Author
Nina Stankovič
Still, my reflections here won’t be emotional, even though I admit I was personally quite disappointed. Not by the result—the question of voluntary ending of life does not fall neatly into the traditional left–right divide—but by the abuses, manipulations, and outright lies spread by opponents of the law, led by the Church, by the excessive involvement of the medical establishment, and, on the other hand, by the rather poorly conceived campaign of the proponents. The liberal-left majority once again failed to mobilize; apparently, even the freedom to decide about one’s own body is no longer a topic that drives people to the polls. Unfortunately.
The law arose from a civil society initiative, since last year we voted—with a 55% majority in a consultative referendum—to begin drafting legislation. The coalition respected the will of the people, but forgot to engage in dialogue with the medical profession. It is true that the Medical Chamber and Fides do not represent all doctors and each has its own political motives. But to overlook doctors as such, while simultaneously assigning them a central role in the procedure for voluntary ending of life—without even asking for their opinion—was politically unwise. And, as it turned out, perhaps even decisive.
We should not forget that relations between the government and medical organizations have been strained for a long time. But even more important is that the entire medical profession was treated as a monolith—although most doctors do not support Fides and do not follow the politicized leadership of the Chamber. It’s similar with the Church: most Slovenian believers, among whom I am formally counted, do not subscribe to the radical dogmas proclaimed by the bishops’ conference. Had the result depended solely on the Church’s propaganda, the proponents of the law would have won comfortably—despite the lies and the agitation from the pulpits that went far beyond acceptable limits.
So who decided the outcome? Not the right wing. Not the Church. Not the medical elite. In my view, it was the quiet revolt of primary care physicians.
Family doctors—overworked, understaffed, paid less than specialists, confronted daily with unrealistic expectations and sometimes even public shaming—were handed yet another emotionally and professionally demanding task. No one asked them, no one included them, no one listened to their doubts. And yes, the posters in health centers were more than inappropriate, but as always: every reaction has its cause.
At the end of the day, people still trust doctors. Family doctors, because they are close to them. Not politicians. Not the media. Not church dignitaries. Doctors! Trust in the medical profession has risen again over the past year, while trust in politics, the media, and the Church has fallen to historic lows.
Several factors played a role: the traditionally unmotivated liberal-left electorate that prefers day trips in good weather; the aggressive and well-organized propaganda of right-wing parties; the escalation of disinformation on social media; the already mentioned disregard for expert input in drafting the law; as well as rather uncritical media reporting, too few serious debates, and too little fact-checking, which allowed opponents to spread blatant falsehoods without obstacles or corrections. Altogether, this created a perfect political storm in which rational discussion barely stood a chance.
But such is politics today—a world where populism prevails and truth is losing the battle.
This referendum was not a defeat of values nor evidence of a conservative shift, but a clear warning. It showed that without genuine dialogue with experts, no sensitive reform can succeed; that without serious mobilization, one cannot win even on deeply value-based issues; and that without clear, simple, and courageous communication, progressive ideas simply fail to reach people.
Populism is loud and direct, which means the progressive camp must find a new way of telling its stories—one that breaks through bubbles, reaches people where they are, and gives them the sense of being heard. Only then will it be possible to counter rhetoric built on fear and hostility toward difference.
As has long been evident, the upcoming parliamentary elections will be extremely tight. They will be decided by small margins—tens of thousands of votes—and by people’s willingness to even show up at the polls. The turnout of 2022 will not be repeated, but if the center-left even hopes to think about continuing its mandate, it will have to bring at least 55 percent of eligible voters to the ballot box. Mobilization will be crucial, and we already know who is better prepared at this moment.
This referendum was the dress rehearsal. March will be the real thing. The question remains: is anyone truly prepared to learn from this?