Reforming Norwegian politics

The Space-For-Space Principle

The Space-For-Space Principle treats encroachment of public space for business puproses as theft. Theft of free space, theft of the public good, theft of the mental environment. In compensation for the theft, businesses must at their own expense give something back to the public of equal value to that which is stolen. If a billboard is errected, a grafitti wall or poster column or public gallery of equal size and visibility must be errected next to it. If an indoors shopping mall is built (privatizing the public space of the street), then a park of equal size and with full public access must also be built.

This principle is simple, easy to legislate, and easy to adopt to a number of circumstances. Precedence exists some places in the US, where for example the erection of a sky-scraper - stealing the sky-line - must be accompanied by the building of a park or public space. Precedence also exists in the Norwegian "allemansrett" (all-mans-right), that forests and beaches must be available to the public no matter who owns them. There is a native tradition for seeing certain kinds of spaces as a public good and imposing limits on what money can do to them. Let's extend this principle to the cities.

The Principle of Return (tilbakefall)

The principle of return is enshrined in Norwegian Law, but I have heard that it is currently under threat in a parliament eager to silently EUify and WTOify Norway. Basically, the principle states, a natural resource belongs by definition to the people, through the state. A natural resource (oil, waterfalls etc.) cannot be sold, only leased for a maximum amount of 50 years. This principle should be re-inforced and expanded. The idea of the "allmening" (all-mans-land) should return to prominence in Norwegian property policies.

The Western Vakif: an alternative way of funding public institutions

The Vakif (foundation) played a central role in the government of the Ottoman empire. When a mosque or bridge or school was built, it was done so at the expense of a powerfull dignitary, and included in the package were lands and buildings. The revenue from these lands and buildings would go to the upkeep of the institutions. This enabled critical institutions to keep running even when the empire itself hit harder times, and welfare goods (soup kitchens, shelters etc.) to keep running in bad times.

Public financing over national and regional budgets is prone to the whims of politicians and financial winds. Institutions, such as universities, that should be independent are not. Let's adopt the Vakif system. Instead of annual grants to culture, let's invest in cultural and educational institutions that can then provide for themselves. Build in wealthy times, and there is no need to cut down in harder times.

The normalisation of Islam as and European religion

Despite what islamists and islamophobes think, Islam seems destined to remain a European minority religion - which is what it has actually been for hundreds of years. Islam is a religion that is inherently political, that has questions of law and government at its forefront, and is such more demanding to integrate than buddhism, hinduism or protestant christianity. However - during the history of Islam, the religion has proved remarkably adaptable to the status of minority religion (as for example in China, with the "double loyalty" theology: to God and to the Emperror) but it requires the informed cooperation of states. Some suggestions to begin the process of normalisation:

• Educate and license imams in Norway. Currently, most imams are recruited on expert visas from their homelands. They thus have little understanding of the particular problems their flock face as euro-moslems. Open a course in Islamic theology at the university, alongside the study of Christian theology. Do this in close co-operation with the moslem community. Begin licensing Imams and other priests. Licensing will require the successfull completion of a course teaching the basics of Norwegian law regarding such things as marriage and religious freedom.
• Public certification of halal food. Let the state be the guarantor of "Halal" status.
• Accept Sharia-light In Canada, orthodox jews are allowed to live under religious law and be judged in religious courts on certain issues - family matters especially. This system is similar to the rights granted by the Ottomans to their Christian and Jewish subjects. Why not Sharia also? Demand a Norwegian Law degree of Sharia judges, and revoke their licenses in the unlikely case that their rulings should violate Norwegian law. Subjecting to Sharia must be an entirely individual choice.
• Guarantee the right to pray Make a law that grants muslims the right to pray at their workplaces. The same applies to any other religion which demands daily prayers or meditations.
• Accept muslim schools - but monitor them closely. The same applies to evangelical and catholic schools.
• Clamp down on unacceptable practices - A new police unit should deal with issues like forced marriages, genitial mutilation and honour killings. Half of it's staff should be immigrants, the majority women. The unit should also deal with similar crimes (wife-murders, wife-rapes) comitted by ethnic Norwegians.
• The 25-years rule is a good rule - A Danish law intended to restrict immigration clamped down on the right of people to immigrate based on marriage. Most of the new rules were unacceptable hoghwash and have led to a large amount of two-country couples living in Malmo, Sweden and commuting to Copenhagen. But the rule that the married need to be of a certain age (say 25) is a good precaution against forced marriages amongst muslim and hindu immigrants - whose friends and relatives in the country of origin see an arranged marriage as a loophole of immigration, not a good foundation for matrimony. The fact that immigrant womens groups are strongly in favour of this law should be heeded.

Introduce "Corporate Charters"

The Americans got it right in the first place. Later, by granting corporations the rights of a "legal person", they got it wrong. Corporations should only be allowed to operate under a politically granted "Corporate Charter". The charter may be revoked as the harshest punishment for corporate crime, or may be limited or temporarlily suspended for lesser crimes. Current punishments are far too light and give no real incentives for corporate compliance.

Corporate Charters could be introduced unilaterally in Norway (granting corporations the right to operate on Norwegian soil), multilaterally through the EU, and globally through the WTO and UN. A global charter could be revoked for particularly nasty crimes, such as the Bhopal catastrophy. A world court of corporate crime is anyway a must. Just as with the ICC, it can be opened without US cooperation. India, South America and Africa will certainly agree.

Simplify the welfare state

A flat citizens pay to all citizens who do not work: students, retirees, the unemployed, homemakers, alcoholics younameit. It's expensive, but large savings can be made in simplifaction. Furthermore, the pay should be flat and if more money is desired then individuals should deal with it through savings, insurance or cooperative funds administered by employers or labour unions.

A scalable system could encourage part-time work. There should be no state-induced incentives to return to the work-place - it is the responsibility of employers to make work attractive, not of the state.

Unemployment should be treated as a resource, not a problem. Instead of encouraging work-hunting, volunteer activities should be encouraged.

Long-term financing: a difficult issues, but elements of the Vakif system and financial ties to renewable natural resources are a possibility.

Compulsory one-year service for everyone

A year of compulsory service should not just be for able-bodied boys, but for all citizens of a certain age. Military or civilian service (for healthcare, NGOs etc.) should be a free choice. Enrolling entire generations into this system may cut the costs of health-care, and help build a national identity founded in shared duties, shared labour, rather than ethnicity or class.

Did I say compulsory? I meant voluntarily. You're free to not do the service, but the rights of the welfare state (citizens pay, healthcare etc.) are dependent on completion of the one-year service. The state as a bargain with its citizens : rights in exchange for duties.

Completion of the service should guarantee citizenship: a way in for immigrants.

Public Utility Organisations (PUOs)

There are a number of services that cannot be trusted to private companies. Collective transportation is one of them - look at the UK's mess after privatising British Rail. If the free market provides better healthcare - then why do the Americans pay more money netto for less services than the Europeans? Neither, however, can these services be trusted to ever-growing government beureaucracies which is why privatisation seemed like a good idea in the first place.

I propose a new kind of non-profit organisation, that can compete for public contracts: The Public Utility Organisation. PUOs can be started by anyone, but must be owned either by employees or by a non-profit (an NGO, or church, or PUO holding). Surplus must go back into the organisation. PUOs may compete with each other, but are not geared towards providing profit to others. Financial incentives in employee paychecks, the threat of competition, and the knowledge of a job well done. In time, all contracts for basic utilities (schools, hospitals, garabge cleaning) should go to PUOs and only PUOs.

Summary

I imagine a radical re-negotiation of the contract between citizens, government and business built on the idea of fundemantal rights. Corporate and Property rights should be better balanced against the public good. The government should be minimized into more of a regulator, a guarantor of rights, and a purchaser of public goods - less of a huge administrative organism. The government's income level should remain roughly the same. Multicultrualism should be pragmatic - all cultures are not the same, and the principled legislative "one-size-fits-all" approach used so far should be abbandoned.

Comments can be emailed to eirik - æt - efatland - døt - com. I'll re-post interesting comments (including critical ones) here, so let me know if you don't want that.