Reykjavík Grapevine - 01.06.2018, Qupperneq 16

16 The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 09 — 2018
HAPPY
HOUR
EVERY DAY 17–18
TAPAS+drinks
TAPASBARINN
Vesturgötu 3B | 101 Reykjavík | Sími 551 2344 | www.tapas.is
Sangria and wine by glass, cocktails
and beer on tap – half price!
Patatas bravas 690 kr.
Chicken wings Piri Piri 790 kr.
Chicken in chili crumbs 790 kr.
Lamb tenderloin in liquorice-sauce 790 kr.
Bacon wrapped scallops and dates 790 kr.
As the whole country watched the
election results last week, safely
half the country was only concerned
about the results in Reykjavík. The
other half were watching the results
in their respective towns. The
results of what is probably Iceland’s
smallest municipality, Árneshrep-
pur (population 55), barely clocked
in at ten seconds of air time on
national broadcasting, but make no
mistake: the results of their election
demonstrate what happens when an
energy company is the centerpiece
in an election, even when the closest
thing to direct democracy is used.
In case you missed it: Árne-
shreppur is one of several regions
in the northwest
of Iceland where
every resident was
a candidate for
a regional coun-
cil. So instead of
people voting for
parties, they vote
for individual resi-
dents and their
individual plat-
forms. Normally,
elections in this
sleepy northwest
Iceland region are
entirely unevent-
ful . This year,
they were mired
in controversy as
it came to light
that 18 people
had changed their
legal residence to
the region within
a 10-day period,
likely in the hopes of influencing
the outcome of Árneshreppur’s elec-
tions.
The reason why these elections
were so important to outsiders is
the building of a proposed power
plant on Hvalá river. Former MP
Kristinn H. Gunnarsson, himself
a staunch advocate of the plant for
nearly a decade now, outed these
new arrivals on his blog, listing their
names and calling them “squatters”.
Ultimately, the National Registry
would void all but two of these new
arrivals as legitimate residents in
time for elections.
Election tampering
While this seems like a cut-and-dry
case of election tampering by big
city tree-huggers being prevented
by plucky rural folks, the real elec-
tion tampering was
going on largely
without objections.
For one, Kristinn
didn’t get his list of
names by pouring
over the National
Registry for irreg-
ularities. Rather,
these names were
handed to him by
a member of the
regional council.
Bear in mind that
Kristinn is not
a reporter; he’s
just a very vocal
supporter of the
Hvalá power plant.
Further, Sókn, the
legal firm who put
together the memo
for the National
Registry contend-
i n g e l e c t i o n
tampering was happening, counts
as one of their clients Vesturverk, an
energy company in Ísafjörður that is
doing the work of preparations for
the Hvalá power plant.
Days before the elections, emails
between Árneshreppur council-
members and Vesturverk were
leaked on social media. These emails
do not appear to show anything
illegal at work, but they do show
a very cosy relationship between
the council and the company. So
cosy, in fact, that when one resident
sent the council an email expressing
concerns about the plant, that coun-
cilperson decided to forward said
email to the company itself, asking
for advice as to how to respond. The
resident in question, as you may
imagine, was not very pleased with
this breach of confidence.
The company wins
Come election day, both supporters
and opponents of the plant were
in the running. The whole “squat-
ters” exercise may have backfired,
though, because all five seats on
Árneshreppur regional council were
filled by supporters of the Hvalá
power plant.
Inarguably, moving one’s legal
address to a region under false
pretenses in the hopes of influenc-
ing an election is acting in bad faith.
But then what does that make this
level of collusion between a for-
profit company and politicians? If
a similar case happened in Reykjavík
City Council, or Parliament for that
matter, there would likely be thou-
sands of people outside protest-
ing loudly at this very moment. Yet
because this was “only” happening
in a tiny rural area, no one is batting
an eye.
If nothing else, the Árneshreppur
elections —as openly democratic
as they are—show what happens
when one for-profit company wields
outsized influence over the inter-
ests of a region’s voters. This is a
fairly secure fact in much larger
elections. It’s the reason why there
are laws on the books about Parlia-
mentarians disclosing any potential
conflicts of interest that may arise
between the laws they write and
their own financial dealings. It’s
also why elected officials are not
supposed to be literal advocates for
for-profit companies, nor be this
deeply involved in the company’s
interests.
But apparently, none of this
counts unless you’re a Reykjavík
politician.
Small Town, Big
Problems
Árneshreppur proves capitalism and
democracy don’t mix
Words: Paul Fontaine Photo: John Rogers
You’re looking at the flashpoint of controversy
“If a similar
case happened
in Reykjavík
City Council, or
Parliament for
that matter,
there would
likely be thou-
sands of people
outside protest-
ing loudly at this
very moment.”