Opening speech of an international conference in Reykjavík:
In/Equalities, Democracy and the Politics of Transition

Mr. Ögmundur Jónasson, Minister of the Interior

Democracy: A Question of Pragmatism or Right?

I think political debate of the 21. century is going to be centered around two basic themes.

Firstly, around democracy; the general public´s access to policy making; what should be the framework for decision-making in society; where should representative government on the one side and direct democracy on the other meet, where shall we draw the boundary: „Can we decide how much we pay in taxes in a referendum if we so wish?“ or should the democratic scope , be more limited; should it be very limited, only about whether pets should be allowed in the block of flats where we live.
Secondly, the political attention of the 21. century will be captured by human rights and how to prioritise between human rights and property rights when conflict arises between the two; whether it was morally and legally right a few years back, that the international corporation Bechtel should sue the destitute in Cochabamba in Bolivia for collecting rain water when poor people could no longer afford the prices in the privatized water system by then in the hands of a subsidiary to Bechel. Are Icelandic taxpayers obliged to pay the debts of a private banking system that goes bankrupt even if this leads to lowering of benefits in social security in the country?

These are political and moral questions which have many dimensions and nuances.

I am not going to discuss these issues, only mention them in passing in these opening remarks of mine. But what I want to do, is to dwell for a few minutes on the question of democracy. I think the question that should be burning is the following: Why democracy? Is it a question of pragmatism or a question of right.

I want to go 2500 years back in time – to the time of the Pelopennesian wars; the conflicts between Athens and Sparta. The Greek historian Thukydites gave the speeches of the Athenian warrior/philosopher Pericles eternal life as we know. What I think make his speeches particularly interesting is the way he attributes the advantages of Athens over Sparta to freedom and democracy:
Pericles says: „
Pericles says: „Our constitution is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the whole people. (ÖJ He maybe forgetting somebody, probably more than half the population). When it is a question of settling private disputes, everyone is equal before the law; when it is a question of putting one person before another in positions of public responsibility, what counts is not membership of a particular class, but the actual ability which the man possesses. No one, so long he has it in him to be of service to the state, is kept in political obscurity because of poverty. And, just as our ploitical life is free and open, so is our day- to- day life in our relations with each other. We do not get into a state with our next- door neighbour if he enjoys himself in his own way, nor do we give him the kind of black looks which, though they do no real harm, still do hurt people´s feelings. We are free and tolerant in our private live; but in public affairs we keep to the law...
(and later)...
Then there is a great differnece between us and our opponents, in our attitude towards military security. Here are some example: Our city is open to the world , and we have no periodical deportations in order to prevent people observing or finding out secrets which might be of military advantage to the enemy. This is because we rely, not on secret weapons, but on our own real courage and loyalty. There is a difference, too, in our educational systems. The Spartans, from their earliest boyhood, are are submitted to the most laborious training in courage; we pass our lives without all these restrictions, and yet we are just as ready to face the same dangers as they are... There are certain advantages, I think, in our way of meeting danger voluntarily, with an easy mind, instead of with a laborious training, with natural rather than with state-induced-courage. We do not have to spend our time practising to meet sufferings which are still in the future; and when they are actually upon us we show ourselves just as brave as these others who are always in strick training. This is one point in which, I think, our city deserves to be admired.“


In other words, the advantages of Athens over Sparta are the advantages of democracy over autocracy, the advantages of an open society over a closed society. The former is stronger than the latter, hence let us go for democracy. It is common sense for practical man!

After the economic collapse in Iceland and the political upheaval this created, we have in this country, experienced a livelier debate on fundamental issues – democracy, property rights, human rights - than ever in our history and into this comes a debate on a new constitution which is in the making. I think it is very important to stimulate the public debate and this conference has a value for us in that context.

I think we can generalize and say that Icelandic politicians are pragmatists - in a sense Periclean if you like - in their approach: They more or less all agree that democracy is good for society. But most of them would add: Let us find out where to set the limits to direct democracy. The draft to a new constitution for Iceland is indeed much more open and democratic than the existing one, but it is however, remarkably conservative, in the light of the debate in the Icelandic grassroots, with its emphasis on private property and democratic limitations. Property rights are still defined as basic human rights that must be fully compensated and in this sense – when it comes to compensation - no difference is made between ownership of natural resources or a dwelling house. The public is given scope for demanding referenda but not on fiscal issues and not on international commitments. I ask, why?
I have my serious doubts about this and my doubts arise from the point of view that democratic rights should have less to do with pragmatism and the whims of politicians – all the more democracy should be seen as a fundamental right of society, individuals collectively, to take back into their own hands power they for practical reasons, have given to political representatives.
It is representative government that should be seen as a tool, a pragmatic solution where technical and practical limitations have prevented the exercise of direct democracy.

I am convinced that in coming years and decades we are going to see much more direct democracy. People are going to demand this. The consequence will be a diminished role of the professional politician and his church, the political party.

I  hope you have a fruitful conference.