President Türk: We must take due care of our own state
Ljubljana, 2.3.2010 | press release, speech
The President of the Republic of Slovenia, Dr Danilo Türk, today addressed the deputies in the National Assembly and citizens on the subject of the impeachment proposal. He stressed in his position statement that the proposal was legally unfounded, morally unacceptable and politically damaging.
Dr Türk once more explained the reasons for awarding the decorations to outstanding participants in Operation Sever – proposed by the Sever Association of Police Veteran Societies – which protected the democratic processes in Slovenia by preventing the "Rally of Truth".
When commenting on the legal aspects of the impeachment proposal, the President of the Republic stressed that the proposal was frivolous and lacked even the minimum content laid down by the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly and by the Constitutional Court Act, containing no allegations at all that a specific unlawful act had been committed by the President of the Republic the President cannot be accused for the act of others, in particular when those alleged acts are far from being proven.
In President Türk’s view, it is ethically unacceptable to "monopolise" Slovenia’s independence process, which was an act of all the citizens of the Republic of Slovenia.
"This is a time of overheated politics, with an atmosphere full of the accusations that are becoming a prevailing method of political discourse and political struggle – a serious threat to the already rather poor level of political culture in our country," stressed President Türk. In his opinion, we must reject old calls for divisions from the past and strengthen our common willingness to reconcile.
According to the Dr Türk, impeachment is an extraordinary legal procedure that should be used only in extremely serious circumstances, and the use of this procedure based on trivial political calculations should therefore be rejected. It is also a matter, President Türk stressed, of showing respect to our country, to the institution of the President of the Republic as well as to ourselves. "If we do not show respect to ourselves and our own institutions, we cannot expect to be respected by others," he concluded.
Position of the President of the Republic of Slovenia, Dr Danilo Türk, on the Proposal to Initiate the Procedure for Impeachment of the President of the Republic
Ljubljana, 28 January 2010
Check against delivery!
Mr President of the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia,
Honourable Deputies,
Dear Citizens of the Republic of Slovenia,
By this position statement, I respond to the proposal to initiate the procedure for impeachment of the President of the Republic (hereinafter: impeachment proposal) that was submitted on 28 January of this year.
I have come to the National Assembly because I respect the deputies and the institution of the National Assembly.
At the same time, however, I want to be entirely clear on the contents of the impeachment proposal that is the subject of today’s debate. It is legally unfounded, morally unacceptable and politically damaging. There is no legal or any other basis for initiation of the relevant procedure, and therefore I call upon the deputies who submitted this proposal to withdraw it during today’s session. If this should not happen, I invite the National Assembly to reject the impeachment proposal.
I
Allow me to explain my position and my invitation and to begin by summarising
the main facts on this matter.
On 24 November 2009, I issued decrees awarding Dr Tomaž Čas, Tomaž Ertl and Leopold Jesenko Silver Orders of merit. I conferred these awards, as explained in the decree, "for outstanding work and services in the security area, defence and protection of the Republic of Slovenia during Operation Sever."
Let me emphasise, "during Operation Sever" i.e. in the summer and autumn of 1989, not before or later, and thus not for their entire service in performing duties in the period prior to the democratic transformation of Slovenia.
The Silver Order of merit awarded for services in the area of security, defence and protection of the Republic of Slovenia. The third paragraph of Article 7 of the Decorations of the Republic of Slovenia Act (Ur. l. no. 69/2004) defines this order as specifically intended for the area of security and defence, and not for honouring lifetime achievements or any other merits.
The proposal for the orders was submitted by the Sever Association of Police Veteran Societies on 9 November 2009, through an official letter from its President, Milan Horvat. This was a fully credible proposal, which was also confirmed by the subsequent debates within the Sever Association of Police Veteran Societies. I enclose herewith the letter containing the proposal and the statement of reasons.
In the assessment of the received proposals I considered the historical relevance of Operation Sever, by which the Slovenian police protected Slovenia and the human rights of its people against one of the major threats in our contemporary history. By this operation, the Slovenian police prevented the so-called "Rally of Truth", which was to take place in Ljubljana. The police provided security and political stability, endowed the people with self-confidence and strengthened their trust in the ability of the Slovenian authorities to protect the human rights of everybody and secure democratic processes in Slovenia.
These events took place during the disintegration of Yugoslavia, which had by then already passed into its final, violent stage. It was a time of extremely powerful pressures on Slovenia, which was then blamed for supposedly being the major factor in the break-up of the common state, and a time when a declaration of a state of emergency and intervention on the part of the Yugoslav army seemed a fully realistic option.
In those circumstances, the planned rally was a well-established method of aggressive policy on the part of Mr. Slobodan Milošević, aimed at replacing the legally elected leaderships of individual republics and autonomous regions (Montenegro, Kosovo and Vojvodina) in the former Yugoslavia and attempting to set up a centralist dictatorship. In doing this, the Milošević regime was ready to employ any means whatsoever, from media campaigns to abuse of national emotions against Slovenia and a genuine threat of the use of force.
All this was premeditated as an attempt at blocking the democratic transformation that had become irreversible in Slovenia in 1989. After the mobilisation of civil society movements in the preceding years, a constitutional framework for the democratic transformation and ultimate national independence was set up in 1989. In September 1989, constitutional amendments were adopted, among them a constitutional provision prohibiting the introduction of emergency measures in Slovenia without the consent of the Slovenian Assembly. In this manner, Slovenia secured its constitutional basis "to ensure the protection of the status and rights of the Republic, laid down by the Constitution," if the Federal authorities chose to interfere with them through their decisions.
At the level of constitutional order, a decisive step forward on the way to full state sovereignty had been made. However, this order was still unexamined in the conflict situation in former Yugoslavia. Other than Slovenia, in the former Yugoslav state there were many who would have preferred the transformation to be halted by force – and who also disposed of real force and power. One of the means they used was hiring thugs who at a series of rallies spread and deepened fear, forced untruths and used threats of all kinds. With their actions, they proved that the authorities of the Yugoslav Federation either lacked unity and had no willingness and strength to prevent these actions or were perhaps willing to accept the logic of violence themselves. The danger that the Yugoslav Army would join these manifestations of violence was fully realistic.
The Rally of Truth announced for 1 December 1989 was planned as the culmination of pressure on Slovenia and a means for breaking down our country and subordinating it. The Federal authorities were not willing to prevent this attempt. Under these circumstances, the responsible authorities in Slovenia – the Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia and on its proposal the Ljubljana Municipal Secretariat of Internal Affairs, the Slovenian Assembly of the time and the Executive Council – adopted the necessary decisions to prohibit the rally, to provide safety for Slovenian citizens and protect their property.
But these decisions in themselves could not be sufficient. Well-prepared and determined action was necessary, but in particular the persuasive ability to implement these decisions, even with the use of violence, which would – if required – ensure their successful accomplishment. This was essential. The persuasiveness of self-defence readiness was of critical importance in successfully preventing violence. Tomaž Ertl, the Republic Secretary for Internal Affairs at the time, assured the Slovenian Assembly that the "plan of the internal affairs bodies for the rally has been drawn up for the entire territory of Slovenia and in particular for its capital, Ljubljana." At the end of his speech, he added: "People should not be afraid. They have their police, which will do anything to provide for their safety." I am sure that many people today in Slovenia still remember those words. They also remember that they were no shallow words. Behind these words was an excellently organised, well-trained and decisively managed force of 6,472 policemen and other employees of internal affairs bodies, reinforcing their persuasiveness. In Yugoslavia, too, people knew at that time that they had to take the words of Tomaž Ertl seriously.
This persuasiveness was a basic element of the determination of Slovenian police forces and the Slovenian people to make every effort to resist the threat imposed to democratic processes in Slovenia. It was also something completely new in the circumstances of Yugoslavia at that time. In the confrontation of wills, Slovenia proved its determination and strength. The rally was cancelled and Slovenia achieved an important victory.
The importance of this victory should be appreciated. In this confrontation provoked by political conflict, which already involved a threat of violence, a victory achieved without actually using force, was extremely significant. The prevention of violence was a much better outcome than combat against violence. If we compare potentially violent conflicts at the international level, achievements of this kind are extremely rare. The experience of a carefully developed strategy and of tactics gained from Operation Sever were also extremely important at later stages of the process of gaining independence. This was also the reason why confidence in the Slovenian police and its effectiveness during the war of independence in the summer of 1991 was so strong and the overall contribution to Slovenia's independence so significant.
Honourable Deputies,
Dear Citizens of the Republic of Slovenia,
In my public statements related to the orders conferred on the leaders of Operation Sever – Dr Tomaž Čas, Tomaž Ertl and Leopold Jesenko – I have mentioned several times that I decided to confer them after thorough consideration. This consideration is based on a fundamental knowledge of the importance of safety, both for human rights and for the introduction of democracy. In political theory, this has been established for a long time. Let me mention some thoughts of the contemporary American theorist of democracy, Robert Dahl, who has often explained in his works that in the process of transformation to democracy all human rights are important, but they are not equally topical from the very beginning. During the transformation period, the right to personal safety and physical integrity should be provided at an early stage. This is necessary to provide the conditions in which the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association, and, finally, the right to free and fair elections can be fully implemented. People who are threatened and frightened, in particular victims of violence, must solve numerous problems and will take longer to build a democratic society. In the theory and practice of democracy, this is well –known, and all this has been confirmed in the tragic experience of most of the successor states of former Yugoslavia. Slovenia, however, experienced, on account of its ability to protect its citizens' safety at a critically important and early stage of the democratic transformation, a practically textbook sequence of phases in the democratic transformation process – ranging from civil society mobilisation, through successful negotiations among all political players of the time and the protection of basic safety conditions, to the enforcement of human rights, the creation of political parties and finally to free elections – in spring 1990, less than six months after the successful completion of Operation Sever.
So much for the summary of relevant facts. I have drawn attention to these matters on several occasions in my public appearances; I shall therefore summarise only the principal features here. I also enclose relevant documents on the decorations – in addition to the previously mentioned proposals submitted by the Sever Association of Police Veteran Societies, decrees on the award of decorations to Dr Tomaž Čas, Tomaž Ertl and Leopold Jesenko, together with the relevant statements of grounds.
II
So much for the facts. Now I would like to present
my view on the fundamental legal aspects of the impeachment proposal before the Constitutional Court, dated 28 January 2010.
Firstly, this impeachment proposal, despite its size, lacks even the minimum content laid down by the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia (paragraph 2 of Article 187) and by the Constitutional Court Act (63. Articles 63 and 67) i.e. the legal instruments containing the rules on impeachment. According to these provisions, such a proposal must contain: (1) a description of the alleged violation of the Constitution or serious violation of the law committed by the President of the Republic, (2) a description of the alleged violation of the provisions of the Constitution or laws, and (3) the causal link between the acts of the President of the Republic and the alleged violation.
The authors of the impeachment proposal are required to have taken Article 67 of the Constitutional Court Act into consideration, which stipulates that the Constitutional Court acts in accordance with the principles of criminal procedure referred to in the Constitution and in law. This requirement is a logical consequence of the principle of the rule of law, which must also apply in the case of impeachment. In the event of an alleged serious violation of laws or the Constitution, strict legal standards must apply to assess whether the charge is legally founded. It is not enough to say which constitutional provision has allegedly been violated. It must be stated which specific requirement or prohibition has been violated, how it has been done and through which act. Furthermore, in such a case it is necessary to say which prohibited consequences have occurred as the result, and to determine the causal link between acts and consequences. And finally, it is required to state explicitly what has constituted intent showing an intention to cause unlawful consequences. None of this can be found in the impeachment proposal submitted before the Constitutional Court.
The subject of the impeachment can only be a legal or a physical act of the President of the Republic, and not acts committed or allegedly committed by others. The impeachment is about establishing subjective responsibility for specific acts. The impeachment is not an instrument of political assessment or political discussion, or exchange of opinions; it is a legal remedy applied to establish individual responsibility for specific and proven violations. If these do not exist, then the impeachment proposal before the Constitutional Court must be dismissed as legally unfounded.
Reading the impeachment proposal before the Constitutional Court filed on 28 January of this year clearly shows that it is legally unfounded in its entirety. The explanation in the impeachment proposal, pages 2 to 9, refers to a number of articles of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia – 2, 5, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 49, 51, 58, 59, 61, 63 and 104. The construction applied in all of the above describes – in addition to the article of the Constitution and the human rights it protects – the alleged practices of the former National Security Administration, or the National Security Service, generically referred to as "Udba", and the opinion that the decoration conferred on Tomaž Ertl is "in obvious conflict" or "an obvious violation" of each stated article of the Constitution. There is no argument at all. The construction applied expresses only a judgement of the past and cannot, therefore, be legally relevant as the content of impeachment. The impeachment proposal before the Constitutional Court alleges as many as 34 violations of the Constitution. It is the simplest logic to see this it could not be achieved by means of a single act; after all, provisions vary too much in their substance to include the possibility of being violated with a single act.
Of particular interest is the fact that none of the constructions used allege that a specific unlawful act has been committed by the President of the Republic. If the alleged acts were indeed committed at a given time, they were committed by other people for whose actions the incumbent President of the Republic is not – and cannot – be held accountable.
The attempt to saddle the President of the Republic with responsibility for these acts is not only politically, but also legally, untenable and indeed in conflict with the very essence of the law. Law, including constitutional order, is applicable in the time and the space for which it has been adopted. The law of our time and our state cannot be a tool to judge the past. Not only would such an application constitute a breach of the principle of non-retroactivity of law, but it would also be in fundamental conflict with the very function of law as the system of principles and rules regulating relations in society – here and now. Law is not a means of settling political accounts with history; law is a means of managing relations in today’s society.
Lastly: there is no causal link between the acts that are the subject of the impeachment proposal, and the actual conduct of the President of the Republic of Slovenia. Quite the contrary, these constructions indeed show a double absence of any causal link – responsibility for the alleged violations has not been proven for the holder of the decoration, let alone for the President of the Republic who bestowed the decoration.
It must be asked at this point whether the conferment of a decoration can indeed constitute a breach of law or of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia at all. In our legal system, the President of the Republic alone is competent to confer state decorations of the highest order. Proposals for decorations can also be submitted by the state authorities, local self-government bodies, organisations and citizens of the Republic of Slovenia, and a president may also confer decorations at his or her own discretion. The President of the Republic carries out the assessments necessary to substantiate a decoration; his or her decision is then expressed in the decree conferring the decoration. His or her competence to confer decorations has no political restrictions. The attempt at subordinating the President of the Republic in his or her exercise of the right to confer decorations would be in conflict with Article 107 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, and with the Decorations Act of the Republic of Slovenia.
When conferring decorations, however, the President of the Republic must respect the principle of legality. Article 15 of the Decorations Act of the Republic of Slovenia stipulates that the President of the Republic may revoke the decoration if the holder of the decoration has been sentenced, by a final judgement, to imprisonment for a criminal offence against human rights and freedom, against the security of the Republic of Slovenia and its constitutional system, or against humanity and international law. The court must inform the President of the Republic of the final judgment by which the holder of the decoration has been convicted. Article 16 stipulates that a holder of the decoration who has been sentenced to imprisonment by a final judgement may not wear the decoration while serving his or her sentence.
These provisions are relevant in connection with the discussion on the impeachment proposal before the Constitutional Court, filed on 28 January 2010. They are absolutely clear as to the cases in which a decoration may be revoked and, indirectly, when the conferment of a decoration might be inappropriate. Only in the case of a final judgement for criminal offences provided by the law. There is something that must be made perfectly clear, and is essential: Under the rule of law, it is for the courts to decide on guilt. No allegations made in the media, no judgments, not appraisals of political figures, not even appraisals given by deputies, can replace judgment by a court. Expressing one’s opinion is legitimate, of course; but the court is the only entity competent to decide in which cases a holder of the decoration is unworthy of the decoration. And in such a case, the President of the Republic is obliged to comply with the court’s decision.
The aforementioned should be particularly stressed in the light of the circumstance that the impeachment proposal, submitted on 28 January of this year, also includes statements that the receiver of the Order, Tomaž Ertl, had violated several Articles of the Penal Code of the Republic of Slovenia, namely Articles 348, 350 and 357, referring to offences against the security of the Republic of Slovenia, and that by conferring the Order the President of the Republic has become responsible for those acts.
The alleged accusations are severe and entirely absurd. The President of the Republic has allegedly committed the criminal offences of treason (Article 348 of the Penal Code), attack on the State’s independence (Article 350 thereof) and sabotage (Article 357 thereof). These criminal offences can only be committed in person and directly i.e. as an offender, co-offender or accomplice, and only by committing offences corresponding in nature and in time to these severe criminal offences. Under no circumstances can these offences be committed by conferring an award or a decoration.
Not the slightest indication can be found in the supporting reasons for these severe allegations, let alone any evidence that the President of the Republic could have committed those offences. The authors substituted indications and evidence with mere statements on the obviousness of the allegations and imaginary constructions. These bizarre characteristics of the impeachment proposal would not be worth mentioning if it were not for their resemblance to the practice of accusations made in show court trails in former totalitarian states, particularly the Soviet Union and its satellites. In the totalitarian period of former Yugoslavia, in the years following the Second World War, constructions of this kind were used as grounds for indictments. The authors of the impeachment proposal, submitted to the National Assembly on 28 January 2010, willingly or otherwise applied this approach that dates to totalitarian times.
But let us turn again to the alleged criminal liability of the receiver of the award, Tomaž Ertl. It is up to Courts to decide on criminal offences. If Tomaž Ertl had been convicted of any of the alleged criminal offences, he could not later have been awarded an Order. If the authors of the impeachment proposal posses any evidence of guilt for alleged criminal offences, they are obliged to lodge a criminal complaint. In doing so, they must note that a false criminal complaint constitutes a criminal offence.
The President of the Republic must respect the rule of law and comply with legal proceedings and must resolutely reject any attempt to show political accusations and constructions as legally established facts. Under the rule of law, it is for the courts to decide on guilt. Despite their apparent seriousness, the accusations often voiced by party politicians lack any legal value. This is a clear political act of pretence by the authors of the impeachment proposal.
This pretence has two specific features that must be explicitly rejected.
Firstly, the authors make, among others, an interesting falsification regarding a 2002 Supreme Court judgment that described the illegal activities of the former State Security Directorate and the State Security Agency in the grounds for the judgment and in the context of the judgment concerned. But – and this is particularly interesting – the cited judgment (see enclosure 2 to the impeachment proposal) does not use the term criminal organisation, either in its ordering section nor in the statement of grounds; in law, this term is known from Article 9 of the Statute of the International Military Tribunal, which prosecuted German war criminals. The impeachment proposal of 28 January of this year systematically uses the term criminal organisation and thus – probably in an attempt to create the appearance of finality for this definition – makes false reference to the Supreme Court judgment. Such falsification or fabrication must be strongly rejected. Furthermore, it should be noted that in 1994 the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia clearly stressed that incrimination by status itself is in contravention to the Constitution and should not be used in Slovenia (No. U-I-6/93). In each case, criminal liability must be proven individually. It is simply not permitted and not possible to derive criminal liability from status, for example on the basis of membership in an organisation or employment in an institution or office.
The second manipulation that calls for explicit rejection is expressed in the allegation that, by awarding the Order to Tomaž Ertl, the President of the Republic supposedly acted in a manner manifestly contrary to the constitutional obligation that the State must respect the right of any individual to personal dignity and safety. Such a legal effect cannot be created by awarding an Order. The authors of the impeachment proposal have taken the liberty of manipulating the term "personal dignity", which is one of the highest ethical terms, for banal political purposes.
The right to personal dignity is a source of human rights and an underlying principle of the Constitution. The entire legal system and all its institutions are designed to protect personal dignity. On the concrete legal level, this general legal value is defined in detail in the Constitution, and thus becomes a well-protected legal good including express orders or prohibitions. The true legal content of personal dignity is provided in the principle of equality before the law, in the freedom from torture or inhuman treatment, in the prohibition of unlawful deprivation of freedom, in procedural guarantees in criminal and other legal procedures, in the right to legal remedy and in many other rights and legal institutions. If a state authority violates any of these rights or legal institutions, it also violates the right to personal dignity, which always underlies legally identifiable rights, prohibitions and duties. By conferring the Order, no legal good forming any concrete content of the abstract term "personal dignity" was or could have been violated.
Of course, opinions about a decoration can differ and the principle of freedom of expression guarantees the right to critical public appraisal. It is even very likely in a political debate that positions of strong criticism and bizarre judgments are sharply voiced. All this is politically legitimate in a democratic society. The use of legal procedures such as the availability of a proposal to initiate the procedure for impeachment – merely for the sake of political polemic – is manipulation that calls for decisive rejection.
III
This kind of manipulation is
ethically unacceptable. The manipulation of the legal procedure of impeachment of the President of the Republic for the purpose of political polemic is not only legally but also ethically unacceptable. Furthermore, the text and notification of the impeachment proposal include ethically unacceptable content.
Firstly, there is the issue of double standards. The impeachment proposal is full of extremely grave accusations, including demonisation of one of those awarded a decoration, Tomaž Ertl. In some public appearances of well-known politicians and authors of this impeachment proposal, comparisons have been made even to Adolf Hitler. At the same time the authors of the impeachment proposal must have known that Tomaž Ertl had been recently, in February 2008, been awarded the title of honorary citizen of Jesenice pursuant to a decision of the Jesenice municipal council, the members of which are also representatives of the two parties whose deputies have, on 28 January 2010, less than two years after this decision, filed this impeachment proposal. The decision in Jesenice awarding the honorary title was adopted with 25 votes in favour and not a single vote against, specifically highlights Operation Sever and uses the wording "modest, honest and committed citizen of Jesenice" to describe Tomaž Ertl. It is hard to imagine a more obvious contradiction between two judgments on the same person. But further, if the authors of the impeachment proposal follow the media's reporting, they may also know that certain key authors of Nova revija, great thinkers behind Slovenia’s democratic transformation and independence, have recently on the basis of archive documents drawn attention to the fact that at the end of the 1980s Tomaž Ertl, as secretary of the republic for internal affairs, and Pavle Car, as public prosecutor of the republic, had, through a number of interventions, protected the writers of the texts of the Slovenian spring against arrests and other acts by the federal Yugoslav authorities of the time. It is impossible to overlook the cynical hypocrisy that which guided the authors of the impeachment proposal, and to overlook the fact that they are not ready to accept positive actions by the holder that can be realistically established.
Secondly, there is the matter of constant repetition of untruths. The authors of the impeachment proposal – again without any causal relation to the subject matter of the proposal – repeat falsehoods about my statement given at the beginning of March 2009 about the victims in Huda jama near Laško. Therefore, I shall again emphasise that difficult memories are the legacy of history for many of us. But each and every such memory must be respected. We should avoid using pain from the past to score political points and to produce short-term political effects in the present. Such political behaviour must be rated as second-rate, unacceptable politics. The falsehood that with my statements or deeds I belittled the victims of killings committed during the Second World War or its aftermath, remains a falsehood. Persistent repetition of what is false will not make it true. If this falsehood must be rejected, I shall reject it as often as necessary.
Thirdly, when speaking about the ethically unacceptable content of the impeachment proposal, the "culture of entitlement" should be specifically mentioned. Page 17 of the impeachment proposal contains a claim about – as alleged by those filing the proposal – a legally relevant decision by the President of the Republic "against the signing of the order on appointment of ambassadors, for some of which it was proven that they had significantly contributed to Slovenia’s independence process, and fulfilled all the requirements for the posts of ambassadors."
But the authors do not say why this decision should be legally relevant with respect to the impeachment proposal. There is no causal relationship between the appointment of ambassadors and the decoration that was used as the reason for the impeachment proposal.
According to the Constitution and the Foreign Affairs Act, the President of the Republic is responsible for appointing ambassadors on the proposal of the Government. In 2008, after much deliberation, and based on solid legal and diplomatic reasons, I decided not to appoint some of the proposed ambassadors. One of them, the former minister of foreign affairs, betrayed my confidence by giving inaccurate information, by misleading the President of the Republic during the procedure for the appointment of ambassadors, and by subsequently making public statements that were completely inappropriate for an ambassadorial candidate. Having carefully considered the issue, I decide not to appoint him ambassador. One of the essential yet unwritten criteria for the appointment of ambassadors is trust – and the actions of this candidate did not suggest trustworthiness.
The question worth asking today is what do all these claims without arguments and expressed by those filing the impeachment proposal tell us? This is interesting primarily because of their listing of examples that do not have any causal relationship to the articles of the Constitution allegedly violated by the President of the Republic, which implies the harmful attitude and political expectations that are, unfortunately, still an important feature of the political situation in Slovenia. According to this attitude, individuals who "made a significant contribution to Slovenia’s independence" should enjoy special status, which among other things should allow them to become ambassadors regardless of otherwise problematic behaviour.
Making a distinction between those "who made a significant contribution to Slovenia’s independence" and the rest is ethically unjustified, even if we neglect the question of who makes the selection and to what criteria. It reflects a desire for "absolutisation" of the merits of selected individuals as well as a desire to monopolise independence. It does not show readiness to learn about all aspects of and all different contributions to the process of achieving independence for Slovenia. It demonstrates a view that certain people are entitled to "independence capital" and its "interest", while others, not in this circle, excluded from it or even politically effaced, can become the subject of cynical consideration or even demonisation. This reflects a lack of maturity and truthfulness in our political community.
Nobody may monopolise Slovenia’s independence process, which was an act of all the citizens of the Republic of Slovenia. Now, two decades after independence, we should be capable of objectively examining the actual democratisation of Slovenian society and the meaning of the different contributions in the independence process. We should recognise that those with the most credit have been awarded the highest decorations long ago and have since been enjoying well-deserved respect. But let us not exclude others. We should adopt a more mature and inclusive view of the independence process. We should notice and acknowledge other contributions to Slovenia’s independence. We should admit that the success of this process was guaranteed solely by common action.
IV
Honourable Deputies,
Dear Citizens of Slovenia,
I am today submitting my position statement on the impeachment proposal in a time of overheated politics, with an atmosphere full of accusations. The impeachment proposal discussed today by the National Assembly is one of the culminations of the current fashion for making accusations. We should reflect on this phenomenon. What kind of a society are we turning into, and where are these offensive, and quite often completely empty and absurd, accusations leading us to?
Accusations, which are becoming a prevailing method of political discourse and political struggle, constitute a serious threat to the already rather poor level of political and general culture in our country. The dialogue fundamental to democracy is losing its value, while accusations are on the increase. Tactics of incitement and creating hysteria are gaining impetus. The search for populist statements to score political points is a practice that ruthlessly and cynically exploits the sensitivity of the public. Basic civilised restraint and a sense of moderation are on the defensive. The appearance of a "tabloid vanity fair" in politics is becoming consolidated. All this is taking us away from the civilised standards of an orderly community; this is well perceived by Europe and is not to our advantage.
Furthermore, there is a widespread illusion that making accusations ensures, by itself, some kind of a "moral superiority". This is a dangerous illusion. No moral power can emerge from making repeated accusations. The authors of these deeds should know that generalised accusations are a sure method of frustrating moral values and decreasing social cohesion.
Perhaps the time has come for all those who truly respect the rule of law and moral values to clearly say we have had enough. Public discussions should be based on facts and arguments. As regards legal claims, our country has responsible bodies and institutions and we expect them to operate pursuant to the legal order and, through its established practice, to provide for implementation of the law for everyone and for equality before the law for all citizens. As regards political debate and the media, let us start to exercise at least a little restraint and a sense of moderation.
Are we as a society mature enough to observe all this? On which acts from our recent past should we draw upon to regain our moral power and political maturity, to attain the necessary moral cohesion?
Firstly, we should trust ourselves and each other more than it is currently the case. The past has shown that we are indeed capable of taking morally important decisions. Let us only recall the agreement of all political actors at the end of 1990 that no political party would exploit the achievements of the plebiscite on independence for political ends. Let us recall the power of the message of the reconciliation ceremony at Rog in July 1990, which proved that all major social and political groups in Slovenia were capable of facing the most tragic period of our history and organising a joint demonstration of the will to reconcile. Let us recall our efforts for independence in 1991 and the numerous contributions by all segments of our society in ensuring the necessary moral and political cohesion. This was an important element in ensuring the success of the military operations that were fundamental to the outcome of the war for independence, the success of the economic efforts, which facilitated a relatively smooth transition into a market economy, and the success in all diplomatic activities resulting in international recognition and a valued status in the international community.
What was the common denominator of all these achievements? It was mutual trust and the ability to jointly act in resolving critical issues of our future. Mutual trust, very obviously, does not mean single-mindedness or uniform political or ideological views. Mutual trust presumes a true pluralism of opinions and political views. But it also presumes a sense of responsibility for community and, above all, an understanding that the great challenges of our time will have to be addressed jointly, by all of us.
We must enhance the key abilities required by our time – mutual trust and the ability to act jointly. We must reject the old calls for divisions from the past and leading back to the "vanity fair". We must overcome the current oversensitivity as to who has more merit in the process of achieving statehood, and be willing to acknowledge a variety of contributions to the success of Slovenia's gaining independence. We must strengthen our common willingness to reconcile. We should be aware that the everyday conduct of the great majority of people clearly demonstrates that in people's hearts, reconciliation has already happened. Let us be considerate and let us not poison young people with old resentments. We should be capable of distinguishing the good acts of an individual from his or her questionable acts, which must always be considered and proven as a matter of individual's own responsibility. Let us also be free in this sense: that we are indeed capable of sustaining criticism with regard to questionable acts and acknowledge good acts and work well accomplished. The willingness to give someone, and particularly someone who in the past has been on the other side, his or her due for a significant contribution is a fundamental step towards normal coexistence in our society.
Although it sometimes seems that we were departing from this ideal, reconciliation nevertheless remains a strong value and great desire of our society. But let us not overlook progress. A few months ago, this National Assembly has adopted "war laws", whose implementation will contribute to the enhancement of the reconciliation process. Today and here, I wish to thank all deputies who invested such great efforts in the adoption of these laws. Let us hope for more such real achievements.
At the same time, however, let us not forget the basic truth about reconciliation known to humanity for millennia. At least since Aeschylus's Oresteia, we have known that forgiveness is a precondition for reconciliation. A call for forgiveness is the legacy of the wisdom of Greek Antiquity. Christian ethics teach that one needs to forgive and to ask for forgiveness. This is an important teaching of great value both for Christians and everybody else. The secular ideal of reconciliation of the Enlightenment, that which in the past two decades has succeeded in South Africa, is based on the same principle of forgiveness. Why should this historically indisputable principle, tested time and again, not also help us now in Slovenia? Let us think about this and all, individually, find a way towards forgiveness and reconciliation. Perhaps we will manage to design a more ethical politics and public debate, and ensure faster progress on this basis.
Slovenia today faces important challenges. We must solve many problems: economic problems, unemployment, social inequality, and many others. Some are the result of our own weaknesses, past and present, while others are the result of international circumstances. The world is becoming increasingly complex, and we must put our own house in order. The sooner we do this, the sooner and better we will be prepared for a true transformation of our society. Our society must become a knowledge-based society, which will in the long term give us the capacity to offer products with a high added value. We must fight the corruption that permeates our social environment; therefore, we must deal with all cases in which our public authorities are reproached with corrupt practices. We must become a society of culture, since post-industrial society requires a higher level of cultivation than previous societies. We must become a sovereign state that is capable of independent and sound reasoning, as well as making good decisions for the future. We will need all this to occupy the position in the world that we need and desire. Nothing is for granted. We are currently not making progress while there are many changes around us, some for the better, including in the areas where no progress has been noted to date. Europe and the world will not wait for us. Lagging behind used to be the fate of the Slovene people. But since we now live in a state of our own, this can and must not be allowed to continue.
This is precisely why we must now take due care of our own state. A state of one's own is an invaluable tool, which the people, who hold the power according to our Constitution, and their responsible representatives, must use with skill and honour. This applies equally to the Government’s decisions, to the work of the President of the Republic and to decisions made by the National Assembly and all public authorities. I believe that the National Assembly will again demonstrate its wisdom and responsibility in today's debate.
Dear Citizens of Slovenia,
Today I appear before the National Assembly to reject legally unfounded and morally unacceptable accusations. Trust me that I am not doing this light-heartedly or without due consideration of all dimensions of this experience. It is the fourth attempt in our country to initiate an impeachment procedure: the previous three attempts were made to impeach the then prime minister, Dr Janez Drnovšek, and today's attempt has been mounted against the President of the Republic. Four impeachment proposals in a period of 20 years is a significant number. In the United States, the original home of this kind of procedures, the instrument of impeachment has been used only three times in more than 200 years. The ease with which Slovenia resorts to impeachment proposals makes it unique in the world.
Impeachment is an extraordinary legal procedure that should be used only in extremely serious circumstances. The use of this procedure based on trivial political calculations should be rejected. It is also a matter of showing respect to our country, to the institution of the President of the Republic as well as to ourselves.
If we do not show respect to ourselves and our own institutions, we cannot expect to be respected by others. This is my final thought.
Honourable Members of the National Assembly,
You have heard my opinion. The written text of this was distributed during my speech. The National Assembly now has all elements necessary for the debate. The National Assembly is vested with a sovereign right and responsibility to hold an independent discussion about the impeachment proposal and to reach its own decision. I am convinced that you will hold a substantial and serious debate and reach a wise decision. Thank you for your attention.
Appendix 1: Predlogi Zveze policijskih veteranskih društev Sever za priznanja dr. Tomažu Času, Tomažu Ertlu in Leopoldu Jesenku
Appendix 2: Ukaz in o podelitvi in obrazložitev odlikovanja dr. Tomažu Času
Appendix 3: Ukaz in o podelitvi in obrazložitev odlikovanja Tomažu Ertlu
Appendix 4: Ukaz in o podelitvi in obrazložitev odlikovanja Lepoldu Jesenku
