Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! We only shake you down once a year, but when we do we really mean it. It costs a lot to keep the site afloat, and our growing audience, well over TWO million unique viewers a month, eats up a lot of bandwidth — and bandwidth isn’t free. We aren’t supported by corporate donors, advertisers or big foundations. We survive solely on your support.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Constitutional Changes in Iceland

by JOSÉ M. TIRADO

To some, it may not look like much. But the people have spoken. On a cool, clear Sunday, Icelanders cast either the most important vote in their history, a shining example for the democracies of the world, or a sham pseudo-revolution designed by amateurs to upset a rickety apple-cart only now righting itself. Of course, this depended upon whom you asked. Average folks and foreign observers tend to give more weight to the former interpretation. And bankers, old politicians and minor-league oligarchs asserted the latter.

After the Pots and Pans Revolution, Icelanders demanded that some future safeguards be created to ensure another financial collapse is averted and that in the future, those responsible would be punished, or dissuaded from playing the high stakes poker with the entire nation’s economic resources, among other demands. The government, led by the dominant Independence Party, (Iceland’s “Republicans”, a center-right amalgam of nationalists, free marketers and high tech supporting banking interests combined with the old oligarchies, the “octopus” of fishing quota shipping families and their supporters) was forced to resign. A newer, Left-Green Alliance/Socialist Party government was elected. In addition, calls were made for a new constitution to replace the Dane-inspired one. After much discussion, a National Forum was held and a committee of 25 citizens was selected, taken from 1000 applicants ranging from plumbers to politicians, with the suggestions submitted to the Althingi, or Parliament. Saturday’s vote represents a crystallization of those suggestions into six main issues (translation courtesy of Paul Nikolov). The results are now in and they are fairly decisive, to say the least:

1.      Do you wish the Constitution Council’s proposals to form the basis of a new draft Constitution? YES: 66.1% NO: 33.9% 

Maybe the most essential of the proposals, the people chose to go with the new Constitution, one which will be more equitable, enshrining animal rights, protecting natural resources, and more open to popular amending. The Independence Party, has begun squawking about insufficient voters delegitimizing the vote, but the lopsided numbers will probably guarantee the new Constitution, with some minor amending by parliamentarians, will be voted on in the spring. And probably approved.

2. In the new Constitution, do you want natural resources that are not privately owned to be declared national property? YES: 81.2% NO: 18.8%   

Overwhelmingly, Icelanders have declared, hands down, their opposition to the “octopus” of families who already dominate the country’s main resource, fish, and stated that those remaining natural resources are the patrimony of all Icelanders. This is very significant, and there will be acrimonious opposition from those who will cling to their privileges, the “sea barons” especially. Again, the leader of the Independence Party is questioning the results, asserting that non-voters and the opposition votes be counted together in an effort to minimize the damage. My guess is the entrenched interests will not go quietly, but popular sentiment is unambiguous here.

3. Would you like to see provisions in the new Constitution on an established (national) church in Iceland? YES: 57.3% NO: 42.7% 

This refers to whether the Evangelical Lutheran Church should be identified as the State Church, as is at present, or should no church get official mention and thus, a formal “separation of church and state” be enacted. Apparently, Icelanders want to retain the cultural ties to the church, although the fact that nearly 43% do not, highlights the yearly diminishing influence of this rather moribund institution.

4. Would you like to see a provision in the new Constitution authorizing the election of particular individuals to the Althingi more than is the case at present? YES: 76.4% NO: 23.6%

Simply put, this refers to election of individuals vs parties. Right now party lists are provided and the leaders are then voted in per the final percentage of the vote given to the respective party. Personally, I have mixed feelings about this issue as any move towards a more personality-centered electoral process may lead to US style theatrics. Apparently, however, Icelanders feel differently, hoping their more charismatic leaders from smaller parties, or those from no party at all, might have a better chance.

5. Would you like to see a provision in the new Constitution giving equal weight to votes cast in all parts of the country?  YES: 55.6% NO: 44.4%

At present, a slightly higher weight is given to more remote, agricultural votes despite the fact that around 90% of the country’s population is located in one major (Reykjavík) and one smaller (Akureyri) urban area. This equalizes votes. Appropriately.

6. Would you like to see a provision in the new Constitution stating that a certain proportion of the electorate is able to demand that issues are put to a referendum? YES: 70.5% NO: 29.5% 

This item ranks next in importance. In part because the people want make sure that before any changes are made to the already voted on changes they approved (one marvels at such electoral complexity within a country about the size of Kentucky with the population of Indianapolis, IN), that they have the right to vote on it all yet again, in a national referendum.

Taken at face value, these changes may not look too intimidating. But the response from some quarters has been furious and frantic; first, in dissuading voters from even participating, to now lamenting the possible collapse of Iceland into a quasi-socialist republic governed by amateurs and revolutionaries. This was the opinion of some of the Independence Party who is rapidly becoming Iceland’s own party of “no”. If democracy is a messy affair, then the Iceland example provides ample confirmation of this fact. Still, patience and determination have always proven allies to change, and the doggedness of Icelanders to tackle the entrenched interests who have dominated politics here since after the Second World War may just prove successful.

Rev. JOSÉ M. TIRADO is a poet, priest and writer finishing a PhD in psychology while living in Iceland. 

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

September 29, 2016
Robert Fisk
The Butcher of Qana: Shimon Peres Was No Peacemaker
James Rose
Politics in the Echo Chamber: How Trump Becomes President
Russell Mokhiber
The Corporate Vice Grip on the Presidential Debates
Daniel Kato
Rethinking the Race over Race: What Clinton Should do Now About ‘Super-Predators’
Peter Certo
Clinton’s Awkward Stumbles on Trade
Fran Shor
Demonizing the Green Party Vote
Rev. William Alberts
Trump’s Road Rage to the White House
Luke O'Brien
Because We Couldn’t Have Sanders, You’ll Get Trump
Michael J. Sainato
How the Payday Loan Industry is Obstructing Reform
Robert Fantina
You Can’t Have War Without Racism
Gregory Barrett
Bad Theater at the United Nations (Starring Kerry, Power, and Obama
James A Haught
The Long, Long Journey to Female Equality
Thomas Knapp
US Military Aid: Thai-ed to Torture
Jack Smith
Must They be Enemies? Russia, Putin and the US
Gilbert Mercier
Clinton vs Trump: Lesser of Two Evils or the Devil You Know
Tom H. Hastings
Manifesting the Worst Old Norms
George Ella Lyons
This Just in From Rancho Politico
September 28, 2016
Eric Draitser
Stop Trump! Stop Clinton!! Stop the Madness (and Let Me Get Off)!
Ted Rall
The Thrilla at Hofstra: How Trump Won the Debate
Robert Fisk
Cliché and Banality at the Debates: Trump and Clinton on the Middle East
Patrick Cockburn
Cracks in the Kingdom: Saudi Arabia Rocked by Financial Strains
Lowell Flanders
Donald Trump, Islamophobia and Immigrants
Shane Burley
Defining the Alt Right and the New American Fascism
Jan Oberg
Ukraine as the Border of NATO Expansion
Ramzy Baroud
Ban Ki-Moon’s Legacy in Palestine: Failure in Words and Deeds
Gareth Porter
How We Could End the Permanent War State
Sam Husseini
Debate Night’s Biggest Lie Was Told by Lester Holt
Laura Carlsen
Ayotzinapa’s Message to the World: Organize!
Binoy Kampmark
The Triumph of Momentum: Re-Electing Jeremy Corbyn
David Macaray
When the Saints Go Marching In
Seth Oelbaum
All Black Lives Will Never Matter for Clinton and Trump
Adam Parsons
Standing in Solidarity for a Humanity Without Borders
Cesar Chelala
The Trump Bubble
September 27, 2016
Louisa Willcox
The Tribal Fight for Nature: From the Grizzly to the Black Snake of the Dakota Pipeline
Paul Street
The Roots are in the System: Charlotte and Beyond
Jeffrey St. Clair
Idiot Winds at Hofstra: Notes on the Not-So-Great Debate
Mark Harris
Clinton, Trump, and the Death of Idealism
Mike Whitney
Putin Ups the Ante: Ceasefire Sabotage Triggers Major Offensive in Aleppo
Anthony DiMaggio
The Debates as Democratic Façade: Voter “Rationality” in American Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Punishing the Punished: the Torments of Chelsea Manning
Paul Buhle
Why “Snowden” is Important (or How Kafka Foresaw the Juggernaut State)
Jack Rasmus
Hillary’s Ghosts
Brian Cloughley
Billions Down the Afghan Drain
Lawrence Davidson
True Believers and the U.S. Election
Matt Peppe
Taking a Knee: Resisting Enforced Patriotism
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]