Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet

Unexpected by most people, the award has a sound logic: Middle Eastern countries have shown, with the Arab Spring rebellions and their aftermath, that what Weber called a “sultanistic regime”, an unlimited despotism, is deeply entrenched in the region (see my blog "Arab Democracy" of April 14, 2011). Most outside observers agree that this must change, and many have argued that the failed Arab Spring movements prove that change can only come from above, under strictly controlled circumstances. Egypt under President Sisi is their model.

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2015, however, underlines the need for long-term stable change to come from below and to involve all segments of society, not just some who claim ascendancy over all others. The danger of civil war when this line of thinking is ignored is obviously most clearly illustrated by Syria.

The Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet includes the Tunisian General Labour Union (UGTT), the Tunisian Confederation of Industry, Trade and Handicrafts (UTICA), the Tunisian Human Rights League (LTDH), and the Tunisian Order of Lawyers (Ordre National des Avocats de Tunisie). The Norwegian Nobel Committee states its motivation in these words:

"The Quartet was formed in the summer of 2013 when the democratization process was in danger of collapsing as a result of political assassinations and widespread social unrest. It established an alternative, peaceful political process at a time when the country was on the brink of civil war. It was thus instrumental in enabling Tunisia, in the space of a few years, to establish a constitutional system of government guaranteeing fundamental rights for the entire population, irrespective of gender, political conviction or religious belief."

With this fortunate award, the Norwegian Nobel Committee - appointed by the Norwegian Parliament - comes out of the shadows of a period of bad press and public infighting. The Committee's former secretary for 25 years, Geir Lundestad, recently (Sept. 17) published a volume of scandal-tinged memoirs, in which he sharply criticized the former Committee chairman, ex-premier and current Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Torbjørn Jagland, for poor leadership and bad decisions.

While the 2009 award to President Obama certainly raised eyebrows in most quarters, and the EU award in 2012 also was questioned by many, the attention of Mr. Lundestad's book was focused more on personal relations within the Committee. The "open-hearted" ad-hominem style of its author - a respected diplomatic historian - led to an acrimonious media debate in which Mr. Lundestad had to face his former employers and former admirers head on. He found his book less than well received. The Nobel Committee accused him of breach of the Foundation's pledge of secrecy, and ultimately expelled him from his office in the Nobel Foundation's building.

After this debacle, a late summer soap opera, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has marked itself with the award for 2015 as a change of course for the better, well reasoned and fortunate in its underlying evaluations. The Committee has no new members since last year, only a change of Chair and Secretary. Some of the credit for this whiff of change undoubtedly belongs here. The new leadership of Ms. Kaci Kullmann Five (Cons.) as Chair and Dr. Olav Njølstad as Secretary indicate that the Committee is in good health and on course to tackle more of these difficult decisions in the future.

What is on Trial in Oslo - the Actions of a Mass Murderer or His Ideology?

The ideology in question is that of right-wing extremism, a way of thinking usually typified by five characteristics: nationalism, racism, xenophobia, anti-democratic views and calls for a strong state.* In this case the perpetrator has shown in both written and verbal statements that his attitudes coincide with most of these criteria, and especially the aspects relating to what may be called «cultural racism», a strongly negative view of Islam seeing Muslims as «invaders» of Europe. The mass killer glorifies Norwegian and European historical traditions linked to Christianity. He claims to have defended these values by killing 77 people who were all somehow in his mind affiliated with the ruling political system in Norway, responsible for the country's openness to Muslim immigration. (Norway has 13% immigrant residents; the city of Oslo has 23%.)**

The case has triggered long debates both in Norway and in other countries, about right-wing extremism, political violence, freedom of expression, xenophobia, police surveillance, hand-gun control, bomb-making, etc. Media have focused to a great extent on the dangers of right-wing extremism. Still there is not much clarity about what is essential in the case, except the issue of the perpetrator's sanity and whether he can be held legally responsible for his actions. The court will decide on this in due time.

My question in all of this is: Could his actions make his particular attitudes (i.e., right-wing extremism) more dangerous – more attractive to other psychopaths like him - than previously thought? And are these attitudes more dangerous than other extremist views?

My view on both counts is, No. The European Left seems convinced that this mass murderer is only the tip of an iceberg of right-wing extremism. That's as faulty as thinking all terrorists are muslims. The danger lies in the demonstration of method and commitment to goal-oriented political mass-murder, a side-effect and possibly even a conscious purpose in which the killer has subsequently been greatly aided by the media. 


Extremist views of whatever nature, which advocate violence and attack democratic values, are all dangerous, and a democratic system has the right to defend itself against them with appropriate means. Extremist movements must all be countered and restrained, by democratic means if possible and by effective and continuous police action if necessary. There is no greater need to watch right-wing extremism than left-wing extremism or religious (including islamist) extremism or animal-rights extremism.

In other words, I disagree with the tendency in the debate about the Oslo/Utøya case to assign particular blame to right-wing extremism. I disagree especially with the tendency to see this as a simple extension of ordinary conservative and islam-critical views. Indeed,  I agree with the view recently put to me by a distinguished former colleague, that in contrast to what many people seem to think, conservatism (at least mainstream European conservatism) is not akin to and is not a more moderate form of right-wing extremism. Conservatism, especially in the tradition of Edmund Burke, is democratic, non-violent, anti-revolutionary and stands for cautious, incremental reform. Granted, there are other forms of conservatism that are authoritarian and reactionary, but they are rarely democratic. In any case, the proper focus of attention here is the violence, not the particular strain of thought.


In our time politically motivated violence increasingly overlaps with religious violence, to the extent that a distinction between the two is becoming meaningless. There is in my view nothing essential that separates this mass killer from the German and Italian left-wing terrorist killers of the 1970s and -80s or from the islamist mass killers (including suicide bombers) of today. It is not the particular type of extremism that is to blame, but the inhuman impulse to kill, and kill on a massive scale.


It is evidently the case that such an impulse to kill often has a theoretical or abstract motivation – political and/or religious – and this is why political surveillance of all kinds of extremism unfortunately is necessary. In my view, the attractiveness of the ideology is much less dangerous than the attractiveness of the methods, which all crackpots can use.

TO MAKE A COMMENT, please check the option "anonymous" before clicking "publish" - even if you sign by name, otherwise the system will not show your comment.

* See, e.g.: Cas Mudde, «Right-Wing Extremism Analyzed», European Journal of Political Research 1995, 27, 203-224.
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=cas_mudde

** Immigrants: Residents who are foreign-born plus their children born in Norway. Only about half of these immigrants are non-European, however. Source: SSB Statistics Norway.

Hierarchy, Unity and Democracy

The welcome death of Gaddafi last week – and the unchecked, frantic killings by Bashir al-Assad - may bring us once more to reflect on the difference between dictatorship and democracy. Politics is said to be all about power. Democracy harnesses power; dictatorship monopolizes it. Gaddafi's death just as Tunisians went to the urns this weekend illustrate the span. Monopolize power or share it.

Yet the meaning of power remains elusive. Power is what it takes to deal with widespread conflict, public disagreement that is not easily otherwise resolved by compromise. The French say “trancher”, literally “slice through” a problem, as with a butcher's knife or an axe (Norwegians say the same, “skjære igjennom”) where compromise is unavailable. All societies have to find methods to handle public disagreement. In one way or another, all thinkable solutions involve what may be called the principles of (a) hierarchy and (b) unity. The principle of hierarchy says the top leader decides. The principle of unity says only one hierarchy is allowed; the domain in which decisionmaking applies must be preserved.

Complete hierarchy places all members of society in a rank order of levels where decisions for each level is made by the levels above, and one individual or small group at the top is the ultimate decisionmaker. China today is one example, Iran another, Burma a third. Within given functional areas sub-hierarchies may exist, like Chinese state-owned companies often posing as commercial ventures.

Nevertheless, hierarchies may be more or less complete or stringent. Dictatorships strive for complete hierarchy. But even democracies are hierarchies! All societies have to decide public disagreements; there is not room for everyone to participate in the making of every decision. Perfect democracy is a chimera. Democracies are always to some extent hierarchical, in that they define which representative assemblies and other publicly controlled bodies shall make which kinds of decisions, and prevent unauthorized decisions. Hence, although democracies strive for minimal hierarchy, they are not anarchical; they insist on the need for government to be given a mandate to make decisions for all. Implied here is also the legitimacy principle, the requirement that all must accept the decisions made, even if they disagree.

Here is where Greece makes a mockery of their own ancient invention – they elect a parliament and then take to the streets for months on end to oppose the parliament's decisions. And the Greek parliamentarians respond by similar betrayals, by increasing their own salaries while cutting everyone else's, and (most recently) by voting themselves new state-funded cars (!) after deciding on increased austerity for the citizens.  (http://www.grreporter.info/en/greek_parliamentarians_privileges/5216 )

Here is where the opening for grey areas and sham democracy appears – like Iran's and Russia's circumscribed democratic systems, or even Gaddafi's “green socialism” run by “people's committees” without any decisionmaking authority.

Here is also where the unity principle enters: The legitimate right to make decisions for a society includes a prohibition against mass escape. If you disagree, you cannot just take part of the country with you and leave, setting up shop for yourself. This was Lincoln's defense against the Southern secession 150 years ago. Provided you or your ancestors have agreed to a voluntary federation, you cannot just leave. (If you were forcibly annexed, like the Baltics in 1940, it's a different matter.)

The ingeniously simple formulation by Albert O. Hirschmann (1970) comes to mind: Exit, Voice or Loyalty. In every economic or political project, party, association, company - even nations - disaffected members (customers, affiliates, citizens) have three choices – they can leave (exit), they can complain (voice), or they can shut up, stay put and be loyal. National governments, of course, insist on unity along with hierarchy. That is why governments of hierarchically run countries with centrifugal forces (e.g. China or Russia) refuse to let the UN Security Council endorse humanitarian intervention in places like Syria (though they stepped aside by abstention to allow the Libyan intervention, a decision in hindsight not likely to be repeated any time soon).

That is also why the new governing systems about to be established in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya should consider that absolute principles of government – like those deriving from literal readings of Islam – must be tempered by the need to minimize hierarchy and find solutions in maximum tolerance. The easiest solution is to revert to hierarchy, or by another name, dictatorship.

TO MAKE A COMMENT, please check the option "anonymous" before clicking "publish" - even if you sign by name, otherwise the system will not show your comment.