Reykjavík Grapevine - 08.04.2005, Síða 5

EDITORIAL
In Fight Club, Tyler Durden holds
a knife to an investigator’s genitalia
and says, “We cook your meals, we
haul your trash, we connect your
calls, we drive your ambulances. We
guard you while you sleep. Do not
#$%# with us.”
This line of dialogue was particularly
chilling and stuck with me—a movie
devoted to angst-ridden yuppies
suddenly seemed to be discussing
class warfare, explaining the hatred
those on the lower rungs can
sometimes develop.
Hanging out with fellow immigrants
in a country not used to immigration,
I have heard this line of dialogue
quoted to me by a French waiter,
and by an American who takes care
of the elderly.
Indeed, in this small growing
country, immigrants handle more
and more of the menial jobs that
seemingly keep the island afloat.
And yet there is not one immigrant
in the national parliament, and
they are not heard from in the
mainstream media. Foreigners are
vilified for breaking visa restrictions
to work in construction to help build
this country, while employers and
unions face no penalties for their
treatment of these “illegals”.
An antagonistic relationship seems
to have been developing. Indeed, it
did not surprise me entirely then to
read that young people of Iceland
are becoming more and more biased
against foreigners. According to
a 2003 Red Cross survey, 20% of
young people here feel foreigners
should not have the same rights as
Icelanders, and 40% feel there are
too many foreigners in Iceland.
And then we get Fischer, and the
whole immigration issue explodes.
For starters, one of the crappy jobs
foreigners can get in this country is
that of journalist for international
media wires. (Here at the Grapevine,
we happen to have stringers and
journalists at the largest news
agencies in the world, including the
Associated Press and the AFP.)
When the country embarrassed
itself, we could have not only made
a huge profit, but we could have got
even with a lot of people. We didn’t.
As the AP correspondent, I refused
to submit a Fischer article. Paul F.
Nikolov, who works for the AFP,
reported what was required of him
but did not send along the more
embarrassing local quotes: a member
of the group that imported Fischer
claiming Iceland would be good as it
“has no Jewish problem” for example.
I’m glad we didn’t take the bait.
While I disagreed with importing
Fischer, and while I think the move,
made just as people around the
world were planning their summer
vacations, will cost the local tourism
industry dearly, I believe it has
already had positive consequences for
Iceland.
First, a precedent has been set for
granting asylum. Second, we know
that whatever we may do to offend
locals, we probably can’t screw up
as badly as Fischer did in his first
hour in the country. Finally, with the
fallout from Fischer, many locals are
trying to find out what went wrong
in the decision-making process.
While most media sources now seem
to claim they disagreed with bringing
Fischer over all along, they didn’t.
And now local writers, journalists
like Egill Helgason, are asking for
the input of immigrants.
And now that people are asking
us what we think, the main gripe
we foreigners had is gone. It’s not
that we wanted to complain, we
just wanted to be involved in the
discussions. Thanks to Fischer, we
seem to be on the way to getting
there.
One of the best things about living
here, for me, is the parliament.
I’m used to having to deal with an
either/or situation when it comes
to government, which doesn’t give
you much variety or representation.
I like the idea of the parliament: X-
number of votes equals Z-number
of seats, and any person with a logo
and a mimeograph machine can
start a political party that could,
surprisingly easily, actually get a seat
in parliament. What’s not to love?
But what I especially love are the
fluid dynamics of the coalition -
increasing your power by aligning
your party with others. Typically, you
see parties on the left and the right
keeping to themselves, with a murky
centrist element being courted from
both ends and providing tie-breaking
votes when necessary. In Iceland,
according to the results of a Gallup
poll released last weekend, the
ruling coalition - the Independence
party and the Progressive party,
both conservative - hold a razor-
thin majority of about 51%. The
opposition - the Leftist-Greens
and the centrist Social Democrats
- have about 44%. As you might
imagine, the result is that while
there is at times fierce opposition to
conservative measures, they usually
pass narrowly. But all that might be
about to change. Iceland could be
taking a swing - into the dead centre.
Mind you, it’s not very likely that
such a shift would occur. But
these numbers – not to mention
tensions between Progressives and
Independence party members - set
up an ideal situation for a power
shift.
The recent Iraq matter might
have marked the beginning of just
such a shift in the making. Many
Progressives (including Jónína
Bjartmarz, Siv Friðleifsdóttir and
even Minister of Agriculture Guðni
Ágústsson - who is also vice-
chairman of the Progressive Party
- to name a few) have been critical
not just of Prime Minister Halldór
Ásgrímsson, another Progressive,
but with the Independence Party as a
whole in regards to Iraq. Progressive
MP Kristinn H. Gunnarsson told
Ísland í bítið last February that
the reason for voter dissatisfaction
among Progressives was that either
party members have grown tired
of their long relationship with
the ruling Independence party, or
they’ve grown tired with how long
the Independence Party has been in
power.
The stance that Gunnarsson and
other Progressives took on the Iraq
matter certainly endeared them to
a number of Leftist-Greens and
Social Democrats. More recently,
the three parties aligned on relaxing
immigration laws, going counter to
Independence party members. Social
Democratic MP and member of the
parliamentary general committee
Guðrún Ögmundsdóttir told
Grapevine just a few days ago, when
asked if a tripartite coalition made
of Progressives, Social Democrats
and Leftist-Greens were possible,
“It could be. We´re sticking well
together, we´ve made the opposition
strong. We´re a good working team.”
Again, it’s not very likely that the
Progressives would reach out to the
opposition, but it’s not out of the
question. And if they did, it would
benefit not just the country, but the
Progressives themselves.
Such a tripartite coalition would
create a vastly more centrist
government. The Social Democrats
are currently at 29%, with the
Leftist-Greens at 15% and the
Progressives at 12%. Even if the
Independence party joined forces
with the ineffectual Liberals, that
opposition coalition would only hold
about 44% of parliament, giving
the tripartite coalition a strong lead
of 12% - far greater than the 1%
lead the Independence-Progressive
coalition currently holds onto by
the skin of their teeth. A ruling
tripartite coalition would be about
half centrist, one quarter right
wing and one quarter left wing, so
naturally most legislation would
gravitate towards the centre, with
occasional shifts to the right when
crossover Progressives voted with a
conservative opposition.
The benefits of a tripartite coalition
for the Social Democrats are
obvious. But it would also benefit
the Progressives to help form this
coalition. Apart from being in a
coalition with a stronger lead in
parliament, voter support for all
three parties would probably increase
dramatically, as such a coalition
would appeal to a far wider scope
of the Icelandic population. And
rising support is something all three
parties need badly - support for the
Social Democrats has dropped by
two points since the last elections,
support for the Leftist-Greens
remains unchanged, and although
the Progressives saw a recent modest
rise of two points in the past month,
this is also up from being the least
popular party a little over a month
ago. In addition, such a coalition
would put the Progressives in a
powerful tie-breaking position
- when legislation divides the right
and left, the dividing line would
be running more or less straight
through the Progressive party, giving
them more influence over legislation.
The possibility of a ruling tripartite
coalition of Progressives, Social
Democrats and Leftist-Greens has
never been better. It would probably
be seen by many Icelanders as a
welcome change from a government
which has been controlled by the
Independence party since, well,
The Positives
of Fischer
Bart Cameron, Editor
Paul F Nikolov
Editor, grapevine.is
Swinging to
the Middle:
The Coalition That
Could Be