Mag
Opinion
One Nation, One Party, One Bank Account?

One Nation, One Party, One Bank Account?

Published October 12, 2009

A year after the economic collapse and one can’t help notice that nothing has really changed. The oligarchs, though officially bankrupt, still control Iceland’s industries. Of the two daily papers, one is run by the main architect of the collapse, former PM and Central Bank Manager Davið Oddsson, and the other is still owned by Jón Ásgeir Jóhannesson, one of the most indebted men in Iceland’s history.
Free speech has been all but suspended, while no one has assumed responsibility for any of the decisions made here in the past twenty years. Even the Icesave issue remains unresolved. Which brings us to the question, are Iceland’s politicians merely incompetent, or could it be that they don’t actually want the current problems solved? It seems the latter might actually be the case.  
In a recent issue of Time Magazine, columnist Joe Klein calls the US debate about Health Care a national embarrassment. Icelanders are no strangers to national embarrassment, but let’s let Klein finish. He writes “Obama should be heartened by the fact that most of his Republican adversaries oppose the bill for crass political rather than ideological reasons.”
He then goes on to explain this, saying that the Republicans are terrified that the healthcare bill will pass, not because they are afraid that the results will be a failure, but because they are afraid that it will be a success. If Obama manages to reform health care, end America’s hopeless wars and rescue the economy, in other words, pull the US out of the quagmire the Republicans have mired it in, the Democrats will be in an unassailable position for the foreseeable future. Therefore, the Republicans seem to have decided to put their own party’s’ political interests ahead of the good of the nation.
They would rather do harm to their adversaries than take part in doing good for their people. No wonder bipartisanship has proven impossible on this or any other major issue.
The Good, the Bad
and the Icesave
Which brings us to Iceland. A year after the October collapse, the Independence Party has proven to be as irresponsible in opposition as it was in government. They spent all of summer squabbling about Icesave while the nation’s households sank deeper into debt. Even after they had made their amendments, they still refused to support the bill, instead electing to remain idle as the bill was passed.
No doubt they hope to accrue political advantage from this. If the bill proves a relative success, they will claim credit for their amendments. If it proves a failure, they will claim to never have supported it to begin with. This argument, of course, can easily be stood on its head. There are no good solutions to Icesave, only various degrees of bad. If worst comes to worst, it will be because the Independence Party left the country in a hopeless position. If the problem can be solved, it only proves that the current government is that much better than the last.
Party or People?
The Progressive Party is little better, if slightly less obvious. On the same day that the current government made their first real proposals, a lowering of the debt of Icelandic families by up to 40%, it was the Progressive Party that captured the headlines by announcing an imaginary loan from Norway.
The Icesave fiasco is something that was created by the previous government. Not wanting to see the country’s problems solved, problems that were created by itself, is therefore a case of the Independence Party offending the people twice. But they don’t stop there. The party still controls the city of Reykjavík, and from there are busy continuing their futile policies, currently by selling off the energy supplies and trying to tear down old houses in the city centre.
From a party-political perspective, this makes sense. Eighteen years of the Independence Party rule led to national bankruptcy. If the Red-Green Alliance manages to solve the major problems, it will be the end of the Independence Party’s dominance in Icelandic politics. It is therefore understandable that it chooses to put its own interests ahead of those of its country. It is also very unfortunate.



Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Ungoo

by

[Continued from Ungoo: Part VI] The most recent attempt to create a common venue for cultural commentary and debate is Starafugl, a website started and edited by author Eiríkur Örn Norðdahl. It’s been around since last winter. As I have been involved in various ways, I am liable to be considered biased when I claim that Starafugl has had a convincing first few months. I claim it, all the same. Starafugl ran into trouble a few weeks back, when it received its first ever invoice. The invoice charged Starafugl for a photograph, that had been used to illustrate an article

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Ungoo

by

[Continued from Ungoo: Part V] Radio program Víðsjá, run by state broadcaster RÚV, is in fact a tower within Iceland’s cultural panopticon. Which might serve as a translation for the program’s name. It reports on events and publications, and leaves space for commentary, which at times has been among the best you’ll find: inspired and grounded, informed and enlightening, at times romantic, courageous when needed. Incidentally, if I’m not mistaken, radio host Eiríkur Guðmundsson, often credited for having made the program what it is, was also a student of the aforementioned Matthías Viðar. Notwithstanding repeated downsizing of RÚV programming, the

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Make Yourself at Home

by

Air-bnb has announced its future vision —and a new logo. Supposedly composed from a heart, a location marker and the letter A, the logo has already been the target of much ridicule, needless to repeat here. The logo is not the point. One of the its main virtues, according to the company’s announcement, is that it is easy to draw. This serves a function: people all over the world are offered to draw the logo on just about anything they are willing to share for a fee. As the company’s statement says, Air-bnb is not just about sharing spaces, but

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Democratic Principles —the Machiavellian B-sides

by

“The president will not discuss statements made in an election campaign, during his term in office.” So said the President’s spokesman in response to RÚV’s attempt to ask President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson about his statements in 2012, that, if elected, he might seek to leave office before the end of his term. His fifth term, to be exact. The spokesman’s response has the structure of a reasonable, if not self-evident, principle, something any member of a functioning democracy would surely understand. Meanwhile, the content of the sentence may be considered somewhat less than democratic. In other times, the same content,

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Ungoo

by

[Continued from Ungoo IV] Granted, much of traditional paper-based publication is currently in crisis. Yet, most of Morgunblaðið, heavily decorated by ads from companies on friendly terms with the Independence Party, keeps going. (Buying ad-space in Morgunblaðið is not just a political act, but comes close to signing a manifesto.) Its sports pages persist. Without any empirical evidence, my hypothesis as to why they cancelled Lesbók, is that it was open to texts that Morgunblaðið‘s new masters simply would not understand. And what you don’t understand might be communism. Perhaps the old masters didn’t understand it all either, but that

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Ungoo

by

[Continued from Ungoo III] Until the advent of Iceland’s economic crisis, anno 2008, the conservative-liberal daily newspaper Morgunblaðið published a weekly supplement focused on culture, called Lesbók, literally translatable as Readbook. The Lesbók‘s history dates back to 1925. Around the turn of the millennium its main editor was Þröstur Helgason. As a scholar of literature interested in contemporary critical approaches he would at times be derided by the right for being post-modernist as in non-traditional, and scorned by the left for being post-modernist as in apolitical. Both groups read Lesbók for the sake of irritation, to feel forced to respond,

Show Me More!