It was already evening on 15th January 1992, when I was walking along Vegova Street, headed for the Institute of Contemporary History in Ljubljana, after spending the day reviewing historical materials at the National and University Library. I first heard and then saw an exemplar meandering in the middle of the street, crying out: “Slovenia, I love you so! I would give half of my life for you!” – “As would I, as would I!” it crossed my mind, but I derailed the train of thought. My profession as a historian prevented me from giving into the intoxicating sensation brought about by the fact that, on that day, Slovenia was internationally recognised by the states of the European Community. I subsequently recalled this event on several occasions and tried to assess the unfinished thought of that day.

I witnessed the “offering” on Vegova Street after spending time with the Slovenians who lived in the first Yugoslav state. Therefore, it makes sense that, while making a list of the years of Slovenian independence, which fulfilled the promise of a "success story" for a while, I was faced with the question of what Slovenians revealed about themselves after leaving multinational states in which they ultimately saw their national and democratic demise. Given our historical position after 1991, the question is even more engaging, since we are not ruled neither by Vienna or Belgrade, nor by any single-party political system. We do, however, feel the influence of Brussels and the Euro-Atlantic powers.

After turning from the Austrian south to the Yugoslav north in 1918, the Slovenians expected to find themselves in the "promised land". They had dreamt and written about it before the above-mentioned change.Jurij Perovšek, Liberalizem in vprašanje slovenstva. Nacionalna politika liberalnega tabora v letih 1918–1929 [Liberalism and the Question of Slovenianism. National Policy in the Liberal Camp from 1918 to 1929] (Ljubljana: Modrijan, 1996), 46–65. But the reality was somewhat different. Autonomy was not attained, the nations were constitutionally wiped out and merged into a Serbian-Croatian-Slovenian nationality, the same name was given to the official language, there were no more Slovenian regiments (a Slovenian military force was, however, formed in the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs in November 1918), and Slovenian soldiers were dispersed across the entire Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, i.e. Yugoslavia. The belief that the toxic battles fought among political parties were at their end, which was expressed by a liberal politician Albert Kramer in his address to the leader of the Catholic Vseslovenska ljudska stranka (Pan-Slovenian People's Party) Dr Anton Korošec, when he visited Ljubljana on 23 and 24 March 1918, “Praznik slovenskega ženstva” [Slovenian Women Day], Slovenski narod, 26 March 1918, 2. did not come true. Almost 20 years later, the Maribor-based newspaper Neodvisnost revealed that

There were still Carniolan and Styrian people to be found, even though Ivan Hribar, in October 1918, expected that the people of Slovenia would “all (…) simply be Slovenians”. Ivan Hribar, “Uprava Jugoslavije” [Yugoslavia administration], Slovenec, 15 October 1918, 2. There was, however, cultural and economical progress but the Sava river flowed “downstream”, which was “patriotic” as written by the very young Mitja Ribičič in 1927. Mitja Ribičič, “Patriotizem” [Patriotism], Učiteljski tovariš, 13 January 1927, 2. Comfort was sought in the notion of the Slovenian people being hard-working, honest, reliable, kind-hearted and generally non-problematic, i.e. in the attributes which supposedly illustrated the truth of their civilisational image. We should not forget to mention the political parties, organisations and associations, which multiplied across the Slovenian territory. Those with federalist inclinations tended to mention the North American countries and Switzerland as national models to be emulated.

Historiography clarified the above issues rather well, while the contemporaries of the first 22-year-Yugoslav period managed to prepare two extensive, comprehensive presentations of the then Slovenian development This shows the extent of their interest in the subject matter. The collections entitled Slovenci v desetletju 1918–1928 (Slovenians in the decade 1918–1928) (1928) and Spominski zbornik Slovenije : ob dvajsetletnici Kraljevine Jugoslavije (Memorial booklet of Slovenia : the twentieth anniversary of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia) (1939) are still considered to be two definitive works of academic literature.

And our twenty-five years? Slovenians have taken up an international legal position – the Republic of Slovenia. The Slovenian language retained its official nature from the second Yugoslavia; once again, the Slovenians got their own army and witnessed several remarkable cultural and sports-related successes at home and abroad; the media developed further, and, as for the economy, we will mention that later; however, Sava river does not necessarily seem to flow downstream when it leaves the Slovenian territory any more. Slovenians were taking leave as the “objects of history who caught a cold.” Tomaž Šalamun, “Duma 1964,” Naši razgledi, 9 May 1964, 178. Tomaž Šalamun, who coined this description, repeated it in his speech marking the Slovenian cultural holiday – the Prešeren Day, in 2000. He described Slovenia as a

What was created was “a flawed paradise” Marko Bucik, “Raj z napako. Slovenija leta 2041. V kakšni državi si želim živeti čez 25 let in kako priti do nje?” [A flawed paradise. Slovenia in 2041. In what kind of country do I want to live in 25 years and how to achieve it?], Delo, 7 June 2016, 5. The ideological “tribes” remained, using new tools being, along with the old ones – the experiences of the second world conflict and of the attainment of independence as well as of the previous society, which was saturated with “organisation, politics, matter, ideology, and everything of importance in the world, it was the World.” This is how Taras Kermauner perceived the then society. Taras Kermauner, “Vladimir Bartol – predhodnik današnje slovenske moderne literature” [Vladimir Bartol – the predecessor of today’s modern Slovenian literature], in: Vladimir Bartol, Demon in Eros. Al Araf [Demon and Eros. Al Araf] (Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 1974), 441. While some fully embraced the national sentiment and expected the historic rise of Slovenianism and its ethical acknowledgement and “everyone was invited to participate” – as Šalamun described it, Šalamun, “Govor 2000,” 4. the new Slovenian world witnessed the open season – a hunting season for predators engaging in privatisation, accumulation of weapons, ruthless politics and the like. The aptness of circuses without bread, i.e. either political or ideological wars, including what was practically an online civil war, was never under question. What is more, the lack of cognitive powers and a greater focus on money, adrenaline and human indifference, as opposed to the spirit, attest to such significant decline in values. Slovenians failed to become "moral juggernauts", as the nation's fulfilment was envisaged by Edvard Kocbek. Edvard Kocbek, “Slovenski človek” [The Slovenian Man], Dejanje 1, No. 1 (1938): 2. Intolerance and aggression prevailed, Slovenians did not succeed in morally withstanding the civilising momentum. These two topics were best dealt with by one of the leading Slovenian experts in the field of psychoanalysis, Dr Matjaž Lunaček, and an observer of Slovenians, the academic named Niko Grafenauer. When asked about which type of personality is the most characteristic for the Slovenian society at this moment, Lunaček replied:

The generation who grew up in a system that slowly slipped into today's situation lacks ethical and moral norms. “Inculpability and impertinence are the biggest mischiefs in our society.” Besides that, the politicians are completely ignorant of the real situation in the country. Just like the clergy, the politicians should visit a psychoanalyst to

However, the employers who encouraged the crisis of values, also took advantage of this. If we take history into consideration,

This enables “the ruling caste” to ruthlessly suppress social sense and silence the employees' voices, while mobbing casts its victims into social isolation; in it, they fall into a complex state of anxiety, depression and addiction that prevents them from functioning normally, resulting in a substantial diminution of the quality of their lives. Matija Grah, Borut Škodlar and Bojana Avguštin Avčin, “Na robu obupa, na robu blaznosti. Mobing, psihično nasilje na delovnem mestu“ [At the edge of despair, at the edge of insanity. Mobbing, psychological harassment at work], Delo: sobotna priloga, 10 March 2012, 10, 11. Even though there are legal instruments which exist to protect employees from mobbing in the EU and Slovenia, MOBING, acquired 29 June 2016, http://www.mobing.si/slo/pravna_ureditev.html. only a few have the courage to resort to these laws.

Niko Grafenauer shared a similar point of view a while ago, believing that the suicide in Slovenia now exists only in one comprehensive form. The reason for this situation cannot be attributed to anyone other than us. We are what we are – quarrellers, clique members, thieves, cynics, show-offs etc. In short, we are provincials without any vision and without any sense of civic self-responsibility. “It does not matter what others do to us,” once said Dušan Pirjevec, “but it is important what we do to ourselves.” Niko Grafenauer, “Smo vaška srenja brez vizije in državljanske odgovornosti” [We are a village community without a vision and civic responsibility], Delo: sobotna priloga, 29 November 2011, 26. Obviously, the consolation from the first (and also the second) Yugoslavia does no longer apply. The same goes for comparisons with other nations, as we are only responsible for ourselves. We need to take a look in the mirror. And Hribar’s soul, intertwined with celestial global dynamics, as he wrote in his farewell letter on 18 April 1941, Vasilij Melik, “Ivan Hribar in njegovi Spomini” [Ivan Hribar and his Memories], in: Ivan Hribar, Moji spomini: II del [My memories: part II] (Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 1984), 654. still awaits the Slovenians (which is probably why those who hear this national signifier when travelling around the world don not seem to want to acknowledge each other). However in an interview for Misteriji magazine, a pamphlet on the verge of medicine and other sciences, conducted in May 2014, Slovenian ambassador Bojan Grobovšek talks about his book entitled Zakaj Slovenija ni Švica (Why Slovenia is not Switzerland), in which he speaks in favour of rendering the Slovenian language as half as important in terms of being the official language. According to Grobovšek, "it would probably be extremely good for Slovenia to introduce another official language – English, to be exact – next to Slovenian." Bojan Grobovšek, “Zakaj Slovenija ni Švica” [Why is Slovenia not Switzerland], Misteriji 21, No. 250 (2014): 25. Less than three weeks after the 25th anniversary of independence, on 15 July 2016 – after the first reading of the Act amending the Higher Education Act as proposed by the Slovenian government, the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia adopted the amendment of the aforementioned law with 46 votes for and 15 against. The adoption of the amendment permits teaching in foreign languages, namely English, at Slovenian universities. For now, this amendment serves as a legal basis for neglecting Slovenian in tertiary education. This might even result in a paradoxical situation in which lectures by Slovenian professors for Slovenian students at Slovenian universities would be held in English. The reason for this subservient linguistic suicide is not rooted abroad but in those Slovenian university circles who consider Slovenian as less appealing in terms of business. “Reading room exaltation” cannot be a form of resistance to this phenomenon, according to the opinion expressed in a parliamentary discussion on 15 July by Saša Tabaković, a member of the Stranka modernega centra political party. 21st regular session of the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia, 15 July 2016. If the amendments of the proposed bill are adopted in the aforementioned law, we can illustrate Dr Boris A. Novak's opinion on the position of the culture expressed fifteen years ago by declaring that the Slovenian language is exposed to a threat by the state itself. Boris A. Novak, “V slovenskem nacionalnem značaju je premalo mediteranskega duha” [There is too little Mediterranean spirit in the Slovenian national character], Primorski dnevnik, 7 August 2001, 8. At the round table entitled “Zagovor slovenščine (Defending Slovenian language)” held on 13 July 2016 at Slovenska matica in Ljubljana, Boris A. Novak, a poet, essayist, stage director, lecturer at the Department of Comparative Literature and Literary Theory at the Faculty of Arts Ljubljana, Slovenian, cosmopolitan, guest lecturer at American universities, and translator of more than ten languages, including from Slovenian to English and back, expressed his disapproval towards Anglicising changes and amendments in the Act Amending the Higher Education Act. Boris A. Novak, “Zagovor slovenščine” [Defending Slovenian language], Avdio/video ǀ za govor SLOVENŠČINE, acquired 18 September 2016, http://www.zagovor-slovenscine.si/audiovideo/, 3rd and 4th part. Fifteen years ago he said:

We must mention Anton Korošec's words from 13 March 1923 about Slovenian unwillingness to drown in the seas of Serbo-Croatian culture (currently English culture): “Who could blame us?” “Veličasten shod javnih in zasebnih nameščencev” [Impressive rally of the public and private post-holders], Slovenec, 15 March 1923, 2. – At this point we should emphasise that, in reality, Slovenians should protect the Slovenian language even more, since less and less people are able to express themselves verbally or in written form in proper Slovenian, not to mention the universal disrespect of intellectual work.

A historian and politician, Dr Drago Lončar wrote, in his renowned work Politično življenje Slovencev (The Political Life of Slovenians) which was published in 1921, about how Slovenians "managed to escape the yoke of foreign subordination. Now the history has given the Slovenians a mission to prove that they are capable of the greatest human art form: to govern themselves." Dragotin Lončar, Politično življenje Slovencev: od 4. januarja 1797. do 6. januarja 1919. leta [The Political Life of Slovenians: from 4 January 1797 to 6 January 1919] (Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 1921), 129. At that time, the otherwise down-to-earth Lončar exaggerated as he wrote down the date of July 1921, the month which followed the approval of the centralist and unitarian Vidovdan Constitution, under the introduction to his book. Seven decades later, the situation changed. That was the actual time of “the greatest human art form”. Some of the art pieces in which it manifests itself in Slovenia have already been mentioned here. Nonetheless, the systems of the state are in operation and the state is a part of the international environment, while we've also witnessed a meteoric rise of some political parties in the last couple of years.

These findings offer a great variety of possibilities for research. The branch of science that made the most out of these possibilities is politology. These topics were also addressed in the Pogovori o prihodnosti Slovenije (Talks about the future of Slovenia) held at the cabinet of the President of the Republic of Slovenia, Janez Drnovšek, in years 2003–2005 (in years 2009–2011 there were also three talks held by the President of the Republic, Dr Danilo Türk) COBISS / OPAC, view 18 June 2016, http://www.cobiss.si/scripts/cobiss?ukaz=getid&lani=si. Search parameter Pogovori pri predsedniku republike, 1–3. and by the circle of Nova revija magazine (Kdo smo in zakaj imamo državo (Who we are and why we have a state) (1996), Ura evropske resnice za Slovenijo (The Time for the European Truth for Slovenia) (1997), Nekaj je treba storiti (Something has to be done) (2003)). France Bučar et al., “Kdo smo in zakaj imamo državo. Pobuda za ponovno presojo slovenskega narodnega položaja” [Who are we and why do we have a country. Initiative for a reassessment of the Slovenian national situation], Nova revija 15, No. 167 (1996), supplement Ampak, 2–6. Drago Jančar et al., Ura evropske resnice za Slovenijo [The Time for the European Truth for Slovenia] (Buenos Aires: Svobodna Slovenija, 1997). Barbara Brezigar et al., “Nekaj je treba storiti. Državljanska pobuda” [Something has to be done. The citizens’ initiative], Dolenjski list, 6 March 2003, 20. The process of democratisation and attainment of independence that took place during the 80s and at the beginning of the 90s was carefully studied by historiography. For the period that followed, historians can not offer much due to the lack of funding for research projects that would focus on these times. Nonetheless, we are proud of two exceptional monographs on the transition of Slovenian economy from socialism to capitalism in the years between 1990 and 2004 or the Slovenian parliamentarism between 1992 and 2012 written by two researches from the Institute of Contemporary History, Dr Aleksander Lorenčič Aleksander Lorenčič, Prelom s starim in začetek novega. Tranzicija slovenskega gospodarstva iz socializma v kapitalizem (1990–2004) [The end of an old regime and the beginning of a new one. Slovenian economy’s transition from socialism to capitalism (1990–2004)] (Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2012). and Dr Jure Gašparič. Jure Gašparič, Državni zbor 1992–2012. O slovenskem parlamentarizmu [National Assembly 1992–2012. About the Slovenian parliamentarianism] (Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2012). Important findings were also made by a professor from the Faculty of Arts at the University of Ljubljana, Dr Božo Repe. In his book about the first president of the Republic of Slovenia, Milan Kučan, Repe illustrated the political development of the Republic of Slovenia until 2002 by describing Kučan's activities. Božo Repe, Milan Kučan, prvi predsednik [Milan Kučan, the First President] (Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2015). Even flames cannot destroy this writing. This is a reference to the unsuccessful burning of the mentioned book on 19 December 2015 in front of Milan Kučan's residence in Ljubljana. The book burning was organised by a small group of citizens of the Republic of Slovenia.

Nevertheless, to summarise the main findings of the monographs which we pointed out, it is necessary to emphasize that the transition of the economy and the transition to an environment more open in terms of society and trade, deserve to be treated positively from the historical stance regardless of the wild privatisation that casts a shadow over this process. The main reason for such intense privatisation of social and national property was in the lack of legal bases from the very beginning. What is more, despite the warnings of competent institutions, the Slovenian Parliament (often a political "rooster coop"– note by. J. P.) chose not to react. Between the years 1990 and 2004 the social property suffered a loss higher than 104 billion tolars. A small percentage of the population definitely managed to pile up a fortune in that period. The government then was a group of amateurs and neither the politics nor the experts could handle this situation (something similar happened in other transition countries). It turned out that many Slovenian companies were run by dishonest and greedy managers whose main objective was profiteering. Many whom these fraudulent deeds are attributed to acquired their fortune by legal means. This can mostly be attributed to the legal system and politics as the National Assembly did not adopt the much needed laws. Today's situation in society and the economy is not a result of yesterday's events or occurrences in the past couple of years. The answers to why this has happened should be sought at the beginning of our transition period. Slovenia didn't only choose the market economy, but also chose capitalism and everything that goes with it. Slovenian capitalism still has social overtones, but a capitalism adjusted to human needs, like the one we had imagined, is just an illusion. Lorenčič, Prelom s starim in začetek novega, 444–46, 448, 451, 452. We believe that the leading Slovenian analyst of social, cultural and political phenomena in Slovenia, Dr Janez Markeš, made a good observation by saying that the symptom of a “new neoliberal Slovenia” occurred. Gradually and inconspicuously, this symptom is ousting the solidarity from a society that, in the end, does not care for growing inequalities. With the intention to eliminate the old socialist regime, the society does not perceive the solidarity as an essential part of itself. Janez Markeš, “Let nad nekim gnezdom” (Flying over a nest), Delo: sobotna priloga, 27 August 2016, 7.

Another significant emphasis from Markeš's findings is that it is

It seems that after many years of defunding social programmes,

The analysis of the transition in politics is the topic of interest of the second monograph that primarily addresses the question of trustworthiness. In the political emotional rhetoric of the modern state, trustworthiness has played quite a significant role from the 19th century onwards. “Trust is the most essential aspect of life. Everything is based on trust, it even became a part of the constitutional system.” The opinion polls carried out during the year serve to determine the level of trust in political institutions. The results show that the National Assembly is considered less trustworthy, as it is always among the least trusted. On the scale of trustworthiness, only the political parties are traditionally lower. If we look at the prime minister instead of the government as a whole, we can notice that the prime minister enjoys a higher degree of trust, while the president of the republic is considered as the most trustworthy. This is not surprising, as people are not exactly familiar with a single politician's doings. They remember only the improprieties, mistakes and scandals that accompany the parliament's actions. In addition, politicians are not members of unions or assemblies (they do have their own association). They deal with their rivals in an uncensored and unsympathetic way, unlike in any other profession. The question remains: how long and to what extent can trust be left to wither, if it is supposed to be one of the pillars of democracy. Gašparič, Državni zbor 1992–2012, 296, 300, 301. This might be closely related to the fact pointed out in the third monograph: that the first president of the republic tried to reach the so-called Third National Concensus (after the national unification at the plebiscite for Slovenia's independence and the adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia). This was an agreement with the purpose to determine what to do with the people and the state after the independence and after joining the Euro-Atlantic Group. The consensus on ethical foundations of Slovenia and the sense of its existence were not reached. However, even upon the termination of his presidency, Kučan invested a lot of effort into reaching this consensus. Repe, Milan Kučan, prvi predsednik, 500, 581.

What is there to say at the end? There is an enormous amount of work to be done and the longer Slovenia remains independent, the more work will have to be carried out. Hopefully, it will be carried out not only by implementing new approaches based on anthropological-interpretative and theoretical bases that avoid historical aspects and often remain unfulfilled, but also by considering the public opinion and citizens' needs. Here is to hoping that this wish has its consequences. Just like Dr Karel Triller, a prominent representative of the Liberal Narodna napredna stranka (National Progressive Party) hoped in 1906, when elaborating on the programme of his party. Karel Triller, “Pred shodom narodnonapredne stranke” [Before the Assembly of the National Progressive Party], Slovenski narod, 23 March 1906, 2. I also owe you an explanation about the other half of my life: according to the principle of freedom of choice, I have kept it. I do not know what the person from Vegova Street did with his half.