In Slovenia today, there are approximately 1.69 million eligible voters. Among them, the largest and most disciplined voting group is pensioners, followed by employees in the public sector – groups whose income is directly tied to the budget. Entrepreneurs and the economy, which generate the majority of public revenue, are numerically a minority in this arithmetic.

Therefore, it is not surprising that when considering the functioning of society, the question increasingly arises whether the term democracy still adequately describes the reality of decision-making. When entrepreneurs analyze the consequences, we come to a simple conclusion: we have the right to vote, but no electoral influence. It is legitimate to ask whether such a system is really aligned with the goals of economic growth, competitiveness, and higher GDP.

Entrepreneurs have the right to vote, which is overruled by the public sector and pensioners

Such ratios are not accidental. Politics everywhere in the world responds to those groups that are numerous, disciplined, and reliable in elections. In Slovenia, this primarily means pensioners and the public sector. Not because these voters are privileged or malicious, but because there are many of them and because political decisions directly affect them.

Entrepreneurs are in a different position in this context. We are a heterogeneous group: from sole proprietors to owners of larger companies, from exporters to local craftsmen. Our interests are difficult to package into a single political slogan, and even more difficult to turn into a unified voting bloc. Consequently, our voice remains dispersed — and politically weak.

Those most dependent dictate decisions to those who provide them with support.

Herein lies the central paradox of the system. The economy creates jobs, taxes, contributions, and GDP growth. Without economic activity, there is no welfare state, no public services, and no stable budget. Yet, those who create this activity do not have a proportionate influence on shaping the rules by which they must operate.

Democracy presupposes a balance between rights and responsibilities. In practice, however, this balance is increasingly tilting towards a situation where political decisions are made without a direct connection to economic consequences. It is easier to decide on spending money when you do not bear personal risk for it. This is not a moral condemnation, but simply human logic.

The system is not geared towards growth, but towards maintaining comfort.

Therefore, it is not surprising that in recent years there has been a growing feeling that the system is no longer geared towards growth, competitiveness, and the creation of new value, but primarily towards maintaining existing structures. Entrepreneurs in such an environment do not see development, but stagnation; not long-term strategies, but short-term political compromises.

This does not mean that anyone should be deprived of their voice or right to participate in decision-making. Such ideas are dangerous and historically discredited. But it does mean that it is perfectly legitimate to ask whether a system that systematically ignores those who finance it can even remain sustainable in the long term.

Can a system that systematically ignores those who finance it even remain sustainable in the long term?

If entrepreneurs have no influence, we will not withdraw from politics — we will withdraw from the environment. With less investment, more capital emigration, more work in the grey economy, or simply by leaving elsewhere. These are not threats, but empirically verified responses of the economy to environments where the ratio between contribution and influence becomes too far apart.

Therefore, the discussion about democracy today is not a discussion about values, but about functionality. Not about whether every voice is equal, but about whether the system encourages those activities without which it cannot exist. If it does not, then the problem is not with entrepreneurs — the problem is with the design of the system.

Perhaps it is not wrong to allow ourselves a thought experiment. Not as a proposal to amend the constitution, but as a way of thinking about balance in the system. What if, when deciding on the spending of common money, greater weight was also given to the responsibility for its creation? What if political influence at least symbolically followed the contribution to the common treasury?

The electoral vote could be proportionally linked to the payment of taxes

The principle of one euro into the treasury – one vote is of course not a literal solution. Democracy cannot and must not become an accounting operation. But as a metaphor, it reveals the essence of the problem: today, the connection between contribution and influence is almost completely severed. Deciding on the budget is separate from filling it, and the consequences are always passed on to the same, narrow group.

Such a system is politically comfortable, but economically short-sighted. It encourages spending without responsibility and creation without a voice. In the long run, however, it leads to an environment where those who create value lose the motivation to create it right here.

Perhaps the question is not whether the idea of an economically weighted vote is fair. The real question is whether a society that wants to grow, manage its economy competitively, and increase prosperity can even afford a system in which the voice of creators is systematically ignored.

Entrepreneurs do not demand privileges. We only demand that responsibility and influence do not live in two separate worlds. If democracy can no longer balance this relationship, then the problem is not in the idea of equality — but in its distance from economic reality.