But here we go again…

On the ratings agencies:

To listen to European and US figureheads pour scorn over the credit ratings agencies is quite surreal. The ratings agencies´position in global finance is no coincidence. They are in fact perfectly rational entities enabled by dominant ideology and policy on both sides of the Atlantic, especially in the nations now most vulnerable (US, UK, Italy, Greece, Ireland, Spain, Iceland, Portugal, EU as a whole…etc.).

If you hand over regulatory responsibility to the free market itself then of course you are going to be at the mercy of S&P, Moody´s, Fitch et al.

On politics:

Complaining about a loss of sovereignty is an easy foxhole for populist politicians like Berlusconi and the Tea Party nut-jobs to run into at this moment. The crisis is a result of policies pursued for decades by politicians and policy-influencers since Reagan, Thatcher, Friedman and others bent on dismantling the post WWII Keynesian system. The outcome of the crisis probably depends on whether Western nations pool together on further fiscal and regulatory co-ordination across borders or each go their own way.

On democracy:

The voting public plays a key role in deciding the course and might be completely overwhelmed. Susceptible to populism, extremism, nationalism and isolationism at the best of times, why are voters going with parties which clearly oppose their general interests, such as the Tea Party, Independence Party and the People of Freedom?

The role of new media makes this one hard to predict. How will the public´s perception be shaped? Surveying the major Icelandic media and internet sites you´d be forgiven for thinking that the main issues of our times were a overly hyped outdoor festival in Vestmann Islands, the beginning of the new English Premier League season or whether Icelandic cross-fit athletes should pay taxes.

The public is still living in a bubble. Will it burst?

Monday certainly looks interesting.

Related posts:

1. Fitch, Seriously? Moody’s, No Really?
2. The Worst News Ever
3. Who Was Rating Iceland, How and Why and When?

The tax returns might not make as exciting read as in the heady days of 2004-2008 but they still give the public valuable information about how wealth is spread throughout society. Last year for example, Gudbjorg Matthiasdottir, the fishing magnate from Vestmann Islands topped the list a year after getting out at the last moment with her Glitnir wealth, and courtesy of making her money in a foreign currency she could afford to make former PM and CB governor David Oddson the highest paid media person in the land albeit paying him in the depleted Icelandic krona.

Unsurprisingly, David Oddson’s close allies at the libertarian website Andriki (anti-gov) and AMX.is (claimed to be also funded by the Fisheries Association) have voiced their concerns with the information being made public. And now they are asking why there is not a similar list published of those receiving benefits from the state.

So right wing libertarians in Iceland are fighting the same battle as they are in the US and the UK. Attacking entitlement payments and taxes, and making innocent souls believe they are of the same kind.

It would be interesting to see cold, hard statistics, but due to underground economies and Central European and Caribbean tax havens they might be hard to come by. Yet it is not hard to imagine that tax-evasion by the wealthiest Icelanders is of far greater cost to society than false benefits collected by the poorest.

Yet we are all supposed to feel enraged towards jobless losers who feed off our honest work, while admiring the business smarts of people who can find ways to pay less taxes than they should.

Related posts:

1. The Icelandic Discourse in A Nutshell
2. Why The Fuzz About A Man Getting A Job?
3. Why I Don’t Want To Pay For IceSave

It might turn out otherwise. With Breivik having reminded us that muslims are not Europe´s chief source of terrorism, Norway having reminded us that not all nations are either with or against, and right wing dogmatists proving on all sides of the Atlantic that they know nothing about financial management, his legacy might be to serve as a reminder of what populist, nationalist, conservative ignorance will get you. Chaos and terror, just as bad as it is when served up by the left wing extremists they decry.

Related posts:

1. Olafur Ragnar’s Legacy: A Lost Symbol Of Unification
2. Election Will Move Iceland to the Left

Having been hit by the worst economic crisis in modern times, Iceland applied for full European Union membership in 2009. As a member of the European Economic Area since 1994, Icelandic society had undergone radical changes towards modernity through the subsequent effects of globalization and a policies with a libertarian emphasis on a free market economy. But a corrupt political elite privatized many of the state‘s institutions around the turn of the century, including banks which were sold to individuals with little experience in banking but close ties to the coalition parties in government. The three major banks all went under in the span of less than a week in October 2008.

The parliament elections of 2009 saw the ousting of the dominant right wing libertarian party, the Independence Party and a first ever clear majority for a leftist coalition between the Social Democrats and the Left Greens. Having recieved most of the popular votes and running on a mandate of applying for EU membership, the Social Democrats formed a government with the Eurosceptic Left Greens with an application as a high priority. Icelanders for EU membership claim that it offers an economic and defensive shelter for the small nation through the European Central Bank, the Euro and the ESDP and that Iceland‘s place in a globalized world is within Europe. Those against membership claim loss of sovereignty and independence, as well as strong resentment against the union itself, arguing that Iceland‘s future is best assured outside it or through bi-lateral agreements with nations from Canada and the USA to even India and China, even proposing unilateral adoption of their currencies.

Following an economic crisis where the nation‘s wealth is being redistributed, interest groups in society are fighting for power. Budget cuts, higher taxes and a prolongued debate with the UK and the Netherlands over the IceSave agreement have enabled opposition politicians and various demagogues to use nationalistic rhetoric to bitterly divide the nation on matters where it must be united.

Thus the economic crisis has spawned a social one which will shape Iceland‘s destiny in the 21st century, which could prolong the economic crisis locally and globally it could perhaps mean the stalling of further EU enlargement to the west.

Related posts:

1. EU Membership – The Time and The Place of the Social Democrats
2. Congratulations! Tax Queen Emerges Victorious From The Economic Crisis
3. Iceland warms to the EU

On March 4, 2011 Pope Benedict XVI hosted a private audience for the president of Iceland, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson at his office in the Vatican. The two officials discussed the importance of the Icelandic Sagas in Christianity and how early European discoverers in North America had brought the religion to the continent earlier than commonly assumed. They also talked about the consequences of the economic crisis in Iceland and the Pope received a warm message from the Catholic bishop in Iceland.

The main event of the visit was a seminar on medieval-and church history in the first centuries of Iceland’s settlement and a gift presented to Pope Benedict by Mr. Grímsson on the behalf of residents of Snæfellsnes peninsula in Iceland, a statue of Guðríður Þorbjarnardóttir, the main female character in Eirík’s Saga and Greenland’s Saga. Born sometime around 980 in Iceland, the legend has it that she and her father left the country for Greenland after she refused to marry the son of slave. There she married Þorsteinn, the son of Greenland’s first European settler Erik the Red, and brother of Leifur Eiríksson. Leifur is considered the first European to land in North America, in an area of Newfoundland then known as Vínland. Þorsteinn died on the way back from the expedition and Guðríður married Þorfinnur Karlsefni and together with him left to attempt settlement in Vínland. While in the New World she gave birth to their son, Snorri Þorfinsson who is said to be the first European born in the New World. The family returned to Greenland shortly thereafter where Þorfinnur died. With Christian conversion sweeping Iceland, Guðríður adopted the new faith and according to legend headed south on a pilgrimage to Rome, visited the Pope and told him of her travels. Returning home, she became a nun and lived in a church her son built on their estate.

The international media and independent bloggers reporting on the president’s visit certainly found the story of the well-travelled Icelandic woman riveting. Rome Reports, an independent television news agency based in Rome, specializing in coverage of the Pope and the Vatican  reported on the visit with the headline “President of Iceland speaks about Icelandic missionary in America 1000 years ago” on its YouTube page. The reporter claimed that Guðríður “visited the new world of America on a religious journey” and that she was considered as one of the great heroes of Icelandic culture. The television station interviewed president Grímsson who stated that “she was the first person in world history to be both in America and in Rome five hundred years before Christopher Columbus arrived on the scene”, “she was a Christian woman so her journey to America a thousand years ago was a missionary journey, she had some priests with her so her life story embraces the world of Christianity”. The report concludes with a note from the president that “this remarkable Icelandic woman is not just an important figure for the people of Iceland but also for the entire Catholic world because she was the first person to bring Christianity to America one thousand years ago”.  A search of “Icelandic missionary in America” on Google.com on April 20, 2011 returned seven results on the first page, all with a similar headline, “President of Iceland speaks of Icelandic missionary in America”.

They don’t fake it in the Vatican

The president of Iceland says that the Pope’s decision to accept the statue of Guðríður Þorbjarnardóttir as a present is a historical even. Thereby the Vatican officially acknowledges that Christopher Columbus was not the first Christian person in America. In a press conference today, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson said that a strong argument could be made for Guðríður being one of the most important, if not the the most important female explorer in world history. She had also played a notable part in Christianity and was the first person in the world to visit both Rome and America. When the Pope recieved her statue in the Vatican, he was making a historical acknowledgement of her place in world history. - Visir.is, February 24, 2011

While the story of Guðríður is certainly interesting and her reputation has been enhanced in the last couple of decades, there is little or no consensus amongst Icelandic academics on such claims that she was a Christian missionary on her trip to Vínland, and the only indication of her ever visiting Rome is a short passage in Greenland’s Saga which merely states that she “walked south”, which is certainly open to interpretation. Eirik’s Saga makes no mention of a southward journey, yet Guðríður plays an even more central role there.   While the president visited the Vatican, historian Guðni Th. Jóhannesson spoke at a seminar sponsored by the Science and Technology Policy Council held at Reykjavík University. The topic was “How do we distribute public funds to projects in science and innovation, in order to maximize quality and gains?” Guðni indicated that the role of academia to inform the public discourse was undermined by a low emphasis on public funding for independent research. He brought up the role of the History and Policy Network in the United Kingdom which aims to dismantle historical myths in contemporary debate and expose political and public relations spin of history.

Jóhannesson used president Grímsson’s visit and the promotion of the story of Guðríður Þorbjarnardóttir as an example of such “bad history” and showed the audience bits from a mailing list conversation which had taken place between Icelandic historians and academics a week earlier.

These are the same clichés that were being bandied about in 2000. This version of historical events was harshly criticized back then. But the politicians did not want research, they wanted images. - Úlfar Bragason
We can not guarantee any of this as historical facts, but neither dismiss this as nonsensical myths, we can only estimate the likelihood of each part by itself, from Guðríður existing (good odds), to her visiting Rome (rather implausible). - Helgi Skúli Kjartansson
It is hardly encouraging to attempt to engage in discourse with politicians and those who aspire to lead the public. - Sigurður Gylfi Magnússon
Looking back, is it not rather odd, considering the given importance of the issue, that it is Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson who is knocking on the Pope’s doors instead of the Pope making the first move. - Sigurður Gylfi Magnússon
I should also mention that I was on the radio … Channel 2 two days ago … talking about this issue with Guðríður. There I could refer to my article from Approaches to Vínland from 2001 … where I emphasise how suspicious it is that Guðríður walking south is only mentioned in Greenland’s Saga, but not in Eirik’s Saga, where yet she is the main character.- Helgi Þorláksson
“Isn’t this a bit of historical pompousness my dear Guðmundur. History is not the private property of those with a BA degree or more in history; not anymore than psychosis is only the business of pshychiatrists.” Yes it is probably true what you say, discussing these matters with politicians will get us nowhere.  - Guðmundur Magnússon reciting a Facebook-conversation with a politician.

From these discussions between leading academic historians in Iceland it can be safely assumed that the story being told of Guðríður in the Vatican is considered at least debatable within their circles. Helgi Þorláksson who is a leading research authority on Guðríður’s story has appeared on several radio and television programs to dampen the hype surrounding it. As Úlfar Bragason mentions, the same myths were resurrected around the year 2000 when the one thousandth anniversary of Christianity and the discovering of America by Leifur Eiriksson was celebrated in Iceland. On his popular blog, television host Egill Helgason pointed out that back then, feminist historian Þorgerður Þorvaldsdóttir claimed that there were commercial interests at play, that the discovery of America was supposed to be a sellable product, including a thousand year old image of a woman who had suddenly become a national hero, as the first woman to bear a white child in America, yet mostly unfamiliar to Icelanders. Þorgerður herself, “can not recall ever hearing of this woman”. Helgason wrote that the president’s visit to the Vatican was a good example of how the past is designed, history being produced so to speak.

Snyder says that the study of international relations is supposed to tell us how the world works and explains that it can puncture illusions and strip away simplistic assumptions and brand names used in popular discourse.  Þorgerður Þorvaldsdóttir’s point of Guðríður Þorbjarnardóttir’s commercial value is an interesting one. Accompanying the president of Iceland to the Vatican was Guðrún Bergmann leading a small group of inhabitants from the Snæfellsnes peninsula. The group appeared unfazed by the discussion taking place back in their home nation, about the vagueness of Guðríður’s story. Asked about the claims made by the president about the role of Christianity in Guðríður’s life and her making the trip to Rome, Bergmann replied,  “We do not know this but we intend to strike a deal on cooperation between the University of Iceland and the Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic studies on one hand and a catholic university in Rome on the other to research documents in the Vatican and other things relating to these events in early Christianity”.  Another visitor to the Vatican, Guðmundur Kristjánsson, owner of one of Iceland’s largest fisheries and an influential member of the Snæfellsnes society brushed off the concerns by stating that the Vatican had studied the story thoroughly, that “there were dozens of people and they knew what they were talking about. They don’t fake it in the Vatican”.

Trading untruths

Ecclesiastical principalities are acquired either by ability or by fortune; but are maintained without either, for they are sustained by ancient religious customs, which are so powerful and of such quality, that they keep their princes in power in whatever manner they proceed and live. – Macchiavelli

To gain an understanding of the reasons and motives behind the president’s visit, the constructivist approach of Alexander Wendt explains how cooperation between actors who have their own agendas, egoists as he puts it, is a process of reconstructing their interests in terms of shared commitments to social norms.   States and actors agree on certain norms and realities and their sovereignty is dependent on recognition from other actors. In the case of the Icelandic president and the Pope, each has a story to tell, stories lacking evidence and facts. So they seek approval from each other. What is Pope Benedict getting in return for his approval of the story of Guðríður Þorbjarnardóttir? He receives accreditation. By making an official visit to the Vatican, heads of state acknowledge the Pope’s role as the representative of God on Earth, furthermore granting credibility to a deity and a belief system which not only lacks in scientific evidence but has also been criticised for the manifestations of its power.

The Catholic church receives regular criticism for is its conservative approach towards women, which includes banning them from entering priesthood, a high degree of tolerance of children’s abuse by its officials and a tough stance against contraceptives and abortion which has grave consequences in the developing world. When the church issues statements or policies they sometimes revolve around matters of life and death. For centuries it maintained that unbaptized children would end up in limbo forever denied access to heaven, then one day Benedict XVI, the same Pope who hosted the Icelandic delegation, suddenly abolished it as if it had never mattered at all.   When the Icelandic delegation met with the Pope, observers in Iceland noticed that they covered their hair with veils out of respect to Vatican tradition. Is it simply an innocent sign of common courtesy for representatives of liberal democratic states to discount their values in the presence of agents of conservative states or does such show of respect lend credibility to their values, beliefs and actions?

In contemporary world society actions are carried out by actors who dominate the cultural stage in virtually all cultural theories. Individuals, organizations and states are legitimated entities expected to act as agents of their interests. No single actor has central control and the legitimated actors are supposed to have similar goals. Supporting this cultural framework yields collective authority as proper actors legitimate each other. Norms and ideas then define the actors and their actions. Nation states, ritualized and structured actors are more isomorphic and more uniformly reactive than is commonly believed.  Christianity and its branches are certainly amongst the biggest influences on Western culture in the past two millennia. The Catholic Church has withstood both the Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment and remains a powerful enough force in world politics for the president of Iceland to seek the Pope’s accreditation. Guðrún Bergmann at least seemed overawed as she described the group’s reaction when it visited the Vatican, “One fills with respect, walking through halls inaccessible to the public. We talked amongst ourselves that a billion people would like to trade places with us. This was a big moment.”

A perspective

When a democratically elected president speaks publicly as his nation’s representative, he is listened to and therefore his words matter as well as who he is speaking to. That is where his responsibility lies. The president strived to present a polished, hubristic and nationalistic image of Icelandic superiority, based on ancient heritage. – Althingi’s Special Investigation Report.

What is concerning about the before mentioned discussion in the historians’ mailing list is the resigned attitude many of the academics display towards politicians shaping their own versions of the truth. It appears as if they consider themselves unable or at least unwilling to go up against seasoned political debaters and spinsters in a public debate. It is truly a shame as the public would surely benefit from their expert insight. During a course named The Crash in an academic light at University of Iceland in the summer of 2010, associate professor in translation studies, Gauti Kristmannsson pondered the musings of Antonio Gramsci about whether academics were an isolated group in society or whether elite groups exalted their own preferred scholars. Kristmannsson expressed his concerns that academics were being suppressed in Iceland, through muted threats of lawsuits or assaults on their academic integrity by politicians, members of the business community and even from their own politically involved colleagues in the academic profession.  Balancing the public discourse is not solely an Icelandic concern. Political spin on facts and history is common everywhere as is evident by the need organizations such as History and Policy in the UK.

In his seminar, Guðni Th. Jóhannesson’s conclusion is that science and research is far too important to be locked up within small research communities and that academics must engage the public and expose it to their work. When considering the benefits of academia in Iceland, the emphasis often seems to be on innovation and value creation, market driven rewards mirroring the emphasis on the libertarian theory so dominant in Iceland. But there is certainly also value in academic criticism and in experts seeking to balance the public discourse and the actors of powers who try to mould it as they see fit.

In 2009 Alþingi, the Icelandic parliament appointed a Special Investigation Committee (SIC) to compile a report on the causes of the Icelandic banking collapse of 2008. It included a section on ethics in Icelandic society where politicians are criticized for neglecting their duties towards the public, by amongst other things refraining from consulting independent expert advice on the bank’s true position. The report claims that “the state was systematically neglected, as dominant belief in self-regulation by private actors was the mantra of the day. Disbelief in experts and expert opinion has been apparent within Icelandic politics, probably because it is thought to dampen the power of elected officials,” and “political culture in Iceland has been overly characterized by power struggles and debates where the truthfulness of statements are insignificant”.

According to the SIC, the Icelandic media participated in shaping the discourse which promoted the success of the Icelandic banks instead of offering healthy criticism. It also makes a point of noting that academics could have participated more in the public discourse, but admits that they would probably not have been received well, and even silenced.  Finally, a critical mention is made of the president’s role in promoting ideas of the superiority of Icelandic bankers. French philosopher and political scientist, Michel Focault asked if there was a common thread between the fields of knowledge and power. He believed there was a general consistency, which could not be reduced to identity, between modes of interpretation and operations of power. Focault claimed that power and knowledge were mutually supportive and directly implied one another. This helps in understanding how operations of power holders fit with the social and political fabric of the world. This contradicts the orthodox scientific account that knowledge should be immune from the influence of power. Here Focault is in opposition to Immanuel Kant‘s claim that the possession of power must inevitable corrupt the free judgement of reason. Scholarly work, including studies in International Relations is often supposed to require a suspension of values, interests and power relations and lead researchers to an objective conclusions. Focault countered the production of knowledge as a cognitive matter by explaining it as a normative and political.

The role of the president of Iceland as performed by Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson in the years leading up to the banking collapse in 2008 was severely criticized by the SIC report which asked whom the office was really serving? The report finds the president’s support for private institutions and the access he granted wealthy businessmen to the office concerning. It also describes how Icelandic historians reacted to his speech to the Walbrook Club in London in 2005, which was mostly repeated at the Icelandic History Society in 2006, as being filled with “generalizing, nationalistic arrogance and outdated interpretations of history not based on modern research nor modern theories”.  Icelandic historian Guðmundur Hálfdánarson draws on Barrés and Renan’s assertions that identities and thereby nationalities are shaped by common history and memories of the past and how people are united under historic interpretation which forgets an inconvenient past and enhances the versions which fit a convenient truth. Hálfdánarson explains how traditionally Icelandic politicians celebrate a glorious past of the Icelandic Saga’s to mould a uniting story of a special people.   Similarly journalist David Campbell explains In National Deconstruction, his account of the Bosnian war, how narratives shape how we sense reality. He cites White‘s observation that events in a chronicle are real, not because they occurred, but because they are remembered by ex post facto accounts. The historical field is simply to wast and heterogeneous to be able to draw conclusions from a single account. For there to exist a historical account of events, they must be used in a narrative which is neither given nor determined by the events themselves. Scholars as well as the public must therefore be on guard for the possibility of different interpretations of events when pay close attention to the narratives available when drawing conclusions from them. Campbell warns that the same events can be represented in markedly different ways with significantly different effects. Events must therefore be examined through perspective.

When in Rome

Politicians who are able to construct reality around their versions of events are able to obtain and hold onto power. When the facts do not add up, they are able to seek support from other powerful actors. The Icelandic president is far from alone amongst state leaders and politicians in mishandling historical events to fit an agenda. Enhancing the reputation of an Icelandic woman who lived 1.000 years ago might lead to increased cooperation between Icelandic and foreign institutions, there might be research money to be had from sources that otherwise would not be available, and tourists might arrive in greater numbers at sites of historical significance.  Yet perspective gives cause for caution. In Christian Reus-Smith’s introduction to constructivism it is explained how institutionalized norms and ideas define the meaning and identity of the individual actor and the patterns of appropriate economic, political and cultural activity it engages in. Through reciprocal interaction, actors create the relatively enduring social structures by which identities and interests are defined. Norms and ides shape identities through three mechanisms; imagination, communication and constraint. A president in an established liberal democracy will use strategies to enhance his or her power within the norms expected.

According to the SIC report and academics Icelandic politicians are notorious for disregarding facts and expert opinion. The report states that citizens in a democratic state are responsible for their elected officials, and that to be able to carry this responsibility the conditions for forming enlightened opinions must be favourable.  So is the nation responsible for creating conditions where it is represented by a head of state that is repeatedly criticized for bending facts and shaping history to his own accord? When in Rome it might be considered appropriate to do as the Romans. But the Pope is no ordinary head of state but a representative of an ecclesiastical principality on Earth, albeit a very powerful one. Unlike the Icelandic president, he is not democratically elected and his subjects are actively ordered to not question his policies, words or actions. The Pope’s official visit to Britain in 2010 was met with a high level of public criticism, led by academics such as Richard Dawkins and media figures such as Stephen Fry.  Seeking credibility by trading untruths with an absolute monarch is highly questionable for a democratic leader and it should certainly be challenged by academics, experts and critical thought but as the Special Investigative Committee admits and Guðmundur Hálfdánarson has described, the conditions for a challenging debate has historically little traction in Iceland.

There is a difference in claiming knowledge and exhibiting desire to find the truth. In a television interview with Rome Reports, president Grímsson without exhibiting much constraint, makes blunt statements about the importance of a vague historical figure. Unsuspecting persons searching for known facts and preserved stories on Guðríður Þorbjarnardóttir might take him for his word and put faith in what he says because of his position. The question remains for experts, academics and critical thinkers, if untruths are not challenged by society, what other stories might persons in the office of a president construct to fit their own agenda?

Related posts:

1. Bloomberg: Iceland Banks Didn’t Violate Rules, President Grimsson Says
2. The Disappearance Of A President
3. The End Of History

In the case of the Icelandic constitutional assembly elections, that would be the minister of interior. But try to tell that one to Ogmundur Jonasson.

After all, the call for constitutional reform was not just to change around a few words on a piece of paper. It was a demand for political reform. A new way of doing things, including politicians assuming more responsibility.

The most serious charge against the vote as it was carried out is that the ballots were easily identified by barcodes and numbers. A mind-boggling oversight on the parts of the organizers. Yet, things remain the same in Iceland. Blame is assigned elsewhere by anyone remotely connected to the execution.

But of course things are more complicated than that. The Supreme Court is part of what needs to reform. It might have had perfectly good reasons to overturn the whole election, but the way the justices have been appointed does little to enhance trust in the judicial system. It does not take a whole lot of stretch of imagination to question the motives of the three Independence Party insiders who ran and were the only ones out of 498 candidates who lost who saw reason to question the process.

There are no precedents of nationwide elections being ruled illegal in Iceland. There are six examples of local elections though, the most interesting being the one in Borgarbyggd in 2002, when outside ballots were questioned. In that case the Independence Party’s representative was against invalidating the result and went to court to try to overrule the decision. The vote was eventually repeated. The IP rep was one Odinn Sigthorsson, the very same who is one of the three who challenged the constitutional assembly vote.

And now they bark about money down the drain and that the whole thing should be called off.

The truth of the matter is that Iceland probably can not afford not to repeat the vote. This has to go through.

Because if there are going to be words on a piece of paper for politicians to ignore, it is better that those words are written by the people, for the people. Even if some of the people don’t care for that at all.

But if the current government is serious about reform, then one or two resignations every now and then will enhance its reputation in the minds of the 50% of Icelanders who currently do not put their trust in any particular party.

Related posts:

1. Skafti Hardarson Will Inherit Iceland
2. A Cause For Concern On Constitutional Reform
3. For Iceland To Get Back On Its Feet Important Reform Is Needed Within Independence Party

Well scratch away as the Employers’ Association under the leadership of the Independence Party’s Vilhjalmur Egilsson has threatened that it will not participate in pending talks on wage reform with the unions and employers associations unless the government reneges on its intentions to dismantle the current fishing quota system.

Blogger Jon Danielsson points out that this would be an understandable demand from the Fisheries’ Association, but from the Employers’ Association it makes little sense. It only counts 190 out of 2.426 of the businesses it represents as fisheries or 7.8%. Of the 56.100 employees working for their members, only 4.700 or 8.4% are with the fisheries.

The fisheries stance on the wage negotiations and the support they get from the Employers’ Association  means that more than 90% of the employers working for the latter’s members will have to wait for better pay for a while yet.

About half of them will probably succumb to some libertarian slogans and nationalistic rhetoric and end up believing that this is how things are supposed to be.

And that is how things really work in Iceland.

Related posts:

1. The Monkfish That Destabilized Iceland
2. Dirty fish at HB Grandi
3. Why Iceland Continues Whaling

For those who are not fluent in Icelandic, Skafti is the Icelandic version of Glenn Beck, albeit with a much smaller following, a blog site instead of a TV show and where he lacks in props he more than makes up for in derisory and outraged vocabulary.

Skafti thinks the idea of a constitutional congress is a waste of money and senseless in the current unstable environment. He has made no secret of this opinion, along with other opinions about the horrors of the current leftist government, protesters and special investigations. When Skafti first arrived on the blogging scene, people debated on Facebook whether he was real or not. His hatred of Jon Asgeir Johannesson, Baugur, the Social Democrats and professions of admiration in David Oddsson were considered too blind, too outrageous and too deep-seethed to be written by anyone who is not a comical character or a lunatic fanatic.

Others then begun pointing out similarities between Skafti’s writing style and the one used by his long time friend and libertarian ally Hannes Holmsteinn Gissurarson. But whoever wrote Skafti’s words, sure did not like the idea of Iceland holding a constitutional congress.

So Skafti did something unexpected. He ran for the congress with a mandate that the constitution should be left unchanged. Skafti was one of almost 500 people who ran and he did not win a place. But then he did something which was not so unexpected. He challenged the execution of the election on technical details. Of the 498 other candidates who ran, only Skafti and two other Independence Party members and supporters, Odinn Sigthorsson and Thorgrimur S. Thorgrimsson went to court attempting to get the result overturned.

The threesome complained that the voting ballots were traceable, that there was not enough privacy in the voting booths, that they were not allowed to have a representative present during counting. All debatable points in the first personal vote Iceland has conducted with so many candidates.

It is worth remembering why the constitutional congress was held in first place. Iceland had gone through a crash which was not only economic, but also moral, political and social. A political elite had abused the democracy and institutions of Iceland.  Icelanders have called for constitutional reform for decades but it has so far drowned in committees, assigned and arranged by the political parties themselves. The system of old was broken and finally after 2008, an opportunity to debate and enact necessary reform opened up.

So it was up to the Supreme Court to decide on the threesome’s complaints. To counter the threesomes’ argument they were presented with a precedent from previous elections where the result stood in spite of minor technicalities having gone wrong on the grounds that there was no evidence of malicious intent.

But the Supreme Court still ruled the election illegal. No constitutional congress. Skafti won, Odinn won, Thorgrimur won, David Oddson won and Hannes Holmsteinn Gissurarson won. Inga Lind Karlsdottir, the soft news television presenter who ran as a candidate aligned with the Independence Party and got in was immediately indignant in the media. Pressan.is owned by benefactors from the old system immediately questioned whether ministers should resign and debated the waste of money.

The supreme court ruling was performed by the following justices:

Arni Kolbeinsson and Jon Steinar Gunnlaugsson, both bridge partners of David Oddsson and Gardar Gislason, Gunnlaugur Claessen, Pall Hreinsson og Vidar Mar Matthiasson. All justices were appointed to the court in by justice ministers of the Independence Party during a period in Icelandic history which has been criticized harshly for corruption and bad governance, for example in the Special Investigation Report which Pall Hreinsson presented last year.

Constitutional reform is directed against the old system. The old system does not want reform.

Someone said in December 2008, “they will wreck havoc, and keep hold of their power and influence by any means necessary”.

It is indicative of the problems Iceland faces, that those responsible for the constitutional congress did not cover all their bases.

And using and abusing every little crook and nanny, legal or otherwise, Skafti Hardarson will inherit Iceland.

Related posts:

1. Real Reform Or Just More Of The Same?
2. First Law Against David Oddson’s Type Of Governance
3. Its All Gone Fucking Fuck In Iceland

This all remains to be seen and the real effects will probably not be known for another twenty years. But the political manouverings of Indefence are interesting to say the least. Here is a non governmental organization which has sprung forth in two years as a major policy influencer. How and why? Remember Bjarni Benediktsson’s conversation with the US Embassy?

Bendiktsson said that, in an attempt to force the issue into the courts, he intends to oppose the government-sponsored Icesave bill when it comes up for a vote in Parliament.  (Note:  Benediktsson, along with most of his

opposition Independence Party colleagues, abstained when the previous law was passed in August.  End note).  He acknowledged, however, that the coalition government probably had the votes necessary to pass the measure through parliament.  He also admitted that, were he to have his way and the bill fail in parliament, it could further stall Iceland’s recovery efforts.  It would certainly mean no further loans from the IMF and, without that cash inflow, the government would be unable to lift its capital control restrictions and would likely have to issue Euro bonds to raise the necessary capital.  He also said he was not anxious to assume leadership of the government, but preferred to remain in opposition until after the May 2010 municipal

elections to benefit candidates from his party.

So how about this from the opposition political leader? First we will throw any obstacle we can in the way of the government so that it is weakened in the eyes of the voters. Secondly we will use this to ride a wave of discontent back into the seats of power. Thirdly, it does not matter whether the nation as a whole suffers, as long as the party is back on its feet.

But how do the two most unpopular political organizations of 2009-2010 go about advancing their agenda? Supporting and influencing an organization battling vehemently against key issues for the government would seem like a good idea. Indefence anyone?

Olafur Eliasson of Indefence has scoured internet forums and blog comments to deny this. He maintains that the group’s agenda is to prevent the people of Iceland assuming massive debts which will hinder prosperity in Iceland’s future. He states that himself and Agnar Helgason had the original idea of creating the Indefence group and have fought to keep it bipartizan in nature.

It would be imprudent to accuse those two of holding political beliefs which they might not, but it is hard to look past the company they keep. Amongst the first prominent Indefence members was Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, who soon thereafter assumed the leadership of the Centre Party. He has now hired Johannes Skulason, another vocal Indefence member to be his assistant. Another, Magnus Arni Skulason has held positions on behalf of both the Independence Party and the Centre Party. Eirikur S. Svavarsson is a pronounced supporter of Gudlaugur Thor Thordarson, the former IP minister who was instrumental behind the giant donations the party got from Landsbankinn and FL Group in 2006. Lawyer Helgi Ass Gretarsson has been one of the most active legal supporters of the current fishing quota system so precious to the Independence Party and the Centre Party and Sigurdur Hannesson represented the Centre Party on the committee on foreign investment last year. Least we forget the “invisible member” of Indefence, David Blondal who is the son of one of the Independence Party’s most vocal members of Althingi Petur Blondal.

Perhaps Olafur Eliasson and others were working in good faith in something they absolutely believed in. But one lesson from Indefence and the events of 2008-2011 in Iceland is that in democracies, NGO’s can influence national policy and adapt it to their goals.

The only question is, who elects them to do so and whose agenda are they pushing?

Related posts:

1. InDefence: Request For A Meeting With The Dutch Finance Committee
2. IcelandTalks: The Indefence group, Kaupthing and the Progressive party
3. From The Ashes, Dirt Rises With New Iceland

Who was warned?

Interestingly very little has been written about this period. Except that former ministry director Baldur Gudlaugsson is on trial for selling his Landsbanki shares after a meeting with Alistair Darling in the summer of 2008.

Recent news suggest that former Icelandic national team goalkeeper and Glitnir private banking employee Birkir Kristinsson sold billions in Glitnir stock well in advance of the crash.

Interesting period indeed.

Related posts:

1. Who Got The Calls From The Invisible Hand?
2. Bankers Bonuses And Perspectives
3. Did Svafa Get The Call?