Reykjavík Grapevine - 10.11.2017, Blaðsíða 12

See You This
Time Next Year!
The seemingly impossible task of forming a government

The time between the collapse of Ice-
land’s government and election day,
while technically only being a little over
a month long, felt like a year. Interna-
tional media, their attention already on
Iceland due to the scandals surround-
ing former (and possibly future) Prime
Minister Bjarni
B e n e d i k t s s o n ,
speculated that
Iceland’s next gov-
ernment would be
leftist. Surely this
time, many report-
ers posited, these
scandals would be
too much for the
nation to bear. It
should be time’s
up for the Indepen-
dence Party, right?
The results of
the elections how-
ever, present a problem that appears
insurmountable: forming a functional
government comprised of two parties.
Iceland had seldom had a problem with
this area, but it has happened before.
Understanding the past will help us
plot how we may get out of this crisis
presently.
Scandal after scandal
To start with, our current situation be-
gan in April 2016, when the Panama Pa-
pers scandal forced then-Prime Minis-
ter Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson to
resign from office. At the time, the co-
alition was comprised of the Progres-
sive Party and the Independence Party.
The decision taken at the time was to
hold early elections that autumn. Par-
ties kicked into campaign mode, and
a new party, the Reform Party, began
to raise enough support to win seats.
When all was said and done, the addi-
tion of this new party led to a situation
whereby no two-party coalitions were
possible. What followed was weeks of
coalition talks, where even a five-party
coalition was attempted, but in the end
we ended up with three: Bright Future,
the Reform Party, and the Indepen-
dence Party leading the government.
Their coalition majority was only one
seat.
This was already a recipe for di-
saster. Matters weren’t helped when
the “restored honour” scandal broke,
which prompted
Bright Future to
end their part-
nership with the
other two parties
less than a year
into the term.
Bjarni decided
that new elections
should be held,
but this time, the
campaign season
shrank from a
few months to a
few weeks. Fur-
ther complicating
matters was the fact that a new party,
the People’s Party, which had their
sights set on municipal elections next
year, and was formed in the wake of the
Panama Papers, were at the time poll-
ing high enough to win parliamentary
seats, and Sigmundur decided within
days of the government’s collapse to
form his own party, quickly sopping
up support. Elections came and went,
and once again, no two-party coalition
could be formed, but possible three-
party coalitions seemed to be a long-
shot at best.
Are you seeing a pattern here?
The decision to hold
elections
The common thread in this is com-
prised of three elements: scandal,
new parties, and the decision to hold
elections within a very short span of
time. Nothing can, or should, be done
to prevent the creation of new parties;
they are symptoms of the scandals that
plague the more established parties
on the right. The scandals themselves
could be prevented—or at the very
least, their impact reduced—by remov-
ing parties from power that become as-
sociated with them. That brings us to
the problem with early elections after a
very short campaign season.
As unlikely as it may seem, we do
not actually need to hold new elections
just because a government falls apart.
In fact, shortly after Bright Future left
the previous coalition, the Pirate Party
suggested that the parliamentary par-
ties simply go into coalition talks and
try to form a new government without
holding elections. For whatever rea-
son, this idea was ignored; early elec-
tions were to be held and, given the
fact that the government collapsed in
the beginning of the parliamentary
session, campaigning would have to be
drastically shortened (remember that
the Panama Papers scandal broke as
the spring session was ending).
Learning from the past
With new parties created in the wake of
scandal, followed by a brief but intense
campaign, the results of the elections
are unsurprising. Now we’re faced with
the prospect of another weak, multi-
party coalition, possibly setting the
stage for yet another government cri-
sis. We should keep in mind, though,
that Iceland has been through this be-
fore.
From the time of Iceland’s indepen-
dence in 1944, up until 1959, Iceland
went through seven governments,
none of which lasted four years. Cri-
sis popped up again between 1987 and
1991, during which time Iceland had
four governments. From there, we had
a period of relative stability that lasted
until the financial crash of 2008, which
led to the government collapsing the
following year. So the fact that we have
had four government in as many years
since is not the worst we’ve ever faced.
And we may be able to break the cur-
rent cycle, but it would involve doing
things much differently in the case
that the newly formed government
falls apart again.
Going forward
Should another coalition breakdown
happen, and we’re unfortunate enough
that it occurs in the beginning or mid-
dle of a parliamentary session, it ought
to be clear by now that snap elections
are not going to solve our problems.
Every attempt should be made to try
and hold new coalition talks before
concluding that new elections need to
be held. If it is decided that elections
are to be held, then we need a real cam-
paign season.
Campaign seasons, in a parliamen-
tary system, must be long enough for
all contenders to be able to run solid
campaigns; that is, where parties are
afforded a longer period of time to hold
debates, and where voters are given a
longer period of time to deliberate on
the issues once the dust has settled
from scandals, rather than be bom-
barded with attack ads on social me-
dia. In order to allow for a long enough
campaign season, we may have to hold
our noses and accept either a minority
government or even a national unity
government in the interim. Those op-
tions are not ideal, but they function
just fine in emergency situations, at
least for as long as it takes to get prop-
erly set up for the next elections.
Having a stable, functional govern-
ment is important in a parliamentary
system. More important still is being
able to deal with crises effectively, as
they can and will happen. If we are to
avoid having to go through this year
after year, we have to use all the tools
at our disposal to deal with them. But
reducing the frequency of crisis in the
first place means keeping parties from
power that are magnets for scandal,
and this, for better or for worse, is up
to the Icelandic voters to make happen.
The power to vote comes from being
able to make an informed decision—
something snap elections make diffi-
cult at best.
Words:
Paul Fontaine
Photo:
Art Bicnick
ANALYSIS
Why can’t these people get their act together?
“Understand-
ing the past
will help us
plot how we
may get out
of this crisis.”
12 The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 20 — 2017
What
Are The
Possible
Coalitions?
Since talks broke down between the
Left-Greens, Social Democrats, Pirates
and Progressives, on confusing
pretexts, we have a few possibilities:
Three Party Coalitions
Parties: The Independence Party, the
Left-Greens and the Social Democrats
or the Independence Party, the
Progressives, and either the Centre
Party or the Social Democrats.
Chances? The first one would be a
real long shot; the Left-Greens and
the Independence Party could not be
more different from one another. The
second one stands a better chance,
especially with the Social Democrats
in the mix; Progressive Chair Sigurður
Ingi Jóhannsson has expressed
unwillingness to participate in a right
wing government, and Sigmundur
Davíð’s Centre Party are not exactly
on the best of terms with the
Progressives.
Four Party Coalitions
Parties: The Left-Greens, The Social
Democrats, The Pirates, The People’s
Party and the Reform Party.
Chances? Since Left-Green chair
Katrín Jakobsdóttir returned the
mandate to the President after the
first formal talks broke down, we will
likely not be visiting this possibility
unless right wing talks fall apart, too.
This would also have a majority of one.
Parties: The Independence Party, the
Progressive Party, the Reform Party
and the People’s Party.
Chances? Middling, but passable,
albeit with a majority of one.
Parties: The Independence Party, the
Progressive Party, the Centre Party
and the Reform Party.
Chances? Not great, because, again,
the Progressives and the Centre Party
are not on great terms. This would
also have a majority of one.
First