Reykjavík Grapevine - 03.02.2017, Qupperneq 22

▵
▹
▿
◃
◇
▿
◃
◇
○
interests, while a lot of people were
being left out. I think this is a com-
mon feeling. We've seen a decrease
in voting in the last decades, where
a lot of people feel disenfranchised;
that politics have become the domain
of certain types of people working
through certain forms of parties that
were quite richly set up. This process
is not only disenfranchising, but also
limiting to itself. So I think the crash
itself, and the creative reaction of
Icelanders to the crash—because we
didn't have the culture for an actual
violent revolution—this opened up
the idea that if we're not going to burn
everything down and start build-
ing from the ground, at least we can
shake it all up and try to work it in
different ways.
Given that Bright Future was
formed with the intent of
shaking things up and pushing
back against special interests,
do you find it difficult then to
be in a coalition with a party
associated with crony politics
and catering to the wealthy?
In some ways, it is strange to be in
power, and to be in a coalition. Bright
Future was set up with a strong sense
of responsibility. Not only striving for
influence for the sake of having influ-
ence, or holding all the strings. That
is to say: politics is not only about
power, but about the responsibility
of government. We discussed this
within the party, that we would stand
up to this responsibility of trying to
form a government. So how do you
do that? By negotiating, and getting
an agreement with other parties that
obviously have a different platform,
culture and history. You say the Inde-
pendence Party has a history of being
associated with cronyism. But is also
has a history of being the largest,
most popular party amongst Icelandic
voters, and they have been for a very
long time. So in that way, the party
has other elements.
I understand that. It's just that
when you talk about shaking
things up, a new way of running
Iceland, to join up with a party
that is literally the status quo...
Well, that is the question, because I'd
say the Independence Party is not nec-
essarily literally the status quo. In the
joint platform that we made in this
government, we see a lot of liberal
thinking, and a more deliberate will
for a more open and consensus-based
way of working in politics than we've
seen before. And this is not only my
interpretation. All three parties agree
on this. So I think that's the reason
we took part in forming this govern-
ment. A large majority of our party
voted to go this way, with the expecta-
tion and the belief that the agreement
we reached is progressive, and it is the
base for the government.
That said, this agreement is the
end result of eleven weeks of political
talks between not only these three
parties, but pretty much all parties
in Parliament. We've been seeing a
shake-up of the powers in Icelandic
politics that have been quite strong
since at least the late 70s; what we
call here the "two towers of govern-
ment"—the Left tower and the Right
tower. They have fought, and most
of the time, one of them has ruled
and the other has been in opposition.
But this election shook that up, with
the Pirates, the Reform Party and
Bright Future coming in quite strong.
Parties formed after the crash, in
response to the failure of the old cro-
nyism of Icelandic political parties. So
I think that in the end, this new gov-
ernment with this most traditional of
Icelandic parties, the Independence
Party, but at the same time two new
parties, formed and informed by a lot
of new political thinking, is also the
result of a deeper political discussion
than before, because these two tradi-
tional towers have been denied to us.
I'm sure you're aware that
Icelanders on the left have
been less than satisfied with
how things played out. Do you
understand where they're
coming from? Do you think it's a
part of this "two towers" binary?
I think part of it is, yes, but part of it
is also a dissatisfaction that there's
less change than people were hoping
for after the crash. The crash made
it possible to have different and very
strong feelings in Icelandic poli-
tics; feelings that had almost been
thought of as impolite. Especially
in the years leading right up to the
crash, when dissenting politics were
very much frowned upon, as you may
remember. So there's been dissatis-
faction with how slowly this change
has been going. How constitutional
reform hasn't been realised. I can well
understand this. But I think the point
we're missing is that since the crash,
we've had two different governments;
a leftist government and right-wing
government. Both of them have tried
to impose their strong will onto the
situation, their own ideas of change,
without opening up to the fact that
it's hard to reach past this sense of
what is acceptable in Icelandic poli-
tics, even if you manage to get some
kind of majority for it. Change needs
to come from a majority, but also
needs to take into account the 49%
that are not in power. The minor-
ity has the right to be a part of the
discussion. It has a voice that needs
to be listened to. I think that's one of
the guiding lights for the politics of
Bright Future—this idea of working
with others, and trying not to impose
our "brilliant ideas" onto others, but
being conduits for what a broader
consensus would look like.
That certainly makes sense, and
it looks like whether you like it
or not, you'll have to work that
way, having a majority of just
one seat.
Exactly, and I've said it before that I
think we actually have a chance now
of working politics more across the
aisle. I think the fact that there's a
thin majority makes it more neces-
sary. I think that's an opportunity for
everybody. I've been in talks with ev-
erybody across the political spectrum
in these last months, and everybody
is thinking about this same thing. I
think all parties have been talking
about this, and have realised the need
for this change. Doesn't mean that
it'll happen naturally, or that everyone
will agree on exactly how it is done.
Obviously, everyone will have their
own ideas on how to do it or how not
to do it. And probably we will have to
fight about how to become friends.
But I think there is a possibility, and
that's what I read from the election
results. That the voters were telling us
to get away from the old way of doing
things.
Moving on to your position as
Minister of Health. We all know
this is a burning matter in the
hearts of most Icelandic voters.
What is your vision for improving
the healthcare system in this
country?
My vision is partly set out in the joint
platform, and it is the only issue that
was put forward as a priority. The
voters are there, and I think all the
parties are there, too. The concept
that healthcare should be universal,
and that private costs should be re-
duced, that we need an investment in
the system is obvious, especially with
building the new hospital. But also,
we need to look at the health system
holistically. We need to invest in
primary care. We also need to incor-
porate mental health care. We need
to do what the McKinsey report on
the healthcare system advised, that is
to look at the whole system and how
it works not only to address serious
illness and hospitalisation, but also
be preventive and be the backbone of
a healthier life for everyone. I could
sit here for half an hour and tick off
points that need to be addressed. But
this is my bigger vision.
Why was this position important
to you? Why healthcare?
For me, personally, simply because I
take very seriously the idea that work-
ing in politics is a service job, and it
should not be a career. Maybe I take a
lot of that from having attended high
school in the US, but I love this idea
of government for the people, by the
people; that politicians should be rep-
resentatives and not have a personal
agenda. So my thought has always
been to take on jobs in fields where
fate sends me. I also find that the
nerd in me finds it's good to immerse
yourself in something that you're not
necessarily an expert in beforehand.
The reason I chose health is that it's
at the forefront of what people are
thinking about. It basically touches
everyone, directly and indirectly.
With all the reform and
changes that need to be done,
especially with this emphasis
on a universal and egalitarian
healthcare system, where is
this money going to come from?
Well, that of course is the eternal
headache of the politician.
Certainly, but Iceland has
some of the lowest taxes on
corporations in Europe. Yet I
didn't notice any plans in the
platform for raising taxes, so
I presume this money is going
to come from elsewhere. So
is privatisation, or private
management, of healthcare
going to be a part of this?
Privatisation is not a driving force
here. Actually quite a lot of Icelandic
healthcare is already run outside the
government, mostly by independent
NGO-like organisations. Increased
privatisation is not a deliberate
agenda of this government, but at the
same time, we are not against differ-
ent forms of providing service. That
the tax system is there to help fund
government services is strongly set
forth in the joint platform. So from
there, our big headache is to put the
money where our mouth is. That's ba-
sically what we'll have to be working
on over the next few months.
One thing that has gotten a very
positive response with regards
to Bright Future is where en-
vironmentalism is concerned.
I think a lot of Icelanders are
used to seeing heavy industry
being a fundamental part of
the Icelandic economy. Do you
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 02 — 2017
22
“Change needs to come from
a majority, but also needs to
take into account the 49% that
are not in power. The minority
has the right to be a part of the
discussion, it has a voice that
needs to be listened to.”