Reykjavík Grapevine - 19.05.2006, Blaðsíða 9

/// There does not seem to be much differ-
ence between the political platforms of the
parties running in Reykjavík in the upcoming
elections.
– I agree. There is not a huge division between
the parties. There are no clear-cut lines be-
tween the parties like there is on the national
stage. This is probably because the parties are
focusing more on directly servicing the citizens,
and the campaign has been evolved around
who is willing to make the biggest promises.
The difference between the parties is mostly
relating to how they want to execute the poli-
cies.
It is interesting to see that the Indepen-
dence Party [a right-wing party] has not spo-
ken much about lowering taxes and reducing
the budget, but rather seem to focus on welfare
issues and development of the city.
/// What do you see as the main issue that
voters in Reykjavík need to consider in the
upcoming elections?
– Well, there are the issues that have been in
the media limelight lately, such as the topic
relating to the elderly, the day-care issue, the
airport and the city planning.
The Independence Party has placed their
emphasis on the need to make a change, and
that the parties from the coalition have grown
weary of being in power. But it is interesting to
see that the Social Democrats have built their
platform on the basis of their work in the cur-
rent Reykjavík coalition and emphasised things
that have been successful in the coalition.
The Leftist Greens and The Progressive
Party have tried to distance themselves more
from the legacy of the coalition and have
instead tried to make an impression as unique
selections. This is likely because they have
brought in new people as candidates they have
not hesitated in criticising the work of the
coalition.
It is interesting to see how the smaller par-
ties have tried to build their campaigns around
specific issues. It is also interesting to see that
in doing so they have managed to somewhat
dictate the discourse leading up to the election.
The Leftist-Greens recently began talking
about the need to re-examine the location of
the University hospital, and now all the parties
have had to respond to that issue. The bigger
parties have had to chase the smaller parties in
this regard.
The emphasis on the specific issues is likely
due to the parties trying to gather popular vote
by focusing on topics that they believe will be
popular. But they have managed to stake a
claim as unique and individual campaigns.
Considering previous elections, we have
not seen as much discussion about the mayoral
candidates as we often have. We have not
witnessed the same cockfight as usual. I would
have expected that the discussion would be
more focused on the leaders of the bigger
parties and which one of them is more capable
of running the city. The fight is much cleaner
than it has been in the last two previous elec-
tions, and this is somewhat a surprise. This
has been kind of a boring campaign. We the
political enthusiasts want a little more action.
/// You mentioned that the Social Democrats
have been running their campaign in part
on the legacy of the Reykjavík coalition. Do
you consider the Social Democrats to have in
some way tried to claim the Reykjavík coali-
tion as their own?
– No, I don’t think that is the case. The top
four candidates for the Social Democrats
are all current members of the city council
on behalf of the coalition. I think they are
concerned with parading the issues that they
have been working on and they consider to be
successful. Meanwhile, the other two parties
from the coalition, The Progressives and The
Leftist-Greens, have new candidates who are
not members of the coalition. I think the new
people are more likely trying to assert their
uniqueness. I also think that in some regards,
both the Independence Party and the Social
Democrats are trying to tread lightly, they are
being cautious and trying not to chase off any
of the following they currently have.
/// There has been some discussion on how
the campaigns are run, and that some of the
parties are running very expensive campaigns.
What is your feeling on this matter?
– Well, I understand that people want to get
their opinion across. That is only natural,
whichever medium they choose to do this
in. The key issue, however, is how is this
financed. We need to know who is financing
these campaigns. Who is lending them mon-
ey? Who is donating money? Where does the
capital come from? The voters should have
access to this information, and they should
have it during the campaign period, not after
the elections. There is a dire need for laws on
the political parties’ finances. Political par-
ties should never be secretive when it comes
to money. This will only lead to gossip and
rumours, and make people suspicious. This is
not good for the parties and it is certainly not
good for democracy.
/// What has most interested you as a politi-
cal scientist in the current campaign for the
upcoming elections?
– It has been really interesting to see how the
parties in majority in the parliament have been
doing in the polls. The Independence Party
has been strengthening its position, while the
Progressives have been loosing. In actuality,
the Progressive Party usually does better in
elections than they do in polls, while the Inde-
pendence Party usually does worse in elections
then they do in the polls. It will be interesting
to see how this turns out on Election Day.
It will also be really interesting to see how
the Leftist Greens will do in these elections.
They did not do too good in the last local elec-
tions. If they do well this time it would be huge
boost to them and support their grassroots or-
ganization. It will also be very interesting to see
how The Social Democrats will do. After being
the main party in the government opposition,
it would be a big disappointment for them if
they do not manage to hold on to at least 30%
following nationwide, which is what they had
in the last election. They should have at least
the same, if not more. Everything else would
be considered a failure.
/// How about the Progressive Party? They
are not doing well in the polls, and it looks
like they will not get a representative on city
council. What would that mean for the Pro-
gressive Party nationwide?
– If The Progressive Party does not get a
member on the city council, that would be a
huge blow for them. It would be really bad for
the party’s infrastructure and their operation
in Reykjavík. It would be a blow for [Prime
Minister] Halldór Ásgrímsson, because of the
relation between Ásgrímsson and Hrafnsson,
[the Progressive Party’s primary candidate who
is currently Ásgrímsson’s assistant]. I think it
is safe to say that it would be very damaging
to the party’s moral, which was really not that
good to begin with.
“There is a dire need for laws on the political parties’
finances… This is not good for the parties and it is
certainly not good for democracy.”
The Bore Campaign
Baldur Þórhallsson, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Iceland,
on the 2006 Reykjavík Mayoral Elections.
by sveinn birkir björnsson photo by gúndi
Forsala er hafin
í verslunum Skífunnar og á midi.is
1