Referendums in Slovenia: The battle to preserve the public broadcaster’s funding model and keep the elections “Slovenian”

On Sunday, October 11th voters in Slovenia cast ballots in four referendums simultaneously.

One of these votes was legislative in nature and concerned an amendment to the law on parliamentary inquiries.

The other three were consultative in nature and concerned:

- Making cash social assistance conditional on performing community service by individuals capable of working who have no objective obstacles to doing so.

- The right of third-country nationals to vote in local elections.

- The abolition of the obligation to pay a licence fee for the public broadcaster RTV Slovenija.

On all four ballots, voters had to choose between the options “FOR” and “AGAINST”.

The referendums were initiated by the current right-wing ruling coalition led by Prime Minister Janez Janša. According to analysts, they are primarily intended as a public opinion poll (Slovenian society is highly polarized, though views conventionally described as left-wing predominate among the majority) and as a means to strengthen the power of the minority right-wing governing coalition.

All the questions posed in the referendums were in line with the campaign rhetoric of the ruling Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS) and Janez Janša in particular. From this perspective, their implementation is in line with the expectations of his voters. Consequently, the opposition – both Robert Golob’s centrist Svoboda and the left-wing parties – called for a “4 x NO” vote.

The key difference between the questions posed lies in the consequences of the vote. In the case of the bill on parliamentary inquiry, this is a legislative referendum. Due to this, the result may have a direct impact on the entry into force of a bill already passed by parliament (and previously proposed by the ruling party). The other three questions are consultative referendums, the results of which are not legally binding on the National Assembly but reflect voters’ political stance toward future regulations in a given area – and that is precisely their purpose.

After polling places across the country closed on Sunday evening – numbering just over three thousand – nearly one hundred per cent of the votes have been counted. In the legislative referendum, a minimum of 339,706 votes was reached, and the majority of the counted ballots indicated that voters overwhelmingly voted “against”. This is testament to the unpopularity of this government initiative among the majority of Slovenians.

In the two consultative referendums, voters mostly voted “in favour”. At the same time, they voted “against” the changing of funding regarding RTV Slovenija. However, the difference in opinion here is minimal. After 99.98 per cent of the ballots were counted, the situation reversed: 50.03 per cent of voters voted against abolishing the RTV fee, while 49.95 per cent voted in favour of abolition. The difference currently stands at just 546 votes in favour of maintaining the mandatory fee, which amounts to 14 euros per month. The final result will therefore likely be decided by mail-in ballots (cast earlier) from Slovenia, as well as from abroad. Well-known cultural figures, including the philosopher Slavoj Žižek, called on voters to vote “against” this government-backed initiative, while political scientists rightly emphasized the exceptionally populist nature of the question.

Attempts to interfere with the operations of the public broadcaster had already taken place under previous Janša governments, most of which coincided with the pandemic. Equally populist in nature was the proposal to revoke the right to vote in local elections for third-country nationals who are permanent residents of Slovenia and registered in a given municipality – a right they had previously enjoyed. In this case, a majority of voters supported the government’s initiative, which limits the right to vote in local elections to EU citizens in addition to Slovenian citizens.

Preliminary results of the referendum on the parliamentary investigation:

Do you support the enactment of the Act Amending and Supplementing the Act on Parliamentary Investigations (ZPPre-B), adopted by the National Assembly at its session on May 26th 2026?

FOR: 48.74 per cent

AGAINST: 51.26 per cent

Source: DVK (National Election Commission). Unofficial results, 99.97 per cent of ballots counted. The minimum number of votes required to reject the bill has been reached.

Preliminary results of the referendum on the radio and television licence fee for the public broadcaster RTV Slovenija:

Do you support the abolition of the mandatory licence fee for RTV Slovenija?

FOR: 49.96 per cent

AGAINST: 50.04 per cent

Source: DVK. Unofficial results, 99.98 per cent of ballots counted.

Preliminary results of the referendum on making social assistance conditional on community service:

Do you support making the right to cash social assistance for people capable of working – who have no objective obstacles to finding employment – conditional on their active participation in community service?

YES: 60.54 per cent

NO: 39.46 per cent

Source: DVK. Unofficial results, 99.98 per cent of ballots counted.

Preliminary results of the referendum on voting rights for foreign nationals:

Do you support the idea that only citizens of the Republic of Slovenia or other European Union member states should have the right to vote in local elections in the Republic of Slovenia, and not citizens of third countries who are not citizens of the Republic of Slovenia?

FOR: 55.29 per cent

AGAINST: 44.71 per cent

Source: DVK. Unofficial results, 99.96 per cent of ballots counted.

On Monday, Janez Janša commented on the results in a Facebook post as follows:

“All four messages from yesterday’s referendums are important. Most of us value work and believe that decisions in Slovenia should be made by Slovenians. Half of them believe that only the political responsibility of the right should be considered and that the licence fee for the far-left RTV should be mandatory. In summary, Slovenia passed the test of common sense, but barely. In total, across all four referendums, there were 270,000 more “yes” votes than “no” votes. However, the decisive battle for a prosperous and just Slovenia will take place in December, when we will vote on the Development Act. This referendum will set the course for Slovenia. We will do everything we can to ensure it is the right course.”

What exactly are these referendums about?

Boris Jaušovec, a journalist and longtime contributor to the daily newspaper Večer (Maribor), answers these questions in a commentary for New Eastern Europe.

What is most significant in the context of Sunday’s referendums?

Prime Minister Janez Janša’s ruling SDS party, which is a fairly right-wing party, has failed to win any vote for the first time since 2024 – that is, since the European elections (and subsequently two referendums and parliamentary elections half a year ago). From a purely mathematical standpoint, it currently appears that the outcome of this major round of referendums is undecided. However, with the highest referendum turnout in the history of independent Slovenia – excluding the referendums on accession to the European Union and NATO in March 2003 – at 54.55 per cent, Janša lost the most important of the four referendums. This is namely the bill on parliamentary inquiry, which was also the only referendum of a legislative nature – 51.26 percent of voters opposed it. The other three referendums were nonbinding and purely consultative.

What is this law about?

The Parliamentary Inquiry Act was intended to lower the legal protection standards for individuals under investigation, whom members of a specially appointed investigative commission could publicly defame without scruples. Individuals under investigation would be able to seek legal protection only after the proceedings had concluded. However, it should be noted that in Slovenia, proceedings have been concluded in less than 28 per cent of all parliamentary investigations initiated. All the others were never officially concluded. Since this referendum was of a legislative nature, parliament cannot submit a similar bill for one year.

Why were the three remaining consultative referendums included in this one?

The governing coalition encouraged voters to participate in the referendum precisely because of the three remaining referendums of a populist nature, using suggestive questions to that end. The legislative referendum also had such a populist undertone, as right-wing agitators claimed that it would allow for parliamentary oversight of the actions of former Prime Minister Robert Golob, who allegedly held a controversial bank account in Romania. Golob, however, claimed that this issue involved a case of identity theft.

What about the referendum on abolishing the fee for the public broadcaster RTV Slovenija. Where does this question even come from?

Every household in Slovenia with an electricity connection currently pays a fee of 14 euros per month. The current government would like to abolish this fee and henceforth allocate funds to support RTV Slovenija exclusively from the current government budget. It is worth noting that by law RTV Slovenija must also promote Slovenian culture – something commercial television stations are not required to do. In effect, people would still be paying for these media outlets, but from a different source, even though this question attempts to convince them otherwise. The most significant aspect of this is that the current government would decide how much funding the public broadcaster would receive and how it would be allocated. The right-wing government has RTV Slovenija in its sights because, in its view, the station devotes more attention to left-wing civil society organizations. On the right side of the political spectrum – aside from the Church, whose Sunday masses RTV broadcasts on its first channel – there are many so-called “flat-earthers”, or at least opponents of the constitutional right to abortion. In any case, the government’s desired change to funding would undermine RTV Slovenija’s independence and its role as a journalistic “watchdog” over those in power. In the context of this referendum question, it is worth noting that there are only 546 more “no” votes than “yes” votes. Slovenia is therefore eagerly awaiting Thursday, when votes mailed from abroad are also set to be counted. There are about 3,000 of them, but so far they have been evenly split between the left and the right. Most emigrants from Europe vote for the left, while most from other continents – especially the Americas – vote for the right. However, in terms of numbers, they are evenly matched, and it seems impossible that more than 18 per cent of voters from abroad would support abolishing the contribution.

Jaušovec offered a brief note on the last two referendum questions, in which the Janša government emerged victorious.

A majority of Slovenians (55,4 per cent) voted to abolish the right of third-country nationals – that is, those from outside the EU – to vote in local elections. However, this law has already been passed, and foreigners with permanent residence in Slovenia will not be able to vote in local elections as early as November 15th of this year – regardless of the referendum results, which were, in any case, purely consultative in nature. The populist idea put forward by right-wing agitators was to prevent these foreigners in Ljubljana from voting again for the longtime Mayor Zoran Janković, whose father hails from a “third country” – namely, Serbia.

What about mandatory community service for job seekers?

On this issue, the government received the strongest support—60.54 percent of the votes in favor of its proposal. However, it must be made clear that Slovenia is currently experiencing its lowest unemployment rate since the country gained independence. So, in reality, this is simply yet another populist idea from right-wing agitators. Above all, it is a veiled attempt to force Roma – who, for whatever reason, are already receiving social benefits – to take any job.

It seems that Janez Janša has not learned his lesson from Sunday’s referendum. Quite the contrary! He has decided to launch a counterattack against the will of the people. This is particularly evident in the case of the RTV referendum, where, after an overnight vote count, the lead in “yes” votes shifted slightly in favour of the “no” votes. Consequently, he hastily announced that from now on, only those who voted “against” should be required to pay the RTV fee. How does he intend to determine who voted that way? That’s likely a job for the secret police. And even if those who voted “against” came forward, what would happen to households where some members voted “for” and others voted “against”? Will the fee be divided proportionally among them, or waived, or what? It is as if we were living in the absurd Yugoslav comic strip “Alan Ford”—borrowed from the Italians—in which one can also read this pearl of wisdom: If you want to win, you must not lose!

Earlier this week, the prime minister also cast doubt on the composition of the electoral commissions, claiming that in many places they had been appointed unconstitutionally. This is because the chairs must be judges, yet their deputies reportedly were not judges in some locations. The next day, he reinforced these doubts by clearly stating on platform X that the State Election Commission (DVK) had been “non-transparent” because, on Monday morning around 1:00 am, following Sunday’s referendum, it had stopped updating the results. Although the DVK reported that the data was still being updated in real time, its website was not publicly accessible due to technical issues. Subsequently, by the time of the first morning update at 6:20 am, the referendum result had shifted in favor of those opposing the abolition of the RTV fee. Janša wrote: “This result is finally opening the eyes of many people who have so far accused us of conspiracy theories.” Aleš Hojs, a member of parliament from his SDS party, added to this offensive questioning the referendum results by pointing to an alleged discrepancy between the votes cast and the number of people registered on the voter rolls at “omnia” polling stations. These are polling stations for people who were unable to vote at their place of permanent residence on the day of the referendum. Members of the ruling coalition are particularly concerned about one such “omnia” polling station in Ljubljana, which, due to overcrowding, was not closed until an hour and a half after all other polling stations had closed. Well, because of all this, Janša has announced changes to the law, and even the dismissal of members of the State Election Commission (DVK) and the filing of criminal charges against them.

Will Slovenia see more referendums initiated by the government in the near future?

Well, there is no indication that Janša will give up on another “referendum super Sunday” this year. He has already announced a referendum for December on the emergency bill, which was forced through by the labour unions. In short, this bill – popularly known as “For the Development of Slovenia” – is primarily intended to lower taxes, most significantly for the wealthiest, while simultaneously paving the way for the privatization of services that have so far been mainly public, particularly in healthcare and education. Janša intends to add three more referendums on top of this vote initiated by the labour unions. All of these votes are once again populist in nature. The first concerns a reduction in the VAT rate on food. The second concerns the so-called “rationalization of public administration” (i.e., job cuts), though it is worth noting that Slovenia employs a lower percentage of its workforce in public administration than the EU average – roughly the same as Poland (Slovenia 16.8 per cent, Poland 16.7 per cent). And the third is a real gem: a ban on covering one’s face in public places – that is, a ban on wearing the niqab and burqa Islamic face coverings. Although reportedly no one in Slovenia has ever seen a woman in a burqa, the right-wing government, in its frenzy to mobilize voters, will also exploit this non-existent fear and throw even more money down the drain. After all, as we know, the end justifies the means.

Nikodem Szczygłowski is a reporter, writer and translator from Lithuanian and Slovenian. He is a frequent contributor with New Eastern Europe as well as other media outlets.