| 101 »WE STAND FOR ELECTION TO WIN« * UDK: 329:342.8(497.4)''1988/1990'' * Words spoken by Ivan Oman at an assembly held at Cankarjev Dom in January 1990. dr. Božo Repe, dr. Bojan Balkovec ABSTRACT In the article, the authors illustrate a brief development of Slovenia from the formation of the first associations/parties in 1988 to the April elections of 1990. In the spring of 1988, the first two political organizations of the fledgling opposition were formed within old structures, as a legislation that would formally allow for the formation of parties was yet to be adopted. An act which formally established a multi-party system was adopted together with the Elections Act in late December 1989. Prior to the elections, the old tricameral parliamentary system was preserved. In April 1990 the first multi-party elections were held, i.e. elections of the president of the Presidency and members of the Presidency. The new Assembly convened in May 1990 and elected the first multi-party government, which was led by Lojze Peterle. Milan Kučan was elected President of the Presidency. Keywords: Slovenia, the National Assembly, parties, elections, Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia, Demos. IZVLEČEK Avtorja v članku predstavita kratek politični razvoj v Sloveniji od nastanka prvih zvez/strank leta 1988 do aprilskih volitev 1990. Spomladi 1988 sta prvi politični organizaciji prebujajoče se opozicije nastali znotraj starih struktur, saj zakonodaja, ki bi formalno omogočala nastanek strank, še ni bila sprejeta. Zakon, ki je formalno vzpostavil večstrankarski sistem, je bil skupaj z volilnim zakonom sprejet konec decembra 1989. 102 | Razprave »We Stand for Election to Win« Pred volitvami je ostal ohranjen star skupščinski sistem s tremi zbori. Tako so bile aprila 1990 izvedene prve večstrankarske volitve, volitve predsednika predsedstva in članov predsedstva. Nova skupščina se je sestala maja 1990 in nato izvolila prvo večstrankarsko vlado, ki jo je vodil Lojze Peterle. Za predsednika predsedstva je bil izvoljen Milan Kučan. Ključne besede: Slovenija, skupščina, stranke, volitve, predsedstvo Republike Slovenije, Demos. Razprave | 103 »We Stand for Election to Win« The 1980s were one of the most pluralist periods of Slovenia’s history, albeit still, formally speaking, within a single-party system. This period was marked by numerous and powerful civil and social movements (pacifist, anti-nuclear, ecologist, etc.)1 The Committee for the Protection of Human Rights, the numerically strongest civil society organization which was led by Igor Bavčar, was formed in 1988, at the time of the so-called Trial against the Four.2 These trials were possible because they coincided with the formation of a reformist current within the leadership of the League of Communists, which was from 1986 onwards led by Milan Kučan. The opposition’s ideas were no longer alien to the reformed League of Communists of Slovenia (ZKS) and the ZKS aimed to realize them in the scope of the Socialist Alliance of the Working People (SZDL), the successor of the former Liberation Front.3 Opposition movements would be formalized as a coalition within the SZDL. This would allow for a soft transition to a multi-party system at a later point and guarantee consensus on the fundamental questions of the national programme. On 27 February 1989 the ongoing situation in Yugoslavia prompted the opposition and the authorities to act jointly at an assembly held at Cankarjev Dom in support of striking miners in Kosovo (equipped with large quantities of explosives, about 1,300 miners went on strike due to the adoption of the new Serbian constitution, which brought about the discontinuation of Kosovo’s autonomy; the strike took place from 4 to 27 February, when a state of emergency was declared in Kosovo).4 This resulted in the opposition’s and authority’s joint attempt to produce the national programme. The Coordination Committee of the organizers of the assembly held at Cankarjev Dom began its operation on 3 March 1989. Representatives of the opposition and of socio-political organizations within the committee strove to draw up a 1 A few examples of social activities are demonstrated in: Repe and Kerec, Slovenija, moja dežela. 2 On activities of the Committee for the Protection of Human Rights and the chronology of events see: Repe, Božo, Viri o demokratizaciji in osamosvojitvi Slovenije, Viri 17, 143-145. 3 For more details on the 1980s see e.g. Repe, Božo, Slovenci v osemdesetih letih. 4 The organizers drew up a public declaration, which was published on 11 March 1989. Repe, Božo, Viri o demokratizaciji in osamosvojitvi Slovenije, Viri 17, 168. 104 | Razprave »We Stand for Election to Win« political programme. Several drafts were produced, which were penned predominately by the author Miloš Mikeln. Failure to come up with an agreement resulted in two programmes, namely the May Declaration 1989 and the Basic Constitutional Charter of Slovenia.5 More than a year before, in a period that saw the beginning of the discussion about amendments to the federal constitution (these would bring about a change of the economic system and, concurrently, give more power to the centre), the constitutional opposition was formed. The amendments to the federal constitution were adopted in a milder form in 1988 and were as a compromise confirmed by the Slovene parliament as well. The amendments to the Slovene constitution were prepared; they were adopted by the National Assembly in September 1989 in order to enhance Slovenia’s sovereignty and hinder the introduction of the state of emergency, which was planned by the Yugoslav People’s Army (JLA). It is important for the development of political pluralism and the introduction of the multi-party system that the provision regarding the leading role of the ZKS was removed at the same time, which formally enabled the formation of other political parties. The Yugoslav authorities regarded this as an act of counter-revolution and the Yugoslav army’s leadership prepared a new scenario for subjecting Slovenia. However, the opposition strengthened in other republics as well and any form of multi-partyism could no longer be prevented. In a conflict between the centralist and confederal regime of Yugoslavia, multi-party elections to the Federal Assembly were planned in the autumn of 1990. According to the centralist plan devised particularly by Slobodan Milošević, who was supported by the JLA, the Federal Assembly would become the sole or at least main assembly, dominating over the Assembly of Republics and Provinces that ensured national equality. The Federal Assembly elections followed the principle »one person, one vote”, which implies that with regard to the structure of the Yugoslav population the relative majority was held by Serbs; in the Assembly of Republics and Provinces each republic had an equal number of votes, unlike both, whose number of votes was smaller. Both assemblies were equal and the foundations of the Yugoslav system could not be altered without their consent. If 5 Both documents were published in: Repe, Božo, Viri 17, 196, 198-200, for the May Declaration see Document 34 and for the Basic Constitutional Charter see Documents 36, 37, and 39. Razprave | 105 »We Stand for Election to Win« the one-person-one-vote concept had prevailed, the Yugoslav majority would have decided on the organization of the state and on secession of individual republics as well; if Slovenia had not acted up to that point, it would have part of centralist Yugoslavia. Due to Yugoslavia’s swift disintegration the federal elections did not take place, although several politicians, particularly Yugoslavia’s last Prime Minister Ante Marković, began to make preparations for the elections (to to this end Marković founded his own party and the Yutel television station). Multi-party elections were held in each republic; however, pan-Yugoslav parties did not take part or played merely a symbolic role in the elections. Slovenia was the first republic to have taken the path of multi- partysm and multi-party elections. In late 1988, when the Trial of the Four that prompted the pan-Slovene mass movement began to lose its political charge, the Committee for the Protection of Human Rights was faced with the question of whether to continue its operation as a political party. This concept was materialized, for instance, by the opposition in Croatia with the establishment of the Croatian Democratic Union, which was led by Franjo Tuđman and won the elections in the spring. However, the Committee was too heterogeneous to realize this concept. Associations, forerunners of political parties, were established in this period. They were referred to as associations because legislature did not allow parties; however, associations were allowed if they were part of the SZDL. Consequently, different currents within the Committee for the Protection of Human Rights were scattered in fledgling associations and, later on, parties. The original list of associations was very diverse. Along with the Slovene Peasants’ Association (SKZ), which was led by Ivan Omen, and the Association of Slovene Peasant Youth, which were established on 12 May 1988, the former within the SZDL and the latter within the Socialist Youth League of Slovenia (ZSMS), the following associations were founded in 1989: the Slovene Democratic Association (led by Hubert Požarnik) was founded on 11 January, the Social Democratic Association of Slovenia (France Tomšič) on 16 February, the Slovene Christian Social Movement (Peter Kovačič) on 10 March, the Civic Green Party (Marek Lenardič) on 31 March, the Yugoslav Association (Matjaž Anžurjev) on 5 June, the Green Movement (Dušan 106 | Razprave »We Stand for Election to Win« Plut) on 11 June, the Yugoslav Democratic Initiative Association (Rastko Močnik) on 21 September, as well as a few groups (e.g. Group 88, which was led by Franco Juri, and Debate Club 89, both of which became part of the ZSMS at a later point). Somewhat more short-lived or exotic associations included, e.g. the Academic Anarchist Anti-Association (13 January 1989), Workers’ Association, and the Anti-Communist Association. The Association of Societies ŠKUC (Zveza društev ŠKUC) and the Slovene Students’ Association were registered as well. These newly founded associations entered the political arena with very diverse programmes; some associations highlighted, first and foremost, the question of democracy, others that of the nation and/or built their political image on anti-Communism. The Slovene Democratic Association, which gathered the bulk of opposition’s intellectual potential in its ranks, exerted the greatest political influence during this initial division of the Slovene political space. The unionistic movement, particularly that part from which originated the SDS, took a special path. The first independent union was established by France Tomšič on 15 December 1987, a few days after the workers’ strike in the Ljubljana-based factory Litostroj and after the demonstrations held in front of the Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia. At the same time Tomšič sought to establish the Social Democratic Association of Slovenia (which would be led by France Bučar); however, he did not succeed and the party was not founded until February 1989, even though the draft of its programme had been adopted beforehand, on 15 December 1988.6 Despite having different views, the dialogue between the opposition and the authorities continued after they had presented their views separately in the May Declaration and the Basic Constitutional Charter. It was resumed more intensely in September 1989. The Coordination Committee of organizers of the assembly held at Cankarjev Dom, which 6 Ali Žerdin maintains in his book about France Bučar that Bučar did not consider himself as a social democrat, wherefore he turned down the position offered to him. Žerdin, France Bučar, 91; Milan Zver made a similar observation, he ascribed France Tomšič the opinion that Bučar’s decision was not his own. Zver, Sto let socialdemokracije, 91. Razprave | 107 »We Stand for Election to Win« formally still existed, was renamed Round Table of Political Entities in Slovenia (usually referred to as Smole’s Round Table after Jože Smole, President of the Socialist Alliance of Working People). The decision to adopt a new name was taken on the Committee’s 9th (final) meeting, on 11 September 1989. The Round Table was established in a meeting taking place on 22 and 23 September (the temporary rules of procedure were adopted at that point as well); its establishment was confirmed by the Presidency of the RK SZDL a day before. It was supposedly agreed at the Round Table that multi-party elections would be held. Modelled after the Polish example, another variant envisaged that parliament seats would be divided among the opposition and the authorities in advance; however, this initiative did not prevail.7 The opposition’s conviction that the authorities want to double-cross it by means of the Round Table grew; consequently, a part thereof presented its views in a declaration entitled »What Kind of Elections do We Want?« and expressed their doubt about the authorities’ good intentions in a text entitled »Why We Do Not Want to Participate in Such Round Table«. The Round Table’s was thus discontinued. A fortnight after its disintegration, the Slovene Democratic Association, the Social Democratic Association of Slovenia, the Christian Social Association, and the Slovene Peasants’ Association left the Round Table. The Peasants’ Association, the Social Democratic Association, and the Democratic Association, as well as the newly founded Christian Democrats that were established later and originated from the Christian Social Association, began to hold talks about establishing a joint pre-election coalition. Following lengthy negotiations, this coalition was founded on 27 November 1989, initially according to the system »3 + 1« (the Slovene Democratic Association, the Social Democratic Association of Slovenia, the Christian Democrats, and the Slovene Peasants’ Association, which supported their joint programme, but intended to stand for election with an independent list of candidates. 7 These documents were published in: Repe, Božo, Viri o demokratizaciji in osamosvojitvi Slovenije, Viri 17, 203-209. 108 | Razprave »We Stand for Election to Win« Referred to as Demos, the coalition made its first public appearance on 10 December that same year.8 At the beginning of the following year, on 8 January 1990, the coalition was joined by the Greens of Slovenia. the Slovene Peasants’ Association, which could not decide between Demos and the ZSMS, joined the coalition as a full member.9 Two small parties joined Demos before the elections: the Liberal Party (representing mostly tradesmen) and Grey Panthers (pensioners’ party). The coalition was led by a presidency, consisting of two members of each party, with Jože Pučnik as its president. The fundamental points of Demos’ election programme included Slovenia’s sovereignty and parliamentary democracy, with a considerable part of its election strategy basing on anti-Communism. Following harmonizations, two new acts – the Political Associations Act and the Elections Act – were adopted by the Slovene Assembly on 27 December 1989. Even before that, according to the old legislature and an interpretation of the Assembly’s Legislative Commission, establishment of associations, i.e. forerunners of political parties, was allowed. The new Elections Act was a result of political compromises. It was tailored to the Assembly’s existing structure and thus a combination of a majoritarian (the Chamber of Associated Labour, the Chamber of Communes) and a proportional system (the Sociopolitical Chamber). The formation of the Slovene pre-electoral space was finally concluded in early 1990. Former associations and socio-political organizations were transformed into political parties. The ZSMS was renamed the Liberal Democratic Party (LDS) in November 1989; the ZKS added a new name to its old one, i.e. the Party of Democratic Reform (ZKS-SDP), in February 1990; the SZDL was renamed Socialist Association of Slovenia in January 1990; the Associations of the National Liberation Movement (ZZB NOV) remained a non-party organization, 8 Demos’ programme consists of 8 points and demonstrates the coalition’s vision. The text is available in: Repe, Božo, Viri 17, 216-218. 9 Ibid., 218-219. Razprave | 109 »We Stand for Election to Win« although mostly quietly supporting the Communists. Pressured by competitive trade-union organizations, former unions, which had a status of a socio-political organization, began to address mostly union- related questions. Despite lacking experience in activities of this kind, the campaign for the first democratic elections was not marked by any significant incidents. Whether media and the only television station at the time favoured old political powers remains subject to different views and interpretations to this day. Normatively still based on the 1974 Constitution, the parliamentary system was »corrected” in part when constitutional amendments were adopted. Consequently, parties nominated candidates for three assemblies: the Sociopolitical Chamber, the Chamber of Communes, and the Chamber of Associated Labour, each consisting of 80 members (totalling 240). Demos won a total of 126 votes and the reformed Communists received the most votes as an individual party out of all remaining parties. Ten parties entered the parliament, along with deputies of both minorities and a few independent candidates. Voting for the National Assembly, where party-related preferences were clear, was key; however, preferences of a few members in the remaining two Assemblies were less identifiable due to the specific nature of the elections. Free multi-party elections are regarded as one of the most important elements of a modern democratic society. Naturally, experience from socialist Yugoslavia was completely different, as we cannot speak about proper elections in the first place. In practice, elections in socialism were tantamount to confirming reliable candidates on different levels. Voters merely confirmed the will of different political bodies and the election results with high- percentage support for the candidates were a farce. It was self-evident that the demand for free elections was one of the central demands made when the socialist monolith began to crumble in Eastern Europe of the 1980s. The elections for a member of the Presidency of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia offered 110 | Razprave »We Stand for Election to Win« a first glimpse of free elections in Slovenia. The authorities favoured Marko Bulc, who held various positions, the last one being that of Head of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia from 1982 to 1992. He ran against Janez Drnovšek, a member of the Assembly in Belgrade, with whom the broader public was less familiar. Drnovšek was elected with 56% of the votes.10 Nothing stands in the way of individuals who want to be politically active in a system where this is not legally possible or allowed. They run the risk of facing political leadership that would not tolerate such operation. Formally speaking, traditional parties were not regulated in Slovenia until December 1989, when the Political Association Act was passed.11 The new framework of political association altered the former practice because from this point onwards political parties were banned in enterprises or similar institutions.12 The spirit of the transitional period can be observed in terminology as well; hypocritically, in the new act the term »political organization« was used instead of »party«. It was probably used due to a part of old structures that would accept it more readily than the term »party«. When founding a party, the bar was set very low in terms of numbers. 20 individuals sufficed to hold a founding meeting, adopt the statute, the programme and elect the party’s bodies.13 Political organizations were registered in municipalities,14 which created some confusion at a later stage because they bore similar names, differing only in names of location added to them. A few of them had very locally oriented goals, while others sought to operate at a national level even though their names included a place name. The act regulated party funding as well, which has remained more or less unchanged to this day. State budget allocations constitute an important element of funding for Slovene parties. The party’s success in the elections is a yardstick for receiving state budgetary funding. 10 Bulc, Marko (1926–2019) – Slovenska biografija. 11 The Political Association Act. 12 Ibid., Article 7. 13 Ibid., Article 9. 14 Ibid., Article 10. Razprave | 111 »We Stand for Election to Win« Parties could be financed through membership fees and donations as well. Enterprises and various organizations could also donate funds; however, this part of provisions about party funding was changed in the 1990s.15 The act was adopted too late because new political movements were already in the making and the act thus merely confirmed the existing state of affairs in many respects. As associations/parties already existed, Article 25 and its transitional provisions regulated their legalization. The Socialist Alliance of Working People (SZDL), the Association of Veterans of the National Liberation War of Slovenia, the League of Communists of Slovenia (ZKS), the Slovene Democratic Association (SZD), the Social Democratic Association of Slovenia, the Slovene Peasants’ Association, the Association of Slovene Peasant Youth, the Yugoslav Association, the Slovene Christian Democrats (SKD), the Civic Green Party, the Greens of Slovenia, the Yugoslav Democratic Initiative Association, the Association for the Protection of Citizens’ Equality, and the Community of Italians became registered parties if they opted for it and submitted a statute and a programme. The law stipulated that they had three months to make necessary adjustments. This deadline was longer for enterprises and other organizations, namely one year. This was associated with speculations that the elections would take place sooner than within a year. There were 76 parties registered with the municipal administrations in late 1991, the bulk of which were established from 1989 onwards. In March 1990, prior to the April elections, a booklet with programmes of parties that stood for elections was published. With 17 April 1937 as its date of establishment, i.e. the date of the founding meeting of the League of Communists of Slovenia held at Čebine, the ZKS-SDP or 15 Ibid., Articles 20 and 21. 112 | Razprave »We Stand for Election to Win« reformed Communists, was stated as the oldest party.16 The Socialist Party of Slovenia, i.e. the former Socialist Alliance of Working People, was the second-oldest party; the party stated 27 April 1941 as its date of establishment, i.e. the date when the Liberation Front was founded.17 The Liberal Democratic Party’s date of establishment was two years later; this is the new name of the former Socialist Youth League of Slovenia (ZSMS), whose forerunner was established on 12 October 1943.18 The first two parties19 that were established in the period of the Slovene Spring, on 12 May 1988, were the Slovene Peasants’ Association-The Peoples’ Party and the Association of Slovene Peasant Youth. The former came into being within the SZDL and the latter within the ZSMS.20 The majority of first parties were established in 1989: the Slovene Democratic Association (11 January 1989), the Social Democratic Association of Slovenia (16 February 1989), the Yugoslav Association (5 July 1989), the Greens of Slovenia (ZS, 11 June 1989), the Slovene Christian Democrats (4 November 1989), the Party for Citizens’ Equality (21 November 1989), and the Liberal Party (27 December 1989). The elections to the Sociopolitical Chamber, the Chamber of Communes, and for the president and members of the Presidency took place on Palm Sunday, i.e. 8 April 1990. Members of the Chamber of Associated Labour were elected on 12 April. The second round of elections for the President of Presidency and the remaining members of the Chamber of Communes took place on 22 April. 16 Koga voliti? p. 98. From 1991 onwards the daily Delo published Slovenski almanah for a few years. The publication provided a summary of a year’s events with some statistical data. Overviews of (non-) parliamentary parties were published as well. The articles about parties could be penned by authors associated with respective parties or by journalists. In Slovenski almanah ‘92, 2 March 1920, i.e. the date of establishment of the Workers’ Socialist Party of Slovenia, is stated as the date of establishment of the reformed Communists. Slovenski almanah ’92, pp. 74-76. 17 Ibid., 78. 18 Ibid, 148. 19 Even though they, in a sense, acted as a parties, the term association was used upon the establishment of political groups. 20 Repe, Božo, Jutri je nov dan, 111. Razprave | 113 »We Stand for Election to Win« The Statistical Office of Slovenia published a publication by Zofija Savec.21 It contains data on municipal elections and elections to Slovene parliament’s all three chambers. The data found in it are presented in the further course of this paper. What to these data indicate? Just shy of 1.5 million Slovenes had voting rights at the time. Presently, this number exceeds 1.7 million. This is a consequence of a change in the demographic structure, which is a result of population ageing and lower birth rates. The turnout at the elections was significantly higher than it is at the present. The numbers vary because the turnout was determined for different elections taking place on the same day; however, it exceeded 70%. In comparison, fewer than 52% of voters attended the most recent elections for members of the National Assembly.22 Other data will be discussed before the results. What was the candidates’ gender structure? Their gender structure is important also due to the question of how many women were elected. Women’s electability is not impacted solely by their number on lists of candidates, it is also subject to their location in terms of the electability of a party’s candidate in respective electoral units. Naturally, there were no gender quota provisions in 1990. Women candidates were outnumbered by their male counterparts in all three chambers. Their share was very small, perhaps even smaller than anticipated, if we consider the activistic post-war policy of including women into all realms of life, including politics. The largest share of women candidates was in the Sociopolitical Chamber, i.e. 22%, the Chamber of Communes consisted of slightly upwards of 18% of women candidates and the Chamber of Associated Labour of 15%. The situation with candidates for the president and members of the Presidency was even worse. Four candidates, all of whom were men, ran for president. There were 11 men and 1 woman running as candidates for members of the Presidency. The Socialist 21 Savec, Zofija, Volitve 1990. 22 For more details on voters’ age and gender see file Podatki o udeležbi po spolu in starosti, which is available in Slovene on the National Electoral Commission’s website (retrieved on 16 October 2020). 114 | Razprave »We Stand for Election to Win« Association ran the judge Miroslava Geč-Korošec, who was the first woman to become a member of the Constitutional Court in 1998.23 There were 12 women elected to the Socioolitical Chamber and the Chamber of Associated Labour respectively, while a mere 3 women candidates were elected to the Chamber of Communes. The members’ educational structure was promising. 81% of members of the Sociopolitical Chamber had university education. It was predominately new associations/parties that put many educated individuals and university professors on their lists of candidates. In the Chamber of Associated Labour 60% of members had university degrees, in the Chamber of Communes 56%. In terms of age structure, the largest group in chambers three assemblies was that of members aged between 40 and 49. The second-largest group in the Chamberof Associated Labour and the Chamber of Communes consisted of members aged between 50 and 59. The situation in the Sociopolitical Chamber was different. The second-largest group consisted of members aged between 30 and 39. Actually, with 50 members in total, these two groups were equal in the Sociopolitical Chamber. Slovenia’s national homogeneity is observable also in the national structure of the newly elected National Assembly. There were 73, 74, and 75 Slovenes in each assembly. The remaining members of each assembly identified as members of other Yugoslav peoples. There were 4 Yugoslavs, 2 Croats, and 1 Serb in all three chambers. Both majorities in Slovenia had their own representatives; namely, Italians 4 and Hungarians 2. There are no data available for 5 members, i.e. their identity is marked as unknown: 3 in the Sociopolitical Chamber and 1 each in the remaining chambers. What was the voters’ will? Demos regarded the Sociopolitical Chamber as the most important and the coalition won there; Demos 23 Miroslava Geč Korošec - Wikipedia. Razprave | 115 »We Stand for Election to Win« won a total of 47 seats, with Christian Democrats and the Slovene Peasants’ Association winning the most seats within the coalition. If the coalition parties were regarded individually, the result would be different, making the reformed Communists winners of the elections. In this chamber, the members identified their respective party within the Demos coalition, which was not the case in the remaining two chambers; consequently, it is more difficult to determine the election results for each party within the coalition. It is interesting to note that in the Chambers of Associated Labour most votes were won by members whose political party is marked as “unknown”; this was the case with 43 members out of a total of 80. This largest group was followed by Demos and reformed Communists, with 8 members each. The designation Demos is independent, it is not known/defined/established to which party within the Demos coalition a member belonged. This largest group is followed by the Slovene Democratic Association and the Slovene Peasants’ Association with 6 members each. Similarly, members elected to the Chamber of Communes were also marked as Demos’ candidates, not as candidates of specific parties. 14 members of the former Socialist Youth (ZSMS) formed the numerically strongest group in this assembly, no parties were stated in chamber case of 12 members; they were a by Demos parties, marked either with Demos or their own names. Demos had 126 members out of a total of 240 in all three chambers. Elected in April 1990 and completing its work in 1992, the National Assembly adopted legislation required for Slovenia’s independence. Inter alia, the parliament adopted a new constitution, which introduced a bicameral system, with the National Assembly as a general assembly elected directly in general, secret elections and the National Council, which is elected indirectly. When voting for members of the Presidency, Slovene voters gave approximately half the votes to the opposition and the other half to “the old structures”, whereby this wording might be too harsh. Many were convinced that the voters chose wisely. Two cultural workers were elected to the Presidency, namely the poet Ciril Zlobec and the 116 | Razprave »We Stand for Election to Win« expert on Slovene language, literary theoretician and author Matjaž Kmecl, both of whom were active in the old regime and regarded as progressive individuals. Ivan Oman, leader of the peasants’ movement, was believed to have stood for common-sense policy; the peasants’ movement was one of movements that put a spoke in the old system’s wheel, causing its downfall. Professor Dušan Plut, who began to point out environmental issues a few years before the elections, was the youngest member of the Presidency. Marko Demšar, a physician, Ivan Kramberger, an innovator, an eccentric voice and a tribune of the people, Milan Kučan, a reformer of the old system and the most prominent Slovene politician of that time, and Jože Pučnik, a dissident, a former prisoner, who built a distinguished career in Germany ran for the highest position, i.e. that of the President of the Presidency. Having won 44% and 26% of the vote in the first ballot, Milan Kučan and Jože Pučnik qualified for the second round. Easter was celebrated between the first and the second round of elections. Ivan Kramberger failed to qualify for the second round; however, he succeeded in attracting many votes and invited his fellow candidates to Easter lunch, bidding farewell to the elections, his fellow contestants, and voters with an unusual gesture that was typical of him.24 The second round was held on 22 April and Milan Kučan became the president of the Presidency with 58% of the votes.25 No significant incidents occurred during the election campaign, the political debate was kept at a respectable level, even though no one had any experience of this kind. Following the multi-party elections, the next important step was the beginning of work of members of the the National Assembly and of the Presidency, as well as the formation of government in May 1990. Our present is marked by the results of their work. 24 A photograph of their lunch is published on the website of the newspaper Večer. Stepišnik, “Pet volitev, štirje šefi države” (Five elections, four heads of state). 25 A video presentation of statistical data can be viewed on YouTube. Balkovec, Bojan, Nekaj volilne statistike 1990. Razprave | 117 »We Stand for Election to Win« The constitutive session of the new National Assembly took place on 17 May. France Bučar, who was in the past attacked by the authorities, became its president. In early 1988 he was labelled a traitor because he held a speech in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, in which he discouraged the West from helping “totalitarian and anti-democratic Yugoslavia”. In his first speech as President of the National Assembly he maintained that “by constituting this Assembly [...] a civil war was over, which paralysed and broke us for almost half a century”.26 The reconciliation was confirmed by the state and the Catholic Church in July at a symbolic ceremony held in Kočevski Rog, where members of the Home Guard were killed after World War II.27 However, the handshake between President Kučan and Archbishop Šuštar was indeed a merely symbolic one and the severe discord was put aside for a few — for Slovenes crucial — months in the period when Slovenia gained independence. The President of the Republic entrusted Lojze Peterle, leader of the SKD, with forming a new government; having won the most votes within Demos, Christian Democrats had the right to do so according to an agreement reached by the coalition parties. The new 27-strong government, which included also a few ministers from the opposition, was formed without any major disapproval. The arrival of the new authority proceeded without any major disruptions, but not entirely without skirmishes. It was a unique and previously unseen situation, allowing for various interpretations with regard to responsibility and power. The question of prestige was important as well. Demos insisted on the agreed future Prime Minister despite the coalition parties’ concerns regarding Peterle; Jože Pučnik was also considered as a possible candidate for the position despite the aforementioned agreement. Their insistence put a stop to calculations 26 Minutes of the first multi-party Assembly are available on the National Assembly’s website under Delo Državnega zbora/Seje/Seje Državnega zbora. Minutes of the first session of all Assemblies, when France Bučar was elected President of the Assembly can be retrieved form: https://www.dz-rs.si/wps/ portal/Home/deloDZ/seje/evidenca?mandat=0&type=sz&uid=D7AFD04D5A259E62C1257C99004581 EA 27 Kučan’s speech is available online. Kučan, Milan, Spravna slovesnost v Kočevskem rogu. 118 | Razprave »We Stand for Election to Win« regarding the formation of a government of national unity, which Kučan saw as one of possible solutions. Namely, legal and political interpretations were offered, arguing that the government should be formed by the party that won the most individual votes in the elections, namely the ZKS-SDP, not by the Demos coalition, because the latter was formed before the elections. Naturally, the ZKS-SDP and its leader Ciril Ribičič were in effect not in a position to form a government. The government was thus formed by Demos and included ministers from other political options as well.28 Fig. 1, A meeting of Demos (photographed by Nace Bizilj, kept in the Museum of Contemporary History). 28 Shorthand minutes of the 2nd session held on 16 May 1990, when Lojze Peterle was elected Prime Minister and a list of ministers was confirmed, is available on the National Assembly’s website. The National Assembly’s website, minutes of sessions. Razprave | 119 »We Stand for Election to Win« Fig. 2, Ivan Kramberger’s pre-election rally (photographed by Nace Bizilj, kept in the Museum of Contemporary History). Fig. 3, The presidential debate between Jože Pučnik and Milan Kučan on RTV Ljubljana (photographed by Tone Stojko, kept in the Museum of Contemporary History). 120 | Razprave »We Stand for Election to Win« Fig. 4, At a polling station (photographed by Tone Stojko, kept in the Museum of Contemporary History). Fig. 5, Candidates for the President of the Presidency at a luncheon held by Ivan Kramberger (photographed by Nace Bizilj, kept in the Museum of Contemporary History). Razprave | 121 »We Stand for Election to Win« Fig. 6, Left to right: Ivan Oman, Ciril Zlobec, Milan Kučan, Janez Drnovšek, Matjaž Kmecl, and Dušan Plut in the front row at the National Assembly. France Bučar, President of the National Assembly, behind a speaker stand (photographed by Nace Bizilj, kept in the Museum of Contemporary History). Fig. 7, Members of the first Executive Council after the multi-party elections in front of the National Assembly following the swearing-in ceremony (photographed by Nace Bizilj, kept in the Museum of Contemporary History). 122 | Razprave »We Stand for Election to Win« SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Sources Bulc, Marko (1926–2019) – Slovenska biografija. Retrieved on 15 October 2020. https://www.slovenska-biografija.si/oseba/sbi1020650/. Geč Korošec Miroslava, V Wikipedija, prosta enciklopedija, 16 March 2018. h t tps : //s l .w ik iped ia .o rg/w/ index .php? t i t l e=Mi ros lava_Ge%C4%8D_ Koro%C5%A1ec&oldid=4967065. Kučan, Milan. “Spravna slovesnost v Kočevskem rogu”. Retrieved on 16 October 2020. http://www2.gov.si/up-rs/2002-2007/bp-mk.nsf/dokumenti/08.07.1990-90-92. The National Assembly’s website, minutes of sessions. Retrieved on 16 October 2020. https://www.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/Home/deloDZ/seje/sejeDrzavnegaZbora/ PoDatumuSeje/!ut/p/z1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfIjo8zivT39gy2dDB0N3 INMjAw8Db0tQ3x8fQwNvM30w_EqcDfTjyJGvwEO4GgA1u_kF2Tq6e1uaODvGm RqEGjp6O9mYGRpbGxiCNXvZent6AVWYGjmZOBp6m5sae5qCDTAnDj9eBREUeJ_ b4j_8XivIDcUBBQB5KjFiA!!/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/. Repe, Božo, Viri o demokratizaciji in osamosvojitvi Slovenije. Viri, 16 ; 18–20. Ljubljana: Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2002. Savec, Zofija. Volitve 1990. Ljubljana: Zavod Republike Slovenije za statistiko, 1990.The Political Association Act. The Official Gazette of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia, No. 42, 29 December 1989, n.d. Stepišnik, Matija. “Pet volitev, štirje šefi države”: Od Kučana do Pahorja“, 11 August 2017. https://www.vecer.com/slovenija/pet-volitev-stirje-sefi-drzave-od-kucana- do-pahorja-6290951. Bibliography Balkovec, Bojan. Nekaj volilne statistike 1990, 2020. https://youtu.be/bpbqdY8RvnA. Koga voliti? Ljubljana: Jugoslovanski center za teorijo in prakso samoupravljanja Edvard Kardelj, 1990. Repe, Božo. Jutri je nov dan: Slovenci in razpad Jugoslavije. Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2002. Repe, Božo, O slovenskem parlamentarizmu in volitvah 1990, 2020. https://youtu.be/ ttaxjRevsw0. Repe, Božo, Slovenci v osemdesetih letih. Zbirka Zgodovinskega časopisa 23. Ljubljana: Zveza Zgodovinskih Društev Slovenije, 2001. Repe, Božo, in Darja Kerec. Slovenija, moja dežela: družbena revolucija v osemdesetih letih. 1st edition. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 2017. Zver, Milan. Sto let socialdemokracije. Ljubljana: Veda, 1996. Žerdin, Ali H. France Bučar. First Edition. Series Cvetober. Ljubljana: Delo, 2015. Razprave | 123 »We Stand for Election to Win« SUMMARY In Slovenia, political events gained momentum in the second half of the 1980s. Initially still as units within the old system, the opposition began to organize itself from May 1988 onwards. Preparations for establishing parties began in the autumn of 1988 and the bulk of large parties or their successors, which are still relevant nowadays, were established in the first half of 1989. The ruling reformed Communists and the emerging associations/parties joined forces on a few occasions, for instance, they organized an assembly at Cankarjev Dom in support of the striking miners in Kosovo. They failed to find common ground in some other instances; consequently, each camp made their own political statements. To pave the path to the elections, a round table was organized in the autumn of 1989; however, it fell through. Legislation required for transitioning to a multi-party system was passed in late December 1989. Two acts were adopted, regulating political association and organization of multi-party elections. The socialist tricameral assembly with 80 deputies/members remained the legislative body; however, direct elections to the Socio-Political Assembly and indirect elections to the remaining two chambers were introduced. The president and members of the Presidency were also elected in elections. In late 1989 the opposition formed a coalition named Demos. Demos won as a coalition in elections to all three chambers; results in individual assemblies were different, and Demos or parties that were part of the coalition did not win the most votes. The new government was formed in mid-May 1990 and was led by the leader of Christian Democrats Lojze Peterle. Peterle became Prime Minister because his party had the most members within Demos. Out of four candidates the voters elected Milan Kučan as President of the Presidency. None of the candidates received more than 50% of the votes in the first round; Milan Kučan beat the leader of Demos Jože Pučnik in the second round. 12 candidates ran for members of the Presidency; Ivan Oman and Dušan Plut, both members of Demos, were 124 | Razprave »We Stand for Election to Win« elected, as were cultural workers Matjaž Kmecl and Ciril Zlobec, both of whom were politically active during socialism but recognized as freethinking individuals. Razprave | 125 »We Stand for Election to Win« Osemdeseta leta so bila eno najbolj pluralnih obdobij v zgodovini Slovenije, čeprav še znotraj formalno enostrankarskega sistema. Za to obdobje so značilna številna in močna civilnodružbena gibanja (mirovna, protijedrska, ekološka in druga).1 V času t. i. procesa proti četverici leta 1988 pa je nastala tudi najštevilčnejša civilnodružbena organizacija – Odbor za varstvo človekovih pravic, ki ga je vodil Igor Bavčar.2 Ti procesi so bili mogoči, ker so sovpadali z nastankom reformistične struje v vodstvu Zveze komunistov Slovenije (ZKS), ki jo je od leta 1986 vodil Milan Kučan. Reformirani ZKS ideje opozicije niso bile več tuje, jih je pa nameravala uresničevati znotraj Socialistične zveze delovnega ljudstva (SZDL), in sicer kot naslednice nekdanje Osvobodilne fronte.3 Opozicijska gibanja naj bi se formalizirala znotraj SZDL v obliki koalicije. Taka politika je kasneje omogočila mehak prehod v večstrankarski sistem in zagotovitev konsenza pri temeljnih vprašanjih nacionalnega programa. Jugoslovanske razmere so 27. februarja 1989 pripeljale opozicijo in oblast do skupnega nastopa na zborovanju v Cankarjevem domu, ki je bilo namenjeno podpori stavkajočim rudarjem na Kosovu (ok. 1300 rudarjev, ki so imeli pri sebi tudi velike količine razstreliva, je stavkalo zaradi sprejetja nove srbske ustave, s katero je bila odpravljena avtonomija na Kosovu; stavka je trajala od 4. do 27. februarja, ko je bilo na Kosovu uvedeno izredno stanje).4 Iz tega se je rodil poskus, da bi opozicija in oblast skupaj oblikovali nacionalni program. 3. marca 1989 je začel delovati Koordinacijski odbor organizatorjev 1 Več o primerih družbene aktivnost v: Repe in Kerec, Slovenija, moja dežela. Družbena revolucija v osemdesetih letih. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 2017. 2 O delu Odbora za varstvo človekovih pravic in kronologiji dogodkov. Več glej: Repe, Božo. Viri o demokratizaciji in osamosvojitvi Slovenije. Del 1, Opozicija in oblast. Ljubljana: Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2002, 143−145. 3 Podrobneje o osemdesetih letih glej: Repe, Božo. Slovenci v osemdesetih letih. Ljubljana: Zveza zgodovinskih društev Slovenije, 2001. 4 Organizatorji so pripravili javno izjavo, ki je bila objavljena 11. marca 1989. Repe, Božo. Viri o demokratizaciji in osamosvojitvi Slovenije, 168. »NA VOLITVE GREMO ZATO, DA ZMAGAMO« 126 | Razprave »We Stand for Election to Win« zbora v Cankarjevem domu. V njem so predstavniki opozicije in družbenopolitičnih organizacij skušali oblikovati politični program. Nastalo je več osnutkov, ki jih je v glavnem napisal pisatelj Miloš Mikeln. Ker niso našli skupnega jezika, sta nastala dva programa: Majniška deklaracija 1989 in Temeljna listina Slovenije.5 Že več kot leto pred tem, in sicer v času, ko se je začela razprava o amandmajih na zvezno ustavo (ti naj bi spremenili ekonomski sistem, a hkrati tudi dali več moči centru), se je oblikovala tudi ustavna opozicija. Amandmaji na zvezno ustavo so bili v omiljeni obliki sprejeti leta 1988, kot kompromis jih je potrdila tudi slovenska skupščina. So se pa začeli pripravljati tudi amandmaji na slovensko ustavo. V slovenski skupščini so bili sprejeti septembra 1989, in sicer z namenom, da bi povečali slovensko suverenost in preprečili uvedbo izrednih razmer v Sloveniji, ki jih je načrtovala JLA. Za razvoj političnega pluralizma in uvedbo večstrankarskega sistema pa je pomembno, da je bilo hkrati črtano tudi določilo o vodilni vlogi ZKS, s čimer je bil omogočen formalni nastanek drugih političnih strank. V jugoslovanskem vrhu so to označili za kontrarevolucijo, vodstvo armade pa je pripravljalo nov scenarij za pokoritev Slovenije, vendar se je opozicija krepila tudi v drugih republikah in večstrankarstva v taki ali drugačni obliki ni bilo več mogoče preprečiti. Zato so se v konfliktu med centralistično in konfederalno ureditvijo Jugoslavije za jesen 1990 načrtovale volitve v zvezni zbor, ki bi bile večstrankarske. Zvezni zbor bi po centralističnem načrtu, ki ga je načrtoval zlasti Slobodan Milošević ob podpori JLA, postal edini ali vsaj glavni zbor in prevladal nad zborom republik in pokrajin, ki je zagotavljal nacionalno enakopravnost. Volitve za zvezni zbor so potekale po načelu en človek = en glas, kar pomeni, da so glede na sestavo jugoslovanskega prebivalstva relativno večino imeli Srbi; v zboru republik in pokrajin so vse republike imele enako število glasov, obe pokrajini pa nekaj manj, oba zbora pa sta bila enakopravna in brez soglasja obeh temeljev jugoslovanskega sistema ni bilo mogoče spreminjati. Če bi prevladal koncept en človek = en glas, bi jugoslovanska večina tudi odločala o državni ureditvi in odcepitvi posameznih republik, in če do takrat Slovenija ne bi česa ukrenila, bi to pomenilo, da bi ostala v centralistični Jugoslaviji. Do zveznih volitev 5 Oba dokumenta sta objavljena v: Repe, Božo. Viri o demokratizaciji in osamosvojitvi Slovenije, 196, 198−200; Majniška Deklaracija glej dokument 34 in Temeljna listina glej dokumente 36, 37 in 39. Razprave | 127 »We Stand for Election to Win« potem zaradi naglega procesa razpadanja Jugoslavije ni prišlo, čeprav so se nekateri politiki, zlasti zadnji jugoslovanski premier Ante Marković, nanje začeli pripravljati (Marković je v ta namen ustanovil svojo stranko in televizijo Yutel). Po vseh republikah pa so izvedli večstrankarske volitve, na katerih vsejugoslovanskih strank ni bilo ali pa so imele le simbolno vlogo. Prva je na pot večstrankarstva in večstrankarskih volitev šla Slovenija. Ko je proti koncu leta 1988 sojenje četverici, ki je spodbudilo množično vseslovensko gibanje, začelo izgubljati politični naboj, se je pred Odbor za varstvo človekovih pravic postavilo vprašanje, ali nadaljevati z dejavnostjo v strankarski obliki. Tak koncept je uresničila opozicija na Hrvaškem, ki je ustanovila Hrvaško demokratično zvezo pod vodstvom Franja Tuđmana in spomladi na volitvah tudi zmagala. Vendar je bil odbor za varstvo človekovih pravic preveč heterogen, da bi lahko uresničil tak koncept. V tem času so že začele nastajati zveze, predhodnice strank. Zveze so se imenovale zato, ker zakonodaja strank ni dovoljevala, nasprotno pa je zveze, če so bile vključene v SZDL, dovoljevala. Različne struje znotraj Odbora za varstvo človekovih opravic so se zato porazdelile po nastajajočih zvezah in nato strankah. Prvotni zbir zvez je bil zelo pisan. Poleg Slovenske kmečke zveze (Ivan Oman) in Zveze slovenske kmečke mladine (prva je nastala v okviru SZDL, druga pa v okviru ZSMS), ki sta kot stanovski organizaciji nastali že 12. maja 1988, so bile v letu 1989 ustanovljene: Slovenska demokratična zveza (11. januar, Hubert Požarnik), Socialdemokratska zveza Slovenije (16. februar, France Tomšič), Slovensko krščansko socialno gibanje (10. marec, Peter Kovačič), Meščanska zelena stranka (31. marec, Marek Lenardič), Jugoslovanska zveza (5. junij, Matjaž Anžurjev), Gibanje zelenih (11. junij, Dušan Plut), Združenje za jugoslovansko demokratično pobudo (21. september, Rastko Močnik), poleg njih pa še nekatere skupine (npr. Skupina 88, ki jo je vodil Franco Juri, in Debatni klub 89, oba sta pozneje prestopila v ZSMS). Med kratkotrajnejšimi in bolj eksotičnimi so bile Akademska anarhistična antizveza (13. januar 1989), Zveza delavcev in Antikomunistična zveza. Registrirali sta se tudi Zveza društev ŠKUC in Slovenska študentska zveza. 128 | Razprave »We Stand for Election to Win« Novoustanovljene zveze so v politično življenje vstopile z zelo različnimi programi, nekatere so poudarjale predvsem vprašanje demokracije, druge vprašanje naroda in (ali) svojo politično podobo gradile na protikomunizmu. Ob tej začetni razdelitvi slovenskega političnega prostora je imela v opoziciji največji politični vpliv Slovenska demokratična zveza, ki je v svojih vrstah zbrala velik del opozicijskega intelektualnega potenciala. Posebno pot je imelo sindikalno gibanje, zlasti tisti del, iz katerega je izšla SDS. France Tomšič je 15. decembra 1987 ustanovil prvi neodvisni sindikat. To se je zgodilo nekaj dni po stavki delavcev tovarne Litostroj v Ljubljani in po demonstracijah pred Skupščino SRS. Sočasno je skušal ustanoviti tudi Socialdemokratsko zvezo Slovenije (ki naj bi jo vodil France Bučar), vendar mu to ni uspelo, tako da je bila stranka ustanovljena šele februarja 1989, čeprav je osnutek programa iniciativni odbor sprejel že prej, in sicer 15. decembra 1988.6 Dialog med opozicijo in oblastjo se je, potem ko sta ločeno predstavili svoje poglede v Majniški deklaraciji in Temeljni listini, kljub različnim pogledom ohranjal še naprej. Intenzivneje se je obnovil septembra 1989. Koordinacijski odbor organizatorjev zbora v Cankarjevem domu, ki je formalno še obstajal, se je preimenoval v Okroglo mizo političnih subjektov na Slovenskem (običajno imenovano Smoletova okrogla miza po Jožetu Smoletu, predsedniku SZDL). Sklep o tem je bil sprejet na 9. (zadnjem) sestanku Koordinacijskega odbora organizatorjev zbora v Cankarjevem domu 11. septembra 1989. Okrogla miza pa je bila ustanovljena na sestanku 22. in 23. septembra (takrat je bil sprejet tudi začasni poslovnik), dan pred tem je njeno ustanovitev potrdilo predsedstvo RK SZDL. Na Okrogli mizi političnih subjektov na Slovenskem naj bi se dogovorili za izvedbo večstrankarskih volitev. Obstajala pa je tudi varianta, da bi do prvih večstrankarskih volitev po 6 Ali Žerdin v svoji knjigi o Francetu Bučarju piše, da naj bi se Bučar ne počutil socialdemokrata in zato ni sprejel ponujenega mesta. Žerdin, Ali. France Bučar. Ljubljana: Delo, 2015, 91. Podobno je zapisal tudi Milan Zver, ki je Francetu Tomšiču pripisal razmišljanje, da Bučarjeva odločitev ni bila njegova samostojna odločitev. Zver, Milan. Sto let socialdemokracije. Ljubljana: Veda, 1996, 91. Razprave | 129 »We Stand for Election to Win« poljskem vzoru že vnaprej razdelili mesta v parlamentu med opozicijo in oblastjo, vendar ta pobuda ni prevladala.7 Opozicija je bila vedno bolj prepričana, da jo hoče oblast z tem izigravati, zato je del opozicije svoje poglede na volitve strnil v izjavi Kakšne volitve hočemo?, dvom o dobronamernosti oblasti pa so izrazili v besedilu Zakaj na taki okrogli mizi ne želimo več sodelovati. Okrogla miza je tako razpadla. Štirinajst dni po njenem razpadu so jo zapustile Slovenska demokratična zveza, Socialdemokratska zveza Slovenije, Krščansko-socialna zveza in Slovenska kmečka zveza. Slovenska kmečka zveza, Socialdemokratska zveza in Slovenska demokratska zveza, kasneje pa tudi novoustanovljeni Slovenski krščanski demokrati, ki so izšli iz Krščansko-socialne zveze, so se začeli dogovarjati o ustanovitvi skupne predvolilne koalicije. To se je po dolgotrajnih pogajanjih zgodilo 27. novembra 1989, najprej po sistemu »tri plus ena« (Slovenska demokratična zveza, Socialdemokratska zveza Slovenije, Slovenski krščanski demokrati in Slovenska kmečka zveza, ki je sicer podpirala skupni program, a je na volitvah nameravala nastopiti s samostojno listo). Demos, kot se je koalicija poimenovala, je prvič javno nastopil 10. decembra istega leta.8 V začetku naslednjega leta, 8. januarja 1990, so se mu pridružili še Zeleni Slovenije, pa tudi Slovenska kmečka zveza (ki je sicer oklevala med Demosom in ZSMS) se je vključila kot polnopravna članica.9 Še pred volitvami sta v Demos vstopili tudi dve manjši stranki: Liberalna stranka (zastopala je predvsem obrtnike) in Sivi panterji (stranka upokojencev). Koalicijo je vodilo predsedstvo, ki sta ga sestavljala po dva člana vsake stranke, predsednik pa je postal Jože Pučnik. Osnovni točki Demosovega volilnega programa sta bili suverena Slovenija in parlamentarna demokracija, precejšen del volilne strategije pa je temeljil na protikomunizmu. 7 Omenjeni dokumenti so objavljeni v: Repe, Božo. Viri o demokratizaciji in osamosvojitvi Slovenije, 203−209. 8 Program Demosa ima osem točk in v njih predstavljeno vizijo. Besedilo je dostopno v Repe, Božo. »Viri o demokratizaciji in osamosvojitvi Slovenije.«, 216 −218. 9 Prav tam, 218−219. 130 | Razprave »We Stand for Election to Win« Nova zakona – zakon o združevanju in volilni zakon – sta bila po usklajevanjih 27. decembra 1989 sprejeta v slovenski skupščini. Utemeljila sta pravico do političnega združevanja. Že pred tem je še po stari zakonodaji nastanek zvez, torej predhodnic političnih strank, omogočila interpretacija skupščinske zakonodajne komisije, da je nastanek zvez dopusten. Novi volilni zakon je bil rezultat političnih kompromisov. Bil je prilagojen obstoječi skupščinski strukturi in je zato pomenil kombinacijo večinskega (zbor združenega dela, zbor občin) in proporcionalnega sistema (družbenopolitični zbor).10 V začetku leta 1990 se je slovenski predvolilni prostor dokončno izoblikoval. Nekdanje zveze in družbenopolitične organizacije so se preoblikovale v klasične politične stranke. ZSMS se je preimenovala v Liberalno demokratsko stranko (LDS) novembra 1989; ZKS je staremu imenu dodala novo – Stranka demokratične prenove (SDP) februarja 1990; SZDL se je preimenovala v Socialistično zvezo Slovenije januarja 1990; ZZB NOV je ostala nestrankarska organizacija, po tihem pa je podpirala predvsem komuniste. Nekdanji sindikati, ki so prav tako imeli status družbenopolitične organizacije, so se pod pritiskom konkurenčnih sindikalnih organizacij začeli ukvarjati predvsem s sindikalnimi vprašanji. Kampanja za prve demokratične volitve po vojni je kljub neizkušenosti s tovrstno dejavnostjo potekala brez večjih incidentov. Ali so tedanji mediji, tedaj še edina televizija, dajali prednost starim političnim silam, je še danes stvar različnih pogledov in interpretacij . Skupščinski sistem je normativno temeljil še na ustavi iz leta 1974, deloma je bil »popravljen« s sprejetjem ustavnih amandmajev. Zato so stranke predlagale kandidate v tri zbore: družbenopolitični zbor, zbor občin in zbor združenega dela. Vsak od njih je štel po 80 poslancev (skupaj 240). Na volitvah je Demos skupaj dobil 126 glasov, od drugih strank pa kot posamična stranka največ ZKS – SDP. V parlament je skupaj prišlo deset strank, poleg njih pa še predstavniki obeh manjšin 10 Kratka predstavitev slovenskega parlamentarizma od začetkov do let po osamosvojitvi je na ogled v posnetku. Repe, Božo. »O slovenskem parlamentarizmu in volitvah 1990.« https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=ttaxjRevsw0&list=PLRtNtrQJTHOzRzA05AeS9vF7upce5a2h6&index=5 (dostop: november 2020). Razprave | 131 »We Stand for Election to Win« in nekaj neodvisnih kandidatov. Ključno je bilo glasovanje za državni zbor, kjer so bile strankarske preference jasne, medtem ko so bile vsaj pri nekaterih poslankah in poslancih v drugih dveh zborih zaradi specifičnega načina volitev manj razpoznavne. Kot enega najpomembnejših elementov sodobne demokratične družbe se upoštevajo svobodne večstrankarske volitve. Izkušnja iz socialistične Jugoslavije je bila seveda povsem drugačna, saj o pravih volitvah sploh ni mogoče govoriti. Volitve v socializmu so v praksi pomenile potrjevalo na različnih nivojih preverjenih kadrov. Volivci so bili torej le potrjevalci volje različnih političnih organov in izidi volitev z visokimi odstotki podpore za kandidate so bili le farsa. Samoumevno je bilo, da je ena od osrednjih zahtev ob krhanju socialističnega monolita v osemdesetih letih v Vzhodni Evropi tista po svobodnih volitvah. Prvi občutek svobodnih volitev so bile pri nas volitve člana predsedstva SFRJ iz Slovenije aprila 1989. Oblast je protežirala Marka Bulca, ki je opravljal različne funkcije, nenazadnje je bil od 1982 do 1992 predsednik. Protikandidat je bil Janez Drnovšek, širši javnost manj znan delegat v skupščini v Beogradu. Drnovšek je bil izvoljen s 56 % glasov.11 Posameznikov, ki se želijo politično angažirati, nič ne ovira, da se ne bi organizirali tudi v sistemu, kjer to pravno ni omogočeno oz. dovoljeno. Izpostavljajo se sicer nevarnosti, ki jih lahko predstavlja samo politično vodstvo, ki kaj takšnega ne bi toleriralo. Formalno je bilo klasično strankarsko življenje v Sloveniji urejeno šele decembra 1989, ko je bil sprejet Zakon o političnem združevanju.12 Nov okvir političnega združevanja je zelo spremenil prejšnjo prakso, saj so bile po novem politične stranke v podjetjih in podobnih inštitucijah prepovedane.13 Duh prehodnega časa je opaziti tudi v izrazoslovju, saj je zakon hipokritsko uporabljal izraz politična organizacija in ne stranka. Verjetno je bil ta izraz uporabljen tudi zaradi dela starih struktur, ki bi lažje sprejel ta izraz od izraza stranka. Številčni kriterij za ustanovitev stranke je bil 11 Bulc, Marko (1926–2019). https://www.slovenska-biografija.si/oseba/sbi1020650/ (dostop: oktober 2020). 12 Zakon o političnem združevanju. Uradni list SRS, št. 42, 29. december 1989., b. d. 13 Prav tam, člen 7. 132 | Razprave »We Stand for Election to Win« postavljen zelo nizko. Na ustanovnem sestanku je bilo dovolj že 20 posameznikov, ki so potrdili statut, program in izvolili organe stranke.14 Politične organizacije so se registrirale v občini,15 kar je kasneje povzročilo tudi nekaj zmede zaradi imen, ki so si bila podobna, razlikovala so se le pri dodanem imenu kraja. Nekatere med njimi pa so imele res zelo krajevno omejene cilje, druge pa krajevni dodatek v imenu, a so želele delovati na državni ravni. Zakon je določil tudi način financiranja strank, ki je bolj ali manj enak še danes. Pomemben element financiranja je dotacija strankam iz proračuna. Merilo za financiranje iz proračuna je volilni uspeh stranke. Stranke so se lahko financirale tudi iz članarin in dotacij. Donatorji so lahko bila tudi podjetja in različne organizacije, vendar se je ta del določb o financiranju kasneje v devetdesetih letih spremenil.16 Zakon je zamujal, saj so nova politična gibanja že nastajala in zakon je v mnogočem potrdil utečeno stanje. Ker so zveze/stranke že obstajale, je bila v 25. členu s prehodnimi določbami urejena legalizacija že obstoječih zvez/strank. Socialistična zveza delovnega ljudstva Slovenije (SZDL), Zveza združenj borcev NOV Slovenije, Zveza komunistov Slovenije (ZKS), Zveza socialistične mladine Slovenije ZSMS), Slovenska demokratična zveza (SDZ), Socialdemokratska zveza Slovenije, Slovenska kmečka zveza, Zveza slovenske kmečke mladine, Jugoslovanska zveza, Slovenski krščanski demokrati (SKD), Meščanska stranka zelenih, Zeleni Slovenije, Združenje za jugoslovansko demokratično pobudo, Zveza za ohranitev enakopravnosti državljanov in Skupnost Italijanov so postale registrirane stranke, če so to želele ter predložile statut in program. Zakonski rok za prilagoditev je bil tri mesece. Izjemoma je bil rok daljši za podjetja in druge organizacije, kjer je bil prehodni rok dolg kar celo leto, kar je bilo povezano s špekulacijami, da bodo volitve prej kot v enem letu. 14 Prav tam, člen 9. 15 Prav tam, člen 10. 16 Prav tam, člena 20 in 21. Razprave | 133 »We Stand for Election to Win« Register strank pri občinskih upravah je konec leta 1991 štel 76 strank. Največ strank je bilo seveda ustanovljenih od leta 1989 dalje. Pred aprilskimi volitvami je marca 1990 izšla knjižica s programi strank, ki so kandidirale na volitvah. Kot najstarejša je bila navedena ZKS SDP, torej prenovljeni komunisti, z datumom nastanka stranke 17. aprila 1937, to je datum ustanovnega sestanka KPS na Čebinah.17 Naslednja po starosti je bila Socialistična stranka Slovenije, kakor se je preimenovala nekdanja Socialistična zveza delovnega ljudstva, ki je za svoj ustanovni datum navajala 27. april 1941, ko je bila ustanovljena Osvobodilna fronta. 18Dve leti mlajši datum je kot svoj ustanovni datum navajala Liberalno- demokratska stranka. To je bila stranka, v katero se je preimenovala nekdanja Zveza socialistične mladine Slovenije (ZSMS), katere predhodnica je bila ustanovljena 12. oktobra 1943.19 Prvi stranki,20 ki sta nastali v času slovenske pomladi, sta bili 12. maj 1988 Slovenska kmečka zveza – Ljudska stranka in Zveza slovenske kmečke mladine. Slovenska kmečka zveza je nastala znotraj SZDL, Zveza slovenske kmečke mladine pa znotraj ZSMS.21 Večina prvih strank je nastala leta 1989: Slovenska demokratična zveza (11. januar 1989), Socialdemokratska zveza Slovenije (16. februar 1989), Jugoslovanska zveza (5. julij 1989), Zeleni Slovenije (ZS) (11. junij 1989), Slovenski krščanski demokrati (4. november 1989), Stranka za enakopravnost občanov (21. november 1989) in Liberalna stranka (27. december 1989). Na cvetno nedeljo, 8 aprila 1990, so bile tako volitve v družbenopolitični zbor in zbor občin ter za predsednika in člane predsedstva. Delegate 17 Koga voliti? Programi političnih strank in list na spomladanskih volitvah v Sloveniji. Ljubljana : Jugoslovanski center za teorijo in prakso samoupravljanja Edvard Kardelj, 1990, 98. Časopis Delo je od leta 1991 nekaj let izdajal Slovenski almanah. V njem je bil nekakšen povzetek dogodkov v letu z nekaj statističnimi podatki. Objavljani so bili pregledi (ne)parlamentarnih strank. Avtorji prispevkov o strankah so lahko bili povezani s stranko, lahko pa je bil to prispevek novinarjev. V zvezi s prenovljenimi komunisti tako v Slovenskem almanahu ’92 pri starosti strank njej pripisujejo nastanek 2. marca 1920, ko je bila ustanovljena Delavska socialistična stranka za Slovenijo. Slovenski almanah ’92. Ljubljana : Delo Novice, 1991, 74−76. 18 Prav tam, 78. 19 Prav tam, 148. 20 Ob ustanavljanju so politične skupine uporabljale izraz zveze, čeprav so se v določenem smislu že obnašale kot stranke. 21 Repe, Božo. Jutri je nov dan. Slovenci in razpad Jugoslavije. Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2002, 111. 134 | Razprave »We Stand for Election to Win« zbora združenega dela smo volili 12. aprila. Drugi krog volitev za predsednika predsedstva in preostale delegate v zboru občin je bil 22. aprila. Zavod Republike Slovenije je objavil publikacijo, ki jo je pripravila Zofija Savec.22 V publikaciji so zbrani podatki za občinske volitve in volitve v tri zbore skupščine. Vsi v nadaljevanju predstavljeni podatki so iz omenjene publikacije. Kaj nam povedo podatki? Volilno pravico je imelo malo manj kot 1,5 milijona prebivalcev Slovenije. Danes je volilnih upravičencev več kot 1,7 milijona. Vzrok za povečanje je sprememba demografske strukture, ki sta jo prinesli staranje prebivalstva in zniževanje rodnosti. Volitev se je udeležil precej večji delež volivcev kot danes. Ker volilno udeležbo ugotavljamo za več različnih volitev istega dne, so številke različne, vendar nad 70 %. Za primerjavo lahko navedemo, da se je zadnjih volitev poslancev državnega zbora se je udeležilo malo manj kot 52 % volilnih upravičencev.23 V nadaljevanju bo pred prikazom rezultatov predstavljenih še nekaj drugih podatkov o volitvah. Kako je bilo s spolno strukturo kandidatov? Ta je pomembna tudi zaradi vprašanja, koliko žensk je izvoljenih. Na izvoljivost žensk pa seveda ne vpliva le njihova številčnost na kandidatnih listah, temveč tudi to, kje kandidirajo v smislu izvoljivosti kandidata neke stranke v neki volilni enoti. Leta 1990 seveda kakšnih določil o obveznih spolnih kvotah še ni bilo. Delež kandidatk je bil v vseh treh zborih manjši od deleža kandidatov. Pravzaprav je bil delež zelo majhen, morda celo manjši, kakor bi ga pričakovali glede na aktivistično povojno politiko vključevanja žensk v vse sisteme življenja, torej tudi v politiko. Najvišji delež kandidatk je bil z 22 % v družbenopolitičnem zboru, v zboru občin jih je bilo nekaj nad kot 18 %, najmanj pa v zboru združenega dela – 15 %. Še slabša je bila zastopanost žensk pri kandidatih za predsednika in člane predsedstva. Za predsednika so se pomerili štirje kandidati. Za članico predsedstva pa je poleg 11 kandidatov kandidirala 22 Savec, Zofija. Volitve 1990. Ljubljana: Zavod Republike Slovenije za statistiko, 1990. 23 Podrobneje o starostni in spolni strukturi udeležencev volitev glej datoteko: Podatki o udeležbi po spolu in starosti dostopno na spletni strani: Državna volilna komisija. https://www.dvk-rs.si/index.php/ si/ (dostop: oktober 2020). Razprave | 135 »We Stand for Election to Win« tudi ena ženska. Socialistična zveza je neuspešno kandidirala sodnico Miroslavo Geč - Korošec, ki je leta 1998 postala prva ženska članica ustavnega sodišča.24 Volivci so v družbenopolitični zbor in zbor združenega dela izvolili po 12 poslank, v zboru združenega dela so bile le 3. Izobrazbena struktura poslancev je bila obetajoča. Med izvoljenimi v družbenopolitični zbor je bilo 81 % visoko izobraženih. Predvsem nove zveze/stranke so na kandidatne liste postavile veliko izobražencev in univerzitetnih profesorjev. V zboru združenega dela je bilo visoko izobraženih poslancev 60 %, v zboru občin pa le še 56 %. Najštevilčnejša po starostni strukturi je bila v vseh treh zborih starostna skupina med 40. in 49. letom. V zboru združenega dela in zboru občin je bila naslednja skupina tista, ki kronološko sledi, in sicer med 50. in 59. letom. Nasprotno pa je bila v družbenopolitičnem zboru naslednja mlajša skupina, torej med 30. in 39. letom. Pravzaprav sta bili v družbenopolitičnem zboru ti dve starostni skupini izenačeni in sta skupaj šteli 50 poslancev. Nacionalna homogenost Slovenije je vidna tudi v nacionalni strukturi novoizvoljene skupščine. V vseh treh zborih je bilo 73, 74 oz. 75 Slovencev. Med ostalimi se je v vsakem zboru največkrat po 1 opredelili za pripadnost kakšnemu drugemu jugoslovanskemu narodu. Skupaj so bili v vseh treh zborih 4 Jugoslovani, 2 Hrvata in 1 Srb. Zastopani sta bili tudi obe manjšini v Sloveniji. Italijani so bili 4, Madžara pa 2. Za pet poslancev (3 v družbenopolitičnem zboru in po 1 v ostalih dveh zborih) ni podatka oz. so označeni z neznano. In kako so odločili volivci? Družbenopolitični zbor je bil v očeh Demosa najpomembnejši in v njem so kot koalicija zmagali. Skupaj so imeli 47 poslancev, znotraj koalicije največ Slovenski krščanski demokrati in Slovenska kmečka zveza. Če primerjamo rezultate strank tako, da Demosove stranke štejemo samostojno, je bila zmagovalka 24 Miroslava Geč Korošec. https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miroslava_Ge%C4%8D_Koro%C5%A1ec (dostop: november 2020). 136 | Razprave »We Stand for Election to Win« stranka prenovljenih komunistov. V tem zboru so se poslanci natančno opredelili za točno določeno stranko znotraj Demosa, v ostalih dveh pa ne, zato je težje ugotoviti rezultat za posamezno stranko znotraj Demosa. V zboru združenega dela je bila najštevilčnejša skupina izvoljenih označena z neznano. Takšnih je bilo 43 od 80 poslancev. Sledili so Demos in prenovljeni komunisti s po 8 poslanci. Oznaka Demos je tukaj samostojna, torej ni znano/določeno/ugotovljeno, kateri od v Demos združenih strank je poslanec pripadal. Nato sledita Slovenska demokratska zveza in Slovenska kmečka zveza s po 6 poslanci. Z oznako Demos in ne oznako določene stranke so se označevali tudi izvoljeni poslanci v zboru občin. V tem zboru so bili posamično najmočnejši nekdanji mladinci (ZSMS) s 14 poslanci, neopredeljenih jih je bilo 12, nato so sledili poslanci z oznako Demos oz. lastnimi imeni. Demos je skupaj v vseh treh zborih imel 126 poslancev od 240. Skupščina, izvoljena aprila 1990, je sprejela potrebne zakone za osamosvojitev. Svoje delo je končala leta 1992. Med drugim je sprejela tudi novo ustavo, ki je uvedla dvodomni sistem z državnim zborom kot splošnim zborom, izvoljenim na neposrednih splošnih tajnih volitvah, in državnim svetom, ki pa je izvoljen posredno. Slovenski volivci so pri volitvah članov predsedstva glasove razdelili približno polovično med opozicijo in "stare strukture", pri čemer je zadnja oznaka preveč trda. Mnogi so mnenja, da so volivci predsedstvo sestavili preudarno. Vanj so izvolili dva kulturnika, pesnika Cirila Zlobca ter literarnega teoretika, slovenista in pisatelja Matjaža Kmecla. Oba sta bila sicer aktivna že v starem sistemu, vendar pa prepoznavna napredna posameznika. Za zdravo kmečko pamet v absolutno pozitivnem smislu naj bi poskrbel kmet Ivan Oman, sicer vodja kmečkega gibanja, ki je bilo eno od tistih, ki je vtaknilo palico v kolesje starega sistema in ga pričelo rušiti. Univerzitetni profesor Dušan Plut, ki je pričel na probleme odnosa do okolja opozarjati že več let pred volitvami, je bil najmlajši član predsedstva. Razprave | 137 »We Stand for Election to Win« Za najvišji položaj, za predsednika predsedstva, so se potegovali zdravnik Marko Demšar, inovator in samosvoj glas ljudstva ter ljudski tribun Ivan Kramberger, reformator starega sistema in najbolj prepoznaven slovenski politik tistega časa Milan Kučan in Jože Pučnik, disident in nekdanji zapornik, ki je ugledno kariero naredil v Nemčiji. Milan Kučan je v prvem krogu dobil 44 %, Pučnik pa 26 %, s čimer sta se uvrstila v drugi krog. Med obema krogoma predsedniških volitev je bila velika noč. Ivan Kramberger, ki se ni uvrstil v drugi krog, pritegnil pa je zelo veliko volivcev, se je od volilne tekme, tekmecev in volivcev poslovil z nenavadno, a njemu značilno gesto. Svoje tekmece je povabil na velikonočno kosilo.25 V drugem krogu 22. aprila je s prejetimi 58 % glasov predsednik predsedstva postal Milan Kučan.26 Volilni boj je potekal brez večjih incidentov na dostojni ravni političnega boja, čeprav s tem nihče ni imel izkušenj. Naslednja pomembna točka je bil začetek dela poslancev prvega sklica skupščine po večstrankarskih volitvah in predsedstva ter sestava vlade maja 1990. Začelo se je delo, katerega različne rezultate živimo še danes. Konstitutivna seja nove skupščine je bila 17. maja. Za njenega predsednika je bil izvoljen France Bučar, ki ga je v preteklosti oblast zelo napadala. V začetku leta 1988 je bil označen tudi za veleizdajalca, ker se je v govoru na zasedanju evropskega parlamenta v Strasbourgu zavzel za to, da Zahod ne bi dajal pomoči »totalitarni in protidemokratični Jugoslaviji«. Kot predsednik skupščine je v nastopnem govoru izjavil, da se je »s konstituiranjem te skupščine /…/ končala državljanska vojna, ki 25 Fotografija s kosila je objavljena na spletni strani časopisa Večer. Stepišnik, Matija. »Pet volitev, štirje šefi države: Od Kučana do Pahorja.« https://www.vecer.com/slovenija/pet-volitev-stirje-sefi- drzave-od-kucana-do-pahorja-6290951 (dostop: november 2020). 26 Vizualno predstavitev statistike si lahko ogledate na portalu Youtube. Balkovec, Bojan. »Nekaj volilne statistike 1990.« https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpbqdY8RvnA&feature=youtube (dostop: november 2020). 138 | Razprave »We Stand for Election to Win« nas je lomila in hromila skoraj celega pol stoletja«.27 Julija sta s simbolno slovesnostjo v Kočevskem rogu, na kraju, kjer so bili po vojni pobiti domobranci, spravo potrdili tudi država in Katoliška cerkev.28 Vendar je bil stisk rok med predsednikom Kučanom in nadškofom Šuštarjem res zgolj simboličen, silovita nasprotja pa potisnjena v ozadje zgolj za nekaj – res pa za Slovence usodnih – mesecev v času osamosvajanja. Predsednik republike je mandat za sestavo nove vlade zaupal predsedniku SKD Lojzetu Peterletu, ker so Slovenski krščanski demokrati znotraj Demosa dobili največ glasov in so po internem dogovoru med strankami imeli pravico do tega. Nova 27-članska vlada, v kateri je bilo tudi nekaj ministrov iz opozicijskih strank, je bila izvoljena brez večjega nasprotovanja. Zamenjava oblasti je sicer potekala brez večjih pretresov, ne pa tudi brez iskric. Šlo je pač za enkratno, še nikoli preigrano situacijo in interpretacije o pristojnostih so bile različne. Pomembno pa je bilo tudi vprašanje prestiža. Demos je vztrajal pri dogovorjenem mandatarju (čeprav so bili v zvezi s Peterletom notranji pomisleki in se je kot možni mandatar kljub poprejšnjemu dogovoru pojavljal tudi dr. Jože Pučnik). Vztrajanje je ustavilo kalkulacije o ustanovitvi vlade nacionalne enotnosti, o kateri je kot eni od možnih rešitev razmišljal Kučan. Pojavljale so se namreč pravne in politične interpretacije, da bi predsednik moral izročiti mandat stranki, ki je posamično dobila največ glasov, to je bila ZKS – SDP, ne pa koaliciji Demos, ki je bila sklenjena pred volitvami. Seveda ZKS – SDP in njen predsednik Ciril Ribičič praktično nista imela 27 Zapisniki prve večstrankarske skupščine so dostopni na spletni strani: Seje Državnega zbora - Po datumu. https://www.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/Home/deloDZ/seje/sejeDrzavnegaZbora/ PoDatumuSeje/!ut/p/z1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfIjo8zivT39gy2dDB0N3INMjAw8Db0tQ3x8f QwNvM30wwkpiAJKG-AAjgb6BbmhigCWEc4T/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/ (dostop: november 2020). Zapisnik 1. seje vseh zborov, na kateri je bil za predsednika skupščine izvoljen France Bučar, je dostopen na: Evidenca zapisa seje. https://www.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/Home/deloDZ/seje/evidenca?m andat=0&type=sz&uid=D7AFD04D5A259E62C1257C99004581EA (dostop: november 2020). 28 Kučanov govor je dostopen na spletu. »Kučan, Milan. Spravna slovesnost v Kočevskem rogu.« Kučan, Milan. http://www2.gov.si/up-rs/2002-2007/bp-mk.nsf/dokumenti/08.07.1990-90-92. (dostop: oktober 2020) Razprave | 139 »We Stand for Election to Win« možnosti, da bi sestavila vlado in tako je vlado sestavil Demos, v njej pa so bile tudi posamične ministrice in ministri drugih političnih opcij.29 FOTOGRAFIJE Na straneh 118−121. Slika 1: Sestanek Demosa (foto Nace Bizilj, hrani MNZS). Slika 2: Predvolilno zborovanje Ivana Krambergerja (foto Nace Bizilj, hrani MNZS). Slika 3: Predvolilno soočenje Jožeta Pučnika in Milana Kučana na RTV Ljubljana (foto Tone Stojko, hrani MNZS). Slika 4: Na volišču (foto Tone Stojko, hrani MNZS). Slika 5: Kandidati za predsednika predsedstva na kosilu pri Ivanu Krambergerju (foto Nace Bizilj, hrani MNZS). Slika 6: V prvi vrsti z leve Ivan Oman, Ciril Zlobec, Milan Kučan, Janez Drnovšek, Matjaž Kmecl in Dušan Plut v slovenski skupščini. Za govorniškim pultom France Bučar, predsednik skupščine (foto Nace Bizilj, hrani MNZS). Slika 7: Člani prvega izvršnega sveta po večstrankarskih volitvah po prisegi, slikani pred stavbo skupščine (foto Nace Bizilj, hrani MNZS). LITERATURA Glej angleški del prispevka. 140 | Razprave »We Stand for Election to Win« POVZETEK Politični dogodki v Sloveniji so v drugi polovici osemdesetih let 20. stoletja doživeli velik pospešek. Od maja 1988 se je na različne načine začela organizirati opozicija, sprva še kot nekakšne enote znotraj starega sistema. Od jeseni 1988 pa se začnejo priprave za ustanavljanje strank ter velika večina večjih in še danes pomembnih političnih strank oz. njihovih naslednikov je nastala v prvi polovici leta 1989. Prenovljeni komunisti na oblasti in nastajajoče zveze/stranke so v nekaterih akcijah nastopili skupaj, npr. organiziranje shoda v Cankarjevem domu v zvezi s stavko rudarjev na Kosovu. Na nekaterih drugih točkah pa nista uspeli najti skupnega jezika in nastale so politične izjave vsakega tabora posebej. Jeseni 1989 se je organizirala okrogla miza, ki naj bi dorekla pot do volitev, vendar je zadeva kmalu propadla. Formalna zakonodaja, potrebna za prehod v večstrankarski sistem, je bila sprejeta zadnje dni decembra 1989. Sprejeta sta bila zakona, ki sta uredila politično organiziranje in način organiziranja večstrankarskih volitev. Zakonodajni organ je ostala socialistična trodomna skupščina s po 80 delegati/poslanci, uvedene pa so bile neposredne volitve v družbenopolitični zbor in posredne v ostala zbora. Na neposrednih volitvah so volivci izbirali tudi predsednika predsedstva in člane slovenskega predsedstva. Opozicija se je konec leta 1989 organizirala v koalicijo z imenom Demos. Na volitvah vseh treh zborov je Demos zmagal kot koalicija, posamični rezultati v zborih pa so bili različni in ponekod Demos ni bil zmagovalec oz. ni bila najmočnejša katera od strank, ki je bila sicer članica Demosa. Sredi maja 1990 je bila sestavljena nova vlada, ki jo je vodil vodja Slovenskih krščanskih demokratov Lojze Peterle. Slednji je postal predsednik vlade, ker je imela njegova stranka znotraj Demosa največ poslancev. Volivci so izmed štirih kandidatov za predsednika predsedstva izvolili Milana Kučana, ki je v drugem krogu volitev, v prvem namreč noben kandidat ni dobil več kot 50 % glasov, premagal vodjo Demosa Jožeta Pučnika. Za člane predsedstva se je potegovalo 12 kandidatov. Izvoljeni so bili Ivan Oman in Dušan Plut iz Demosa in dva kulturnika Matjaž Kmecl in Ciril Zlobec, ki sta sicer bila aktivna v socializmu, a vendar prepoznana kot svobodoumna posameznika.