A proposed law that could have given the Norwegian government more power over Parliament in times of crisis has been rejected and sent back to the justice ministry for clarification. A majority feared the law could be misused in the future and limit Parliament’s most important job: To maintain control over the government.
“It’s during a crisis when governments can move in an authoritarian direction,” said MP Audun Lysbakken, a former leader of the Socialist Left party (SV) who represents it on the Parliamentary committee responsible for control and constitutional matters. “That’s why it’s important to ensure control mechanisms in the country’s crisis laws.”
Lysbakken stressed to newspaper Klassekampen this week that the proposed law’s preliminary rejection wasn’t meant to reflect poorly or stir up suspicion around the current Labour Party-led government nor any others in the near future. Critics of the proposed law also claimed much the same, that there are no indications any current prime ministers or prime minister candidates have any intentions of a power grab.
No one can be sure, however, that governments decades from now wouldn’t use broader powers in a national emergency to win more control and set Parliament aside. The proposed civil preparedness law that was rejected would have allowed governments to exert expanded powers in a national emergency or crisis and order civilians into various fields of work, forbid strikes and even decide over wages, working hours and whether workers would be allowed time off. Governments would also be granted the possibility to “regulate preparatory measures for a civilian workforce in peacetime.”
“Several western democracies are currently subject to government leaders who want and seek authoritarian upheaval,” Lysbakken said, without naming any countries or names. “The political situation in Norway doesn’t indicate that such will happen here, but it’s wise to make sure we have laws that make it as impossible as possible to abuse power.”
The proposed law initially had support from not only Labour, but also the Conservative Party and the right-wing Progress Party, along with both the small Center- and Christian Democrats’ parties. Both SV and the Liberal Party (Venstre) proposed sending the measure back to the government but had support from only the Reds and Greens parties. Then Progress seemed to get the equivalent of political cold feet and proposed, along with the Christian Democrats, to delay action on the law after a recent round of criticism from legal experts.
Hans Petter Graver, a law professor at the University of Oslo, was among the most outspoken critics of the proposed law. “I don’t think the proposal that was put forward (by Labour’s justice ministry) was satisfactory because it in fact weakened the Parliament’s control regarding preparedness and emergency measures,” Graver told Klassekampen. He noted how Parliament’s powers were weakened during the pandemic, when the government was faced with an “acute crisis situation.” That shouldn’t be the model in the years ahead: “Crisis laws should be formed in times of peace and quiet, in a situation that’s not threatening.”
Newspapers Aftenposten and Dagsavisen had been among those editorializing against enactment of the proposed law. While noting that most agree the government must have broad authority in a crisis, Aftenposten urged Parliament not to accept the government’s proposal as written because it was “too broad” and unclear over how the Parliament’s control could still be wielded.
“It can’t be taken for granted that those holding power respect the country’s institutions, rights and traditions,” Aftenposten editorialized. It remained unclear when a revised civil preparedness law proposal may return to Parliament.
NewsinEnglish.no/Nina Berglund