Saga - 2007, Síða 127

Abstract
s v a n u r k r i s t j á n s s o n
I C E L A N D ‘ S A P P R O A C H T O D E M O C R A C Y :
I S J U D A S T H E E Q U A L O F J E S U S ?
The ideas of three scholars on power distribution and popular democracy,
as opposed to parliamentary democracy
The article is divided into four sections. The first section explains the foundation
of every democratic theory, the principle that society should be governed by the
people. Attention is directed in particular to one means of democracy, parlia-
mentary democracy, which originated in England. Little is known about the
development of parliamentarianism in Iceland, or about support for the theory
of parliamentarianism among educated natives.
The second section discusses the development of parliamentary democracy in
Iceland before and after the country’s sovereignty was recognised by Denmark
through the 1918 Act of Union. While parliamentarianism had gained strength
through Home Rule in 1904, it remained relatively weak. The political parties did
not offer clearly distinguished platforms, the king of Denmark retained consider-
able power, and direct democracy wielded considerable influence. When
Iceland’s sovereignty was recognised in 1918, however, parliament ary democracy
became appreciably stronger, with competition increasing be tween parties,
suffrage reaching more people, and election participation rising. The king was no
longer involved in Icelandic affairs.
The third section describes the discussion of three Icelandic scholars on
parliamentary democracy: Guðmundur Hannesson (1866–1946), Guðmundur
Finnbogason (1873–1944) and Hallgrímur Hallgrímsson (1888–1945), all of whom,
in scholarly books and periodicals, addressed extensively their country’s
development of a system of government. Each was highly critical of post-1918
parliamentarianism, feeling there was considerable political corruption and a
reigning oligarchy of party leaders. Also, each presented detailed proposals for
reform, with the objective of establishing a governmental system that ensured the
distribution of power and popular democracy, rather than a centralised parlia-
mentary democracy. Believing that the alleged maladies of parliamentarianism
stemmed from a misplaced faith in total human equality, Hannesson and
Finnbogason portrayed this faith as a universal suffrage in which Judas was
accounted the equal of Jesus. Instead of unrestricted democracy, a government by
the best should be created, a meritocracy. Hallgrímsson, on the other hand,
thought that the cornerstone of democracy, universal suffrage, should be pre-
served, but wanted parliamentary democracy to undergo robust control through
direct democracy, not in the least national referenda.
ísland á leið til lýðræðis 127
Saga haust 2007 nota:Saga haust 2004 - NOTA 11/19/07 4:32 PM Page 127