Gripla - 20.12.2009, Side 153

153
not have the executive means so typical of central stately powers in order
to enforce decisions.
The complicated Icelandic political system and sophisticated law code
had to compensate for the lack of a supreme executive power. Collective
pressure based on tradition and on common decisions replaced the author­
itative implementation of “justice” by some paramount power centre. As
the sagas tell us, the results were often not satisfactory for some individu­
als and their families but in the long term, this programmatically weak
system managed to sustain a relative political equilibrium and to curb the
possible over-ambitions of leading families which, on the other hand, did
not have the economic means to launch long-term warfare or to finance
stable domination. This system was definitely not a “democracy” but,
rather, some oligarchy of several kinship groups that carefully kept an eye
on each other.
One could even rightfully question whether the Icelandic “common­
wealth” was a state, at least in the contemporary meaning of the term that
requires the permanent centralization of the power sphere’s control within
a defined territory. It was not even a federation, i.e. a union of self govern­
ing regions co-ordinated by a permanent central government. It was a
much looser organization that was voluntarily accepted by regional leaders
who regulated their mutual relations at the general assembly at Þingvellir
once a year. The balance of power and social order were achieved through
complex negotiations that were often supported by physical pressure.
Lobbying and seeking compromise at the Alþing prevented open military
conflicts that would surely have been disastrous for the small insular soci­
ety, as so clearly became the case during the Age of the Sturlungs.
Thus, the medieval Icelandic “democracy” was not the conscious prod­
uct of anti­monarchic citizens but rather a necessary but clever response to
the lack of a centralized monarchy which could not be introduced because
of the reasons explained above. the Icelandic “republic” survived because
for a long time, no continental king had any real interest in establishing
power there. It would not have been especially difficult for Norwegian rul­
ers of the 11th–12th century to send to Iceland a dozen war ships filled
with well-armed warriors who could take the upper hand in the battlefield
and declare a conquest. this did not happen because such an “investment”
would not pay back dividends. For the Norwegian kings, it was easier to
DeConStRuCtInG tHe “noRDIC CIvILIZAtIon”