Posted on: 25 Jul 2011 ( mathrubhoomi)
ജോണ്‍ സാമുവല്‍
ഓസ്ലോവില്‍ എന്റെ ഏറ്റവും ദു:ഖാര്ത്തനമായ ഞായറാഴ്ചയാണ് പിന്നിട്ടത്. പൊതുവെ പ്രസന്നമായ നഗരത്തിന്റെ ഈ നാളുകളിലെ കണ്ണീരുപോലെ രാവിലെ മഴ ചാറിക്കൊണ്ടിരുന്നു. ഇന്നലെ ഞെട്ടലിനോടും അവിശ്വാസത്തോടും പൊരുത്തപ്പെടാന്‍ ശ്രമിക്കുകയായിരുന്നു ജനങ്ങള്‍. ഏങ്ങും ദു:ഖം നഗരത്തെ പൊതിഞ്ഞുനില്ക്കു ന്നു. നൂറുകണക്കിനാളുകള്‍ പൂക്കളുമായി പള്ളികളിലേക്ക് പോകുന്നത് എനിക്ക് ജനലിലൂടെ കാണാമായിരുന്നു. പൊതുവെ കൊച്ചുമക്കളുമായി വരുന്ന വൃദ്ധജനങ്ങളെയാണ് പള്ളികളില്‍ കാണാറുള്ളത്. ഈ ഞായറാഴ്ച വ്യത്യസ്തമായിരുന്നു. ഞാനും അപാര്‌്ികമെന്റിനടുത്ത പള്ളിയില്‍ പോയി. സംഗീതമോ പ്രസംഗമോ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നില്ല. എങ്ങും മൂകത, മെഴുകുതിരികള്‍, പൂക്കള്‍, മെഴുകുതിരി കത്തിച്ച് എല്ലാവരും എഴുനേറ്റുനിന്നു. നിശ്ശബ്ദമായി പ്രാര്ത്ഥിചക്കാനേ മനസ്സുവരുന്നുള്ളൂ. അസാധാരണമായി ഇന്ന് ഒരുപാട് ചെറുപ്പക്കാര്‍ പള്ളിയിലെത്തിയിരുന്നു.
നഗരത്തിലൂടെ നടക്കുമ്പോഴും ഈ ദു:ഖഭാവം എങ്ങും തളംകെട്ടിനില്ക്കു ന്നത് കാണാമായിരുന്നു. രണ്ടു സുഹൃത്തുക്കള്‍ എങ്ങനെ കൂട്ടക്കൊലയില്‍ നിന്ന് രക്ഷപ്പെട്ടു എന്ന് ഇന്നുരാവിലെ കേട്ടു. മൂത്രപ്പുരയില്‍ പത്തുപേരാണ് ഒളിച്ചിരുന്നുരക്ഷപ്പെട്ടത്. ഒരാള്‍ വെള്ളത്തിലേക്ക് എടുത്ത് ചാടി മറുകരയിലേക്ക് നീന്തിരക്ഷപ്പെട്ടു. ശ്രീലങ്കന്‍ വംശജരായ മൂന്നുപേര്‍ കുറ്റിക്കാടുകള്ക്കിതടയില്‍ ഒളിഞ്ഞിരുന്നാണ് രക്ഷ നേടിയത്. പ്രധാനമന്ത്രിയുടെ ഓഫീസ് അടുത്താണ്. പുറത്ത് യുവാക്കളായ സുരക്ഷാഭടന്മാര്‍ കാവല്നി ല്ക്കു ന്നു. അവരും നിശ്ശബ്ദരാണ്. ഇരുപത്-ഇരുപത്തിരണ്ട് വയസ്സുള്ളവര്‍. യൂണിഫോമിലല്ലെങ്കില്‍ പട്ടാളക്കാരാണ് എന്ന് തോന്നുകയേ ഇല്ല. ഈ പ്രായക്കാരായ 91 പേരാണ് വെടിയേറ്റ് വീണുമരിച്ചത്.
നഗരമദ്ധ്യത്തിലെ കത്തീഡ്രലിന്റെ മുന്വേശം പൂക്കളും കത്തുന്ന മെഴുകതിരികളും കളിപ്പാട്ടങ്ങളും കൊണ്ട് നിറഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്നു. വൈകീട്ട് നടന്ന പ്രത്യേക ദ:ഖാചരണച്ചടങ്ങില്‍ ഞാനും പങ്കെടുത്തിരുന്നു. നൂറില്താഖഴെ ആളുകള്‍ മാത്രം വരാറുള്ള ഹാളില്‍ അറുനൂറോളം പേരുണ്ടായിരുന്നു. പള്ളി നിറഞ്ഞുകവിഞ്ഞു. ഭക്തിഗാനാലാപം തുടങ്ങിയപ്പോള്‍ ആളുകളുടെ കവിളില്‍ കണ്ണീരൊഴുകുന്നത് കാണാമായിരുന്നു. എല്ലാവര്ക്കും ഒരു ബന്ധുവിന്റെ സുഹൃത്തിന്റെ സഹപ്രവര്ത്ത കന്റെ വിയോഗത്തിന്റെ വേദനയുണ്ട്. ഒറ്റ സന്താനങ്ങളെ നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ട മാതാപിതാക്കള്‍ എത്രയോ ഉണ്ട്. മരിച്ച ഒരു കൊച്ചുപയ്യന് പതിമൂന്നുവയസ്സേ പ്രായമുണ്ടായിരുന്നുള്ളൂ, ഏറ്റവും ഇളയ രക്തസാക്ഷി. ഒരുപത്തുവയസ്സുകാരന്റെ പിതാവായതുകൊണ്ട് എനിക്ക് ആ മാതാപിതാക്കളുടെ മനസ്സുകാണാന്‍ കഴിഞ്ഞു. സര്വീ സിന് ശേഷം എല്ലാവരും നിശ്ശബ്ദരായി കുറെനേരം പുറത്തെ തുറസ്സില്‍ നിന്നു. അവര്‍ തീരാക്കണ്ണീരില്‍ നുറുനുറുഅനുഭവങ്ങള്‍ പങ്കുവെക്കുകയായിരുന്നു. നേരിയ മഴ, പ്രകൃതിയുടെ കണ്ണീര്‍. മെഴുകുതിരികള്ക്കി ടയില്‍ ടെഡ്ഡി കരടികളും ബാര്ബി് ഡോളുകളും, ഓരോന്നിനും എന്തെല്ലാം ഓര്മ കള്‍. കരയാതിരിക്കാന്‍ കഴിയുന്നില്ല.
മരിച്ചുവീണവരെല്ലാം ശോഭനമായ ഒരു ഭാവി മുന്നില്‍ കണ്ട ഭാവിയുടെ നേതാക്കളായിരുന്നു. ഒരുപാട് കഴിവുകളും പ്രതീക്ഷകളും ഉള്ളവര്‍. വര്ഷം്തോറും ജുലായില്‍ നടക്കുന്ന ഇതുപോലുള്ള ക്യാമ്പുകളില്‍ പങ്കെടുത്ത് വളര്ന്നാ ണ് പ്രധാനമന്ത്ര സ്റ്റോല്ട്ന്ബ ര്ഗും് കേബിനറ്റ് മന്ത്രിമാരുമെല്ലാം ആ നിലയിലേക്ക് എത്തിയത്. മരിച്ചവരില്‍ ചിലരെങ്കിലും ഇതുപോലെ വളരേണ്ടവരായിരുന്നു. നല്ല സമൂഹത്തിനും ഭാവിക്കും വേണ്ടി വലിയ സ്വപ്‌നങ്ങള്‍ കണ്ടവരാണ് അവര്‍. വെറുപ്പിന്റെ പ്രത്യയശാസ്ത്രവുമായി വന്ന മറ്റൊരു യുവാവാണ് ഇത്രയും യുവത്വങ്ങളെ തല്ലിക്കെടുത്തിയത്.
നിറഞ്ഞ യൗവനത്തില്‍ ജ്വലിച്ചുനിന്ന പ്രിയ സന്താനങ്ങള്‍ നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ട അനേകര്ക്ക്സ വേണ്ടി പ്രാര്ത്ഥിിക്കാനേ നമുക്കും കഴിയൂ. ആഘോഷമായ യൗവനം, പൊടുന്നനെ തകര്ന്ന് സ്വപ്‌നങ്ങള്‍. ഇതൊരു ക്രൂരലോകമാണ്.
ഞാനും ഒരു മെഴുകുതിരി തെളിയിച്ചു.
(മനുഷ്യാവകാശ പ്രവര്ത്തികനും എഴുത്തുകാരനും ഗവേഷകനുമാണ് അടൂര്‍ സ്വദേശിയായ ജോണ്‍ സാമുവല്‍ ഇപ്പോള്‍ ഓസ്ലോവില്‍ താമസിക്കുന്നു
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
A Sorrowful Sunday
John Samuel
This was my saddest Sunday in Oslo. The drizzle in the morning conveyed the mood of the otherwise cheerful city in the summer. Yesterday most of the people were grappling with sense of shock and disbelief. And on the Sunday morning, a sense of sorrow engulfed the city. From the morning, I could see from my window, hundreds of people going to the church with flowers. On a usual Sunday service, there would be only few people, mostly grandparents who come with their grand children. This morning it was different, I could see hundreds of people in silence going to the church. I too decided to go to the church next to my apartment. There was no music. There was no sermon. There was only silence, candles and flowers. They lit the candle stood there in silence. Everyone was in a mood of silent prayer. It was rather unusual to find so many young people in the church.
As I walked around the city I could sense the deep sorrow of a Sunday. My friend this morning told how two of his neighbours managed to escape. There were ten of them hiding in the toilet and one of jumped in to the water and swam to safety to another side. There were three young people of Sri Lankan origin; they saved themselves by hiding in the bushes.
As I walked past the road to the Prime Minister’s office, I noted the young soldiers who stood in sorrowful silence. They were hardly twenty or twenty two. More than ninety people who died are of their age. They hardly look like military men, except for their uniform- as they too stood there with a silence of a deep sorrow.
The square in front of the cathedral at city centre was filled with thousands of candles, heaps of flower, and lots of toys. The Prime Minister and King attended the Sunday service at 11 am. I went to the cathedral for the special mourning service in the after-noon. I have never seen more than hundred people on the usual Sunday service in the city cathedral that could accommodate at least six hundred people. Today there was no space; the church was overflowing. As the coir began to sing the hymn, I could see the channels of tears on many faces. We all stood together in a prayerful moment, where everyone was mourning for their dear children or a friend or a relative or a fellow Norwegian. So many parents lost their only one son or daughter. The youngest one who was killed was just thirteen years. As I too have teen age son, I could sense the rather unspeakable and unbearable sorrow of few parents who were in the Cathedral. After the service, I too spent some time in silence in the square where a thousand of tales of sorrow was shared in pindrop silence. I could only hear soft drizzle- as if the nature too shed tears for those young kids. My Norwegian friend told me about two young girls who got killed and their cousins came with stuffed dolls that they shared in their childhood. Many teddy bears and Barbie-dolls in the midst of flowers and candles told the intimate sense of the loss. Those toys belonged to the kids who were shot down. I thought of my own son of the same age. It was difficult for me to hold back the tears.
Many of them were young leaders with immense qualities and promise. The annual summer camps where they showed their talents, promises could have helped them to move to mainstream politics or policy roles. The Prime Minister Stoltenberg and the cabinet ministers, the labour party leaders grew up participating in the annual summer camp in every July. And many of those who killed could have become leaders of Norway or at a world stage. It was not be so. Those young people were the one who dreamt for a just, equitable and sustainable society. They represented the best of the social democratic values of Norway. And they were just blooming. - Most of them in their teen age. Another young man, poisoned with another indoctrinated ideology of hate, decided to shoot them down.
They were at their prime of dreams and imagination. I could only say a silent prayer for those parents and family who lost their very dear children at their prime; those children who were celebrating their youth and dreams. And the dreams got shattered.
It is a cruel world.
I too lit a candle.
This was my saddest Sunday in Oslo. The drizzle in the morning conveyed the mood of the otherwise cheerful city in the summer. Yesterday most of the people were grappling with sense of shock and disbelief. And on the Sunday morning, a sense of sorrow engulfed the city. From the morning, I could see from my window, hundreds of people going to the church with flowers. On a usual Sunday service, there would be only few people, mostly grandparents who come with their grand children. This morning it was different, I could see hundreds of people in silence going to the church. I too decided to go to the church next to my apartment. There was no music. There was no sermon. There was only silence, candles and flowers. They lit the candle stood there in silence. Everyone was in a mood of silent prayer. It was rather unusual to find so many young people in the church.
As I walked around the city I could sense the deep sorrow of a Sunday. My friend this morning told how two of his neighbours managed to escape. There were ten of them hiding in the toilet and one of jumped in to the water and swam to safety to another side. There were three young people of Sri Lankan origin; they saved themselves by hiding in the bushes.
As I walked past the road to the Prime Minister’s office, I noted the young soldiers who stood in sorrowful silence. They were hardly twenty or twenty two. More than ninety people who died are of their age. They hardly look like military men, except for their uniform- as they too stood there with a silence of a deep sorrow.
The square in front of the cathedral at city centre was filled with thousands of candles, heaps of flower, and lots of toys. The Prime Minister and King attended the Sunday service at 11 am. I went to the cathedral for the special mourning service in the after-noon. I have never seen more than hundred people on the usual Sunday service in the city cathedral that could accommodate at least six hundred people. Today there was no space; the church was overflowing. As the coir began to sing the hymn, I could see the channels of tears on many faces. We all stood together in a prayerful moment, where everyone was mourning for their dear children or a friend or a relative or a fellow Norwegian. So many parents lost their only one son or daughter. The youngest one who was killed was just thirteen years. As I too have teen age son, I could sense the rather unspeakable and unbearable sorrow of few parents who were in the Cathedral. After the service, I too spent some time in silence in the square where a thousand of tales of sorrow was shared in pindrop silence. I could only hear soft drizzle- as if the nature too shed tears for those young kids. My Norwegian friend told me about two young girls who got killed and their cousins came with stuffed dolls that they shared in their childhood. Many teddy bears and Barbie-dolls in the midst of flowers and candles told the intimate sense of the loss. Those toys belonged to the kids who were shot down. I thought of my own son of the same age. It was difficult for me to hold back the tears.
Many of them were young leaders with immense qualities and promise. The annual summer camps where they showed their talents, promises could have helped them to move to mainstream politics or policy roles. The Prime Minister Stoltenberg and the cabinet ministers, the labour party leaders grew up participating in the annual summer camp in every July. And many of those who killed could have become leaders of Norway or at a world stage. It was not be so. Those young people were the one who dreamt for a just, equitable and sustainable society. They represented the best of the social democratic values of Norway. And they were just blooming. - Most of them in their teen age. Another young man, poisoned with another indoctrinated ideology of hate, decided to shoot them down.
They were at their prime of dreams and imagination. I could only say a silent prayer for those parents and family who lost their very dear children at their prime; those children who were celebrating their youth and dreams. And the dreams got shattered.
It is a cruel world.
I too lit a candle.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Tragedy in theLand of Midnight Sun.
Norway’s paradox of prosperity
In peaceful, open and newly-prosperous Norway, where migrants now constitute 10% of the population, Anders Breivik is the face of increasing socio-political prejudice against the ‘other’ who looks different, eats different and prays different, writes John Samuel from Oslo
The tragedy that unfolded in the Land of the Midnight Sun has shocked those of us who live in Oslo, one of the most peaceful cities of the world. On July 22 Anders Behring Breivik, a 32-year-old Norwegian man, went on a shooting spree at a youth camp of 600 people, on the beautiful island of Utoeya, 19 miles from Oslo. And in the afternoon, a massive bomb blast shook Oslo claiming at least seven lives and injuring hundreds.
Norway’s Black Friday (July 22, 2011) points to the paradox of prosperity. Breivik signifies the growing virulence of poisonous rightwing extremism in Europe.
Oslo is a calm and peaceful city. One can walk anywhere late into the night as if it were daytime, as the sun sets only for a few hours in summer. A city of just 600,000 people, Oslo also boasts one of the best facilities in the world.
The city is usually quiet on a Friday afternoon in July as most people are away on vacation. So, when I heard a huge noise and saw columns of smoke rising from my office window I was taken aback. A few seconds later, we could see ambulances and police cars whiz by as the tragedy of what had happened slowly unfolded before our eyes. It defied belief: Oslo was supposed to be one of the safest cities in the world!
The attack on Norway’s political heart and the shoot-out at the Labour Party youth camp are a rude reminder of the presence of rightwing extremist politics in Norway and other Nordic countries. It is reminiscent of the attack by American rightwing militant Timothy McVeigh who detonated a truck bomb at a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, killing 168 people.
Norway gained independence in 1905 when the union with Sweden was dissolved. Norwegians value their distinctive identity, prosperity, peace and open society. Perhaps for this reason, Norwegians rejected membership of the European Economic Community in 1972, and of the European Union in 1994, despite being urged by their governments to vote ‘yes’.
Norway’s distinct brand identity is that of a country of peace and for peace. Norway has been one of the biggest supporters of the United Nations and humanitarian work across the world. It has mediated between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and from 2000 to 2009, tried to play a role in resolving the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Every day, as I walk by the Nobel Peace Institute, I am struck by just how proud Norwegians are of their peace credentials. The country has always been sympathetic towards people and communities at the receiving end of conflict and violence. This explains the relatively large numbers of Tamils from Sri Lanka, and people from Somalia and Sudan, in the heart of Oslo.
In a country of just 49 lakh people, Norway’s per capita income is one of the highest in the world. It is one of the richest countries in the world, with the best record on the human development index. The country’s annual income from oil alone is around US$ 40 billion. And the government’s National Sovereign Fund is expected to be around US$ 570 billion, according to recent estimates. In spite of the economic crisis in the US and Europe, the Norwegian economy has been doing well. Unemployment is just under 3%.
Norway’s social policy is one of the most progressive in the world. Every citizen has the right to quality education and universal quality healthcare. And every working person, including women who work at home as homemakers, is eligible for pension from the age of 67. This is a happy country. One wonders: how can there be discontent in such a society?
From a rather low-profile Nordic country, Norway hit the jackpot with the discovery of oil in the late-1960s and ended up as one of the most prosperous countries in the world. Norway is the fifth largest exporter of oil and third largest exporter of natural gas. And here begins the paradox of prosperity.
With the rise of income levels and relatively small population there has been a marked increase in nationalism. (All small countries have a greater sense of nationalism.) Among a certain section, ultra-nationalism is expressed in different forms ranging from simple social prejudice to various shades of discontent against the ‘other’.
Though neo-Nazi rightwing extremism directed against migrants is more obvious in Sweden and Denmark, there have been indications in Norway too (paradoxically, the most rightwing party in Norway is called the ‘Progressive Party’). Under the surface of a social democratic liberal framework, discontent and unease over the growing influence and economic capacity of migrant communities is discernible.
According to estimates, 61,200 immigrants arrived in Norway in 2007, an increase of 35% over 2006. At the start of 2010, there were 552,313 people in Norway with an immigrant background. Over 10% of people belong to various migrant communities. With facilities available to every citizen, irrespective of race, gender or ethnicity, rightwing politicians view migrants as parasites.
While the first-generation migrants were at the lower end of the professional ladder and informal sectors like cleaning and minding small corner shops, second-generation migrants are educated, smart and compete for jobs with young people. For example, the largest migrant community in Norway is people of Pakistani origin. Most of them migrated here in the late-’60s when it was relatively easy to migrate to Norway. First-generation migrants from Pakistan were low-skilled and worked largely in the informal sector. After a couple of generations, Norwegians of Pakistani origin make up one of the most prosperous migrant communities in the country. Their children compete for professional jobs, indeed many of them are economically successful thanks to a coherent family foundation and network.
In a society that is used to being ‘taken care of’, there is growing irritation about successful second-generation migrants competing for the same economic resources. Also, most migrants in Nordic countries happen to be Muslims from Asia or North Africa, strengthening racial and religious prejudices.
Below the surface of Norway’s progressive left-leaning policies there is also a conservative trend. Norway is the most ‘Christian’ of the Nordic countries. The Lutheran church is primarily supported by the state; pastors draw their salaries from the state budget. Liquor is heavily taxed. There is therefore an underlying tension between the old Christian society and new immigrants with a different sociology, theology, colour and culture. In a country with a relatively small population, these issues become accentuated, particularly when the migrant population constitutes more than 10% of the total population.
It’s only in the last 35 years that Norwegian society jumped from an agricultural-fishing economy to a booming oil economy. The reasons for a national commitment to humanitarian support and peace are largely the result of the relative deprivation that Norwegians had to undergo during World War II and afterwards. There is indeed a significant difference between the generation that grew up in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s and the post-’80s generation that grew up in a wealthy Norway. The older generation placed great value on solidarity, left-leaning social democratic policy etc, because people wanted to share wealth. National heroes such as Fridtjof Nansen, a great pioneer of international humanitarian support, helped create a social consensus in favour of supporting the needy, poor and marginalised across the world. This social sensibility, influenced by a recent social history, core Christian ethics, a strong labour movement and social democratic politics has shaped the country’s social policies in favour of refugees and migrants.
It has also resulted in a society that places greater emphasis on social values than on opulence and extravagance. This is evident in Norwegian architecture: minimalist, functional, simple, and indicative of a society that considers understatement a core social value.
The economic boom of the last 30 years altered the perspective of the post-’80s generation. Many were born rich. They had access to quality education and healthcare; for higher education everyone is eligible for a loan from the government. Once a young person completes his/her education he/she is expected to get a job. Maternity leave is for a year, with full benefits. Paternity leave is for two months, with full benefits. Every working person who has paid tax is eligible for pension. People are generally happy paying tax as there are tangible benefits for everyone. The increasing visibility of migrant communities in cities like Oslo has created uneasiness about the ‘other’ enjoying the privileges of ‘Norwegian’ wealth and social policy.
The high cost of living and challenge of getting a high-paying job create new frustrations among many young people. So when migrants get top jobs or have a better earning capacity in a relatively homogeneous and less cosmopolitan society, social prejudices began to gain currency. Newspapers in Norway often ‘showcase’ the economic success stories of migrants. There are indeed many rags-to-riches stories among migrants who came to Oslo as pennyless refugees.
Such cumulative images -- along with the new wave of neo-Nazism in Europe -- can be a poisonous mix. Anders Breivik, it would appear, is a victim and a villain of increasing socio-political prejudices against the ‘other’ -- who looks different, eats different and prays different.
Norway has been ruled by a centre-left ‘red-green’ alliance with the socialist and centre parties since October 2005, when a centre-right government was replaced. Labour Party leader Jens Stoltenberg’s coalition narrowly retained its majority in the 2009 election, becoming the first Norwegian government to win a second consecutive term in 16 years. This could also have enraged rightwing extremists.
The government acted with an admirable sense of responsibility and confidence, without over-reacting, after the tragic events. The statement by Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg on the night of the tragedy captured the general mood of the Norwegian people in the hour of national crisis:
“Nobody is going to bomb us into silence; nobody is going to shoot us into silence. Tomorrow we will show the world that the Norwegian democracy grows in strength when it matters. We must never stop standing up for our values. We must show that Norwegian society can stand up to these testing times. We must show humanity, but not naivety.”
(These are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views or positions of any of the organisations with which he is associated)
Infochange News & Features, July 2011
In peaceful, open and newly-prosperous Norway, where migrants now constitute 10% of the population, Anders Breivik is the face of increasing socio-political prejudice against the ‘other’ who looks different, eats different and prays different, writes John Samuel from Oslo
The tragedy that unfolded in the Land of the Midnight Sun has shocked those of us who live in Oslo, one of the most peaceful cities of the world. On July 22 Anders Behring Breivik, a 32-year-old Norwegian man, went on a shooting spree at a youth camp of 600 people, on the beautiful island of Utoeya, 19 miles from Oslo. And in the afternoon, a massive bomb blast shook Oslo claiming at least seven lives and injuring hundreds.
Norway’s Black Friday (July 22, 2011) points to the paradox of prosperity. Breivik signifies the growing virulence of poisonous rightwing extremism in Europe.
Oslo is a calm and peaceful city. One can walk anywhere late into the night as if it were daytime, as the sun sets only for a few hours in summer. A city of just 600,000 people, Oslo also boasts one of the best facilities in the world.
The city is usually quiet on a Friday afternoon in July as most people are away on vacation. So, when I heard a huge noise and saw columns of smoke rising from my office window I was taken aback. A few seconds later, we could see ambulances and police cars whiz by as the tragedy of what had happened slowly unfolded before our eyes. It defied belief: Oslo was supposed to be one of the safest cities in the world!
The attack on Norway’s political heart and the shoot-out at the Labour Party youth camp are a rude reminder of the presence of rightwing extremist politics in Norway and other Nordic countries. It is reminiscent of the attack by American rightwing militant Timothy McVeigh who detonated a truck bomb at a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, killing 168 people.
Norway gained independence in 1905 when the union with Sweden was dissolved. Norwegians value their distinctive identity, prosperity, peace and open society. Perhaps for this reason, Norwegians rejected membership of the European Economic Community in 1972, and of the European Union in 1994, despite being urged by their governments to vote ‘yes’.
Norway’s distinct brand identity is that of a country of peace and for peace. Norway has been one of the biggest supporters of the United Nations and humanitarian work across the world. It has mediated between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and from 2000 to 2009, tried to play a role in resolving the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Every day, as I walk by the Nobel Peace Institute, I am struck by just how proud Norwegians are of their peace credentials. The country has always been sympathetic towards people and communities at the receiving end of conflict and violence. This explains the relatively large numbers of Tamils from Sri Lanka, and people from Somalia and Sudan, in the heart of Oslo.
In a country of just 49 lakh people, Norway’s per capita income is one of the highest in the world. It is one of the richest countries in the world, with the best record on the human development index. The country’s annual income from oil alone is around US$ 40 billion. And the government’s National Sovereign Fund is expected to be around US$ 570 billion, according to recent estimates. In spite of the economic crisis in the US and Europe, the Norwegian economy has been doing well. Unemployment is just under 3%.
Norway’s social policy is one of the most progressive in the world. Every citizen has the right to quality education and universal quality healthcare. And every working person, including women who work at home as homemakers, is eligible for pension from the age of 67. This is a happy country. One wonders: how can there be discontent in such a society?
From a rather low-profile Nordic country, Norway hit the jackpot with the discovery of oil in the late-1960s and ended up as one of the most prosperous countries in the world. Norway is the fifth largest exporter of oil and third largest exporter of natural gas. And here begins the paradox of prosperity.
With the rise of income levels and relatively small population there has been a marked increase in nationalism. (All small countries have a greater sense of nationalism.) Among a certain section, ultra-nationalism is expressed in different forms ranging from simple social prejudice to various shades of discontent against the ‘other’.
Though neo-Nazi rightwing extremism directed against migrants is more obvious in Sweden and Denmark, there have been indications in Norway too (paradoxically, the most rightwing party in Norway is called the ‘Progressive Party’). Under the surface of a social democratic liberal framework, discontent and unease over the growing influence and economic capacity of migrant communities is discernible.
According to estimates, 61,200 immigrants arrived in Norway in 2007, an increase of 35% over 2006. At the start of 2010, there were 552,313 people in Norway with an immigrant background. Over 10% of people belong to various migrant communities. With facilities available to every citizen, irrespective of race, gender or ethnicity, rightwing politicians view migrants as parasites.
While the first-generation migrants were at the lower end of the professional ladder and informal sectors like cleaning and minding small corner shops, second-generation migrants are educated, smart and compete for jobs with young people. For example, the largest migrant community in Norway is people of Pakistani origin. Most of them migrated here in the late-’60s when it was relatively easy to migrate to Norway. First-generation migrants from Pakistan were low-skilled and worked largely in the informal sector. After a couple of generations, Norwegians of Pakistani origin make up one of the most prosperous migrant communities in the country. Their children compete for professional jobs, indeed many of them are economically successful thanks to a coherent family foundation and network.
In a society that is used to being ‘taken care of’, there is growing irritation about successful second-generation migrants competing for the same economic resources. Also, most migrants in Nordic countries happen to be Muslims from Asia or North Africa, strengthening racial and religious prejudices.
Below the surface of Norway’s progressive left-leaning policies there is also a conservative trend. Norway is the most ‘Christian’ of the Nordic countries. The Lutheran church is primarily supported by the state; pastors draw their salaries from the state budget. Liquor is heavily taxed. There is therefore an underlying tension between the old Christian society and new immigrants with a different sociology, theology, colour and culture. In a country with a relatively small population, these issues become accentuated, particularly when the migrant population constitutes more than 10% of the total population.
It’s only in the last 35 years that Norwegian society jumped from an agricultural-fishing economy to a booming oil economy. The reasons for a national commitment to humanitarian support and peace are largely the result of the relative deprivation that Norwegians had to undergo during World War II and afterwards. There is indeed a significant difference between the generation that grew up in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s and the post-’80s generation that grew up in a wealthy Norway. The older generation placed great value on solidarity, left-leaning social democratic policy etc, because people wanted to share wealth. National heroes such as Fridtjof Nansen, a great pioneer of international humanitarian support, helped create a social consensus in favour of supporting the needy, poor and marginalised across the world. This social sensibility, influenced by a recent social history, core Christian ethics, a strong labour movement and social democratic politics has shaped the country’s social policies in favour of refugees and migrants.
It has also resulted in a society that places greater emphasis on social values than on opulence and extravagance. This is evident in Norwegian architecture: minimalist, functional, simple, and indicative of a society that considers understatement a core social value.
The economic boom of the last 30 years altered the perspective of the post-’80s generation. Many were born rich. They had access to quality education and healthcare; for higher education everyone is eligible for a loan from the government. Once a young person completes his/her education he/she is expected to get a job. Maternity leave is for a year, with full benefits. Paternity leave is for two months, with full benefits. Every working person who has paid tax is eligible for pension. People are generally happy paying tax as there are tangible benefits for everyone. The increasing visibility of migrant communities in cities like Oslo has created uneasiness about the ‘other’ enjoying the privileges of ‘Norwegian’ wealth and social policy.
The high cost of living and challenge of getting a high-paying job create new frustrations among many young people. So when migrants get top jobs or have a better earning capacity in a relatively homogeneous and less cosmopolitan society, social prejudices began to gain currency. Newspapers in Norway often ‘showcase’ the economic success stories of migrants. There are indeed many rags-to-riches stories among migrants who came to Oslo as pennyless refugees.
Such cumulative images -- along with the new wave of neo-Nazism in Europe -- can be a poisonous mix. Anders Breivik, it would appear, is a victim and a villain of increasing socio-political prejudices against the ‘other’ -- who looks different, eats different and prays different.
Norway has been ruled by a centre-left ‘red-green’ alliance with the socialist and centre parties since October 2005, when a centre-right government was replaced. Labour Party leader Jens Stoltenberg’s coalition narrowly retained its majority in the 2009 election, becoming the first Norwegian government to win a second consecutive term in 16 years. This could also have enraged rightwing extremists.
The government acted with an admirable sense of responsibility and confidence, without over-reacting, after the tragic events. The statement by Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg on the night of the tragedy captured the general mood of the Norwegian people in the hour of national crisis:
“Nobody is going to bomb us into silence; nobody is going to shoot us into silence. Tomorrow we will show the world that the Norwegian democracy grows in strength when it matters. We must never stop standing up for our values. We must show that Norwegian society can stand up to these testing times. We must show humanity, but not naivety.”
(These are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views or positions of any of the organisations with which he is associated)
Infochange News & Features, July 2011
Monday, July 11, 2011
How civil society has changed the world
Eleven million people across the world marching against the war in Iraq; thousands protesting in Seattle against unjust WTO policies… There is little doubt today about the impact of civil society on polities and societies, writes John Samuel
Civil societies: A pluralistic view
Civil society is not a colourless or odourless gas. Civil society is not an abstract academic concept anymore. Civil societies have colours and cultures, contexts and contours, gender and grounds, and politics and passion.
Civil society is plural. The theory and practice of civil society is plural in concept, genealogy, history, form, locations, content and politics. Its validity is partly due to this plurality at its conceptual core and the sheer diversity in its praxis. There is no single theory of civil society. And no single politics of civil society. This fluidity and fuzziness of the term is, paradoxically, what makes it significant.
Civil society signifies diverse arenas and spaces of contested power relations. So the contradictions and contestations of power, culture and economy are reflected in the civil society discourse of a particular country or political context. Civil society has now become an arena of praxis wherein theory is continually negotiated and re-negotiated based on the evolving practice in multiple social, economic and cultural contexts.
The idea of civil society is used for political subversion, political reform as well as political transformation. Proponents of various ideological streams from conservatism to neo-liberalism and from liberal reformists to radical socialists have been using the idea and practice of civil society to legitimise their respective political projects and programmes.
This dynamism, pluralism and diversity to a large extent shape the emerging civil society discourse across the world. In South Asia, civil society may reflect the feudal and post-colonial tendencies within its own power spaces. In many countries of Africa, community differentiations based on tribal identities may influence and shape civil society discourse as well.
How civil society has changed the world
If we consider civil society discourse as a pluralist network of citizens and associational spaces for social and political action, then one can begin to appreciate the contribution of such discourse in shaping and influencing the politics and policy processes in many countries and the world.
There are five specific areas where civil society discourse and initiatives have made very important political and social contributions. These are: a) women’s rights b) ecological justice and environment protection c) human rights of ethnic, religious, race, and sexual minorities d) movements for citizens’ participation and accountable governance and e) resistance and protest against unjust economic globalisation and unilateral militarisation. In fact, even in these specific areas there is a multiplicity of civil society discourse.
However, over the last 30 years, if women’s rights and green politics are at the centre of all political and policy discourse, it is indeed due to the consistent mobilisation and advocacy by thousands of organisations and millions of people across the world. On February 15, 2003, more than 11 million people across the world marched against the war in Iraq and unilateral militarisation. In fact, the unprecedented, coordinated global mobilisation happened on the same day largely due to digital mobilisation and partly due to the rather spontaneous coordination among social movements and civil society actors who met during the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre in January 2003.
In India too, in the last 25 years, most of the innovative policy framework and legislation happened due to consistent campaigning and advocacy by civil society organisations. It is the people-centred advocacy, campaigning and mobilisation by hundreds of civil society organisations in India that prompted the Indian government to enact the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Right to Education, the new Act to stop domestic violence, and the one aimed at protecting the land rights of tribal communities. It is due to the efforts of women’s rights organisations and civil society initiatives that women’s political participation and 33% reservation for women in Parliament are at the centre of political discourse in India.
In many countries of Asia and Africa, civil society activism has become a countervailing political force against authoritarian governments. It has also sought to challenge unjust economic globalisation. This was evident in the citizens’ and civil society struggle against monarchy in Nepal and authoritarian regimes in many parts of the world. In many countries of Latin America, civil society became the common ground for diverse interest groups and political formations to act together to challenge authoritarian regimes. In fact, civil society played a key role in shaping the political process in Brazil, where social movements, progressive NGOs, progressive factions of the church, trade unions and public intellectuals came together for political and policy transformation. The World Social Forum process originated in Brazil partly due to these historical and political conditions, and it helped the transformation of state power in Brazil.
With the advent of the Internet, digital mobilisation and relatively cheap air travel there is an increasing interconnectedness between civil society initiatives and movements across the world. The unprecedented mobilisation and campaigns against the unjust WTO regime and for trade justice and fair trade demonstrated the power of citizens’ action and mobilisation beyond the state and market. The diverse range of mobilisation against the World Trade Organisation in Seattle, Cancun, and Hong Kong influenced the political and policy choices of many countries and the G20 process. The Jubilee campaign for cancelling the unjust debt of poor countries attracted the support of millions of people both in rich and poor countries and in remote villages and megacities. The successful campaign against landmines proved to be another example of civil society mobilisation and action across the world. The World Social Forum emerged as an open space and platform for the exchange of ideas, coordination of action, and collective envisioning beyond narrow ideological and political divides. The emergence of a global justice solidarity movement influenced the political process in many countries in many ways.
A time for change: Civil society and international relations
In the last 15 years, there has been a resurgence of political consciousness in civil society. A whole range of new associations, citizens’ formations, new social movements, knowledge-action networks and policy advocacy groups have emerged at the national and international level.
This was partly due to the shift in international politics in the aftermath of the Cold War and a consequent shift in the aid-architecture, with a stress on local ownership in the development process. The new stress on human rights in the aftermath of the Vienna Human Rights Summit, in 1993, gave new spaces and international legitimacy to new human rights movements, integrating civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. A series of United Nations conferences, starting with the Rio Summit in 1992, created an enabling global space for civil society processes and organisations. The Beijing Summit in 1995 on women’s rights, the Copenhagen Summit on social development in 1996, and the Durban Summit on racism provided a global platform for civil society movements to advance a new discourse on politics and public policy. The exchange of knowledge, linkages and resources began to create a new synergy between countries and communities in the South as well as in the North. In fact, the United Nations became a key mediating ground between civil society and various governments.
Such a mediating role between civil society and state provided a new legitimacy and role for the United Nations. The new stress on human development, human rights and global poverty created a legitimate space for global action and campaigns for civil society. New technological and financial resources helped international networking and a new trend of globalisation from below. As the new hegemony of power politics driven by unilateral militarism, conservative politics and a neoliberal policy paradigm began to dominate the world, the new social movements and consequent civil society process became the arena for a new politics of protest and resistance against unjust globalisation. Such a new civil society process was driven by communities, communications and creativity. New modes of communication, networking, campaigning and mobilisation made civil society discourse one of the most influential political and policy discourses in the 21st century.
There is a significant difference between the civil society discourse of the 1980s, 1990s and that of the last 10 years. Unless we understand and appreciate the multiple political shifts at the national and international levels, it might be difficult to understand the consequent shifts in the practice and theory of civil society. In the 1980s, civil society was more of a conceptual tool to legitimise and organise the protest movement against authoritarian governments in Latin America and Central Europe. In the 1990s, the term ‘civil society’ became an instrument of policy and politics at the international level, supported by both aid and trade. And in the last 10 years, the idea of civil society has been increasingly contextualised to become a plural arena of political praxis for transformative politics in multiple contexts. The old civil society discourse was submerged in new movements for radical democratisation, feminist politics, and ecological, social and economic justice. It is the new emerging discourse on civil society that seeks to address the issue of democratic deficit, and crisis of governance.
So it is important to reclaim civil societies -- as plural and diverse spaces for collective human action -- as an arena for transformative politics. The reclaiming of civil societies would mean a reassertion of the dignity, sovereignty and human rights of all peoples. The ethics and politics of the idea of civil society need to be reclaimed to humanise the state, market and the political process. There is the need to reclaim a new political consciousness driven by freedom -- freedom from fear and freedom from want; freedom of association and freedom of beliefs. The idea of civil society needs to be reinforced by new civil values and virtues: the values of equality and justice; values that would help us fight all kinds of injustice and discrimination -- based on gender, race, caste or creed. Civil society can be transformative when it combines the politics of protest and the politics of proposal. Civil society will become an arena that can help combine the politics of people and the politics of knowledge. Civil society becomes a transformative space when it can help to create the politics of dissent, politics of association and citizens’ action against monopoly of power and spaces for counter-discourse and counter-hegemony.
Infochange News & Features, November 2009
Civil societies: A pluralistic view
Civil society is not a colourless or odourless gas. Civil society is not an abstract academic concept anymore. Civil societies have colours and cultures, contexts and contours, gender and grounds, and politics and passion.
Civil society is plural. The theory and practice of civil society is plural in concept, genealogy, history, form, locations, content and politics. Its validity is partly due to this plurality at its conceptual core and the sheer diversity in its praxis. There is no single theory of civil society. And no single politics of civil society. This fluidity and fuzziness of the term is, paradoxically, what makes it significant.
Civil society signifies diverse arenas and spaces of contested power relations. So the contradictions and contestations of power, culture and economy are reflected in the civil society discourse of a particular country or political context. Civil society has now become an arena of praxis wherein theory is continually negotiated and re-negotiated based on the evolving practice in multiple social, economic and cultural contexts.
The idea of civil society is used for political subversion, political reform as well as political transformation. Proponents of various ideological streams from conservatism to neo-liberalism and from liberal reformists to radical socialists have been using the idea and practice of civil society to legitimise their respective political projects and programmes.
This dynamism, pluralism and diversity to a large extent shape the emerging civil society discourse across the world. In South Asia, civil society may reflect the feudal and post-colonial tendencies within its own power spaces. In many countries of Africa, community differentiations based on tribal identities may influence and shape civil society discourse as well.
How civil society has changed the world
If we consider civil society discourse as a pluralist network of citizens and associational spaces for social and political action, then one can begin to appreciate the contribution of such discourse in shaping and influencing the politics and policy processes in many countries and the world.
There are five specific areas where civil society discourse and initiatives have made very important political and social contributions. These are: a) women’s rights b) ecological justice and environment protection c) human rights of ethnic, religious, race, and sexual minorities d) movements for citizens’ participation and accountable governance and e) resistance and protest against unjust economic globalisation and unilateral militarisation. In fact, even in these specific areas there is a multiplicity of civil society discourse.
However, over the last 30 years, if women’s rights and green politics are at the centre of all political and policy discourse, it is indeed due to the consistent mobilisation and advocacy by thousands of organisations and millions of people across the world. On February 15, 2003, more than 11 million people across the world marched against the war in Iraq and unilateral militarisation. In fact, the unprecedented, coordinated global mobilisation happened on the same day largely due to digital mobilisation and partly due to the rather spontaneous coordination among social movements and civil society actors who met during the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre in January 2003.
In India too, in the last 25 years, most of the innovative policy framework and legislation happened due to consistent campaigning and advocacy by civil society organisations. It is the people-centred advocacy, campaigning and mobilisation by hundreds of civil society organisations in India that prompted the Indian government to enact the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Right to Education, the new Act to stop domestic violence, and the one aimed at protecting the land rights of tribal communities. It is due to the efforts of women’s rights organisations and civil society initiatives that women’s political participation and 33% reservation for women in Parliament are at the centre of political discourse in India.
In many countries of Asia and Africa, civil society activism has become a countervailing political force against authoritarian governments. It has also sought to challenge unjust economic globalisation. This was evident in the citizens’ and civil society struggle against monarchy in Nepal and authoritarian regimes in many parts of the world. In many countries of Latin America, civil society became the common ground for diverse interest groups and political formations to act together to challenge authoritarian regimes. In fact, civil society played a key role in shaping the political process in Brazil, where social movements, progressive NGOs, progressive factions of the church, trade unions and public intellectuals came together for political and policy transformation. The World Social Forum process originated in Brazil partly due to these historical and political conditions, and it helped the transformation of state power in Brazil.
With the advent of the Internet, digital mobilisation and relatively cheap air travel there is an increasing interconnectedness between civil society initiatives and movements across the world. The unprecedented mobilisation and campaigns against the unjust WTO regime and for trade justice and fair trade demonstrated the power of citizens’ action and mobilisation beyond the state and market. The diverse range of mobilisation against the World Trade Organisation in Seattle, Cancun, and Hong Kong influenced the political and policy choices of many countries and the G20 process. The Jubilee campaign for cancelling the unjust debt of poor countries attracted the support of millions of people both in rich and poor countries and in remote villages and megacities. The successful campaign against landmines proved to be another example of civil society mobilisation and action across the world. The World Social Forum emerged as an open space and platform for the exchange of ideas, coordination of action, and collective envisioning beyond narrow ideological and political divides. The emergence of a global justice solidarity movement influenced the political process in many countries in many ways.
A time for change: Civil society and international relations
In the last 15 years, there has been a resurgence of political consciousness in civil society. A whole range of new associations, citizens’ formations, new social movements, knowledge-action networks and policy advocacy groups have emerged at the national and international level.
This was partly due to the shift in international politics in the aftermath of the Cold War and a consequent shift in the aid-architecture, with a stress on local ownership in the development process. The new stress on human rights in the aftermath of the Vienna Human Rights Summit, in 1993, gave new spaces and international legitimacy to new human rights movements, integrating civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. A series of United Nations conferences, starting with the Rio Summit in 1992, created an enabling global space for civil society processes and organisations. The Beijing Summit in 1995 on women’s rights, the Copenhagen Summit on social development in 1996, and the Durban Summit on racism provided a global platform for civil society movements to advance a new discourse on politics and public policy. The exchange of knowledge, linkages and resources began to create a new synergy between countries and communities in the South as well as in the North. In fact, the United Nations became a key mediating ground between civil society and various governments.
Such a mediating role between civil society and state provided a new legitimacy and role for the United Nations. The new stress on human development, human rights and global poverty created a legitimate space for global action and campaigns for civil society. New technological and financial resources helped international networking and a new trend of globalisation from below. As the new hegemony of power politics driven by unilateral militarism, conservative politics and a neoliberal policy paradigm began to dominate the world, the new social movements and consequent civil society process became the arena for a new politics of protest and resistance against unjust globalisation. Such a new civil society process was driven by communities, communications and creativity. New modes of communication, networking, campaigning and mobilisation made civil society discourse one of the most influential political and policy discourses in the 21st century.
There is a significant difference between the civil society discourse of the 1980s, 1990s and that of the last 10 years. Unless we understand and appreciate the multiple political shifts at the national and international levels, it might be difficult to understand the consequent shifts in the practice and theory of civil society. In the 1980s, civil society was more of a conceptual tool to legitimise and organise the protest movement against authoritarian governments in Latin America and Central Europe. In the 1990s, the term ‘civil society’ became an instrument of policy and politics at the international level, supported by both aid and trade. And in the last 10 years, the idea of civil society has been increasingly contextualised to become a plural arena of political praxis for transformative politics in multiple contexts. The old civil society discourse was submerged in new movements for radical democratisation, feminist politics, and ecological, social and economic justice. It is the new emerging discourse on civil society that seeks to address the issue of democratic deficit, and crisis of governance.
So it is important to reclaim civil societies -- as plural and diverse spaces for collective human action -- as an arena for transformative politics. The reclaiming of civil societies would mean a reassertion of the dignity, sovereignty and human rights of all peoples. The ethics and politics of the idea of civil society need to be reclaimed to humanise the state, market and the political process. There is the need to reclaim a new political consciousness driven by freedom -- freedom from fear and freedom from want; freedom of association and freedom of beliefs. The idea of civil society needs to be reinforced by new civil values and virtues: the values of equality and justice; values that would help us fight all kinds of injustice and discrimination -- based on gender, race, caste or creed. Civil society can be transformative when it combines the politics of protest and the politics of proposal. Civil society will become an arena that can help combine the politics of people and the politics of knowledge. Civil society becomes a transformative space when it can help to create the politics of dissent, politics of association and citizens’ action against monopoly of power and spaces for counter-discourse and counter-hegemony.
Infochange News & Features, November 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)