Slovenia Debates Ideological Balance on Constitutional Court

Slovenia's Constitutional Court is at the center of a debate over ideological and political balance, particularly concerning judicial appointments. While some, like Dr. Bugarič, have called for a more balanced court, the author argues that the current approach of appointing judges regardless of who is in power is a "lottery" leading to unpredictable outcomes.

“

The politics, left and right, are only interested in how to "conquer" the Constitutional Court for themselves, nothing else.

The author champions a deliberate, constitutionally mandated effort to achieve ideological and political equilibrium on the court. This, they contend, prevents the institution from becoming merely another tool in the political struggles between the left and right.

The German system, with its even number of constitutional judges, is presented as a successful model. Initially designed with a balance of judges from major political parties (SPD and CDU/CSU), it has largely prevented ideological bloc voting. While the system has adapted to include other political parties, it has, until now, functioned effectively.

“

I am not advocating for what Bugarič described as a "known and elsewhere tested solution" against the imbalance of ideology on the Constitutional Court (imbalance? – this balance has never existed!).

However, the author acknowledges that the German system is not perfect and its resilience against the rise of the far-right (AfD) remains to be seen, as the party has not yet had judges appointed to the court. The author suggests that similar balance is achievable in Slovenia with nine judges, proposing constitutional amendments for a two-thirds majority in appointments and a provision for ideological balance among candidates.

“

The German system... was initially conceived on the principle: four reds (SPD) judges and four black (CDU/CSU) judges.