I'm always banging on about how our politicians should be held responsible for the decisions they make on our behalf.

Iceland has taken the first step towards this, in my view, by putting in the dock the Prime Minister who was in charge at the time their banking system went titsup.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/iceland/9124015/Icelands-former-PM-goes-on-trial-over-2008-financial-crisis.html

"Mr Haarde said: 'Nobody predicted that there would be a financial collapse in Iceland.' He added that the Government did not fully understand how much debt the banks had on their books. After three Icelandic banks were forced into bankruptcy and another nationalised, the country's external debt soared in late 2008 to more than 50bn euros (£42bn), almost six times it's annual GDP, leaving it financially crippled."

There is no doubt, in hindsight, that the activities of Iceland's Banks went far beyond what could be described as prudent. The decision the Icelandic court is being asked to make, though, is whether the government was negligent in allowing them to take those actions.

But it is the principle that interests me more. Should we start to make our government more directly responsible for the actions it takes? And if so, how should we go about it?

The guillotine worked well in the past!

Dear Pericles,

Geir Haarde was Prime Minister from 2006 up until early 2009.
The State did not take over the top banks until late 2008.
The top 3 banks collapsed in late 2008 after years of
debt-fuelled expansion. How can the PM be held responsible
for the failure of the country's banking system under those
circumstances? I suppose in hindsight - the system should
have been more closely regulated and not allowed to build
up such a huge debt - but can that be blamed entirely on the
ex PM? Not sure.

Iceland does have a special court of impeachment set up in
1905 - which has never been used - up until now. However, I
would be very surprised given the circumstances - if the
ex PM would be found guilty by the court and given a prison
sentence.

As for what should we do in this country to prevent things
like that happening here. I think that we already have
legal protections in place with our banking systems that
would prevent out banks from running up debts of this kind.

'But it is the principle that interests me more. Should we start to make our government more directly responsible for the actions it takes? And if so, how should we go about it?'

As one who also bangs on about transparency and open government I think this is a tricky one Pericles. But I can see the attraction.

One problem is a possible negative effect where governments become too cowardly to do anything in the way of reform or in making decisions because of fear of stuffing up so a form of inertia might set in. Would such a system of accountability impact adverseley on good decision making, even if the legal route was only taken in the most dire of circumstances. Who would decide those circumstances?

A more proactive appraoch might be one that would require government documents and approaches to government (through lobby groups and organisations) to be published as a matter of course. This would include Cabinet documents after the term of government (if not before) rather than the current 20 years (down from 30). That way all the documents around events like AWB, the Craig Thomson affair or intelligence used as the premise for war, would be out earlier rather than later. Nothing like a paper trail to keep the beggars honest.

This may not address the accountability issue totally in terms of legal recourse after the event, but may reduce the opportunities for mismanagement, corruption and deception.

Your idea in principle is nevertheless a tempting one that could be reworked into something relevant or possible given the risks above.

Iceland also told the Central Banks of Europe what to do with their bailout money.Iceland now creates it's own credit.

Prof William K Black was a regulator back in the 80's.He in the past has put them in gaol.Clinton got rid of Glass Steagal and the rorts went wild.Prof Black said that 95% of loans by Fannie and Freddie were "Liars Loans" ie they were fraudulant.Not a single person charged and our Super funds bought them as good investments.

Fannie and Fedddie were leveraged at 333:1 and Obama thought it a good idea to uncrease it.Private banks should not be allowed to create from nothing,money that is not theirs.This includes the US Fed and Central Banks of Europe.They are that powerful now that they own our Govts via finance + media and create wars of imperialism to steal energy resoures to shore up their New World Order.It is not only our pollies that need to be put on trial,it is also those who have corrupted them.

This is why they want to attack Syria and Iran.Large amounts of oil/gas have also been found off the coast of Syria,Lebanon and Greece.

Was the Iceland Government Labor ? Why else would Lexi defend it ?

I'd be nervous about criminal charges against politicians for the failings of private businesses unless there was evidence of corrupt behaviour on the politicans part.

What I would like to see is criminal charges where it can be shown that a politician has lied (or not taken reasonable steps to confirm what they say). Some that come to mind which are generally well known (although not yet proven in a court of law)

- Howard on the children overboard. No due dilligence in getting the claims confirmed and an apparent ignoring of clarifications which did come.
- Bush and Co WMD in Iraq, and to some extent Howard and co if they didn't have the claims examined thoroughly.
- Clinton and no sexual relations with that women, what he does in the office is not the publics business but lies are. I got the impression that women who'd complained of predatory sexual tactics prior to him becoming president were not given a fair chance at having that dealt with once he became president.
- Bligh and Fraser for denying prior to the last election plans to drop the fuel subsidy and sell off public assets then apparently discovering just after the election that the states finances were not going as well as they thought.
- Gillard and the no carbon tax in a government I lead
- Abbott if he get's into power and finds some committments which were not written down are no longer committments.
- Others shown to be deceiving the public as a result of docuemnts released by Wikileaks

There needs to be some way for politicians to protect genuine secrets without being allowed to use that privilige for personal or political gain.

R0bert

Interesting thoughts, thanks all.

Lexi, I also doubt very much that Haarde will be found guilty. But the fact that Iceland has such a law, and has decided that it needs an airing after laying dormant for over a century, could well act as some kind of incentive to politicians to take more notice of what is going on.

Pelican, I doubt whether any parliament, anywhere in the world, would pass legislation that allows the normal processes of government to be open to criminal prosecution. Politicians are already above the law in a number of areas, covered by parliamentary privilege. But a lesser sanction - say, disallowing an MP to vote against the specifics of his stated (lodged, signed, notarized) pre-election commitments might be an interesting start. No criminality, just an enforcement of a contract willingly entered into with his/her electorate.

Arjay, Iceland has a population just a little larger than that of Wollongong. Do you think anyone really cares whether they bailed out their banks or not?

R0bert, I agree that criminal sanctions are inappropriate for non-criminal behaviour. But there needs to be, in my opinion, some form of circuit-breaker (forgive the cliché) that serves to restore confidence in the processes of government. Processes that, as you eloquently illustrate, have taken some massive punishment in recent times.

Without some kind of new and enforceable compact between electorate and the elected, nothing much is likely to change, I feel.

Pericles
I was not advocating legal action in terms of the normal process of government but thought wrongly that was where you were heading.

The manifesto is a good idea and would serve to strengthen good democracy. And it could be where deviation from the agreement would require consent from the electorate (ie. in the case of unforseen circumstances).

There are certainly many ways to improve the current accountability regime.

"And it could be where deviation from the agreement would require consent from the electorate (ie. in the case of unforseen circumstances)."

The simplest might be to require a credible form of bi-partisan support for the deviation, if an opposition was unreasonably withholding it then the government could put it to some form or referendum (or an election if necessary). Opposition for oppositions sake could be punished by the voters as would contrived excuses but genuine changes of circumstances requiring urgent action could be dealt with quickly.

It takes a while to set up an election but in a genuine crisis breifing the oppostion on the details and giving them access to the necessary information to form an informed and independant opinion should not take long.

Might need some work around the detail, eg would both the Coalitions and Greens approval be required in our current parliment to break a committment?

R0bert

Hi there Pericles...

A thoroughly thought provaking thread. I must, say many of the correspondents here have put some interesting propositions. Generally supporting mechanisms in which to ensure our politicians act candidly, lawfully, and honourably.

My own view, always very basic and simplistic, would put another broader question to those in the Forum.

Difficult as it may be to determine and prove if a politician acts either; foolishly, unconscionably or criminally - What really worries me is, when a politician knowingly lies.

In my previous occupation, we were sworn in. If we were caught lying, either to our superiors or to the courts, we were 'for it' !

To my simple mind and intellect, there are some members in both state and federal parliaments who DO lie and lie seemingly with impunity.
Yet, they too are also sworn in. What's the difference ?

I've mentioned previously I'm a conservative. And Lexi somewhere herein, was identified as Labor. So what. Liberals are just as culpable of lying, as any other member of the parliament.

Thus, I do support your broad hypothesis for some legal remedy Pericles, absolutely.

I don't care how small Iceland is Pericles.They stood up to the criminal bullies and made their point.Iceland is the mouse that roared.

Greece Italy and the rest of the PIGS should do likewise.Tell them to stick their counterfeiting debt and create their own credit.

My idea is basically that the agreement is made individually by the candidate, with his/her electorate.

The force of the agreement need not be "legal", but simply administrative. Any Member voting outside his/her remit would have their vote cancelled, and the reason published.

And that's highly amusing, Arjay. You really don't like research, do you...?!

>>Iceland is the mouse that roared.<<

The phrase "The Mouse That Roared" was coined for a 1959 movie:

"The Duchy of Grand Fenwick decides that the only way to get out of their economic woes is to declare war on the United States, lose and accept foreign aid. They send an invasion force to New York (armed with longbows) which arrives during a nuclear drill that has cleared the streets. Wandering about to find someone to surrender to, they discover a scientist with a special ultimate weapon that can destroy the Earth. When they capture him and his bomb they are faced with a new possibility: What do you do when you win a war?"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053084/synopsis

I doubt the Icelandic people would thank you for the comparison.

>>Greece Italy and the rest of the PIGS should do likewise.<<

Sadly, they cannot. The only reason Iceland could get away with it was because they were so minuscule as to be irrelevant. None of the other countries you mention could do the same without inflicting irreparable damage on their own people.