Reykjavík Grapevine - 12.01.2007, Síða 6

0_REYKJAVÍK_GRAPEVINE_ISSUE 01_007_INTERVIEW/POLITICS
Steingrímur J. Sigfússon, leader of political
party the Leftist-Green Movement,
recently released the book Við öll – Íslenskt
velferðarsamfélag á tímamótum (All of Us -
Icelandic Welfare Society at Crossroads).
Sigfússon’s goal is to encourage
people to consider certain fundamental
matters facing Icelandic society today,
issues like environmental preservation,
neolibertarianism, privatisation, growing
wage differences, EU membership and
Iceland’s contribution to the international
community. Issues, he says, voters should
seriously consider in coming elections.
The Grapevine met with Sigfússon at his
downtown office to learn more about his
writing.
What made you decide to write this
book?
There are a few main reasons for it. First of
all, I feel that party leaders should inform
people about what they stand for and clarify
their views in a concrete way. Second of all,
I think that Icelandic politics are lacking a
solid ground for debate, a more extensive
one than is made possible by short speeches,
articles or news clips. What the book for the
most parts does, is freeing me from worrying
whether the article is 4,000 characters or the
news clip longer than two minutes. In the
third place, I find it important that people
discuss these big subjects facing us today
and in the near future in a wider context.
There are even more reasons to do this now
than ever, because of how interconnected
these subjects have gotten in the globalised
world.
You’ve been working in politics for 24
years. Why release the book now? Is it
a coincidence it was released so shortly
before the upcoming elections?
I got the idea a few years ago, but I never
succeeded in finishing the book earlier. Last
fall, I had to decide whether to go forth
with the book or forget about it altogether
so the timing is a coincidence. But this is a
good period in my political career to tackle
subjects like these. I have considerable
experience, after 24 years in Parliament and
being an active participant in international
collaboration. Of course I hope the book
will help the party in forthcoming elections.
I also feel it can be a good manual for our
candidates.
Are you trying to influence undecided
voters or maybe turn someone to your
side?
I hope that those interested in understanding
me and my party members can learn more
about our views by reading the book.
But I also wrote the book so it would be
interesting for people with different opinions,
not necessarily thinking I would win them
over, but, and this I find very important,
for the discourse in general, and so readers
can better understand my conclusions.
Why I am so deeply opposed to the heavy
industry. Why we [The Leftist-Green Party]
have fought against the blind privatisation
process. Why I am such a firm supporter of
the Nordic welfare system, etc. In the book
I explain why. People can then choose to
agree or disagree with me.
Icelandic politicians have not written
such a book recently.
That is true. Unfortunately, this tradition
isn’t very strong in Iceland, but in the other
Nordic countries it is considered almost an
inevitable part of every politician’s career, if
he takes himself seriously and thinks he has
something worthwhile to say, to explain his
views this way. In my office, I have books
written by such different politicians as
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Sten Gade. Högni
Hojdal and Kristin Halvorsen. In Iceland, this
tradition has been almost nonexistent for the
past decades. Of course I would be excited
if the unlikely happened that the chairman
of the Independence Party or the Progressive
Party would write a book. Hopefully I will
inspire them to do so.
In the book, you address numerous
issues but the underlying theme is
environmental preservation, your
sincere belief in the advantage of the
Nordic model and that you want Iceland
to be an independent and neutral
nation…
My dream, and I explain this in the book, is
that Iceland continues to be an independent
welfare and cultural state with the strength to
stand on its own, internationally, without any
superpower chauvinism. Therefore I want us
to become messengers of disarmament and
peaceful solutions. Finally, I feel Icelanders
should protect democracy and legitimate
international cooperation and see that
international organisations and the national
right are not boycotted when people see
fit. Iceland has nothing in common with
militarism for example and it’s so ridiculously
stupid to group Iceland with military empires
like happened with the Iraqi war. This I want
to see changed.
When you address environmental
issues, taxation, growing inequality
and the way the government has dealt
with what you claim to be fundamental
issues facing Icelandic society today,
you aren’t hiding your harsh opposition.
How have your opponents responded to
the book?
Those who have commented about the
book have for the most part been satisfied
with the project and praised it highly. The
Prime Minister even honoured me with his
presence at my release party. There have
been fewer incidents where people are
addressing certain issues. My opponents
have rather asked me how I found the time
to write the book. That’s a question I find
hard to answer.
I need to ask about the book title.
All of Us - Icelandic Welfare Society
at Crossroads. You cover collective
responsibility and the welfare of the
human kind in general in great length
in the book…
At first, I was thinking about the title What
Now Iceland? One of my chief objectives in
writing the book was to bring to light the
main concerns Icelandic society faces at the
moment and then pose the question where
we should be heading. What kind of a society
do we want, how are we going to treat
nature, what role do we want Iceland to play
in the international community, etc. When
I wrote my conclusions, because of what
you mention, my emphasis on the welfare
society, the title wrote itself. Then I realised
that the underlying theme in the end is all of
us. The title highlights my uncompromising
opinion, that we should by no means depart
from building a welfare society by the likes of
what we know from other Nordic countries,
which I think is the most developed type of
society on earth.
What crossroads are you driving at?
The crossroads, among other things, is our
need to take the question [what kind of a
society do we want], seriously and debate it.
Are we OK with the fact that we are heading
away from the equal welfare societies and
are we going to continue on that path, etc?
The wage gap in the country is increasing in
a staggering way and inequality escalating.
I am therefore posing this fundamental
question with the hope that voters think
about it in the coming elections. I think
that next spring’s ballot is an enormous
opportunity to counteract the situation and
send out a clear message regarding this
fundamental matter.
You seem very convinced that Icelanders
want the Nordic model more than
anything else.
Yes, I think that the vast majority truly
does. However, there has been this urge to
undermine the issues. When it gets close to
elections, the Progressive Party for example,
tries to disguise itself as a socialist party and
acts as if it has been in the opposition. The
Independence Party starts pretending as
well, although it has pushed the country
away from the Nordic welfare model,
especially regarding taxation, how the state
finances are governed and by privatising
public service. Now they are trying to change
The Icelandic National Broadcasting Service
into a limited-liability company. Is that in line
with a Nordic cultural, democratic and equal
society? No.
A book like this one is of course not free
from criticism. It has been pointed out
that certain conflicts are evident in your
writing, depending on what issue you
are tackling. That when criticising the
government you paint a dark picture
of the situation but when opposing the
EU membership, you rank Iceland high
in comparison with other nations. That
there is a certain struggle between you
as a pessimist and optimist depending
on what chapter you are writing.
When examined better, I don’t think these
statements are contradictory. I’m not denying
that many things have been going our way,
especially in the economical context or
creating capital goods, but I am also raising
the red flag. I see both the pros and cons
in the situation but think we can do much
better. We can say that the ship is sailing at
high speeds, but not in the right direction
regarding environmental, economic and
social issues. I feel our ship is sailing too close
to the rocks.
I need to ask you one final question
regarding its epilogue. There you write:
“We can all have it good. We can all feel
well. We have enough for everyone, if
only we share equally.” Aren’t you being
unrealistic?
No, I don’t want to believe that I am. If I lose
the dream of a better world I wouldn’t have
anything to do in politics anymore. I firmly
believe we can do considerably better in
sharing our goods, reducing poverty and
improving the lives of the least advantaged.
That is the priority. When writing this, I am
referring to Iceland being a rich country, with
every means to reach this goal. In my opinion,
a society should be structured so everyone
can have equal opportunities, and for that,
I am willing to fight until my dying breath.
That’s what the Nordic welfare society does
and that’s what Iceland should do.
Defending the Welfare System
Text by Steinunn Jakobsdóttir Photo by Gulli