Political ads allowed on TV

Not very long ago, I wrote a post about political advertising on TV in Norway. During the three weeks since then, things have surely happened.

Despite political ads on tv being prohibited, the small local tv station TV Vest ran three ads for the local branch of the Pensioners Party in 2003. As a result, they were fined 35.000 NOK (roughly €4.500). This they refused to pay on principal grounds and took the case to the Courts of Human Rights in Strasbourg. They claim that the ban is an offense against the rights of free speech. Yesterday, the Court decided in favour of the TV-station. So, the way things are looking, political advertising is in principle allowed...

Interestingly, the British TV station Channel S was fined £40.000 on Wednesday this week for having run a total of 44 political ads for the Liberal Democrats. Also somewhat curious is that this case and the verdict has received very scarce attention in international media.

Check out the blog Word From the North for an interesting post about the ban, the case and the verdict.

Political advertising..

Although political advertising is allowed in some media in Norway, it is not allowed in television. The ban on televised political ads has been a matter of some debate in Norway, and arguments both for and against lifting the ban has been put forward.

The strongest of the arguments is that to allow this would give the political parties with the most financial backing (i.e Labour and the Right Party) an unfair advantage in reaching more people with their message. The smaller parties like the Coastal Party (Kystpartiet) and even the Socialist Left Part (SV) would not be able to fund as much political advertising on TV. To lift the ban on televised political ads would be to subject the politics to the mechanisms of the capitalist market.

To a certain extent I do agree with this argument. Televised advertising is expensive, and only the largest and wealthiest parties would be able to afford to advertise enough for it to be effective. If it were to be allowed, it could be that this would lead to political parties being more driven to seek funding from private business. I do not believe that anyone gives away money for free. Funding comes with a price. So, if we could avoid that, it would be good.

All good arguments for upholding the ban aside, I still think it is a real democratic problem that the political parties are not allowed to present their political agendas and programmes in any unfiltered way on TV. Sure, we do have a good coverage of politics in the news, and politicians do partake on political TV-debates and other TV programs. But these are all filtered by journalists or debate-show hosts, often seeking to make their shows more interesting by focusing on the more sensational aspects and on conflict than necessarily on the parties' political programmes. And it is the journalists and show-hosts that decide exactly what is discussed.

It could be argued that the parties are allowed to present their message elsewhere, like e.g on their websites and in other media where they are allowed to advertise. But TV is still most people's main channel of information about politics, and will probably remain so for the foreseeable future.

Maybe in this matter we could get some ideas from the UK. Political advertising is not allowed in any laissez-faire fashion there either, but the parties are allowed a certain amount of free political TV advertising. This could be a way of solving this that we could contemplate as well. Each political party could be allotted a certain time for presenting their policies and their programmes on the state owned NRK (the same amount for each party or based on their number of seats in the Parliament). There could even be a minimum timeframe to avoid the parties presenting their policies in a too simplified way. Even "negative ads" could be allowed, by which I mean ads that point out weaknesses in the opposing parties' policies - this is a very effective way of unveiling inaccuracies etc. in such information.

Even if we take into account all the arguments for keeping a ban on political ads in TV, it is in my opinion very peculiar that we want to prevent our political parties and politicians from presenting their own policies. Instead of doing everything we can to educate the voters on the policies they are voting for or against, we are de facto limiting the range of information that voters are allowed. And in my mind, we are banning one of the most important sources of information.

Worries in the High North

In this week's issue, the Economist is featuring an article that highlights Russia's conduct in the Arctic areas. It describes this area, "cold, empty and rich in fish and minerals", as "a tempting prize for a big, confident country." Russian fighter jets have been frequently flying very close to Norwegian territory, something that while not illegal sends some worrying signals. The recent €4 billion emergency loan to Iceland is also a bit worrying - not in itself, but with regards to whatever Russia wants in return.

I have written some posts about this issue already; "The Bear and Us - Russia and Norway" and "The Bear and Us Revisited". My point in those articles was that although the Cold War is over, we should be very wary with regards to our Eastern neighbor.

As a tiny little country of only four and a half million people we are not in an ideal position if we should get into a conflict with Russia. But we still need to do everything in our power to stand our ground, and send clear signals of our own standpoint. Also, as I see it, we have no other choice than to keep both of our feet firmly grounded in NATO. It may be pointed out that "NATO presence is fitful" in the High North, as the Economist does. Still, it is a grave mistake to argue for us to distance ourselves from NATO and our Western allies, as some of our socialist parties do. We cannot afford to stand alone, and NATO is our best bet not to do so.

It has been sad to see that even our dear former Prime Minister, Haakon Lie, has been arguing against taking our share of responsibilities in NATO operations around the world. His rhetorical point is that Norway's borders are not running next to Afghanistan. That is of course true. But it is equally true that most NATO members do not have a border to Russia along the Pasvik River in Northern Norway.

Turning with the populist wind on immigration?

FrP (The Progress Party) has steadily gained on the opinion polls in the past years. According to some polls, it is now larger than Ap (The Labour Party). With the growth of FrP, the other parties will inevitably have to take it more seriously than what has been the case in the past. The rise of FrP has long been something that has kept many an Ap-politician awake at night.

There are two ways that the parties on the center-left stage can respond to the ascent of FrP. For one, they can try to capture voters by launching policies that resemble the most popular policies on the right. Alternatively, they can further emphasize their left-of-center position, and try to educate the public of the follies of many of FrP's suggestions.

Although e.g. the leader of SV (the Socialist Left Party), Kristin Halvorsen, has stuck her head far down in the ground and claims the opposite, it seems that the population is drifting right in their support for political parties. The opinion polls show this trend quite clearly.

If the growth of the parties on the right could pull the other parties slightly towards the right, that could in my mind be a positive thing. For example, if it could soften up the stiff resistance to anything that smacks of privatization, I would welcome that very much. That would not be the case if it happens in the more populistic areas, like immigration or spending of the oil fund money. And that is precisely my fear, and something we might have seen signs of recently with Ap toughening up it's stance on immigration.

Even though we need to shoulder our responsibility when it comes to accepting refugees from conflict-ridden areas, there also needs to be limits to immigration. We cannot simply open our borders up and accept anyone and everyone. A small society like Norway simply does not have the capacity to deal with too many immigrants and refugees. The last couple of years, Norway have received from 5.000 to 6.500 asylum seekers annually. Recent research suggests that asylum seekers, especially young ones, are being very well integrated and that they are not any unreasonable burden on the Norwegian society (i.e. welfare state). This confirms that Norway is perfectly capable of absorbing this number of refugees.

Our Prime Minister's tightening up of immigration rules was based on estimates that we could be faced with a more than doubling of the number of asylum seekers next year. It could be debated whether we would be able to responsibly absorb that many. But if this is a trend towards a more populistic line from Ap, that would be very, very sad. To abandon responsible policies is not good at all, and if Ap and the other serious political parties start doing so, that is not good for anyone. It should be left alone to FrP to try to score cheap political points by suggesting irresponsible and/or reckless policies.

The Christian People's Party and Gays

The politician Ole Henrik Grønn in the Sarpsborg Christian People's Party (KrF) resigned his position with the party last week. His resignation is due to the stark criticism he has been at the receiving end for because of his sexual orientation. According to the leader of the local party, Marit Sverresen, Grønn's position in the party is incompatible with living in a relationship with another man.

As I stated in my August 17 post, The Norwegian Islamic Council and Gays, reactionary attitudes are not at all reserved for Muslims or any other religious faith. It is a sliding scale, of course, and barring certain people for membership in a political party is not the same as punishing them with execution. The similarities are nevertheless obvious.

If we want to force the Norwegian Islamic Council to hold certain views and values that we find politically correct, why not also impose the same on our political parties? Anything else is in my opinion pure hypocrisy.

Some reflections on Norwegian farming

The other day, I read an article in Dagsavisen about the different views of the Norwegian political parties with respect to the Norwegian agriculture. The Right wants to stop most subsidies to Norwegian farmers and thus force them to compete with agricultural products from abroad. The Left, on the other side, wants to keep the extensive subsidies and protect the farmers from foreign competition.

I tend to hold the view that the Norwegian farming is not competitive, and that we should not artificially keep it alive with high levels of subsidies and high tariff-barriers. A near arctic environment can hardly be said to be ideal for farming. Why should the taxpayers pay the salaries for a few individuals who want to cling on to something that's not at all able to compete with agriculture in other more suitable areas?

Also, it would be much fairer towards developing countries, e.g. in Africa, if we would truly open ourselves to real free-trade instead of building tariff-barriers to keep those countries from selling their produce to us. That could enable many poor farmers in developing countries to build better lives for themselves. It is inherently unfair the way that we are shutting these farmers out of our markets, and insisting that they need to open up for us to sell our products to them.

In addition to that, the world would be better off if we were to concentrate on areas where we are able to compete, and let countries with suitable climates concentrate on agriculture. That is what is called comparative advantage - we should all do what we do or can do best, and then trade fairly with one another. That will lead to products of better quality, made faster, and in greater amounts.

But - and this is a very weighty but - there are two other factors in the equation. Firstly, there is a food shortage coming. With growing populations, some have estimated that global food production needs to be doubled or tripled in the next 40-50 years. That taken into account, it might not be so desirable to pull the plug on the Norwegian agriculture and let it die. Maybe, in the long run, it would be wise to keep it alive for a while.

The other thing is that if the global warming continues, which in all probability it will, this would lead to the Norwegian climate becoming more suitable for farming than it is now. And thus, in a few years, the Norwegian farming might become a lot more competitive than what is now the case.

I guess the bottom line is that, as with many other issues, this is a difficult one, and it's not easy to say what's the right thing to do. As one of the richest countries in the world, such mercantilistic policies are in any case simply unethical. And the subsidies and tariff-barriers need to be lowered, even though that means that some farmers will be forced out of business. Farms being shut down is not an irreversible process. When or if the Norwegian climate will become more favorable, agriculture will inevitably grow even though it temporarily shrinks.

The Bear and Us - Russia and Norway

This week, the Norwegian foreign minister, mr Jonas Gahr Støre, held a speech on Russo-Norwegian relations at the Norwegian Insitute for Foreign Policy (NUPI). The main points in his speech was that the relationship between Norway and Russia has never been as good as now, but that it could and should get even better. Russia is on the right track, but the authoritarian tendencies are worrying. We do have a close dialogue with Russia, but we need to stay critical in our talks with our neighbor. But even though our relationship with Russia is improving, we are firmly rooted in the West and this will not change.

Mr Støre has proved himself as a great ambassador for Norway in capacity as foreign minister, and he deserves all the praise he gets for his job. He shows nuanced and well informed views, and he is not afraid of standing up for the Norwegian interests.

As he says, we need to have a good relationship with our eastern Neighbor, and we certainly do, at least on the "popular" level. This is especially true for the areas of Norway closest to the Russian border, such as Kirkenes, where even street signs are written both in Norwegian and Russian. But it also hold true for other parts. We do have a large Russian immigrant population, which is very well integrated. In some areas in Finnmark (northern Norway), Women with Russian background (mostly first-generation immigrants), make up almost 6% of the total female population in working age (Sør-Varanger 5.7% and Båtsfjord 5.8% in 2007). The male immigrant population is somewhat lower; on average it is 51% of the female one.

On the state-level (foreign policy), the relationship is good as well. We do have a good dialogue, and commercial and cultural exchange. But we do need to show some caution. The Russian state certainly is thumping its chest and showing some muscles, trying to build its reputation and self-esteem after the fall of the Soviet state. In is speech, Støre said that he has understanding for this. To a certain extent, I agree, but we should not accept the more worrying examples of this, such as the treatment Russia gave Ukraine and Georgia in 2007-2008, when it stopped exports of gas in the middle of the winter.

In the arctic area, we do have huge areas of sea where the border lines are not clearly drawn. With the recent findings of large oil and particularly gas fields here, this is an area of potential conflict with Russia. Little Norway do not want to get into a muscle-flexing contest with the Russian Bear here. So, as Støre pointed out, we need both to improve the already good relationship we have with Russia, as well as keep ourselves rooted in the West. A good relationship will minimize the risk of getting into some sort of conflict here, and being firmly rooted in the West (including NATO) will provide a deterrent as well as help if, in the future, we should need it - God forbid.

***

By the way, this is my 50th blog post, so I will allow myself a little congratulation. I started this blog last August, while I was living in Prague. Since then, I have more or less regularly been posting on various Norway-related subjects. I have certainly enjoyed it, and I will keep it going as long as I still do, which hopefully will be a long time. So, thanks for all the comments so far, and hopefully you will pop by as regularly as I post.

Left vs Right, i.e. Good versus Evil? + A Defense of Privatization

With the squabbling on the Norwegian political right about potential coalitions for the elections next year going on, I'd like to share some more or less coherent thoughts on left vs. right.

To start with, I do not consider the good old left-right axis of politics to be very helpful. Those who have read my previous posts, or who know me, would probably position me somewhat to the right. And if we were to use the left-right axis at all, I would agree to that. But it is a very one-dimensional way of looking at politics, and a way of simplifying it down to stupidity. Still, I will be using the left-right notion in this post, if for no other reason that it is so ingrained, and that the political parties are seen to belong somewhere on this axis.

It happens on both sides of the political spectrum, the presenting of itself as the only "good" option, while the other side is pretty much seen as "bad," sometimes almost "evil." The left presents itself as taking care of everybody, while the other side wants to create a society where every man and woman stands on his and her own. The right on the other hand presents itself as the only side able to keep the economy going, and it the left gets its say, the economy will fall to pieces immediately. We have had governments from both sides in Norway, and the society and our country is still alive and kicking, and mostly everybody got a decent life. Contradicting a lot of the rhetoric from both sides, neither have inflicted any serious damage on our society yet.

I do not think a leftist government would be total ruin for our economy, even if we have a Minister of Finance from the Socialist Left party (SV). And I seriously doubt it very much that people who vote right would want to live in a society where people are left on their own if they cannot afford to pay for hospitals, schools, or care in their old age. I certainly do not. Keep that in mind as you read on. Otherwise, some of the following might come across as slightly tasteless. That is not my intention.

The idea of the welfare state is still going very strong in Norway. Very few would want to abolish State owned schools, hospitals, or unemployment security and social security systems. Having said that, I do not understand the allergy on the left towards anything and everything that smacks of privatization. The thinking seems to be that if we allow private schools, hospitals or caring facilities for old people, our welfare state would go straight down the drain. I strongly disagree with that.

Competition has proven itself to be a very effective way of increasing quality. If businesses have no competition, they see absolutely no reason to strive hard to provide the best products or services. But as soon as there are others competing for the same customers, each will have to try very hard to come up with better products and better services. That will push prices down, and customers get better products and services. The same goes for hospitals and schools.

Again, I do not want to see state owned schools or hospitals abolished. Every sick person should get care, no matter how much or little they earn. And every child should have education, no matter what the income of their parents. And everybody should be cared for in their old age.

But I do think that allowing private schools, hospitals, and caring facilities would benefit our society, and help increase the quality also in the state owned ones. And it will also provide us with more choices and options. If my old grandmother is not happy with one caring facility, she should have to option to choose another one. Why should she not be allowed to do that?

When the time comes to send my children to school, I want them to have the best possible education there is. If I or my family gets ill, I want us to have the best possible treatment we can get. And when I am old and fragile, I want to have the best old-age care that I can get. Even if I have to pay for it. Quite frankly, no matter how politically incorrect it may sound to Norwegian ears, I do not care if there are other children that do not have the same opportunities than mine have, and I do not care if there are other old people who can not afford the same care that I can. And probably there will be children with parents who can afford to send them to better schools than I can, and there probably will be people who can afford better care in their old age than I can. So be it.

I do believe in the old Norwegian saying that "Hver er sin egen lykkes smed" (a little less poetically translated to "each of us are creating our own happiness"). If the government of the country that I live in will try to stop me from creating my own or my family's happiness, or if, in the name of equality, it tries to prohibit better schools or hospitals for some on the grounds that there are others that cannot afford it, I would think really hard about whether I want to live there or somewhere else.

Comments, aynone?

Separatism in Norway, pt. 2

I want to take up again the subject from my posting on March 8, "Separatism in Norway".

After the Kosovars declared their independence from Serbia on February 17 this year, Norway was one of the first countries to recognize Kosovo as an independent state. We might have been right to do that, or we might not. I will not take a stand on that now. Still, we should be aware that there are trends of separatism also in Norway. I do not think there is any imminent danger of parts of Norway trying to break free, but the trends can nevertheless be felt and seen.

I will not discuss the separatist attitudes in the western parts of Norway that Professor Frank Aarebrot warns against. What I would like to focus on, is the Northern parts, from where I come.

Without going excessively into detail, I will sketch out some of the historical background of the indigenous Sami people in Finnmark, the northernmost administrative region of Norway. For more detail, check out the article on Wikipedia about the Samis.

The Samis are believed to have populated the northern areas around 2500 years. The first written record about the Samis, or Fennis as he called them, is from the Roman historian Tacitus from 98 BC. The lifestyle of the Samis was largely nomadic, and closely bound up to the reindeer herding or hunting.

Except taxing them, the Norwegian-Danish government basically left the Sami people to their own up until the 18. century. At that time, it initiated policies of christianisation and assimiliation of the Samis. These policies culminated from 1900 to the 1940s, when the government basically tried to wipe out the Sami culture. Some of techniques used to achieve this was lobotomy, sterilization, removal of Sami children from their parents, etc. Of course, speaking Sami language in schools, etc., was forbidden.

After the Second World War, things have gradually improved for the Sami people. Today they are recognized as a minority, and have a large degree of influence in Finnmark and the other northern regions. In 1989, Sámediggi (pictured), an elected Sami parliament, was founded, with the overarching goal of furthering Sami language, culture, and society.

Since the late 1970s there has been a great deal of debate around the rights of the Sami people in the northern regions. Central in this debate has been the Sami right to use of land and water. As of 2005, according to the Finnmark Act, all of Finnmark is governed by the Finnmark Estate on behalf of the population of the region. As stated on the Act's official website, "The objective [of the Act] is to ensure that the land and natural resources in Finnmark are managed in the best interests of the inhabitants of the county and as the basis for the Sami culture and the Sami economy."

What non-Samis in the region perceive as an ongoing grab at power is creating a great deal of antagonism towards the Sami population. The Finnmark Act is seen by many non-Samis as unfairly favoring Samis. The Samis are only part of the population in Finnmark, and other people can claim equally strong historical usage of land and water resources.

There is a joke in Norwegian, which goes like this; What is the first word a Sami child learns? "Restitution". What is the second word it learns? "Our Sami rights". Part of the non-Sami antagonism towards Samis is based on this perception of Samis' endless clamour for their Sami rights, and their claiming resitution for all sorts of more or less legitimate reasons. And for this purpose, they are using the history of Norwegian policies towards Samis for all it is worth.

Apart from the political side, there is also a strong Sami nation-building effort that has been going on for quite some time. The Samis have come a long way from the immediate post-World-War-2 era, when most Samis tried to hide their ethnicity. Today, there is a prevalent pride of being Sami. Many Samis wear their national dress, the Sami language is spoken on an everyday basis (it is also one of Norway's two official languages), and there has been an upswing in promotion of the Sami culture. Sami parents put their children to expressedly Sami kindergardens, to foster a clear sense of belonging to Sami culture from an early age.

While there is nothing wrong with expressing your cultural heritage, whether that is Norwegian, Sami or Pakistani, it cannot be denied that this nation-building effort is accentuating differences between "Norwegian" and Sami, and furthering the belief that being Sami is fundamentally different than being of "Norwegian" cultural heritage. Another symptom of this feeling of otherness, can be seen with the desire to flag with the Sami flag on the national holiday, May 17.

I must point out that most people of Sami origin are good and sensible Norwegians. Still, there is a part of the Sami population expressing separatist attitudes. Among them is the highly controversial Sámediggi representative Janos Trosten (pictured). According to Trosten, the Norwegian government is to be considered colonialists, and that the Samis should be the undisputed rulers of Finnmark and the northern regions. Among Trostens other claims is that the Samis have the sole ownership of the Snow White natural gas fields off the coast of Norway.

While I hope that it will not happen at all, and I am sure that it will not for a long time, I fear that if the trends are strengthened, we could have a potential separatist movement going on at some point in the future. Trosten's following is very small, but if the Samis' perception of themselves as being not Norwegian are strengthened, it could become larger. And especially if the government is caving in to claims such as Samis having some kind of sole ownership to the huge riches off the coast, this could get to be the economic backbone enabling them to create a separate Sami state.

Political positioning for the 2009 elections..

In an interview with the national broadcaster NRK, Erna Solberg, the chairman for Høyre (Right), declared that she will be the candidate for the prime minister post in any rightist coalition for the next election.

The last time that Høyre was in government was from 2001 to 2005, in partnership with KrF (the Christian People's Party) and Venstre (Left). Even though Høyre won the most votes of the three, they did not get the Prime Minister post. The current government is a center-left coalition consisting of AP (the Labour Party), SV (the Socialist Left Party), and SP (The Center Party).

On the right side of the Norwegian political spectrum, there is an ongoing controversy about wether or not the different parties are willing to enter a coalition partnership with FrP (the Progress Party), a populistic party on the right side led by party foreman Siv Jensen.

Erna Solberg of Høyre (pictured) has recently been expressing that the rightist parties should - and need to - cooperate with FrP to be able to present a viable alternative to the current center-left government. Lars Sponheim of Venstre, on the other hand, is adamantly opposed to any institutionalised cooperation with FrP, and KrF is also lukewarm to the idea.

FrP has never been in government, but sees its opening now, in partnership with the other parties on the right. Considering that FrP is getting rates of around 25% on some opinion polls (26.5% in March), it might be difficult to see how the other rightist parties could get enough votes to form a government without FrP. Solberg might be very right in saying that the other parties need to cooperate with FrP if they want to form a government. Their choice, then, might be whether they want to govern with FrP or not govern at all - at least not yet.

As I have expressed before, I am not comfortable with the idea of FrP in government. Of course, one might think that the populism might give way to more responsible policies when the party actually needs to stand behind all it´s proposals. Still, as much as I would like to see a rightist coalition in government, I am really in doubt if I would rather not see one at all than to see one in which FrP is a major partner - which it inevitably would be if in government.

If Høyre and FrP would form a government, they would - according to the beforementioned opinion poll, get 43.9% of the votes. If all the parties on the right except FrP would form a government, they would get 30.0%. That would probably not be enough to form a stable government - my bet is that FrP would do anything in their power to destabilise a rightist government they had been excluded from. It is really sad to see that we have a party like FrP that is in fact destroying any prospect for a responsible and stable rightist government in Norway.

The current government is not a disaster for Norway. But I think that a right-of-center government (without FrP) would be better for Norway. It would be more business-friendly, more sympathetic to privatisation, and more able to increase Norway´s competitiveness internationally.

To be continued...

Separatism in Norway

The Norwegian professor Frank Aarebrot warns about separatism in Norway in an interview with the Norwegian daily Dagsavisen.

According to him, there are signals in the western parts of Norway that people are pissed off with the centralised governent, and the fact that they don't see enough of the wealth that this part of the country is creating. Approximately 70 percent of the national wealth is created in this region, but only 28 percent is given back.

This might not happen tomorrow, but the spark to light something nasty will not necessarily be big, Aarebrot says. If someone turns up with the idea to create a regional protest party with separatist goals, "all hell could break loose."

The article can be read in Norwegian here.

Some random thoughts on the Afghanistan war

Flash from the news #1; US Democratic frontrunner Barack Obama recently told the German weekly "der Spiegel" that the Europeans have to provide more support in the form of troops in the war in Afghanistan.

Flash from the news #2; The former Norwegian Foreign Minister Torbjørn Jagland expressed his views that NATO needs more troops in Afghanistan, and that Norway should shoulder more of its responsibility and provide more troops than what is currently the case.

There is no doubt that the support for the US-led invasion in Afghanistan among the poulation of the Western World is waning. A few weeks ago the US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, addressed this in a speech. The European political leaders have not succeeded in explaining the reasons for the invasion in Afghanistan and the reasons why the war is still going on. And also, he said, the war in Afghanistan is commonly mixed up with the war in Iraq.

The invasion in Iraq was, it could be reasonably argued (and I agree with that), based on false evidence, and it was also a case of the Bush administration taking advantage of a broad support for their War on Terror. Still, the war in Afghanistan is not the war in Iraq. When the US and the UK invaded Afghanistan in 2001, there was huge international support for the invasion. With the close links between Taliban, which were in control of Afghanistan, and Al-Qaeda which were also hiding out in Afghanistan, this invasion was legitimate, and the West was right in supporting the US-led invasion of Afghanistan. To oust the Taliban from power in Afghanistan was legitimate and backed by virtually the entire Western World. And even though the US messed up with also invading Iraq, the war in Afghanistan is still a legitimate war.

So, to bail out from this now is simply wrong. We agreed to this invasion in the first place, and we have an obligation to stand by until the situation is stabilized, or we are "victorious". The public support for the Afghanistan war might be waning, but politics are not done with plebiscistes for every single decision, and politicians are not supposed to go solely after the public opinion. It might be that our politicians did not educate us enough, but it is anyways their responsibility to stand by and not withdraw the support we gave at the outset. We went in there, and we need to stay in there until have achieved our objectives, which among others were to oust the Taliban regime from power and make sure they stay out of power. To pull out of Afghanistan now will be to leave the country in a state of disarray, where the Taliban can easily come back.

According to common sense, it is necessary to have enough troops to win any conflict. And according to the Powell doctrine, when you enter a conflict, you better make sure you go in with overwhelming force, so that you are certain you will be victorious. If you go in without the necessary level of force, you will be bound to enter a quagmire, much like the US did in Vietnam.

When US President Lyndon B. Johnson decided to go into Vietnam, he did not go in with the necessary firepower to win the conflict in a reasonably short amount of time. And when he and his administration witnessed the conflict prolong, they sent in more troops only little by little, but still not enough to win. Mired in a conflict that could not be resolved within a short time, and without the necessary force to do that, the administration lost their support among the US population.

Similarly, without the necessary international support (both diplomatically and militarily), the US and NATO will have a very hard time winning the war in Afghanistan. And as Torbjørn Jagland said in the beforementioned interview, if NATO does not win this war, its relevance in following scenarios will be diminished. So in addition to a stable Afghanistan, the future of NATO could also be at stake in this conflict. For a country as dependant on NATO for its security as Norway, the choice should be clear.

Any basis for cooperation on the right + Democracy vs opportunism..

The debate about the possibility of a cooperation on the Right of Norwegian politics is going on. FrP (The Progress Party), of course wants to be let into the warmth with the other parties on the Right, having long been seen as the pariah party. The Right party, as the only one, seems to have moved a long way towards accepting a cooperation with FrP. The other Right parties, such as KrF (the Christian People`s Party) and Venstre, are declining any form of at least formal cooperation, even if that means giving up being in government after the next election. Without FrP a Right government will a hard born child.

While I`ve been, and still am, extremely sceptical to FrP getting into government, I am at the same time not sure it is good to rule out anything in principle. FrP is in my opinion, and in the opinion of many people, a very opportunistic one, and one that do not seem to be very responsible in its policies. Thus, I would definitely prefer the current government to one where FrP is a main part - and if it were a part of the government coalition it would be, because it is one of Norway`s two largest parties, and definitely the largest one on the Right side.

Still, one might argue that there is a slight possibility that FrP will start waking up, and become more aware that all it`s many promises will have consequences, if it gets a chance to govern.

One thing I read recently made me think. FrP argued that it is neutral to the question about Norwegian membership to the EU because the Norwegian public is divided on the question. This argument is representative of a lot of FrP policies. It might be argued that political parties should take into account the public opinion. But it seems to me that this argument of FrP is turned upside down. If the party policies on a given area is not clear, how are people supposed to be able to make up their minds if this is the party to vote for? Should a political party adjust it`s policies as soon as the wind of public opinion turns? Should not people vote based on how political parties make their stand on different issues - not parties changing their stand according to public opinion? It seems to me that FrP did not really catch the difference between democracy and opportunism.

Kebabs for votes

It seems Norwegian politics is not avoid of episodes you would normally expect to find in less politically developed countries. In the recent local elections, homeless people and drug addicts have been offered 50 Norwegian crowns (6.50 Euros) or one Kebab to vote for Yosouf Gilani and the Labour Party in Drammen.

It is not clear yet, whether this incident was an attempt by the Labour Party to buy votes or an attempt by other parties to hurt the Labour by causing a scandal.

Either way, this episode is something that damages Norwegian politics, and drags in down into the dirt. Neither the Labour nor its political opponents are gaining anything by such behavior. Not only it is simply tasteless to buy off homeless people and drug addicts for small change, it is also making Norwegian politics resemble something you would find in some banana republic where the respect for democracy is next to nothing.

Some of the people who were attempted bought off found this tasteless too, and simply took the money or the kebab and voted for some other party. It seems a free will can not be bought after all..

Some random thoughts on the upcoming election..

The local elections in Norway are four days away. On monday the Norwegians are going to the polls.

In one recent opinion poll, the Right party gained five percentages, while the Forwards-party lost five percent. Also the right wing of Norwegian politics got a total of 52 %. This is, to me, uplifting news, especially for a country I always saw as too far left. Also, in the recent elections in high schools, the Right party gained significantly in comparison with the latest elections in 2005, while the Forwards-party lost, also significantly. The elections in high schools are viewed as a fairly good pointer as to how the real elections will turn out. Let`s hope they will this time as well.

This is uplifting also because the "serious" right is gaining at the expense of the more populistic parts of it. I am very sceptical to the Forwards-party, and I do think they are in effect bad for the Norwegian right-of-center. Let`s hope this turn will make it less necessary for Erna Solberg, the Right Party chairman, to make any arrangements for a potential coalition with the Forwards Party.

I`ve noticed that the Norwegian Labour Party are focusing on something unusual in their campaign ads this election. In one of the ads, Rune Gerhardsen, the Labour candidate for city council chairman in Oslo, is pointing out to one of the young up-and coming politicians that it should be easier to succeed for young people in Oslo. That is probably true. In reference to one of my earlier blogs-postings, let`s hope it will be accepted as well.. Anyway, I applaud this focus on success.

In another of the ads, mr. Gerhardsen is asking the same girl if she could promise him that he will be taken care of when he is getting old. Her answer is that they will need to win the election before she can promise him that. This is interesting. In a recent report on the work conditions in the health care in Oslo, the conclusions are that there are way to few nurses, not enough time available for each patient, etc. Maybe the Labour has got some kind of plan to correct everything thats wrong with public health care, who knows..

Personally I think the state should give such a promise. That`s what living in a welfare state is all about. You should be taken care of when you`re not able to do it yourself. It is the state`s task to make sure of this. This is not to say that the state needs to actually perform care-taking tasks itself. Maybe a better solution will be delegating tasks the state is unable to perform properly itself to others, for instance by allowing private companies to offer services like this to a larger extent.

As an example, the Ørland county in Trøndelag is offering public care for old people for 75% of the base pensions + 85% of earnings on any kind, including interest on savings. 75% of the base pension comes to exactly 4.176 Norwegian crowns a month. Why not let private companies offer such services? It`s already something that is paid for, so why not let there be some competition about it, and maybe some companies are able to provide better services for less money? Probably private companies will make an effort to offer better services to attract customers, and they will potentially be able to cover more of the demand than the state is currently able to do..

I am pretty sure the right wing of Norwegian politics would be more willing to open up for this than the left side.

On torpedoes, right of center views, and the wealth of nations..

The mayor of Oslo, Per Ditlev-Simonsen, is the main figure of a political controversy going on in Norway the last couple of weeks. It has been disclosed that he had a hidden swiss bank account up until 1985-86 (he is not sure himself of when he got rid of this bank account). On this bank account he had an, according to himself, modest amount of money. Nevertheless, it is being perceived as an attempt to evade taxes. One of the representatives on the Norwegian parliament (storting), Martin Engeset, feels this affair as a torpedo having hit the Right Party (Høyre), in which Ditlev-Simonsen is a member.

This affair makes me think about Norwegian attitudes toward wealth and economic success. I have a Norwegian friend, with whom I discuss this every time we meet, and we never seem to get anywhere in our discussions. She may be a little extreme in her left-wing opinions, and I think her political views are quite moronic, and I never miss an opportunity to point out that to her. Nevertheless, she is a great friend, whose company I love, and I also love discussing those things with her, even though (or perhaps because) we never will agree.

Anyway, the Norwegian attitude toward economical success may not differ too much from the attitude of France or Germany, or other European countries, but there is definitely a lot of jealousy toward rich people or people experiencing economic success in Norway. Don´t get me wrong, I am not trying to defend cheating and evading taxes, and of course people should contribute their fair share to the community they live in. But this affair with Ditlev-Simonsen seemingly trying to hide away money, is something that is very, very easy for other political parties in Norway to cash in on.

It seems to me that, besides in sport, success is not really something that is applauded in Norway. If you are experiencing economic success, then you are to be de facto punished for that. If you earn more, you should pay more, not only in terms of the amount, but more proportionally. That means that if you work a lot of overtime, you are to be taxed more heavily on your overtime hours. Why is it so that we should punish people who are hard working? In my opinion, this is something that should be applauded and rewarded. I don`t see the rationale behind taxing overtime heavier than regular hours, especially when there is a manpower shortage in Norway. If anybody wants to work more, it is something that will gain Norway as a nation, and that should not be punished by taxing it far more than normal hours.

Also, if people are wealthy, it seems that they should not be allowed to use that wealth to pay for better schools for their children, pay for better health care, pay for better care in their old age, etc. I understand the argument that people should have the same opportunities, and I understand that it might not seem fair that some should have better health care than those less well off. Still I can`t accept it. If you work really hard, and if you are successful at what you do, why should you not be allowed to use that wealth to make your life or your life situation better? Why should you have to be content with something less than you could have? Are you not entitled to make yourself more comfortable if you worked really hard for it?

The Norwegian attitude toward the egalitarian ideal make me think of something I heard while studying in Germany a few years ago. It was said about the east Germans, but could as well be said about Norwegians. Well, what was said, was that if the east Germans had the choice between a) the west Germans having toast with ham and cocoa and the east Germans having bread with jam and milk, and b) everybody eating dry bread with water, they would choose alternative b. This is in fact an attitude which is widespread in Norway, although in to lesser or greater extent. If public health care could get a little better because of a little competition from private clinics, or if public schools could improve (which they sorely need) because of competing private ones, why not? Competition is not inherently bad, it is something that brings improvement. It adds to the wealth of nations.

I honestly think that Norway is a great country, and it is a great place to live. But some things could be improved, and I think Norway as a nation and state could profit from applauding success and rewarding hard work more than what is currently done, and let people enjoy the fruits of their hard work.

Well, I`ll let that be the end of my ravings for now...

Democratic problems?

The local elections in Norway are getting closer. And one potential democratic problem has been identified.

Norway has got three official written languages - bokmål (derived from Danish), nynorsk (constructed from Norwegian dialects), and Sami (the original language of the Sami people, spoken by almost all Samis). The thing is that the leaflets or booklets explaining how to vote in Norway are not written in Sami. That is a problem, according to, among others, language consultant Ellen Ragnhild Sara. I do agree, partially. Information about elections and election procedures should be written in all of the official languages, and in the languages of the largest immigrant minorities (Pakistani, Somali, Arabic, Russian, etc.)

This problem is, to me, of a principal nature. But, if you look at it another way, there could be another principal problem. If some people, e.g. the Samis, cannot understand and communicate in normal Norwegian (i.e. bokmål or nynorsk), that could pose a far larger democratic problem than election leaflets not printed in Sami.

If the national discurse about society, politics, and about Norway in general, is to function properly, it seems to me self evident that there needs be one lingua franca, in which the discurse is to take place. If there are several languages, as there is now, especially concerning the Sami society, that means that there is a dichotomy in the national discurse. It is taking place in different languages, which in effect is mutually excluding. Non-Samis cannot understand and participate in the Sami discurse, and at least not all of the Samis are able to participate in the national discussion in Norwegian.

If we get into a situation where it is accepted that Samis cannot communicate in Norwegian, that is not good at all. It might not be a problem, other than a principal one, and I do not hope that it is. But if it is not, than neither is the problem with election leaflets not written in Sami.

As a closing to this entry, let me state my respect to the Sami people. The history of the Samis in Norway is a troubled one, and I respect the Sami people`s need for expressing their own identity, of which their language is a big part. Still, they are part of the Norwegian nation, and should be able to communicate in standard Norwegian language.