If it were true that TV debates no longer have a decisive impact, the calculation would be simple: you show up everywhere, gain additional exposure, and move on. With little risk involved. But Janša acts differently. First, he boycotts TV Slovenia; then he declines a one-on-one debate with the prime minister on N1; then he refuses to attend the highly watched party leaders’ debate on POP TV. It is possible that by the end of the campaign he will appear at only one debate — or perhaps none at all, if we recall Trump.

‍

A Selective and Carefully Chosen Battleground

And it is precisely this selectiveness that confirms the thesis that television in Slovenia remains the most powerful player in the pre-election campaign.

‍

According to most polls, the SDS leads the Freedom Movement, but trends show the gap narrowing week by week. Janša is in the role of challenger with a real chance of victory, yet he also knows well that elections can be decided in a photo finish. And there is something else: victory does not necessarily mean power. Janša has seen — and experienced — all of this before.

‍

The SDS on its own struggles to grow. Its base is stable, disciplined, and highly mobilized — which is an advantage for any party. But it also represents a ceiling. The room to expand toward the center is limited, which means the party needs the support of a third party if it wants to go beyond the arithmetic of its core electorate.

‍

It is therefore incorrect to conclude that by avoiding certain debates, the SDS neither loses nor gains anything. If we look only at their base — perhaps that is true. But politics is not decided solely within the base. It is decided at the margins: among the undecided, among those who are weighing their options, and among those who only become engaged in the final week of the campaign. And these voters still watch television.

‍

That is precisely why selective participation is rational. Not because debates are unimportant — but exactly because they are.

‍

Janša is one of the most recognizable — and at the same time one of the most polarizing — figures in Slovenian politics. And here we reach the key moment: he himself is likely the most effective mobilizer of center-left voters. His presence in an intense televised confrontation, especially in a one-on-one format, can trigger the well-known “anti-Janša” reflex — an impulse that activates even otherwise passive voters on the other side of the political spectrum.

‍

In such a context, the risk for him is greater than the potential gain. The danger of mobilizing the opposing side is too high to justify appearing at every TV debate. He does not readily enter an environment where he cannot control the questions, where he must confront an opponent in real time, and where a single misstep can trigger a chain reaction of counter-mobilization.

‍

Instead, the SDS relies on a proven model: mobilizing its own base and communicating through channels where it exercises greater control — social media, its own media outlets and platforms, and selective media appearances. It is the logic of a controlled environment, where the message is not exposed to unpredictable questions or direct confrontations.

‍

Here we see another interesting interplay. Television and social media today are not competitors, but allies. Debates are watched on television, and then their sharpest moments are cut into short, punchy clips that become viral on social networks. Television creates the event. Social media multiplies it. TV thus remains the generator of the political moment. Algorithms merely amplify it.

‍

And where have we seen all this before? With Orbán, Trump, even Putin. These are not identical contexts, but they reflect a very similar communication instinct: if you can choose the battleground yourself, you will. And yet this is precisely what confirms my thesis. If televised debates had no impact, politicians would not need to ration them so carefully. If they were not capable of shifting the dynamics, they would not pose a risk. If they did not address the decisive segment of voters, they would not be worth strategic consideration.

‍

With his selective absence, Janša says more than he would with his presence: television still decides. Debates still matter. And voters — despite all the algorithms, bubbles, and digital strategies — can still recognize the difference between a controlled appearance and a genuine political confrontation.

‍

So today the question is not whether debates have an impact. That question has already been answered.
The real question is: who dares to show up?