The main target of current government policy in Slovenia is public RTV service

photo: Pexels / Illustration

Four months after taking office, Slovenia's new government led by Janez Janša, serving his fourth term as Prime Minister, has initiated a series of legislative, financial and institutional measures that are rapidly undermining the conditions under which media, journalists, civil society organisations and democratic watchdogs operate. While presented individually as technical reforms, efficiency measures or budgetary adjustments, these initiatives form a broader pattern of weakening institutional safeguards, increasing political leverage over independent institutions, and narrowing the space for democratic scrutiny and civic participation. 

The current wave of civic and political mobilisation began with trade union resistance to the government's intervention law, which unions describe as undermining key pillars of the welfare state, and with civil society opposition to amendments to the Parliamentary Inquiry Act (“Political Police” law), which led to a legislative referendum. While the referendum initiative concerning the intervention law is still ongoing, the governing coalition subsequently called three consultative referendums of its own concerning public-service media financing, social assistance and local voting rights for third-country nationals, in addition to the legislative referendum on “Political Police” law initiated by civil society. As a result, voters will decide on four separate referendum questions on 11 October 2026. 

Together, these campaigns have turned Slovenia into a battleground over the future of democratic safeguards, public service media, civic space and social rights, drawing into public mobilisation not only journalists, academics and watchdog organisations, but also grassroots initiatives and organisations working with migrants, minorities, people experiencing poverty and other vulnerable groups.

These developments are unfolding alongside government efforts to weaken key institutional support mechanisms for civil society, most recently through legislation that would effectively dismantle the NGO Development Fund, one of the principal sources of long-term support for civil society organisations.

A Coordinated Pressure Campaign Against Public Service Media

The most visible target of current government policies is RTV Slovenija, Slovenia's public service broadcaster. 

The broadcaster faces simultaneous financial, political and institutional pressure. The government has failed to fulfil its statutory funding obligations towards RTV Slovenija for minority programming and public-service music production, and has reduced previously announced liquidity support, contributing to a serious liquidity crisis. These actions have generated widespread concern among media experts, journalists' organisations, civil society groups and academics, who warn that financial uncertainty directly threatens the broadcaster's ability to fulfil its public service mandate and undermines its institutional independence. 

These developments are particularly significant because they demonstrate exactly the type of vulnerability that European media freedom standards seek to prevent. The case illustrates how dependence on funding decisions controlled by the executive branch can expose public service media to political pressure, even without formal changes to media legislation or governance structures. The current crisis raises particular concerns at a time when political actors are simultaneously advocating reforms that would make RTV Slovenija even more dependent on state budget financing.

The pressure extends beyond funding. In recent months representatives of the governing coalition have increasingly refused to appear in RTV Slovenia's news programmes, declined requests for interviews, and restricted journalists' opportunities to ask questions at official events. Such behaviour undermines the democratic role of public service media and limits citizens' access to information about government actions. Media scholars and journalists have described this as a systematic effort to evade public scrutiny and weaken the accountability function of journalism. 

Legislative Attempts to Increase Political Influence Over RTV Slovenija

Alongside financial pressure, the government has proposed major amendments to the RTV Slovenia Act.

According to a joint expert analysis prepared by media scholars, journalists and civil society representatives, the proposed changes would dismantle key depolitisation safeguards introduced in 2022 and upheld by both a referendum and the Constitutional Court. The reform would reduce the influence of the governing body representing the public while concentrating crucial supervisory, management and financial powers in a supervisory body dominated by government appointees. 

The proposal does not strengthen public accountability but instead increases governmental influence over the governance of the public broadcaster. The reform is particularly controversial because it seeks to reverse a governance model introduced to reduce political influence over public service media.

The Campaign to Abolish the RTV Licence Fee

Another major threat concerns efforts to abolish the RTV licence fee and replace it entirely with state budget financing.

The proposal, originally promoted by the Resni.ca party and supported by actors within the governing majority, is presented as a measure to relieve households from mandatory payments. However, media experts and civil society organisations have warned that the proposal would fundamentally alter the relationship between the public broadcaster, the public and the state. By moving RTV Slovenija entirely onto the state budget, the proposal would make its future dependent on annual political decisions and government priorities. 

Analyses conducted by the Peace Institute argue that the proposal is incompatible with the spirit of EMFA, which requires stable, predictable and politically independent funding mechanisms for public service media. They further note that European experience repeatedly demonstrates how direct state budget dependence can become a channel for political pressure on public broadcasters. 

The proposal has triggered strong opposition from journalists' organisations, trade unions, media experts and civil society organisations, which have joined a broad public campaign against the abolition of the licence fee and the further politicisation of public-service media financing. The consultative referendum scheduled for 11 October 2026 has become a key test of public support for maintaining stable and politically independent funding for public service media.

The timing and format of the consultative referendum initiated by the governing coalition have also raised concerns. Questions regarding the future financing and role of public service media are among the most consequential media-policy decisions a democratic society can make and would normally require broad public consultation, extensive expert debate and careful consideration of long-term consequences. Instead, the issue is being decided within a highly compressed timeframe: with only a few weeks available for public debate and campaigning, a far-reaching decision about the future of public service media as democratic infrastructure risks being reduced to a simplified debate about the monthly licence fee.

Dismantling Media Policy Safeguards

Concerns extend beyond public service media to the broader media environment.

The government has proposed amendments to the Media Act that would weaken several safeguards introduced only recently. According to a joint expert response submitted during public consultations, the amendments would reduce mechanisms for regulating hate speech, eliminate accountability provisions for influential online actors, weaken support structures for media pluralism, remove support for media-related civil society organisations and media innovation initiatives, and expand political discretion in the distribution of public support.

Rather than implementing European media freedom standards, the proposal moves in the opposite direction by reducing regulatory protections and weakening long-term support for media pluralism and quality journalism. The joint expert response characterises the reform as deregulation disguised as simplification.

At the same time, additional responsibilities for assessing media concentrations would be transferred to AKOS, Slovenia's communications and media regulator, further expanding its regulatory powers without addressing concerns about the regulator’s institutional independence and governance arrangements.

The proposed amendments reduce the predictability of public support schemes for media pluralism and quality journalism at a time when many outlets already face economic pressures and shrinking revenues.

The government's approach to media policy increasingly mirrors a preference for weaker institutional safeguards and greater political influence over funding and regulatory arrangements. These developments are consistent with repeated political messaging by Prime Minister Janez Janša and coalition representatives about the need to “turn off the funding taps” for institutions, organisations and media perceived as critical of government policies.

Shrinking Civic Space and Attacks on Civil Society

Threats to media freedom are unfolding alongside a broader deterioration of civic space.

Senior government representatives have repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of publicly funded civil society organisations and announced plans to abolish key funding mechanisms, thereby undermining the sustainability of organisations working in human rights, social services, environmental protection, culture and democratic participation.

At the same time, several public funding schemes have been cancelled, suspended or significantly reduced. These measures have increased uncertainty for civil society organisations and independent cultural producers while raising concerns about political discrimination in funding decisions. 

The most recent and far-reaching example concerns government efforts to effectively dismantle the NGO Development Fund and redirect its resources to a newly established fund for the treatment of children with rare diseases. Civil society organisations strongly support systematic financing for the treatment of rare diseases but argue that this should not be achieved by dismantling existing civil society infrastructure. They warn that the proposal would not only eliminate future funding opportunities but also jeopardise already contracted multiannual projects running until 2028 along with programmes, services and support structures relied upon by communities across the country.

According to civil society organisations, the measure would affect more than 300 organisations and threaten professional support services, volunteering programmes, humanitarian initiatives, youth work, cultural activities and projects serving vulnerable groups. Civil society organisations have also raised concerns about the expedited legislative procedure and the lack of meaningful consultation with affected organisations.

The government's approach follows a broader political narrative in which NGOs, independent watchdogs and oversight institutions are regularly portrayed as political adversaries rather than legitimate actors in democratic life. Civil society organisations increasingly report that they must devote substantial resources to defending their legitimacy and operational space.

The ‘Political Police’ Law and Democratic Resistance

One of the most contentious legislative initiatives concerns amendments to the Parliamentary Inquiry Act.

The amendments significantly expand the powers of parliamentary inquiry committees while reducing judicial safeguards. Under the adopted framework, parliamentary inquiry committees would retain extensive powers to obtain personal, financial and communication-related data, while individuals targeted by investigations would face greater obstacles in securing timely constitutional review. Civil society organisations have warned that such powers create substantial risks of politically motivated investigations, intimidation and abuse. 

In response, a broad coalition of civil society organisations launched a referendum campaign against what has become widely known as the “Political Police” law. More than 44,000 signatures were collected, triggering a legislative referendum scheduled for 11 October 2026.

Journalists' organisations and numerous civic initiatives have joined the campaign, viewing the referendum as a crucial test of democratic safeguards and protection from politically motivated state power. For journalists' organisations in particular, the proposed changes raise concerns that protections for confidential sources could be weakened, and journalists exposed to intrusive parliamentary investigations and politically motivated pressure on investigative reporting.

Why This Matters

The concern in Slovenia today is not a single law, a single funding decision or a single development affecting media freedom and civic space. The concern is the cumulative effect of multiple simultaneous measures targeting public service media, media regulation, civil society funding, oversight institutions and mechanisms of public accountability. Taken together, these developments point toward a model in which independent institutions become increasingly vulnerable to political influence, while journalists and civil society organisations encounter growing obstacles in performing watchdog functions.

The upcoming referendums scheduled for 11 October 2026 therefore represent more than isolated political disputes. They have become focal points in a broader struggle over the future of democratic accountability, media freedom, civic participation and the rule of law in Slovenia. 

For European institutions, media freedom organisations and democracy watchdogs, the developments in Slovenia warrant close attention amid the increasingly evident pattern of weakening democratic safeguards, independent oversight and the institutions and organisations that sustain democratic accountability, participation and social solidarity.