by Peace Institute, Ljubljana
Thirty demands have been adopted by the Citizens‘ Parliament on Media and Democracy in Slovenia at the series of four day-long parliament sessions, held between March and May 2025.
The Citizens‘ Parliament on Media and Democracy consisted of 22 citizens from all over Slovenia, selected through a public call for applications that took into account diversity in terms of gender, age, level of education, occupation, and other factors. The public presentation of the demands was held in early June at the conference hall of the Ministry of Culture.
Here is the summary of the Citizens‘ Parliament demands on media and democracy in Slovenia:
The Citizens‘ Parliament in Slovenia demands that the state enforce stricter oversight of media ownership consolidation, greater transparency in media operations and financing, and strict rules for the use of public funds in the media sector.
They call for the establishment of a single regulator for all types of media and propose that, instead of the general status of a business entity, a special legal status be introduced for media companies—one that recognizes their role in serving the public interest, ensuring social responsibility, and maintaining transparency. The state should promote internal employee ownership in media companies and support the creation of grassroots, advertisement-free media outlets. They demand regulation and sanctioning of media content that is harmful to individuals and society, that court proceedings take into account the decisions of the Journalists’ Honorary Tribunal, and that media owners be held accountable for the ethical standards of published content. Furthermore, they urge the state to allocate targeted funding for the employment of a sufficient number of journalists on a permanent basis and for the production of socially relevant media content. They also demand absolute protection for whistleblowers and a broader overhaul of the political system, particularly by limiting the dominance of political parties in the electoral process through the mandatory consideration of voters’ preferential votes.
The Citizens‘ Parliament demands that media outlets publish more in-depth, diverse, and original content, free from sensationalism, propaganda, and disinformation.
They should explain context, expose hidden interests, and report on the aftermath and consequences of events. When reporting on or discussing any social group or minority, they must include the voices and perspectives of representatives from that group, following the principle: Nothing about any social group without that group. They call for the introduction of a mandatory minimum quota for the representation of women’s and minorities‘ voices in media programming. They demand that media organizations enable citizens to file complaints and organize regular (e.g. annual) public meetings, where citizens have the opportunity for dialogue, to ask questions, and to influence content—for example, by proposing topics and thematic priorities—while respecting editorial independence. They also demand the establishment of a national-level media ombudsperson. From the European Union, they demand the creation and funding of Erasmus-style exchange programs for professional journalists.
The Citizens‘ Parliament strongly emphasizes that the state must ensure the development, funding, and implementation of media literacy programs for all generations, both within and outside the formal education system, with financial support also coming from the European Union. They demand that both public and private media—whether operating at the national or local level—take responsibility for promoting media literacy and enabling citizen participation. They call for a comprehensive approach to developing media literacy and participation, for encouraging schools to open up to guest programs on media literacy, and for ongoing training of teachers to effectively teach media literacy. They also demand that public service broadcasting produce programs and content that promote critical thinking and media literacy.
In dissenting opinions, some citizens who voted against certain demands or abstained expressed concerns about tightening media regulation and sanctions, noting that such measures can have both positive and negative consequences. Regarding the demand for public and civil society influence on the media, one dissenting opinion held that civil society influence through governance of public service broadcasters is sufficient and that imposing additional civil society oversight on media outlets is unnecessary. Concerns were also raised about the role of the European Union in financing media literacy efforts, due to the potential for underlying interests. Some questioned how to define what constitutes “socially relevant content” worthy of public funding, and there was opposition to imposing quotas for the inclusion of women and minorities in media content—arguing that media should not be forced, but rather encouraged, to seek out and include these voices.
The booklet in English language with all demands and the report on the process (»the resolution report«) is available here: https://www.mirovni-institut.si/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/ANG_zahteve-zbora_booklet-web.pdf.