The Case Against Leaders: A Moral Reading of Geir Haarde's Conviction for Negligence of Ministerial Duties

Jón Gunnar Ólafsson

doi:10.3389/fpos.2021.619719

Abstract

In the aftermath of the Icelandic economic crisis of 2008 Iceland's former Prime Minister Geir Haarde was convicted for negligence of his constitutional duty to consult with his ministers on measures to prepare for the coming crisis. The court ruled that there was sufficient information available to the government to conclude that there was real danger of a major banking crisis in the months preceding the crisis. Mr. Haarde was the only head of government to be convicted in the aftermath of the Financial crisis. His indictment and conviction was hotly debated in Iceland where many people considered the process unfair, primarily because Mr. Haarde was the only minister indicted by Parliament for negligence of duties although a Special Investigative Commission appointed by Parliament had recommended indicting other ministers and officials as well. The paper reviews the case against Haarde and the public reaction to it. It is argued that the majority of judges on the special court which convicted Mr. Haarde used the constitutional clause on the duty to conduct ministerial meetings to present a more wideranging condemnation of Haarde's failure to deal with and acknowledge the threats Iceland was facing. Public opinion changed over time: When the Parliament began its consideration of whether to indict former ministers surveys showed an overwhelming majority favoring indictments, but limited confidence that anyone would actually be indicted. When proceedings against Mr. Haarde started public support was much less. After the conviction opinion polls have shown growing doubts about the special court itself. The whole case is an interesting example of the elusiveness of accountability: The paper argues that a thoroughgoing moral reading of Mr. Haarde's conviction reveals a more damning analysis og his actions (and lack of actions) than has generally been acknowledged by political leaders and in public debates.

Highlights

In the aftermath of the Icelandic economic crisis of 2008 Iceland’s former Prime Minister Geir Haarde was convicted for negligence of his constitutional duty to conduct ministerial meetings on measures to prepare for the looming crisis
Case Against Leaders the case, concludes that for most of 2008 the Icelandic government was aware of the danger of a very serious financial crisis striking in Iceland
It is argued that the majority of judges on the Court of Impeachment used the constitutional clause on the “duty to conduct ministerial meetings to discuss important state matters” to present a wideranging assessment of Mr Haarde’s failure to deal with and acknowledge the dangers faced by the Icelandic state

Summary

INTRODUCTION

In the aftermath of the Icelandic economic crisis of 2008 Iceland’s former Prime Minister Geir Haarde was convicted for negligence of his constitutional duty to conduct ministerial meetings on measures to prepare for the looming crisis. In September and October 2008 three Icelandic banks with large international operations became insolvent Their bankruptcies spurred the deepest economic crisis since Iceland became a sovereign state 90 years before. It is argued that the majority of judges on the Court of Impeachment used the constitutional clause on the “duty to conduct ministerial meetings to discuss important state matters” to present a wideranging assessment of Mr Haarde’s failure to deal with and acknowledge the dangers faced by the Icelandic state. Public opinion of the case against Haarde changed over time: When the Parliament began its consideration of whether to prosecute former ministers and officials in 2010, surveys showed an overwhelming majority favoring prosecution, but in public discussion doubts were voiced about the “steadfastness” of the Parliament to go so far as to indict politicians for their decisions (Blöndal, 2010; Þjóðarpúls Gallups, 2010). The moral (rather than the legal) reading of the indictment already raises the deeper political question: What circumstances justify going beyond political accountability of elected officials serving in leadership positions? When is negligence serious enough for a leader of government to lose support and possibly be removed by voters and peers, but to face a criminal conviction? How should criminal prosecution of sitting and former ministers for their decisions in office be understood? What I aim to do in this paper is first, to show— without addressing their legal aspects—why these questions, are essentially moral questions and second, suggest some answers to them based on the case of Mr Haarde

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

CONCLUSION

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT