on the understanding of knowledge as a fundamental comparative advantage enjoyed by Slovenes; does our state protect social rights and the dignity of labour, and the security of marginalised groups for whom, through no fault of their own, opportunities for surviving through work have been limited? And I would also like to ask this: are those in charge of Slovenia’s development conscious of the responsibilities for Slovene society’s operation in accordance with European standards, for its development and needs, for its social equilibrium and cultural creativity, and for the human dignity, rights and freedoms defined by international standards? The Report on Human Development in Slovenia responds to these and a range of other questions. I quote: “… all parties try to take command for themselves of the entire environment of not just the political life, but also the social and moral life, of the people. In this trading they do not proceed from the at least partly agreed concept of Slovenia’s social development, but merely decide according to whether a certain measure benefits a particular political party or not.” Herein, I would add, lies that unhappy continuity, about which so much talk is heard in Slovenia and so much energy expended, in this model of political, partisan action described, which everywhere, without exception, is recapitulated from the sole model of political action of which we have any experience, taken from the previous system according to a model which on the outside was monopolistic and intolerant, and on the inside operated on the principle of democratic centralism. This model is far removed from parliamentary democracy, which is based on pluralism, tolerance, the search for consensus and responsibility.
Thus, as it is according to macroeconomic indicators, Slovenia is also ranked highly among the 175 countries of the world according to the human development index: in 1995 it was placed 35th. Such a ranking is to a great extent not only a result of its development through the nineties, but also – particularly in comparison with other Central and East European countries – a result of its relatively high level of economic development and social standards at the end of the eighties.
Unfortunately we have been unable, and some perhaps have been unwilling, to ease and direct the feverishness and unrest of life in the new state into a model of development in which the positive values and achievements of the eighties and the new, essential social values and developmental objectives of the nineties, now almost past, would be optimally combined, alongside understanding of the mutually connected and co-dependent human world at the threshold of the new century. In reflecting on the coming century, it seems realistic to me to reflect on negating that which at the end of this century is commonly recognised as bad, and building upon that which is commonly humanly accepted as good. In order to bring this about, it is first necessary more than anything else to begin a dialogue within the world, and for the moment this cannot take place anywhere other than within the United Nations.
I would like to thank the authors of the report for their analytical findings and their warnings regarding human development in the Republic of Slovenia. I also congratulate them for having successfully carried out such a demanding task. I would be delighted if the participants at today’s conference could reshape these findings and recommendations into a definition of central objectives for the coordinated economic, social and environment-friendly development of Slovenia.
I wish you all an enjoyable day, and every success at this conference.
|
