By Ismoilova Soliha, UWED undergraduate, intern at IAIS
The parliamentary elections in Slovenia, held on March 22, concluded with a narrow margin between the leading political forces. The «Freedom Movement» (Gibanje Svoboda, GS), headed by Prime Minister Robert Golob, secured approximately 28.5-28.66% of the vote and obtained 29 seats in parliament. While, the Slovenian Democratic Party( Slovenska Demokratska Stranka), led by Janez Janša, received around 27.9-28.1% of the vote. The minimal difference between the two parties underscores a pronounced degree of political polarization within Slovenian society.
The electoral campaign was further complicated by serious allegations of foreign interference, involving the Israeli private intelligence firm «Black Cube», which Slovenian authorities have associated with alleged influence operations purportedly benefiting the opposition. These developments have raised significant concerns regarding the integrity of the electoral process, the resilience of democratic institution and broader issues of national sovereignty.
Election campaign and key political actors
More than 10 political parties and coalitions participated in the parliamentary elections in Slovenia, with over 1300 candidates representing a wide range of political forces were nominated. Prime Minister Golob’s main political opponent, populist politician and supporter of US President Donald Trump, Janes Janša, previously served as Prime Minister of Slovenia three times. Golob, in turn entered national politics relatively recently, rising to power in 2022 as the leader of a center-left coalition composed of three parties, making a significant shift in Slovenia’s political landscape.
The election campaign of Janez Janša was structured around a clear confrontational logic, positioning the party in opposition to what it described as the «post-socialist left». A central element of the campaign strategy was the mobilization of voters through value-based polarization and competing visions of socio-economic development.
The SDS presented itself as a political force aiming to «liberate the Slovenian people from the dominance of Golob’s government». In contrast, the governing center-left coalition led by Robert Golob was framed by its opponents as promoting policies associated with redistribution, egalitarianism and increased state dependence among citizens. In this context, Janša campaign adopted a distinctly adversarial rhetoric, encapsulated in the binary framing of «Us versus them», which reinforced the broader dynamics of political polarization within Slovenia’s electoral landscape.
The main lines of opposition in the SDP campaign emphasized «ambition and meritocracy instead of envy and egalitarianism». Janez Janša framed his political message around the idea of restoring motivation and purpose, arguing that societal progress depends on competition, performance-based rewards and a strong incentive for success as a means of improving the overall welfare of Slovenians.
The party also promoted the conception of an «effective state», which prioritizes individual freedom and autonomy over dependence on government structures. This approach included calls for reduced bureaucracy, lower taxation and the creation of a more favorable environment for both citizens and entrepreneurs.
Furthermore, the SDP strongly criticized what it described as the government’s migration policy, particularly its perceived lack of distinction between legal and illegal migration. Within this narrative, the party argued that the broader objective of the left was to alter Slovenia’s ethnic and cultural composition as well as the structure of the electorate, in order to secure long-term electoral advantages.
On the other hand, the Freedom Movement (Gibanje Svoboda, GS) promoted a program centered on balanced and sustainable development, emphasizing a «green» transition, including plans related to the gradual phase-out of coal-based energy production such as the Šoštanj Thermal Power Plant (TEŠ 6), accompanied by socially just transition measures. The party’s agenda also highlighted innovation-driven economic growth, healthcare system reform and a pro-European, liberal-progressive political orientation.
In the social policy domain, particular attention was given to improving quality of life, strengthening support for both younger and older generations and reducing social inequalities. The party sought to present a model of governance that reconciles environmental sustainability with economic competitiveness. Overall, the central message of the campaign was the pursuit of long-term sustainable development across social, environmental and economic dimensions, while reaffirming Slovenia’s role as an active and responsible member of the European Union and the broader European political community.
On the economic front, the party set an ambitious objective of positioning Slovenia among the world’s 20 most competitive economies by 2030, accompanied by targeted annual GDP growth of approximately 3-5%. Particular emphasis is placed on strengthening innovation capacity, accelerating the transition to renewable energy sources and advancing digital transformation across key sectors of the economy. In addition, the program prioritizes the modernization of public service, especially in healthcare and education, as central pillars for long-term productivity and sustainable development.
The party emphasizes a strong pro-European orientation and alignment of its program with the European Union’s strategic objectives, particularly in the areas of the green transition and climate neutrality. A key priority is promotion of a just decarbonization process (pravično razogljičenje), which includes the gradual phase-out of the TEŠ 6 coal-fired unit by 2030, accompanied by targeted measures to support workers and regions economically dependent on the coal industry.
Both major political forces have devoted significant attention to the future of the Šoštanj Thermal Plant (TEŠ 6), framing it as a central issue in debates over energy, economic policy and national sovereignty. The SDP has strongly criticized the government’s plan to phase out coal-based energy production, arguing that the premature closure of TEŠ 6 could undermine Slovenia’s energy independence and lead to substantial job losses, particularly in regions dependent on the coal industry.
In contrast, Golob has justified the planned closure primarily on economic and regulatory grounds. He points to the increasing costs associated with the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) which has significantly raised the price of carbon allowance and consequently, the cost of coal-based electricity generation. With annual CO₂ emissions estimated at approximately 3.1-3.4 million tonnes at full capacity, TEŠ 6 is particularly exposed to rising carbon prices, which in 2026 fluctuated between €72 and €92 per tonne. As a result, the plant has become structurally unprofitable, promoting the government to allocate more than €400 million in subsidies since 2024 to sustain its operations.
Within this framework, the Golob government presents EU ETS obligations as a key economic rationale for the accelerated phase-out of TEŠ 6. Conversely, SDP portray such policies as externally imposed pressures from Brussels, framing the closure as a form of deindustrialization that threatens Slovenia’s energy security, employment, especially in the Šaleška Valley and the long-term stability of the country’s industrial base.
The Šaleška Valley region ( including the towns of Velenje and Šoštanj), where TEŠ 6 is located has long been a center of industrial and mining activity, providing employment to several thousand workers directly and indirectly linked to the plant. The prospective closure of the facility therefor entails significant socio-economic risks, including job losses, declining regional incomes and potential increase in electricity and district heating prices for local residents.
This issue became a central theme in the campaign of the SDP. Janša repeatedly framed the rapid phase-out of TEŠ 6 as «betrayal of workers» and an act of «energy capitulation», using the issue to mobilize support in industrial regions. In areas with strong ties to the energy and mining sectors, particularly in eastern and northeastern parts of Slovenian support for the SDP has traditionally been higher. In these regions, a considerable segment of the electorate perceived the policies of the «Freedom Movement» as a direct threat to their economic security, contributing to stronger electoral backing for Janša despite Golob’s broader national appeal.
Thus, what initially appears as a technical question of climate and energy policy has evolved into a deeper ideological confrontation between proponents of a progressive «green transition» and those prioritizing national energy sovereignty, industrial stability and economic pragmatism.
Election results and their consequences
Pre-election polls and analytical forecasts consistently pointed to a highly competitive race, although at various stages of the campaign the momentum appeared to shift in favor of the opposition. In early 20266, the SDP gradually took the lead with several polls indicating support levels ranging from 20% to 28% at times placing it ahead of the ruling party. By February, the gap between the two main political forces had widened to approximately 5% points in favor of the SDP, raising expectations of a potential return of Janez Janša to power. By march, however, the situation had become increasingly uncertain. Aggregated polling data suggested that while the SDP maintained a slight lead at around 29% liberal bloc led by Golob remained electorally competitive, largely due to its coalition-building potential. In the final days before the election, most analysts converged on the assessment that the margin between the two camps would be minimal, likely resulting in a fragmented legislature without a decisive majority.
In this context, although the opposition was at times perceived as the frontrunner, the final outcome ultimately confirmed the high volatility of the electorate and the deep polarization of Slovenian society.
The election was marked by high tensions around issues of migration, security and national identity. The «Black Cube» scandal has become a turning point in recent weeks, allegations have surfaced that representatives of an Israeli private intelligence company visited Slovenia, met with individuals associated with the SDP and were involved in leaking recording aimed at discrediting the Golob government on corruption charges.
After the news became public, public opinion shifted sharply, support for the SDP declined, while the «Freedom Movement» began to gain momentum. As a result, Golob’s party previously trailing in the polls managed to secure a narrow electoral victory, winning by approximately 0.4-0.6%.
The results of the Slovenian elections indicate the emergence of a fragmented political landscape in which no major party commands enough support to govern independently. Under these conditions, coalition-building with smaller parties such as the New Slovenia-Christian Democrats, the Slovenian People’s Party, the Focus Party, the Social Democrats and the Left Party will play a crucial role. This not only complicates the government formation process but also introduces a degree instability, as governance will rely heavily on fragile inter-party compromises.
At the same time, the elections exposed a pronounced level of political polarization. Voting patterns reflect deep structural cleavages, including urban-rural divides, generational differences and conflicts rooted in competing value systems. Voter turnout remained notably high, particularly around issues of identity and security, which further intensified the divisive character of the campaign.
* The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.
