Search results

Í þessari grein skýrir höfundur og ver þær lýðræðishugmyndir sem felast í greiningu hans á íslensku stjórnarfari og stjórnmálamenningu í aðdraganda og eftirmálum fjármálahrunsins 2008. Gerð er grein fyrir og metin gagnrýni þeirra Jóns Ólafssonar og Birgis Hermannssonar á röksemdir Vilhjálms og notkun hans á fræðilegum lýðræðislíkönum Jürgens Habermas til að greina íslensk stjórnmál. Færð eru rök fyrir því að greiningu Vilhjálms verði að skilja í ljósi þess að hún taki mið af þeim sérstöku aðstæðum sem sköpuðust hérlendis kringum fjármálahrunið og villandi sé að slíta röksemdir hans úr tengslum við það. Í skrifum Vilhjálms er til dæmis stöðugt minnt á mikilvægi ákveðinna lærdóma sem draga þurfi af rökræðukenningunni um lýðræði andspænis þeirri gagnrýni á stjórnarhætti og stjórnsiði hérlendis sem sett var fram í skýrslu rannsóknarnefndar Alþingis á orsökum hrunsins. Sú gagnrýni Jóns og Birgis að Vilhjálmur smætti lýðræði í stjórnsýslu og geri ekki ráð fyrir aðkomu almennings í hugmyndum sínum um lýðræði er sögð eiga rætur sínar í því að þeir slíti umfjöllun hans úr þessu tiltekna samhengi og dragi af henni villandi ályktanir um afstöðu hans til lýðræðis almennt. Einnig er ágreiningurinn rakinn til ólíks skilnings þessara fræðimanna á lýðræðishugtakinu. Vilhjálmur hafnar því að gera aðkomu borgaranna að ákvörðunum að þungamiðju lýðræðis á kostnað vandaðra stjórnarhátta og öflugra stofanana sem vernda mikilvæg lýðræðisleg gildi og gera borgurunum kleift að draga stjórnvöld til ábyrgðar. Loks eru reifaðar hugmyndir um borgaravirkni í anda rökræðulýðræðis og hvernig þær megi útfæra andspænis þeim ógnum sem steðja að upplýstri skoðanamyndun í samtímanum.

Icelandic politics are analysed from the perspectives of three normative models of democracy: the liberal, republican and deliberative democratic theories. While the Icelandic constitution is rooted in classical liberal ideas, Icelandic politics can be harshly criticized from a liberal perspective, primarily because of the unclear separation of powers of government and for the extensive involvement of politics in other social sectors. Despite strong nationalist discourse which reflects republican characteristics, rooted in the struggle for independence from Denmark, republicanism has been marginal in Icelandic politics. In the years before the financial collapse, Icelandic society underwent a process of liberalization in which power shifted to the financial sector without disentangling the close ties that had prevailed between business and politics. The special commission set up by the Icelandic Parliament to investigate the causes of the financial collapse criticized Icelandic politics and governance for its flawed working practices and lack of professionalism. The appropriate lessons to draw from this criticism are to strengthen democratic practices and institutions. In the spirit of republicanism, however, the dominant discourse about Icelandic democracy after the financial collapse has been on increasing direct, vote-centric participation in opposition to the system of formal politics. While this development is understandable in light of the loss of trust in political institutions in the wake of the financial collapse, it has not contributed to trustworthy practices. In order to improve Icelandic politics, the analysis in this paper shows, it is important to work more in the spirit of deliberative democratic theory.

Icelandic politics are analysed from the perspectives of three normative models of democracy: the liberal, republican and deliberative democratic theories. While the Icelandic constitution is rooted in classical liberal ideas, Icelandic politics can be harshly criticized from a liberal perspective, primarily because of the unclear separation of powers of government and for the extensive involvement of politics in other social sectors. Despite strong nationalist discourse which reflects republican characteristics, rooted in the struggle for independence from Denmark, republicanism has been marginal in Icelandic politics. In the years before the financial collapse, Icelandic society underwent a process of liberalization in which power shifted to the financial sector without disentangling the close ties that had prevailed between business and politics. The special commission set up by the Icelandic Parliament to investigate the causes of the financial collapse criticized Icelandic politics and governance for its flawed working practices and lack of professionalism. The appropriate lessons to draw from this criticism are to strengthen democratic practices and institutions. In the spirit of republicanism, however, the dominant discourse about Icelandic democracy after the financial collapse has been on increasing direct, vote-centric participation in opposition to the system of formal politics. While this development is understandable in light of the loss of trust in political institutions in the wake of the financial collapse, it has not contributed to trustworthy practices. In order to improve Icelandic politics, the analysis in this paper shows, it is important to work more in the spirit of deliberative democratic theory ; Peer Reviewed