The Democracy Lovers

"I have a message for those who attacked us…. You will not destroy our democracy or our commitment to bringing about a better world." Norway Prime Minister Jens Stolteberg

"We will punish the guilty. The punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance, more democracy." Oslo Mayor Fabian Stang

The response of the Norwegian people and their leaders to the horrendous attack by a Far Right bigot has astonished many people for its rejection of the divisiveness of hate and a bold affirmation of democracy and the tolerance it requires. Glen Greenwald has written an excellent comparison of the Norwegian response to terrorism and that of the United States. It may be found at http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html I highly recommend it.

My purpose in this article is to try to understand why the Norwegian response was as it was and why it was so different from other countries, especially the United States, which have been subjected to similar attacks.

Norway has been a largely homogenous country. It is predominantly Caucasian and predominantly Lutheran and has a common language. Some may say that when you have eliminated three of the major fault lines found in more socially complex societies, a social consensus is easier to obtain. However, the above characteristics can also be a formula for social arrogance, e.g. the sense of cultural superiority demonstrated by Japan or cultures of the "chosen people." To me this suggests that Norwegian culture per se is not enough to account for the depth of social understanding in the Norwegian response to the Breivik attacks.

Let me pause here and emphasize the dimensions of what I mean by deep social understanding. Let it sink in. How many heads of state can you visualize that could stand before a country just after they have suffered an exceedingly vicious attack, which on a per capita basis was worse than the 9-11 attacks in this country, and tell his fellow countrymen that they must not let this disaster destroy their democracy by destroying its openness. The high level of societal sophistication and social understanding that he called upon was available in the society. Why?

I think a substantial portion of the reason can be found in the political culture of the country. It is a democratic socialist country with a heavy emphasis on social welfare. The Labor Party, founded in 1887, currently leads a coalition government. Its logo is "Include everyone." Its slogan is "Work for everyone." In short, the Norwegian government has long been a people-centered government. It has seen that society is the proper focus for government and that government is essential to ensuring that this social value is maintained. This, in my judgment, goes a long way toward explaining why Norway and its government have reacted the way they have.

Additionally, Norway has long had a coalition-based government. There are currently seven political parties represented in its parliament as well as many others vying for seats in parliament. The current government consists of a coalition of the Labor Party, Socialist Left Party and the Centre Party. Coalition governments have the distinct advantage of allowing citizens to find their political home in a nation's politics and allows politics to be more responsive to changing circumstances. The coalition process, like the focus on a welfare state, insures that people will be the focus of government.

The ethos of the United States has been its vaunted individualism. The flips side of this individualism is individual vulnerability, which generates the fear so pervasive in this country. This individualism has led us to distrust government and to abandon trust altogether or, under heavy media influence, place our trust in business, especially corporate business. For us the price of individualism has been pervasive fear. For the Norwegians the value of societal confidence has been unusual bravery and the freedom that confidence generates.

The lesson to be learned from Norway's response to a heinous terrorist attack is that a deep sense of the importance of democracy and its requirement for an open society allowed them to immediately understand that what was threatened was not their lives, but their open society.

It is in the social stress of such an attack that a nation's true attachment to democracy comes to the surface. The Norwegian people understood this, I am tempted to say instinctively, and responded with a wisdom unfortunately lacking in our country.

The bottom line is that freedom is a function of society, not the other way around.

Bob Newhard