This blogpost is based on the article Weaponizing Culture: The Role of Illiberal Cultural Policy in Slovenia’s Democratic Backsliding. (2025) Politics and Governance, 13. This work was made possible with funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation program under grant agreement no. 101119678 (SOS4Democracy) and the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency projects no. J5-50174 (The Rise of Illiberal Democracies) and P5-0221 (Social Control, Criminal Justice System, Violence and Prevention of Victimization in Highly Technological Society).
Late one evening in spring 2021, a collection of bronze statues—monuments to partisan resistance and socialist-era art—vanished from the memorial park at Brdo Estate in Slovenia. One day they stood there: partisan fighters, heroes of antifascist resistance, and other socialist-era icons, each a carved testament to a contested memory. The next morning, the park was emptied with no announcement and no explanation, leaving behind a ghostly void where history once stood. Authorities later offered a tidy excuse: conservation, restoration, some sort of routine bureaucracy. Yet no restoration ever took place; the statues were instead relocated to the back lot of a provincial museum, far from public view. Soon after, a new monument appeared on the grounds, celebrating a conservative politician influential in the Slovenian independence movement. The rhetoric of routine heritage management thinly concealed a political gesture. But why was kidnapping socialist statues and holding them hostage in a decrepit museum yard significant, and how does that reveal a broader pattern in the illiberal struggle over culture and power?
Weaponization of cultural policy is one of the crucial strategies of illiberal political actors in their attempts to radically reshape the political landscape. Notorious illiberal leaders across the globe are proudly hijacking the cultural sphere, attempting to redefine politics and society. For example, Donald Trump’s takeover of the Kennedy Center in the United States and Giorgia Meloni’s encroachment on cultural production in Italy are but two recent examples of such practices. The role of cultural policy in the ideological consolidation of illiberalism has received relatively little attention in academic literature, even if cultural politics is foundational for the better-understood illiberal strategies—eroding the rule of law, civil liberties, press freedom, and the like—to take root. To explore the role of cultural policy in illiberal politics, we conducted an embedded case study examining the role of cultural policy in democratic backsliding in Slovenia between 2020 and 2022, a period marked by a term of an illiberal government and the Covid-19 pandemic. The results of our research are relevant well beyond the Slovenian context, as we used the case study to construct a typology of illiberal cultural policy measures that can serve as a model for understanding and studying similar tactics in other illiberalizing countries. Our model reveals how illiberalism weaponizes culture to achieve lasting political and ideological transformations.
Case study: Slovenia’s intense democratic backsliding during 2020–2022
Art and culture serve as vital arenas for critical reflection and collective engagement with the past, present, and future, making them essential to a democratic society. The Republic of Slovenia, a small country in East-Central Europe, gained independence from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1991 and was long considered a success story of democratic transition. Nevertheless, the ever-present fault lines in this transition were exposed after the 2008 financial crisis and an intense democratic backsliding was experienced during the pandemic period between 2020 and 2022.
This period was marked by an aggressive hollowing out of institutional checks and balances, coupled with the rapid illiberalization of the cultural sphere. The coalition government, led by Prime Minister Janez Janša, was composed of the socially and fiscally conservative Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS) and New Slovenia–Christian Democrats (NSi), and the fiscally conservative one-term-wonder Konkretno party. Its program reflected ideological orientations that had been central to SDS and NSi for decades, including Slovenian ethnonationalism, an anti-migration stance, the promotion of the heteronormative nuclear family and traditional gender roles, fiscal conservatism, as well as a hatred of “communism” (very broadly interpreted as any socially liberal or economically redistributive ideas). Under the illiberal government, pandemic restrictions became a convenient tool to curtail civil liberties and stifle protest, while unlawful decrees and political appointments further eroded the separation of powers. V-Dem indicators registered sharp declines in the rule of law, freedom of expression, and civil liberties, with corruption reaching unprecedented levels.
Under the illiberal government, pandemic restrictions became a convenient tool to curtail civil liberties and stifle protest, while unlawful decrees and political appointments further eroded the separation of powers.
Graph charting the values of five high-level democracy indices for Slovenia over time (based on V-Dem data)
International comparison between democracy indices in Slovenia, its neighbors (Italy and Austria), and “typical” cases of illiberal democracies (Poland and Hungary) (based on V-Dem data)
In this period, the government embarked on an unparalleled effort to take over cultural institutions. While political appointments in state-owned companies and other institutions are habitual in Slovenian politics, the political class largely neglected the arts and culture until 2020. The cultural sphere was consigned to market logics, neoliberalization, and meager funding. It was not used to such levels of overt political interference which involved, among other things, the redistribution of funding, political appointments in major cultural institutions (museums, galleries, etc.), the erection of new cultural institutions, and incendiary public discourse directed against ideological non-conforming artists and cultural workers.
During the studied period in Slovenia, civil society’s creative forms of resistance significantly opposed illiberal governance. Nevertheless, illiberal policies intentionally fueled polarization and curtailed the space for meaningful public discussion of societal challenges, limiting the scope of civil activism through calculated misuse of pandemic measures and cultural interventions. Though often brushed aside as self-indulgent, art and culture provide a crucial yet vulnerable democratic forum; whoever desires to control the cultural script endeavors to suppress dissent and ultimately enforce a monolithic consensus. In the Slovenian case, the effects of illiberal cultural policy persist even after a change of government (see graphs of V-Dem democracy indices), underscoring the need for a political imagination that goes beyond the reductive and often corrosive dialectics of liberal and illiberal politics.
Illiberal policies intentionally fueled polarization and curtailed the space for meaningful public discussion of societal challenges, limiting the scope of civil activism through calculated misuse of pandemic measures and cultural interventions.
Tactics of illiberal cultural policy
Our case study of illiberal cultural governance in Slovenia between 2020 and 2022 reveals a host of diverse policy measures that work in concert to transform the national cultural script. We identified and classified crucial illiberal strategies in order to make the intentional multilevel weaponization of cultural policy explicit and provide a framework for studying the broader implications of cultural suppression in democratic backsliding. The case study analyses six mutually reinforcing tactics:
(1) Public discourse, mainly harsh attacks on artists and cultural workers critical of illiberal ideology by political actors and intensified by their social media followers, is used to normalize their harassment and disparagement as social parasites and troublemakers.
(2) Financial pressures, like the threatened eviction of artists and NGOs from a state-owned building at the height of the pandemic or the distribution of pandemic-relief funding to NGOs promoting so-called traditional values, intensified the precarity of some cultural workers while channeling resources to ideologically aligned groups.
(3) Strategic political appointments, such as rapid director swaps of most of Slovenia’s crucial major cultural institutions as well as changing their bylaws and overriding expert bodies when necessary.
(4) Public space management, like removing and erecting statues, attempts to redefine national memory politics.
(5) New cultural institutions, like the Museum of Slovenian Independence, launched without collections or expert stewardship, were established to promote government-aligned cultural narratives.
(6) Political mythology celebrating the greatness of the Slovenian nation was elevated into official spaces. For example, the disputed symbol of the Carantanian Panther associated with extreme right groups was featured on diplomatic gifts at the time of the Slovenian presidency of the Council of the European Union.
| Cultural policy measure | Events | Targets | Strategies | Silencing | Promoting | Resistance | Effects |
| Public discourse | Public attacks on artists and curators (Prešeren Day, MAXXI exhibition) | Socially and politically engaged cultural workers Non-Slovenian artists | Smear campaigns Inciting public backlash in traditional and social media Use of official state communication channels | Critique of nationalism, traditional family structures, gender roles Interpretation of Slovenia’s present as linked to ex-Yugoslavia and socialism | State-affirming art Nationalism Art and artists promoting traditional values | Media outrage Letters of support from artists and academics The Left Party demands the recall of the ambassador in Rome | Lowering standards of public expression Hateful rhetoric online Resentment towards the cultural sector as parasitic on taxpayers |
| Financial pressure | Threat of eviction (Metelkova 6) Reallocation of public funding (Zavod Iskreni) | Progressive NGOs, artists, and cultural workers | Demand relocation under the guise of renovation and more worthwhile use of the property Redirecting funds to preferred NGOs | Socially and politically disruptive NGOs and cultural workers | NGOs promoting traditional values | Public statements by intellectuals and leftist politicians Letters of support from artists and academics Petitions | Diverting NGOs and cultural workers from their work to to fight for the preservation of their organizations and their own financial security |
| Political appointments | Change of (often internationally acclaimed) directors of major cultural institutions | Directors of state cultural institutions | Tender manipulation Changing institutional bylaws Interference with, attempting to influence, and overruling expert groups Degrading public discourse | Perceived allegiance to progressive values Perceived allegiance to political rivals Interpretation of historical events and featuring artists that clash with the government’s vision | Loyal cultural elites Nationalist and traditionalist cultural production Political corruption and cronyism | Letters of support Petitions Media outrage Protest actions Criticism from experts, international institutions, and cultural associations | Permanent changes to cultural governance |
| Public space management | Removing and erecting statues (Brdo Estate) | Public commemoration of partisan resistance | Removing statues Erecting statues | Identification with the values of partisan resistance and the socialist regime in parts of the population Narratives conceiving partisan resistance and the Slovenian independence process as nonexclusive | Celebration of the (government’s interpretation of) Slovenian independence movement and its key actors Narratives juxtaposing Slovenian independence and democracy with the partisan resistance movement | Letters of protest from academics Media outrage Social media outrage | Permanent changes in public space Plan to reinstate statues by the new 15th government coalition |
| New cultural institutions | Museum of Slovenian Independence National Day of Remembrance for the Victims of Communist Violence | Perceived insufficient emphasis and errant interpretation of Slovenian independence National holidays celebrating partisan resistance | Hasty establishment of new cultural institutions Redirecting public funding to institutions promoting a preferred historical narrative | Celebration of partisan resistance and socialist Yugoslavia | Decontextualized and politically controlled interpretation of Slovenian independence Human rights violations in the former Yugoslavia | Protest actions Artistic intervention Letters of protest from Slovenian independence veteran organizations | Outrage and controversy Intensification of culture wars 15th Slovenian government abolished both analyzed institutions |
| Political mythology | Carantanian Panther | Lack of national pride | Use of historically dubious symbols in national and international discourse | Idea that Slovenian people are culturally and genetically related to other South Slavs | Scientifically dubious theories about Slovenian statehood Slovenian nation as ancient and unique | Media outrage Expert outrage | Normalization of historically questionable symbols used by nationalist far-right organizations |
Resistance and its limits
Illiberal cultural policy measures were most intensely deployed during severe pandemic restrictions, which impeded protest actions and organizing. The loss of income due to Covid-19 preventive measures significantly affected cultural workers, who became increasingly dependent on state financial aid and thus liable to self-censorship. Nevertheless, civil society and the cultural sector vocally resisted attempts at political takeover and received significant public support in Slovenia and abroad. Advocacy for the autonomy of the cultural sphere and critique of illiberal measures were expressed through open letters, petitions, memorandums, creative forms of protest, and provocative public art. While civil society proved crucial in the eventual fall of the 2020-2022 government, the legacy of these illiberal cultural policies bears permanent consequences for Slovenian society and politics.
Illiberal cultural policy simultaneously targets the narratives produced by cultural institutions and the broader cultural milieu in order to radicalize public discourse and entrench traditional and ethnonationalist values. Different illiberal cultural policy measures are not mutually exclusive; they often work in concert. For example, defunding cultural workers might be legitimized through smear campaigns, or political mythology used to justify the founding of new cultural institutions. Illiberal cultural policy measures encompass a broad spectrum of strategies ranging from the more informal measures that illiberal actors use to polarize and transform public opinion even when in opposition (e.g., derogatory public discourse), to the more official ones available to illiberal governments (e.g., political appointments). Working across several registers, illiberal cultural policy measures contribute to the likelihood of self-censorship and permanent changes in cultural narratives, public perceptions of the cultural sphere, and cultural governance in general. Deployment of illiberal cultural policy deepens societal polarization and conflict with lasting effects: redirecting cultural narratives shrinks the space for legitimate democratic critique of the government.
The Slovenian cultural and academic spheres loudly protested illiberal cultural governance and aligned with nominally liberal political actors to avoid another illiberal term. Nevertheless, the change in government did not restore the pre-pandemic status quo. First, the effects of illiberal measures persisted regardless of the new government’s attempts to undo them. Changes to public perceptions, public spaces, cultural narratives, etc., are difficult to uproot. Second, as the Slovenian liberal and illiberal camps both embrace the neoliberal political economy, culture wars become instrumental for differentiating between the two. Both camps exploit their respective framings of social issues like gender, sexuality, migration, and historical trauma to mobilize their intended voters.
Our analysis observes that nominally liberal parties quickly adopted the same measures as their illiberal predecessors to reinstate their preferred version of history as well as the norms and personnel that manage and diffuse it.
Moreover, our analysis observes that nominally liberal parties quickly adopted the same measures as their illiberal predecessors to reinstate their preferred version of history as well as the norms and personnel that manage and diffuse it. The liberal continuation of illiberal cultural policy is mainly reactive, attempting to “undo” the effects of illiberal governance. This shows that illiberal actors are effectively running the show, illiberalizing politics and transforming liberalism through, among other things, the successful normalization of state interference in the cultural sphere. Once certain forms of interventions in the cultural sector are established as acceptable, the recovery to previous levels of autonomy becomes extremely difficult.
Illiberalism: liberalism’s bastard child
The use of illiberal measures by liberal actors brings us to the final point of our analysis. Illiberalism is not an antithesis of liberalism but its ever-present bastard child. Inner contradictions have always plagued liberalism: liberal narratives of equality were consistently complicated by arbitrary exclusions of entire social groups, for example, women and people of color, from political participation. In this sense, illiberalism is a return to the origins, not an unthinkable perversion of classical liberalism. Our analysis shows that illiberalism is exceptionally successful at transforming established political practices, building on pre-existing cracks in the workings of liberal democracy, such as the normalization of political corruption and clientelism.
Illiberalism is not an antithesis of liberalism but its ever-present bastard child.
While many ideals connected with the liberal democratic model—like pluralism, individual rights and freedoms, protection of minorities, limitation of the executive power, political accountability, etc.—are worth fighting for, we might do well to explore alternatives to the liberal/illiberal model and create a space for political imagination that goes beyond merely conserving the eroding liberal status quo. Art and culture are crucial in this process, as they provide the space in which political communities can criticize, debate, explore, imagine, and experiment with various ideas and approaches to collective pasts, presents, and futures. If the cultural sphere is transformed into a machinery that serves the interests and ideologies of political actors, an important forum for public deliberation and activation is lost. It is thus imperative to pay attention to the intentional hollowing out of the autonomy of the cultural sphere and illiberal threats to artistic freedom observed in Slovenia and beyond.
The case study of the weaponization of cultural policy highlights the critical role of art and culture in consolidating illiberal ideology. Illiberal cultural policy is not limited to the “new” post-communist democracies, but is alarmingly obvious even in the self-identified beacon and global exporter of liberal democracy, the United States. With the onset of the new administration in 2025, illiberal cultural policy measures corresponding to our typology can be observed in the U.S., signaling a galvanization of the illiberal movement in democracies across the globe. While an analysis of the ongoing events in the U.S. is well beyond the scope of this blog post, the typology of illiberal cultural policy measures based on our case study demonstrates that political actors recognize art and culture’s enormous potential for achieving political goals and underscores the crucial role of ideology in the phenomenon of illiberalism.
Illiberal ideology, forged through a backlash to socially progressive ideas associated with liberalism, is centered around a construct of traditional social values and hierarchies, ethnonationalism, and majoritarianism. Illiberal political actors utilize societal disagreements to mask authoritarian tendencies and political corruption, portraying themselves as the champions of supposed traditional values and honest, hardworking people. The systematic deployment of a host of illiberal cultural policy measures is thus targeted and intentional: it contributes to social polarization, normalizes incendiary political discourse, diverts attention from corruption and cronyism, and diminishes space for resistance and critical appraisals of illiberal governments.
The systematic deployment of a host of illiberal cultural policy measures is thus targeted and intentional: it contributes to social polarization, normalizes incendiary political discourse, diverts attention from corruption and cronyism, and diminishes space for resistance and critical appraisals of illiberal governments.
Our research emphasizes that cultural policy, sometimes overlooked in discussions of illiberalism, is a vital battleground for both authoritarian control and democratic resistance. Furthermore, the enduring effects of illiberal cultural policies highlight the vulnerability of democratic institutions and the long-term risks posed by the capture of cultural narratives, as well as the inner contradictions and limitations of liberalism. Our findings call for greater attention to cultural policy in discussions of democratic backsliding and suggest that safeguarding cultural autonomy is essential for resisting the illiberal turn and exploring possible futures beyond the liberal/illiberal dichotomy.
Kristina Čufar is a research associate at the Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of Law, Ljubljana, and an assistant professor in sociology of law at the Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana. Her research focuses on social inequalities and dynamics of power in relation to legal regulation, drawing on critical legal and political theory, socio‐legal studies, and criminology.
Hana Hawlina is a researcher at the Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of Law, Ljubljana, and an assistant lecturer in social psychology at the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana. She teaches courses on the psychology of power, influence, and social change. Her research interests also include social movement studies, political psychology, and studying conflicting imaginaries of collective futures.
Image made by John Chrobak using “Parc Military History” by Cholo Aleman licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0; “Ljubljana (2763502348)” by Juanma Pérez Rabasco licensed under CC BY 2.0; “Pile That Garbage – New Orleans after Hurricane Ida” by Bart Everson licensed under CC BY 2.0; “Blejska koča na Lipanci Spomenik NOB Slovenija 20171010 132932” by Mravlja Matjaz licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0; “Dusan Pogacnik” by Hladnikm licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
.jpg){kind=link}
