- Norway is a constitutional monarchy: This means that while the King is the formal head of state he has mainly a formal and official role, and his leadership is non-political. The "real" government is elected
- Norway is a parliamentary democracy: This means that the government is built based on the parliament. This means that the Executive Branch and the parliamentary branch do NOT have seperate bases of legitimacy as there is only one parliamentary election.
- Norway's governments do not need a majority backing from parliament to be formed. However, they can be thrown out by a majority. In a fractured parliament, where there are not 2 clear options (ie. left-right/ socialist-conservative or whatever) governments can be formed of a minority and seek majority to pass legislation (and budget) from case to case. In fact, the majority of Norways governments the last 30 years have been minority governments (Last 4 years has had a majority)
- No single party in Norway is close to a simple majority (50%+1). This means that governments are per definition coalitions or at best weak minority governments with one party.
- The parliament in Norway cannot be dissolved. This means that "who you vote is who you get" for 4 years. For good or bad.
- Norway has only one chamber of government, that is - no upper house. Even though this chamber in theory divides into 2 for lawmatters, this is more a formal division than anything else.
Now to the blogpost
The last 4 years Norways government has been a majority government consisting of the Labour Party, the Socialist Left Party, and the farmer and non-urban supported Centre Party.
Now, let's "reveal" the poltical colours of the blogger first. I am not a huge fan of either of these parties, and people who wish to classify me usually put me somewhere in a conservative or liberal box - although my opinions sometimes confuse in that they don't fit boxes very well. That be said, I am not a huge fan of any other Norwegian parties either, and although heavily interested in poltics and how to govern a country for the better, I am not very impressed with the Norwegian Poltical landscape. More on that later.
First is first and second is later. Let's start at the beginning.
I am a huge believer in individuals ability to conquer and manage their own lives, if given the opportunity, incentive and support to do so. I do not believe external factors limit very much at all, at least within a country like Norway (that, of course, might be characterized as hypocritical coming from someone born in Oslo West, having gone to private school and had all the opportunities open to him all his life)
I am not a huge believer that government can make the huge difference between an "ok life" and a "great life". For sure, government can do alot to make life "ok", however. After that the ability to impact individuals diminishes rapidly. I do not believe in majority rule. By this I mean that I do not think that what a majority thinks is the best for them or for everyone else, necessarily is. This does not, of course, mean that I believe a minority knows better. Nobody does.
I believe, however, very strongly in democracy and in elections. But not because of the saviours that are voted in, the rascals that are thrown out, or the impact the majority voted government has on the majority of poeple. I take a book out of Toquerville and John Stuart Mill. The main purpose of democracy itself, the way I see it, is the process of democracy. Democratic elections, and more importantly, the democratic debate, is one of the most important educational tools we have in the western worlds.
We can learn several things from this debate, such as:
1. People, people's views and people's opinions are different and that's something we should cherish and embrace.
2. Understanding issues is complicated. Solutions are not easy. There are no "winning arguments". The world is complicated.
3. We learn to see the limits in the external environment and the possibilites in ourselves when we formulate complex opinions about society, causality and realize we think we can do something to change that.
For these things to happen the debate, however, needs to be on a completely different level than what is happening in Norway. In Norway the debate is about money. It's about the distribution of money, the best way to allocate money, the best way of making money, and the morality of money - whether some things can be valued or not.
Money, important as it might be, is NOT what life, and especially political life, should be about. In my view it should be about a vision for the future of our society, for the citizens, for the individual. It should be about how we create a community out of individuals, that serves the individual, but also the need for community these individuals have. This is not easy, of course.
But money?
2 billion more for roads.
4 billion more in tax relief.
2 billion less in property tax
10 billion in investing in alternative energy
etc. etc.
The day I see a Norwegian politician show stops talking about money as the primary tool but starts talking about people and society I might start getting interested. Not because I do not believe in the importance of money in our societies, but because I believe our politicians have lost all sight of their role.
I want:
- A vision for Norway that I can buy into and that I believe in
- The protection of the (positive) freedom for all individuals
- Less focus on structures in society and more focus on actors in society
