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:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

August 23, 2016
Diana Johnstone
Hillary and the Glass Ceilings Illusion
Bill Quigley
Race and Class Gap Widening: Katrina Pain Index 2016 by the Numbers
Ted Rall
Trump vs. Clinton: It’s All About the Debates
Eoin Higgins
Will Progressive Democrats Ever Support a Third Party Candidate?
Kenneth J. Saltman
Wall Street’s Latest Public Sector Rip-Off: Five Myths About Pay for Success
Binoy Kampmark
Labouring Hours: Sweden’s Six-Hour Working Day
John Feffer
The Globalization of Trump
Gwendolyn Mink – Felicia Kornbluh
Time to End “Welfare as We Know It”
Medea Benjamin
Congress Must Take Action to Block Weapon Sales to Saudi Arabia
Halyna Mokrushyna
Political Writer, Daughter of Ukrainian Dissident, Detained and Charged in Ukraine
Manuel E. Yepe
Tourism and Religion Go Hand-in-Hand in the Caribbean
ED ADELMAN
Belted by Trump
Thomas Knapp
War: The Islamic State and Western Politicians Against the Rest of Us
Nauman Sadiq
Shifting Alliances: Turkey, Russia and the Kurds
Rivera Sun
Active Peace: Restoring Relationships While Making Change
August 22, 2016
Eric Draitser
Hillary Clinton: The Anti-Woman ‘Feminist’
Robert Hunziker
Arctic Death Rattle
Norman Solomon
Clinton’s Transition Team: a Corporate Presidency Foretold
Ralph Nader
Hillary’s Hubris: Only Tell the Rich for $5000 a Minute!
Russell Mokhiber
Save the Patients, Cut Off the Dick!
Steven M. Druker
The Deceptions of the GE Food Venture
Elliot Sperber
Clean, Green, Class War: Bill McKibben’s Shortsighted ‘War on Climate Change’
Binoy Kampmark
Claims of Exoneration: The Case of Slobodan Milošević
Walter Brasch
The Contradictions of Donald Trump
Michael Donnelly
Body Shaming Trump: Statue of Limitations
Weekend Edition
August 19, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Carl Boggs
Hillary and the War Party
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Prime Time Green
Andrew Levine
Hillary Goes With the Flow
Dave Lindorff
New York Times Shames Itself by Attacking Wikileaks’ Assange
Gary Leupp
Could a Russian-Led Coalition Defeat Hillary’s War Plans?
Conn Hallinan
Dangerous Seas: China and the USA
Joshua Frank
Richard Holbrooke and the Obama Doctrine
Margaret Kimberley
Liberal Hate for the Green Party
John Davis
Lost Peoples of the Lake
Alex Richardson-Price
The Fight for a Six Hour Workday
John Wight
Why Palestine Matters, Even on the Pitch
Brian Cloughley
Hillary Clinton’s War Policy
Patrick Cockburn
A Battle to the Death in Syria
David Rosen
The Great Fear: Miscegenation, Race “Pollution” and the 2016 Election
Ben Debney
Worthy and Unworthy Victims of Child Abuse
David Barouh
Liberal Myths: Would Al Gore Have Invaded Iraq?
Graham Peebles
Democratic Revolution Sweeps Ethiopia
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh
How Parasitic Finance Capital Has Turned Iran’s Economy Into a Case of Casino Capitalism
David Swanson
The Unbearable Awesomeness of the U.S. Military
Robert Fantina
The Olympics: Nationalism at its Worst
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail