Slavko, Pick Up the Phone
02/12/2009
Phone booth in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic; photo by dr. fil
Well, since everyone seems to be sharing their thoughts about the public exchange of love letters between the Vice President of the ruling coalition member LDS Slavko Ziherl and PM Borut Pahor, who’s to stop a pmsed dr. fil?
For background and more on the contents of the letter, visit Mr. P. Basically, a psychiatrist who entered the world of politics in 2005 in preparation for 2006 local elections took it upon himself to teach a man with a degree in political science who has been involved in politics since his student years, making it more than half of his life, on the subject of what is politics and how it is to be conducted.
With the best of intentions, he wants to open the PM’s eyes to the reality of the state of political affairs in the country which Pahor is apparently unable to comprehend. What is it they say about best intentions?
Although he did not sign the letter as the Vice President of PM’s coalition partner and even though allegedly he did not consult his party prior to this significant public outburst, he does write from the standpoint of a member of the ruling coalition and not as merely a concerned citizen.
Without going into much detail, let me say that in my opinion, this is not the correct place or way to handle a political partner’s dissatisfaction if he intends to remain a part of a hopefully productive partnership. I cannot imagine how this letter could achieve anything positive. If it served no positive purpose, why write it?
1/ Decide whether you’re writing as a concerned citizen or as a prominent party member. If the latter is the case, you may want to consult with the party before making important moves.
2/ Decide whether your party is part of the coalition and on what terms the party will remain in the coalition. If those terms are not met, get out.
3/ If you have better solutions to the present problems than the PM, go ahead and put your proposals forward for discussion. E.g.: how would you have handled the Annual Account extortion issue?
In his letter, Slavko Ziherl wrote: “They say that a mature person has no need to be liked by everybody.” How very true. And what other purpose than securing the sympathy of a mass of people angry with Janez Janša’s blackmail move has he achieved? Yes, he does have every right to write whatever he feels like writing short of slander. Yes, I do actually believe his intentions were basically good. And yes, I do believe writing the letter was a selfish and rather naive move, which made no contribution to constructive problem-solving in Slovenian politics.
You guys go have a cup of coffee or an energy drink or whatever and talk it over, for crying out loud.
Davor said,
February 12, 2009 @ 11:48 pm
Bravo!
epruvetka said,
February 13, 2009 @ 10:44 am
Ali si mislila reci:” Le cevlje sodi naj Kopitar”? Ali to se velja?
dr. filomena said,
February 13, 2009 @ 10:52 am
Draga epruvetka, ne, nikakor ne, sploh ne, kadar gre za politiko. Politika je stvar vseh državljanov in nas spremlja vse življenje, zato je edino prav, da zanima vse in da jo presojajo vsi. Misel, da izkušen maček političnega dogajanja ne vidi v pravi luči in da ne ve, kaj se dogaja, sploh pa, da se mu da oči dobronamerno odpreti z javnim krcanjem po prstih, pa je po drugi strani vsaj hudo naivna.
Še vedno ne razumem, kaj je namen bil Ziherlovega pisanja. Če je hotel doseči, da bi se Pahor tesneje povezal s partnerji in oddaljil od Janše, bi glede na svoje odlično poznavanje delovanja človeške psihe verjetno lahko presodil, da z javnim dopisovanjem pri tem ne bo uspešen. Zakaj torej?
In še vedno ga sprašujem: kaj bi storili vi, če bi se znašli na mestu predsednika vlade v času Janševega izsiljevanja v zvezi s sprejetjem letnega poročila o proračunu?
pengovsky said,
February 13, 2009 @ 11:02 am
Z vsem spoštovanjem do dr. Ziherla, katerega delo spremljam tudi v ljubljanskem mestnem svetu – ne vem če ima dovolj trdo kožo za premiera. Poleg tega bi od človeka, ki se profesionalno ukvarja s stiskami drugih, pričakoval malo več empatije. Pahor je potegnil potezo, ki je naredila še najmanj škode, pri čemer je verjetno vedel, kaj vse mu bo priletelo v glavo zaradi tega. Poteza je bila nenačelna, gotovo, ampak edina resnično pametna. Zdaj, ko se je državni svet prizemljil in ko bosta Marjan Podobnik in SLS dobila liziko, Hrvaška in NATO pač ne bosta več tema. Primer rešen.
Kar se pa izsiljevanja tiče, bi pa Janšo (v političnem smislu) počakal z gorjačo. Recimo pri proračunu 2009, kjer bi sprejel sklep, da “zaradi neusklajenosti javnih financ z realnim stanjem, ki izvira iz proračuna 2007” ni mogoče zmanjšati že tako velike proračunske luknje. Ali nekaj podobnega. Pa naj se mu njegovo izsiljevanje zatakne kjerkoli že.
Davor said,
February 13, 2009 @ 11:03 am
Se povsem strinjam. Si mi odprla oči!
Stvar se je zasrala že prej, ko so v parlamentu določili vrstni red obravnave stvari.
Če bi bilo odločanje o Natu pred odločanjem o proračunu 2007, bi do tega sploh ne prišlo. JJ in njegovi bi morali prej pokazati barvo.
Kdo je koga spravil v situacijo, iz katere ni bilo več elegantnega izhoda, bi bilo treba pa pogledati. Lahko, da je JJ stvari anticipiral in so njegovi vztrajali na takem vrstnem redu, lahko, da je to edino možni poslovniški vrstni red, kdo ve?
dr. filomena said,
February 13, 2009 @ 11:15 am
Davor, zelo zanimivo vprašanje. Kdo določa vrstni red? Pri tem, da nihče od vpletenih ni novinec v politiki, je možnost naključja bolj ali manj izključena. Je bila nastavljena mina Pahorju ali pač Janši, da tudi najbolj slepim pokaže svoje prave barve?
pengovsky said,
February 13, 2009 @ 11:18 am
Dnevni red določa kolegij predsednika DZ, katerega člani so vodje vseh poslanskih skupin.
dr. filomena said,
February 13, 2009 @ 11:50 am
Dnevni red, ki je omogočil izsiljevanje, so torej določili
Roberto Battelli
France Cukjati
László Göncz
Zmago Jelinčič Plemeniti
Vasja Klavora
Bojan Kontič
Miran Potrč
Jakob Presečnik
Borut Sajovic
Jože Tanko
Franc Žnidaršič
pod vodstvom Pavla Gantarja
Luka said,
February 13, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
Göncz je torej zajebal!
dr. filomena said,
February 13, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
Napaka… the butler did it!
Davor said,
February 13, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
Sam organ je jasen.
Bolj gre za vprašanje, ali se lahko stvari poljubno določajo. Lahko, da so določila, kar prej pride v parlament, gre prej v obravnavo in lahko organ samo da na red ali pa ne, vrstnega reda pa v bistvu ne določa? Vem pa, da določajo časovni okvir za razpravo ipd.
Če pa se dnevni red določa, sem prepričan, da so eni vedeli, za kaj gre, naivkoti pač ne.