Part two

When contemplating how the political landscape has changed over the years, it is interesting to take a look back and consider how things were before our time. I had an interesting discussion with my parents where I asked them what kind of political upbringing they had had when they were growing up. Being raised in the 50s and 60s the information flow to the public was very limited. State controlled media and partisan newspapers were the only source of information available to the public. Back then party loyalty was incredibly overwhelming. People would support their political party as fiercly as you see people standing by their favorite sports team, though thick and thin. Changing sides was not common. What illustrates this very well, in my opinion, is a short story my mother told me about my grandparents.

Every year there would be a radio broadcast from Althing (the Icelandic legislative assembly) where the prime minister would announce the plans and intentions of his government over the coming term. His speech would then be followed by discussions and comments from his respective political enemies and allies. After hearing the speech from his trusted leader of Sjálfstæðisflokkurinn (the Independence party) my grandfather would immediately switch off the radio and make a quick remark about how he was not prepared to listen to any communist propaganda or anything of the sort.

At the time the public could only voice their opinion once every four years through national elections and trust that the political parties elected to power would carry the country in the right direction. The only direct contact the public would have with politicians came through discussions at electoral meetings and debates which were held prior to elections.

Nowadays politicians have to be on their toes as public opinion can shift dramatically in a short period of time. Various opinion polls are released regularly and politicians will have to react quickly in order to remain popular. The public is much more informed and thus more able to reach an enlightened conclusion in difficult matters. As a result we see increased demand from the public to be a direct participator in decision making regarding important issues. Here in Iceland this is very much evident with the increased number of referendums in recent times.

Suffice to say my grandparents always voted for the same party almost all their lives. Previously rigid in political thinking they became more susceptible to different political views in the mid 90s.

Prior to the 1995 national elections a break-off candidacy from Alþýðuflokkurinn (the old Labour party) emerged. The newly formed party was called Þjóðvaki and was spearheaded by the current prime minister of Iceland, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir. Incidentally my mother was the 2nd candidate on the parties list in Reykjaneskjördæmi, the constituency where my grandparents lived. To make a long story short, our whole family rallied around my mother to support her. In the end Þjóðvaki received around 7% of the national vote, enough to secure 4 members of parliament. Although this was not enough to get my mother elected, she did serve a short time in Alþingi as a substitute for Ágúst Einarsson.

In the wake of my mothers unexpected political career, my grandmother gained a new outlook in politics. She became more enlightened by gathering information from the media and reading pamphlets from the different political parties. In the end she found that the party she had supported for so many years did not represent her beliefs and values.

I believe that this goes to show how politics have changed drastically over the years. People are now more able to broaden their horizons with easily accessible information.