Reykjavík Grapevine - 11.06.2004, Qupperneq 26
WHOSE INDEPENDENCE?
by Valur Gunnarsson
Icelandic history can be briefly summed up as follows: Iceland was
populated by a race of noble heroes, lost its independence, misery fol-
lowed for all, then in the 20th century it reclaimed its independence
and became the happiest nation on earth.
This will be the version we´ll be
hearing on the 17th of June, when
Iceland celebrates its 60th anni-
versary as a republic. This, by and
large, is also the version taught in
Icelandic schools. In the struggle for
independence from Denmark (which
actually took the form of lawyers
from both sides haggling with each
other about age-old agreements), the
writing of Icelandic history became
a weapon in the struggle. Of course,
everything that ever went wrong had
to be the fault of the Norwegians
and the Danes. Icelandic history is
long overdue for an overhaul. Some
historians now claim that the quest
for independence was actually a
reaction by a conservative farmer´s
society against new liberal values
coming in from Denmark. But these
voices, as yet, receive little attention.
Independence, we are told, is the
reason for Iceland´s prosperity. We
even have a party named after it,
and people obligingly vote for it
every four years. It is interesting to
note that whereas in Scandinavia,
the parties that attract the larg-
est following of people tend to be
social democrats, here the largest
mass party is the conservative one.
Actually, it was formed under the
name The Conservative Party in
1924, but underwent a name change
five years later and has since been
called the Independence Party.
A few weeks before the Republic
celebrates its 60th birthday, the party
celebrated its 75 years. After 13
consecutive years in power, the party
is today more disputed than it has
often been, but its success with the
electorate throughout the history of
the republic is beyond dispute. What
then explains this success, rare for
right wing parties in Europe?
The First New Society
Perhaps we need to go farther back
into Icelandic history to find causes
to this, much farther back than the
actual founding of the party. We
need to go back to the very founding
of Iceland itself.
Every nation has, to a greater or
lesser extent, mythological foun-
dations. This is even more true
of settler communities who were
consciously founded as new societies.
The American scholar Louis Hartz
said:
“When a part of a European nation
is detached from the whole of it, and
hurled outward toward new soil, it
loses the stimulus toward change that
the whole provides. It lapses into a
kind of immobility.”
To put it another way, and as stipu-
lated in Richard F. Tomasson´s book
Iceland: The First New Society,
settler communities are inherently
conservative. The puritans did not
embark on the Mayflower from
England to America in order to build
a new society. They went in order
to preserve a way of life that they
no longer found themselves able to
continue in their old home. By the
same token, Ingólfur Arnarsson and
the first settlers here did not come
to Iceland to form a new society, but
to get away from a new order in the
old one, in this case being imposed
by the unification of Norway. For
almost 400 years they managed to
preserve their clan-based society
here, until this led to interminable
blood feuds and the Norwegian king
needed to be called upon to impose
peace. This might go someway
towards explaining the conservative
streak in most settler communities to
this day. While it is true that what
happened a thousand years ago may
not have much direct impact upon
our actions today, the story of our
foundations have entered our col-
lective consciousness, and how we
define who we are.
A Nation of Kings
However, there are noticeable dif-
ferences between Iceland and other
immigrant societies. First of all,
settlers from Europe came here al-
most a millennium before colonisers
flocked North America and to parts
of the British Empire. And whereas
the United States prided itself on
receiving Europe´s hungry and poor,
Iceland, it seems, was populated
solely by kings. If these brought any
subjects along, they receive scant
mention. Upon the unification of
Norway, all the petty kings there left
and moved to Iceland. In the Saga
age, we are told, every man in Ice-
land was a king. These are the stories
we are brought up on. Icelanders did
not come here in search of a better
life in a land of milk and honey.
They came here for their independ-
ence. So whereas the American
dream is one of overnight success,
the Icelandic dream is one of being
your own man. We are an independ-
ent people, a nation of kings.
But in a nation made up solely of
kings, it is very hard to organise
things. Icelanders are, unlike their
Norwegian cousins who stayed be-
hind to serve the new state, very bad
at thinking in terms of groups. Small
wonder then, that what is probably
the most successful organisation in
Icelandic history, managing to rep-
resent consistently roughly 40% of
the population, stands not for what
is best for the group but what is best
for the individual. The Independence
Party was formed as a club for the
upper classes. In a nation of kings,
everyone assumed this meant them.
The New Kings
In a year that celebrates 100 years of
Home Rule, 60 years of independ-
ence and 75 years of the Independ-
ence Party, considerable changes
have emerged in the landscape.
Realignments of financial power
have taken place in the last decade
that are nothing short of revolution-
ary. In the 90s, restrictions were
eased and the economy was opened
up, and vast fortunes were made by
people who did not have strong ties
to the Independence Party, whereas
the wealthiest people in the past
always did. Their fortunes are now
immeasurably greater than those of
the old families (the 14 families or
the Octopus, as they were known)
who formerly controlled the Icelan-
dic economy. But as the nouveau-
riche have not yet been accepted by
the old guard still in control of the
Independence Party, there now exists
a rift between financial and political
power that is rarely seen in history.
A similar situation existed in France
in the 18th Century. There financial
power was being amassed by the
bourgeois but the nobility still held
a monopoly on political power, and
this led to revolution.
That is not very likely to happen
here. Before long, there will no
doubt be a realignment. Money will,
as always, find its way into govern-
ment. Prime Minister Davíð Odds-
son is stepping down in September.
Perhaps the next generation of Inde-
pendence Party leaders will be more
accommodating to the new financial
interests. Or perhaps the new money
men will find other parties to look
after their investments, in which case
the Independence Party might wind
up, ironically, as truly representative
of the people. As always we´ll be the
last to know, since Iceland, unique as
always, is the only democracy which
does not insist upon political parties
displaying their accounts. We don´t
get to see who pays our representa-
tives bills, and hence have no idea on
who´s behalf they speak.
At least, for now, there are two
voices being heard in Iceland instead
of one, since the political elite and
the financial elite no longer speak
with a single, unified voice. That´s
something. But don´t expect it to
last forever. And don´t expect the
new kings to be any different from
the old.
HISTORY
The Republic celebrates 60 years
Oldest bakery in Iceland
since 1834
BERGSTAÐASTRÆTI 13
- PHONE: 551 3083
26