US embassy cable - 04LJUBLJANA1136

C O N F I D E N T I A L LJUBLJANA 001136 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/23/2014 
TAGS: PGOV, SI 
SUBJECT: SLOVENIA: LIBERAL DEMOCRATS HAVE HEADS IN THE SAND 
 
 
Classified By: Ambassador Thomas B. Robertson for Reasons 1.4 (b) and ( 
d). 
 
1.  (C) After leading Slovene governments for 12 years, the 
Liberal Democracy Party (LDS) became over-confident, 
assuming, perhaps, that inertia would sweep it back into 
office last October 3. Accusations of arrogance have been 
heaped upon the party, even from within, and it is widely 
agreed that a lack of vision and leadership contributed 
significantly to LDS' poor showing in the elections. 
 
---------- 
BACKGROUND 
---------- 
 
2.  (U)  In 1992, after the dissolution of DEMOS, a 
democratic coalition that defeated the Communists in 
Slovenia's first free elections in 1990, LDS emerged as 
Slovenia's strongest political party.  That same year, LDS 
received the relative majority in national elections and 
formed its first coalition government.  LDS won enough votes 
to form governments in 1996 and 2000.  In May of 2000, LDS 
lost control of government in a vote of no-confidence, but 
returned to power six months later in special elections when 
it received an unprecedented 36% of the vote. 
 
3.  (U)  During the 10 years from 1992-2002, Janez Drnovsek 
led the LDS and the GOS as prime minister.  Fatigued by years 
of intra-coalition negotiations and a serious bout with 
kidney cancer, Drnovsek decided to run for President (a much 
less demanding position) in 2002. He won Presidential 
elections in November 2002 and chose Anton Rop as his 
successor both as president of the party and as prime 
minister. 
 
------------------ 
A STEP TO THE LEFT 
------------------ 
 
4.  (C)  With Rop in the lead, a pronounced shift to the left 
occurred.  Rop seemed to shrug off the mantle Drnovsek had 
passed to him and determined to chart an independent (of the 
old-line LDS) course for the Government.  Relying primarily 
on his own close circle of advisors, Rop created what would 
become an unbridgeable gap between himself and the 
traditional LDS base of voters and political supporters. 
 
5.  (C) Rop and his party did not heed the signs when the LDS 
and the left essentially lost the elections for European 
Parliament in June 2004.  The LDS treated this result as a 
one-off event rather than a red flag signaling a loss of 
voter support.  Even notoriously pro-LDS polls were 
indicating an LDS drop in popularity.  Yet, Rop and the LDS 
made little extra effort to rally support for the October 
2004 elections.  Slovene voters took a jump to the right and 
the LDS seemed as surprised to lose as Jansa and his 
coalition did to win. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
6.  (C) The loss of both sets of elections in 2004 did little 
to foster real introspection among the LDS leadership. 
Instead of analyzing "why" it lost, the party looked to cast 
blame.  Some called publicly for Rop's resignation as party 
president, others blamed the media - generally considered a 
strong supporter of LDS - thus alienating another long-time 
constituency.  In an early December party congress, Anton Rop 
was re-elected as president of the LDS, an interesting move 
considering Rop's leadership is widely viewed as a primary 
cause of LDS' recent losses.  If the LDS hopes to do well in 
local elections in 2006 or even to regain power in national 
elections in 2008, it will have to shed its image of 
arrogance and develop a program that appeals to voters 
clearly fed up with how the old-boys club, under Anton Rop, 
had been running the country. 
ROBERTSON 
 
 
NNNN