In Iceland the date of the referendum of the so-called Icesave Bill has been set for 6 March. The referendum was caused by President Grímsson’s decision to veto the Bill a couple of weeks ago.

There is still a possibility, though, that the referendum may be cancelled. If the government withdraws the Bill, then the referendum will not take place. There is a strong lobby that would prefer this course of action. If the Bill is defeated in the referendum, then it is argued that negotiations will have to be reopened with the British and Dutch institutions that lost out under the Icesave scheme. However, if the Bill were to be withdrawn then negotiations would also be reopened. So, the argument goes, why not cancel the referendum?

The answer is twofold: the British and Dutch may not be willing to reopen negotiations unless the Bill is defeated and, even then, they may not be overly keen to do so; in addition, if a new Bill is to be prepared, then agreement between the parties in parliament would also have to be reached and this may not be possible. So, at present, the referendum is going ahead.

This post relates to a real hobbyhorse of mine. Iceland (like Ireland, Austria, Slovenia etc) is often not considered to be semi-presidential because the president is weak. Yes, undoubtedly, the president in Iceland and these other countries is weak. However, there comes a point when some or other political situation will provoke even the weakest president to use the powers that s/he has. When s/he does so, does that suddenly make the country (Iceland, Ireland in 1976 and the Donegan affair, Sampaio’s 2004 dissolution in Portugal etc) semi-presidential because the president is ‘quite powerful’? Of course it doesn’t. Or, rather, it does if you take a behavioural definition of semi-presidentialism, i.e. if you assume semi-presidentialism requires there to be a president who behaves ‘quite powerfully’. By contrast, if like this blog, you adopt a constitutional definition, then, whether the president is usually weak, strong, or competing for power, a country is always semi-presidential (or at least for as long as it meets the constitutional requirements for same). According to this perspective, what needs to be explained is why presidential power varies within a semi-presidential constitution, not whether or not a president is powerful enough for a country to be called semi-presidential. So, please let’s not have any more conference papers on that latter topic!

Anyway, back to the point of this post!

In Iceland, President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson has vetoed the controversial ‘Icesave’ bill. This is a bill that authorised the repayment of $5 billion to British and Dutch investors who were left out of pocket when Iceland’s banks collapsed last year. This is an unpopular bill and no fewer than 56,089 people, or 23 per cent of the population, signed a petition urging the president to veto any bill. Well, the bill, proposed by the Social Democrat/Left-Green coalition, was passed earlier this week only for President Grímsson to veto it. In a poll reported in The Reykjavík Grapevine 51 per cent said that they opposed the president’s veto, but 67% believed that the government should withdraw the current bill and submit a new one to the legislature rather than hold a referendum. In a report in Morgunblaðið, 53 per cent of those polled said that they would support the bill in a referendum.

For the record, Art. 26 of Iceland’s constitution states: “If Althingi has passed a bill, it shall be submitted to the President of the Republic for confirmation not later than two weeks after it has been passed. Such confirmation gives it the force of law. If the President rejects a bill, it shall nevertheless become valid but shall, as soon as circumstances permit, be submitted to a vote by secret ballot of all those eligible to vote, for approval or rejection. The law shall become void if rejected, but otherwise retains its force.” So, technically, the Icesave bill is now law unless it is rejected in a referendum.

The Reykjavík Grapevine reports that this is only the second time that a president has vetoed legislation, the first being in 2004, and also by President Grímsson, regarding a media bill. There was no referendum then, because, as I understand it, the government withdrew the law before any vote was held. The same may happen this time around. Indeed, in another post, The Reykjavík Grapevine reports that legislation would be needed to organise the holding of any referendum, though 20 February is being reported as the tentative date for the vote.

The cohesion of the coalition government has been strained by the affair. Some elements of the Left-Green Movement voted against the Icesave bill. President Grímsson was formerly a member of the People’s Alliance, which was eventually dissolved with some members joining the Social democrats and some forming the Left-Green Movement. President Grímsson was also previously the Professor of Political Science at the University of Iceland.

As expected, the Social Democratic Alliance/Left-Green Movement coalition that was formed in February has been renewed following the election last month. Jóhanna Sigurdardóttir remains as prime minister.

The most contentious issue was whether or not Iceland should apply for EU membership. Broadly, the Social Democratic Alliance are in favour and the Left-Greens are opposed. Iceland Review reports that the “government agreement states that each coalition party has the right to retain their views during discussions surrounding the EU debate, within and outside parliament”. The parties have also agreed that if negotiations are opened and if terms are agreed, then a single referendum will be held to decide whether Iceland joins the EU.

Iceland Review confirms that among the government’s commitments is the election of a “special constitutional congress” that will be elected at the same time as the upcoming local government elections. It is unclear what issues the convention will address and whether they will be broader than the ones identified prior to the election. (See a previous post).

Iceland Review is reporting the results of the legislative election on 25 April. Here are the results direct from the site:

Social Democratic Alliance (S): 28.8%, 20 seats, plus two.
Independence Party (D): 22.9%, 16 seats, minus nine. Their worst ever result.
Left-Green Movement (V): 20.9%, 14 seats, plus five.
Progressive Party (B): 14.3%, 9 seats, plus two.
Civic Movement (O): 7.0%, 4 seats in parliament. New party.
The Liberal Party (F): 2.1%, 0 seats, minus four.
The Democracy Party (P): 0.6%, 0 seats

On the basis of these figures the Social Democratic Alliance/Left-Green Movement coalition that was formed in February could be returned with an absolute majority and without needing any support from the Progressive Party.

Following the collapse of the Icelandic government in January, there will be an election on 25 April.

As reported previously, one of the commitments of the new government was a process of constitutional deliberation/change. The new government had been preparing the reform and had recently presented a bill to the Alþingi. However, according to Morgunblaðið, on Friday the bill was withdrawn as the opposition Independence Party threatened to filibuster it.

Morgunblaðið reports that the changes included “provisions on Iceland’s natural resources going into public ownership, the public being able to demand referendums and the public being able to participate in a constitutional parliament to further change the constitution”.

On the assumption that the election returns the incumbent government, and opinion polls suggest this is highly likely (the Independence Party is reported as being in an unprecedented third place according to the most recent opinion poll), the plan will be to reintroduce the bill after the election.

(It is worth noting that the Alþingi is still in session only slightly more than a week before the election. This is probably a record of some sort).

The new Icelandic government is recording high support levels and may be returned with a majority in the parliamentary election to be held on 25 April.

Iceland Review reports that the government has a 60% approval rating. Moreover, the ruling Social Democrats are now the most popular party with 27.7% support in the poll. The Independence party has 25.8 per cent and the Left-Greens – the other coalition partner in the new government – are polling 24%. The Progressive party, which has agreed to support the current coalition in the run up to the election, has 15% support.

If these percentages were to be repeated at the election, then Reykjavik Grapevine reports that the ruling coalition would be returned with an absolute majority – 35/63 seats in parliament.

Iceland Review is reporting that a new government was agreed yesterday. As expected the prospective prime minister is Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir from the Social Democratic Alliance. They will be in alliance with the Left-Greens. These two parties have 27 of the 63 seats in the Alþingi. The minority coalition will be supported by the Progressive Party, which has seven seats. There are four cabinet seats for each party. Two ministries are occupied by people from outside parliament, including the Minister of Business Affairs, which is to be held by an associate professor of economics from the University of Iceland. The programme is available here.

It is reported that the date of the general election has been brought forward to 25 April. If it is considered desirable, membership of the EU (or presumably candidacy for membership) will be put to a referendum. (The SDA are in favour, but the Left-Greens are opposed).

A really interesting report in the Reykjavik Grapevine reports that as part of the parliamentary deal the Progressive party wanted the creation of a constituent council that would review the constitution. According to the post: “The proposed council would consist of 63 members – like parliament – and the whole country would be regarded as one voting district. Any citizen would be able to run for this council, except for the president, MPs and ministers. The council would have 60 days to review the constitution and report their findings.” There is mention of the council in the government programme, where it states that amendments “will be made” on the following issues:
a) Reference will be made to natural resources owned by the nation.
b) Provision will be made for national referendums.
c) The process for amending the Constitution by special referendum.
It will be interesting to see whether the council will also consider constitutional changes affecting the country’s semi-presidential status. Recall that Iceland’s written constitution, which appears to provide the president with full power, bears no resemblance to its parliamentary practice. Therefore, any major overhaul of the constitution is likely to have implications from a semi-presidential point of view.

The chapter by Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson in Robert Elgie (ed.) Semi-presidentialism in Europe, gives a good overview of the Icelandic system.

In Iceland the political situation has moved on very quickly. The anti-government protests continued and they were not quite as peaceful as they had been previously. In this context on 26 January Prime Minister Haarde announced the end of the coalition.

Initially, there was a plan for the Independence Party/Social Democratic Alliance to be replaced by a five-party coalition government. However, Ingibjörg Sólrún Gísladóttir, the leader of the Social Democratic Alliance, wanted her party to have the premiership, even though Haarde’s Independence Party has more seats in the Alþingi. As a result, the Independence Party appears to have pulled out of government talks altogether

In this context, Gísladóttir, announced that she is proposing Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, the Social Welfare minister in the previous government, as the new prime minister. The speculation is that the Social Democratic Alliance will form a minority coalition with the Left-Green Party and that the government will be supported by the Progressive Party and, less formally, by the Liberal Party in the Alþingi.

Morgunblaðið reports that the Icelandic president has been organising the coalition arrangements. The new government is likely to bring forward the date of the election (currently 9 May) and that if a government cannot be formed now, then the president will dissolve Alþingi immediately.

In Iceland the prime minister, Geir H. Haarde, has announced that he will resign. He is sick and that he has to go abroad to seek treatment. He is the leader of the Independence party and he has also announced that he will not be leading the party at the next election.

Prime Minister Haarde also announced that an election will be held on 9 May. The last election was held in 2007 and the term is normally four years. Prime Minister Haarde will step down after the election.

Coincidentally, Ingibjörg Sólrún Gísladóttir, the leader of the other coalition party, the Social Democratic Alliance, has also been ill and has only just returned from Sweden after her treatment. However, despite some speculation, the Reykjavik Grapevine reports that she has announced she will lead her party at the election.

These developments occur in the context of ongoing, but peaceful protests in Reykjavik about the country’s economic problems.