34 — village July - August 2012
Icreland – the
fundamental
difference
Ireland’s controlled and framed
Constitutional Convention shows that
democracy here is still a joke
Öʽ®ã®Ý
Ä®½½ÙÊó½ù
35
T
HREE years ago a tiring joke was doing
the rounds as to the difference between
Iceland and Ireland. Ultimately it turned
out to be no joke. Now to one letter and
a half-year another difference has added itself –
democracy. This one is not much of a joke either.
The government’s proposals for a
Constitutional Convention highlight the differ-
ence. It is going for a politically-controlled and
tightly-framed review of our Constitution. The
Icelandic government went for a people-led and
popularly-framed review of their Constitution.
The Act on a Constitutional Assembly, 2010,
kick-started a process of Constitutional review
in Iceland that was based on a framework of
norms and values that were ‘crowd-sourced’ –
that conducted by a Council of elected citizens,
and that involved significant public scrutiny and
participation.
The first step in the process was a government-
convened national meeting in November 2010
of 1500 randomly selected citizens. This was
modelled on a civil-society deliberative assem-
bly previously convened by the Canadian ‘Anthill’
group in 2009.
Participants at the meeting were gathered
in small discussion groups on a range of consti-
tutional matters. They discussed and reached
consensus on the values to govern how these
matters should be addressed in the Constitutional
review. This meeting ‘crowd-sourced’ values for
the new Constitution.
Elections were held for a 25-member
Constitutional Assembly in November 2010.
The Assembly had to have a minimum of 40% of
women and of men. Any citizen could stand, and
Ministers or members of the Parliament were not
precluded. 522 people stood for election on the
basis of required sponsorship by between 30 and
50 citizens.
The turnout was low at 35.95%. Fifteen
men and ten women were elected. Those elected
included lawyers, political-science academics and
journalists. They were largely recognisable public
figures. Nevertheless the members were definitely
chosen by the people on a non-partisan basis.
The election was challenged and ruled invalid
by the Supreme Court based on technical faults in
the process of the election rather than its outcome.
The government decided to appoint those elected
to a Constitutional Council on the grounds that
their popular mandate was legitimate.
The Constitutional Council worked on a
full-time basis for four months with the sup-
port of a legal council.
It presented a draft
Constitutional Bill to
the Parliament in July
2011. This Bill will be
subject to a referendum
this year.
The Constitutional
Council used social
media to engage the
public in their work.
The proceedings of
the Council were
upstreamed to the
internet. All drafts pre-
pared by the Council
were available on their
website. A semi-formal
collective of individuals formed a Constitutional
Analysis Support Team which analysed the drafts
and which convened an open meeting of citizens
to stress-test the final draft for gaps.
The outcome of this process has not been radi-
cal. It does, however, reflect solid and significant
progress towards a more equal, environmentally-
sustainable and participative Iceland.
The preamble to the draft Constitution states
that “We who inhabit Iceland want to create a fair
society where everyone is equal” and that Iceland
rests on the “cornerstones of freedom, equality
democracy and human rights”.
A specific chapter makes provisions in rela-
tion to both human rights and nature. It includes
a provision that “the utilisation of resources shall
be guided by sustainable development and the
public interest”.
Public participation derives from three provi-
sions. Ten per cent of the electorate can petition
for a referendum to be held on legislation that has
been passed by the Parliament; two per cent of
the electorate may submit an item of business for
debate in the Parliament; and ten per cent of the
electorate may submit a legislative Bill for consid-
eration by the Parliament.
One letter, six months and a whole lot of
democracy makes for a pretty fundamental differ-
ence. Apart altogether from the advantage shrewd
policy-making has gained for Iceland economi-
cally, there is a whole democratic joke whose butt
is not Iceland but Ireland.
THE term ‘constitutional convention’ conjures
images of Thomas Jefferson, George
Washington et al in Philadelphia in 1787
drawing up the precepts for a long-lasting
Constitution.
A year and a half into its term it is clear
that the coalition’s promised ‘constitutional
convention’ for ‘comprehensive constitutional
reform’ is not so much a grand affair as a
cynical joke. Only six relatively inconsequential
issues, such as lowering the voting age by
one year to 17; reducing the term of office
of the President by two years to five; and
decriminalising blasphemy will be considered.
Removing acknowledgement of the special
place of the women in the home and
improving women’s participation in politics
are on the agenda but same-sex marriage and
the review of the Dáil electoral system have
been de-priotritised and it is not clear when or
if they will actually be debated.
We who
inhabit Iceland
want to
create a fair
society where
everyone is
equal
¨

Loading

© 2015 Village Magazine

Back to Top