The roots of Icelandic democracy
7 Conclusion
Was Iceland a democratic state during the Free State period? I only partially agree with Byock
(2001) that the word "state" is more fitting than "commonwealth". The lack of an executive
branch is, in my view, a required ingredient for any full-grown state. The existence of other
state elements, such as the strong legislative and juridical branches, and the existence of a
national identity and culture are strong arguments against the use of the word "commonwealth".
I would say that a "proto-state" is a better description.
The "proto" prefix must also be applied to the democratic system that was in use by the early
Free Republic. Goði were elected by local assemblies, and the local freeman was represented in
the national assembly by his local representative. This is as good as a representative democracy
can get, but many goði were not elected but were a goðar by birthright. Although accepted
by the local assembly, such hereditary power positions do not play well with any democratic
system. Indeed, the later power struggles of the goði let to the end of the Republic.
Nevertheless, early Iceland did have much that resembles the representative liberal democracies
of today. It was more than just an island culture - the democratic traits already were
present in the parent society (the Viking society) and the social levelling in Iceland made a
further development of that trait possible.
The sociologist Richard Tomasson argues that Icelandic society shares some of the
characteristics of ‘new societies’ formed in later periods by overseas migrations of
Europeans. In these offshoot societies, which sociologist call ‘fragments’ of larger
and older groupings, the influence of kin and traditional community lessened, and
law took precedence over kinship as the source of authority. By detaching itself
from a ‘whole’ or parent society, a fragment may lack the stimulus to take part in
the developing social issues of the mother culture. (Byock, 2001, p.82)
The above passage, in which Byock (2001) quotes Thomasson, offers a more general view on
the ‘why’ of the strong legislative and juridical branches of the early Icelandic system. Old
structures such as stratification, authority, family and tradition had to be replaced with some
new structure, and law offers a clear and neutral structure for all. Because no strong authority
exists, these laws must be created in such a way that there is broad support. The Icelandic
assemblies were a perfect institution for such a task. The main focus was not on government
for and by the people, but on law and individual freedom. When a remote Norse king could
deliver law and freedom, the Icelanders were quick to abandon their formal independence.
Although early Iceland might be proto-democratic, the Icelanders of old probably were not
very aware of it, and regarded law and freedom higher than political rule by the people.
The awareness of the uniqueness of the ‘golden age’ was later constructed by the students
in Copenhagen, who were influenced by the ideas of Enlightenment and Romanticism. The
21
Icelanders had never forgotten their history, because a rich national culture and much written
history were available. Putting this historical awareness to use for liberalisation was straightforward
and led to an independent and democratic Iceland. For the Icelanders, the ideas of
democracy were not alien and from the outside, but they appeared old and intrinsic Icelandic.
Turning Iceland to a democracy needed no conviction.
Theories from the schools of the Classics, from the Enlightenment and from Romanticism
did not have much influence during the 19th century. The Romantic movement busied themselves
mainly with recreation of the Althing and with theories and justifications in which the
old Free State played a central role.
This proves how strong a historic background with proto-democratic elements can be. Bringing
democracy to a culture with a (semi)democratic history is far easier than introducing democracy
to a culture for which equality, literacy, law, and discussions are new concepts. Maintaining
democracy in Iceland is easy too: democratic culture in Iceland can rest on a history
and a national myth which promotes freedom, independence, tolerance and democracy.
The old Free State, without outside influence, would probably not have evolved to a modern
democracy. But its history has helped the transition to a modern democracy beyond measure. I
believe that this historic background still inspires a culture in which democratic values flourish,
as is measurable in so many areas in contemporary Iceland. The Icelandic road to a free society
is indeed a unique road.
22
References
Byock, Jesse. 2001. Viking Age Iceland. Penguin books.
Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and its critics. Yale University.
Helgadóttir, Ragnhildur. 2006. The Influence of American Theories on Judicial Review in Nordic
Constitutional Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Kjallakr. 2008. “Coat of arms of Iceland.”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Iceland.svg
Ásgeirsson, Jakob F. 1994. “The impact of ‘national myth’ on the foundations of democracy in
Iceland: an historical perspective.” Asian journal of public administration 16 (6):14–40.
http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/issue.jsp?book=50
List of Tables
1 Distances to other countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Short chonology of Iceland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3 World Democracy Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4 Democracy Audit Comparison (NL and IS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
List of Figures
1 Coat of arms of Iceland (Kjallakr, 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Map of Iceland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3 The Althing in the Free State period (Byock, 2001, p.178) . . . . . . . . . . . 16
23