Corporatism packaged in pluralist ideology: the case of Slovenia

Abstract

Corporatism has been an influential doctrine in the Slovenian polity since its beginning. After the onset of democratization in the early 1990s, its influence remains strong. Forms of corporatism are embodied in the National Council as the second chamber of parliament, in the chamber system, the system of social partnership and the RTVS (Public Television of Slovenia) Council. It is also present in certain socio-political priorities such as a higher value being placed on partnership over competition, on fairness over human rights, on community over individualism. Social pluralism has always been a part of Slovenian public life. Political pluralism emerged at the end of the 19th century and was never fully developed. There has always been a strong inclination in the political life of Slovenia to organize around interest groups and editorial boards of various publications, a tendency that reveals a plurality of voices but a general unwillingness to fight for political power. It could also be concluded that the development of pluralism in Slovenia relies heavily on corporatism because of the general lack of liberal foundations.

The ‘Brussels Bubble’: Populism in Slovenia In the Eu Crises Context

“…Earlier research on Slovenia highlighted the artificial status of the pluralist ideology (Lukšič, 2003) as well as the stronger impact of the European integration on policy as opposed to domestic politics, yet it also saw potential in the democratisation-integration interaction through the domestic cultivation of EU-policy-related cleavages (Fink-Hafner and Krašovec, 2006;Krašovec, Lajh and Kustec-Lipicer, 2007). However, the EU continued to play the role of a superior legitimiser of governments and certain government policies (Krašovec and Lajh 2009).…”

Coalitions and Corporatism: The Slovenian Political Economy and the Crisis

“…While not genuinely independent, trade unions and chambers of commerce played a greater role in interest representation in Yugoslavia than in any other communist country except possibly Hungary (Pravda and Ruble 1986). Therefore there was a tradition of more genuine involvement of managers and workers in decision-making and negotiations, which has led some observers to view this system as essentially proto-corporatist (Lukšič 2003).…”

“…Regular negotiations between trade unions, employers’ associations and the government have been highly institutionalized in the Economic and Social Council since 1994, and social pacts have played an important role, also in the run-up to euro adoption in 2007. A few studies have sought to identify the causes of Slovenian exceptionalism, highlighting pre-capitalist networks and their continuity (Feldmann 2007), national traditions and ideas (Lukšič 2003; on corporatist ideas in the 1920s and 1930s, see Zver 1992) or power resources (Crowley and Stanojević 2011). Other scholars have examined the ways in which specific bargaining dynamics have contributed to the adoption of tripartite agreements at various times (Stanojević and Krašovec 2011).…”

Slovensk succes: Korporatisme og konsensus

“…Hver af de jugoslaviske republikker fik en form for trekammersystem med et «sociopolitisk kammer» med delegerede fra de sociopolitiske organisationer, et «kommunekammer» der skulle sikre territorial repr sentation og endelig et «arbejderkammer» med repr sentanter fra alle konomiske områder. Efter devisen om «selvstyrende valg» etablerede hvert kammer selv sine procedurer for, hvordan delegerede skulle v lges (Luk i 2003). Det er dog v sentligt at bem rke, at delegeretsystemet og den Socialistiske Alliance på ingen måde truede den Kommunistiske Ligas ledende rolle.…”

“…De tre socialistiske kamre fra den tidligere forfatning blev afl st af et tokammersystem. I det egentlige parlament, det 90 mand store Statsrådet (Dr avni zbor), var det lige og almindelig repr sentation, mens overhuset, Det Nationale Råd (Dr avni svet), blev en korporatistisk institution (Luk i 1994, 2003, Fink-Hafner 1998 bestående af repr sentanter valgt af sociale, konomiske, kulturelle og ikke-kommercielle interesser samt repr sentanter fra lokale samfund og regioner.…”