The rationale for a representative democracy is that the issues facing a government are too varied and detailed to expect the electorate to adequately study each issue. The fear is that modern propaganda can be used to bamboozle the masses into agreeing to laws that are not in their best interest or to permit a small dedicated group to bind the entire population when there is low voter turnout, which is how Hitler and Mussolini, for example, seized and maintained power.
Iris Erlingsdottir Huffington Post
Last Friday I attended a seminar at the University of Iceland where Svanur Kristjansson, professor in political science and Bryndis Hlodversdottir, law professor discussed the impending national referendum under the heading of “Do national referendums strengthen democracy?”
Bryndis focusing on the legal aspects of Olafur Ragnar Grimsson’s decision, said he was probably well within his rights to call for a national referendum. On the other hand, it is to the detriment of Icelandic democracy that the political elite has neglected addressing the possibilities of them being held. There are no rules, no guidelines available. They have to be made up on the spot. Even after Olafur called for one in 2004, the politicians procrastinated on finishing them in the event it would happen again.
Bryndis said that by studying the history of such national referendums elsewhere(Jeremy Paxman could have scolded Olafur for lying about the supposed direct democracy tradition of Iceland, none have been held since the conception of the republic in 1944), that in order for a national referendum to be democratic it would have to fulfill three criteria. As with everything else in the case of IceSave, we appear to run into a problem:
1) The question itself has to be clear and answerable with a yes or a no.
Here is the question which has been approved by Althingi:
“Laws no. 1/2010 enact a change in laws no. 96/2009 about a permission for the financial minister, on behalf of the state treasury, to guarantee the loan of the insurance fund and investors from the states of UK and Holland to support payments to savers of Landsbanki of Iceland hf. Althingi approved law no. 1/2010 but the president refused to sign it. Should law no. 1/2010 be approved?”
The options are “Yes, the should be approved” or “No, they should not be approved”.
Everyone clear on that one?
2) All relevant information must be openly available for the public to be able to form an opinion.
When you google IceSave you end up with 1.970.000 search results. Members of Althingi have continually complained about all the work they’ve had to do in reviewing all the documents available to them. Scores of financial experts, politicians and lawyers on all sides of the Atlantic have appeared saying that yes, Iceland should pay and offered an array of explanations as for why. But scores of financial experts, politicians and lawyers on all sides of the Atlantic have appeared saying that no, Iceland should not pay and offered an array of explanations as for why. Will Joe Public devote the time needed and offer the relevant expertice to conclude this case fairly and objectively?
3) The consequences must be clear.
Well, the definite consequences of a yes or no..??? Oh forget it.
Bryndis and Svanur emphasised the democratic deficiencies which come with national referendums. Voters in California don’t want higher taxes and therefore are ruining the state’s finances. Swiss voters do not mind treading on the basic rights of minorities. They also touched upon the same issues that Iris mentions in her article at Huffington Post. There is a reason why the German constitution bans national referendum altogether. They know the consequences of rabble-rousing and demagoguery first-hand. Most states which allow referendums have clear and precise rules about them, and keeping the matters of a state’s financial obligations appears to be commonly approved of as a good practice.
Svanur’s speech emphasised the apprant desire of the founding fathers of Iceland to erect a true democracy. He made a point of describing the influence of US democracy on them and how there had been a discussion in Althingi on how things were done elsewhere, showing that they were more enlightened about the world than Icelanders in the past are often given credit for.
On the other hand, Svanur talked about the situation of anomie which had arisen in present Iceland. A true democracy does not hold national referendums on the whim of whomever happens to sit in the president’s office at any given time. By making this decision, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson was simply continuing the horrible tradition created by Icelandic politicians in the past few decades of “If it is not illegal, then we do it”. Delivered with passion, his opinions hit a raw nerve in the Independence Party adherents present who wasted no time in continuing their line from Althingi and calling Svanur’s observations a treason.
Bear in mind that Svanur is an old friend an ally of Olafur Ragnar Grimsson.
Svanur’s point is an important one. The political and business elite in Iceland has used this justification for all sorts of bad decisions. Bryndis and Svanur combine to make a point which needs to be heard in today’s discussion in Iceland. National referendums can be useful in enhancing democracy, but Iceland is heading in the wrong direction with its first one since the republic was concieved.
Our failed politicians simply have found a new way in which to fail democracy.
PS: On a follow up from a previous post, Svanur argued that the University of Iceland appeared to have some severe shortcomings in filling its faculty with critical thought. Naming a few professors who did appear to encompass critical thought, he noted that they seemed to have it in common to have had university professors as fathers. He said that critical thought seemed to be better taught in some homes than it is at the university where it is supposed to be emphasised.
Related posts:
Andrew
7 months ago
The english language summary on Wikipedia “icesave dispute” has a fairly concise summary of the various legal arguments in it. I’m not sure if there is an Icelandic translation.
Also, I’d like to ask if there is an sort of limit on the President’s right to send things to referendum. A quite likely scenario would be a “no” vote in this round, a renegotiation of terms and a new agreement between the governments. Would that decision be sent to referendum too? It makes the job of both sides of the negotiators difficult. The UK/NL side know that the Icelandic negotiators can be overruled after an agreement has been reached, and the Icelandic government side have to keep looking over their shoulders at the president. You can’t really be a parliamentary democracy and a representative democracy at the same time without establishing some limits.
Blubber
7 months ago
Andrew: As far as I’ve understood this process is that it is sorely lacking in guidelines and procedure.
Yes, that is a problem for these negotiations, the UK and NL have no reason to trust that any agreement be followed through on.
On top of that there seems to be a more widespread misunderstanding of how parliamentary democracy works. Meaning, few people seem to realize that our elected officials are speaking for the country when they make or break promises.
Dadi
7 months ago
Andrew, no there is no limit on the president’s rights to send issues to national referendums.
So the definition of democracy depends on the mood of the sitting president each time.
icelandbob
7 months ago
@Blubber
Well as ÓRG, our “Lord and Saviour” remarked to Jeremy Paxman, the Parliament in Iceland is but a tool and compared to the UK parliament is not soverign. It is the Icelandic People, the nation that is Sovereign.
so there you go, the people are responsbile for the nation. problem solved!
Andrew
7 months ago
@Icelandbob
So by that logic, if Iceland, as a nation, owes a lot of money, then the people are responsible for paying the debt. Ouch!
I am curious as to the President’s interpretation of the Constitution. What exactly are the powers of the government, if the people are supposed to decide?
Also most constitutions have checks and balances built into the system to stop one part of government running away with things.
Can you impeach the President, if you think he is not acting In the best interests of the Icelandic people?
For example, the US has the president, senate and supreme court
Bromley86
7 months ago
>Also most constitutions have checks and balances built into the system to stop one part of government running away with things. Can you impeach the President, if you think he is not acting In the best interests of the Icelandic people?
Given the fact that the referendum process is not fleshed out in the constitution, there’s a good chance that this isn’t either.
However, that didn’t stop the IP when they needed to bypass the prez. They must have read wiki
. So I’d suggest waiting until the next Nehru award/Green energy thingy and then push it through.
“The nation’s constitution specifies that when the president cannot perform the duties of the office, such as when he or she is abroad or under anesthesia, the prime minister, the president of the Althingi (Parliament), and the president of the Supreme Court collectively assume the power of the office.”
Boggi
7 months ago
Unfortunately peple from big countries have lost every sense of democracy, and are very well trained and brainwashed to accept every desition the gobermrnt makes, they are not used to have any saying or power about the matters of their own country. the nation is the people, not parlament is the nation, and the fact that Iceland has a democratic system in which it is still possible to give the people some controll over the counties afairs, has shocked, specially the british, not so much the dutch if you have notice, because the british people have allways been rulled, from the kings and queens to now days the parlament, so I´m so happy that Iceland still has provision for when the goberment is trying to pass a law that goes almos completly against the peoples will, and I´m sure british people would love to have something like this in their own country. And yes people elect a goberment, but that doesnt mean that goberment becoms like a god with full power to decide the nations hole future. I understand that british people are not used to have a saying in their country´s afairs and thats why they are so shocked about what is happening in iceland. Now if some people here in Iceland are useing this situation for their own benfit or if they called this referendum makeing use of this power the pesident has, for the wrong reasons, well thats another thing, because Do you really think this was ÓRG decision? ha,ha, ha. dont make me laugh.
Bromley86
7 months ago
Well, sure, people like to have some direct say in issues. But as has been pointed out, it makes a lot more sense to create a system where you can reasonably expect your representatives to fight your corner for you.
Otherwise you end up with ill-informed and irrational decisions. I mean, who would honestly believe that sensible people would consistently vote for low taxes and high services, yet that’s apparently what’s happened in California.
Perhaps the mistake is in assuming people are sensible?
Jon
7 months ago
@Bromley86 and Andrew
Yes, there is a way for the parliment to impeach the president as stated in the 11th article of the constitution. The motion needs 3/4 vote and has to be confirmed in a referendum. I’ve been advocating for this to be used.
Andrew
7 months ago
@boggi
The last time I looked, the Netherlands had a royal family and a parliamentary democracy too.
It’s not the relative merits of the various forms of democracy that is important here; the fact is that Iceland is shifting from a parliamentary democracy to a more representative democracy without precedent for how the system will work, and at a pivotal crisis point in Icelandic history. It gives an extra set of things to worry about for all the negotiators.
I think the example of California is very relevent, the voters don’t really face any immediate consequences of their voting habits, so they vote in extra spending but not new taxes, resulting in the state being virtually bankrupt.
For the record, I am hoping for a quick and much less painful solution than is on the table at the moment.