This section documents the remarkable constitutional revision process of 2010 to 2012, a process that produced what has sometimes been called The Crowd-Sourced Constitution. In a 2012 referendum Icelanders agreed that this document should form the basis of a new constitution. To date, Alþingi has not ratified the crowd-sourced constitution.
The call for a new constitution was one of the demands that arose from the protests following the Icelandic financial crisis of 2008, also referred to as the Pots and Pans Revolution(Icelandic: Búsáhaldabyltingin). Although Alþingi intended to write a new constitution in it’s first term after the declaration of independence from Danmark in 1944, the only substantial revision happened when the chapter on human right’s was revised half a century later. The demand for a new constitution gained new momentum and urgency with the financial crisis since many felt that government and the democratic system had failed and needed an overhaul. Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, the leader the Social Democrats, and a long time advocate for constitutional change became Prime Minister of Iceland’s first Left wing government after the elections held late April 2009, and her government decided to convene a constitutional assembly to discuss changes to the Constitution.
The National Forum (2010)
Participants at the National Forum
Almost 1000 participants randomly selected to discuss the main values and priorities of the Constitution at a one-day meeting convened on November 6, 2010. The meeting was held in anticipation of the election of the Constitutional Assembly later that month, and its results were to be utilized in its work.
Ásta Ragnheiður Jóhannesdóttir, Speaker of Althingi receives the Council’s draft constitution.
Althingi (The Parliament) appointed the Constitutional Council in March 2011 after the Supreme court had invalidated the Constitutional Assembly elections due to procedural flaws, that did not influence the outcome of the election (for more on the elections). 25 members had been elected to the Assembly and they were all offered to be appointed. One declined and subsequently the person who had come in number 26 was appointed. The Constitutional Council drafted a bill for a new constitution with considerable public participation (individual citizens sent in proposals which were considered by the council and engaged in a discussion on the progress of its work. The bill was submitted to Parliament in early August 2011. The Constitutional Council drafted a bill for a new constitution, which was submitted to Parliament in early August 2011. Parliament never voted on the bill.
The Constitutional Council placed strong emphasis on public engagement and transparency throughout the process. The public was encouraged to send formal suggestions, participate in public forums, and offer feedback to the Council.
In this way the Constitutional Council emphasised open communication with the Icelandic public. This offered the public the opportunity to participate in the nations constitutional reform.
This was achieved in various ways:
1) Publishing all meetings, all minutes from meetings of groups, the Board and the Council as well as the Council’s work procedures.
2) Keeping an active webpage with news from the Council’s work as well as a weekly newsletter.
3) Advertisements were published in the media encouraging the public to keep track of what is going on and to make comments.
4) Using social media as a unique method of fostering public discourse. As well as a platform for updates on the process.
5) Broadcasting interviews and weekly sessions.
6) Building on the recommendations of the 2010 National Assembly.
The Council unanimouslysupported the constitution draft it finished on 29 July 2011 and presented to parliament on the same day.
‘one person, one vote’ (in the existing system, a candidate ‘requires much more votes to be elected as an MP in Reykjavik than in one of the more rural areas’).
After delivering the bill to parliament, the Constitutional Council disbanded. The parliament took over, seeking further comments from local lawyers as well as, ultimately, from the Venice Commission. A translation was arranged and paid for by the Constitutional Society, a private nonprofit organization to solicit foreign expertise on the draft. This made it possible for world-renowned constitutional experts such as Prof. Jon Elster from Columbia University and Prof. Tom Ginsburg from the University of Chicago to express their helpful views of the bill.
Do you wish the Constitution Council’s proposals to form the basis of a new draft Constitution?
In the new Constitution, do you want natural resources that are not privately owned to be declared national property?
Would you like to see provisions in the new Constitution on an established (national) church in Iceland?
Would you like to see a provision in the new Constitution authorising the election of particular individuals to the Althing more than is the case at present?
Would you like to see a provision in the new Constitution giving equal weight to votes cast in all parts of the country?
Would you like to see a provision in the new Constitution stating that a certain proportion of the electorate is able to demand that issues are put to a referendum?
All six questions were approved by voters. Two thirds (68.3 %) voted in favor of Iceland adopting a new constitution based on the draft Constitution prepared by the Constitutional Council.
