In an earlier lifetime I had a connection with Iceland, as a result of which I have been paying more attention than the average citizen to the events leading up to, and in particular resulting from the economic meltdown in the autumn of 2008. So it is probable that a lot of my posts will contain some reference to Iceland – as indeed this one does.
I noticed on one of the Icelandic blog sites that I visit regularly a news item in which a politician, Svavar Gestsson, formerly an mp for the communist party, now one of the countries special negotiators with the UK and the Netherlands over the IceSave issue, complains that the president’s refusal to sign a recent piece of legislation about IceSave and thereby sending the law to a national referendum has damaged Iceland’s image overseas. He goes on to say that the president “has initiated a revolt against parliament”. There are a number of points raised by these statements.
The first, and most obvious, is that 60,000 people signed a petition to the president requesting him not to sign. 60,000, you might say. Not so many. Who cares. But in a population of around 300,000, that’s 20% of the population. It’s as though twelve million Brits or sixty million Americans signed a petition. It’s not something you can ignore. Or at least, it’s not something you should ignore. So what does it say about Svavar Gestsson’s view of democracy if he wants the president to ignore 20% of the population?
And as for tarnishing the image of Iceland overseas, what sort of a country is it that thinks Iceland’s image has been tarnished as a result of sending a parliamentary decision to a national referendum at the request of 20% of the population? Well, I can imagine that there are a number of governments, both dictatorial and those purporting to be democratic, which would blanch at the thought of a citizens’ revolt of that magnitude. If there’s one thing a member of parliament or a minister in a government fears above all else, even more than the loss of power for his party, it is the loss of power to the people who put him there, in other words the loss of power for the parliamentary process as he has designed it for his own benefit.
On the other hand, I can imagine that there are many countries where the citizens are extremely pleased to see other countries’ citizens claiming the right to have the last say in respect of laws passed by their governments. It may be subjective, but I think I see an unpleasant trend of governments and parliaments actively working against the interests of their citizens, and this trend seems to me to be increasing with time rather than standing still or decreasing. In Sweden we have seen similar revolts in recent years against the increasing general surveillance of the populace, surveillance comparable to that previously reserved for serious criminals. And the turning over to private companies the kind of official powers that properly belong to the police, such as the ability to demand access to the name and address behind an IP address which they suspect has been used for the dissemination of copyrighted material.
It’s no use saying that the president of Iceland shouldn’t have used the powers he is granted under the country’s constitution, that he is merely a figurehead. You can’t have your cake and eat it. If he is given certain powers, one must expect that he will use them sooner or later, in appropriate circumstances. If you don’t want your president to have those powers, they shouldn’t be written into the consitution.
If there is one thing that the internet has given us, it is the enfranchising of the citizen in a way not previously possible. By email-bombing their mps, joining Facebook groups, taking part in on-line petitions, or registering their choice of important election issues, as the group, www.power2010.org, has organized for the upcoming UK elections, ordinary citizens can make their views known to the people who are supposed to represent them.
Small wonder that the people in power, both in government and in opposition, want to increase their surveillance of the Internet, and the people using it, and preferably to take control of it out of the hands of the populace.