Politicians gain position and benefits through contribution funds

The revelations that have emerged in the wake of the Epstein files expose a serious systemic failure, something that has been made visible through the network surrounding figures such as former Norwegian Prime Minister and Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjorn Jagland. This systemic failure has been built by politicians who seek to advance their own careers. In today’s political landscape, political ambitions are more about personal gain and power than idealism. Norway is a small country, and in order to expand career opportunities Norwegian politicians look abroad; to European or international positions. In the wake of this, a cross-party career system has developed in the Norwegian Parliament based on Norwegian contribution funds. Some wish to downgrade the significance of this by referring to it as a bad culture, while in reality it is an established political career system built on taxpayers’ money.

Over the last twenty years Norwegian aid (subsidies and transfers to non-profit organizations and to foreign countries) has almost doubled. In 2023 the total amount was 250 billion kroner (roughly 25 billion US dollars), which represents more than half of the taxes paid on labor and capital (ref. The Country That Became Too Rich/Martin Beck Holte). At the same time, the number of children living in poverty has risen and the quality of elderly care has declined, alongside a series of other cuts to welfare services.

For years our prime ministers and cabinet ministers have claimed that aid is a moral obligation Norway has. Furthermore, they claim that it is crucial for our small country to have close diplomatic relations abroad. The expression “close diplomatic relations” is a term politicians have established as part of the systemic failure. We now see the result of the manipulation voters have been subjected to; the moral obligation to provide aid is something taxpayers are expected to show so that politicians, through their own failing morals, can set aside Norwegian interests in favor of their own personal gain. It is important to remember that Norway is meant to conclude trade and cooperation agreements through diplomatic negotiations conducted by the state institutions with formal responsibility. “Close diplomatic relations” make negotiations dependent on individuals, something that is completely unacceptable in a democracy. Yet it sounds both good and reassuring when Prime Minister Store and Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg preach that close diplomatic relations are particularly important in times of geopolitical unrest and use this as an argument for closer ties to the EU; this despite the fact that the Norwegian population has said no to the EU twice. This lack of democratic anchoring ought to worry EU supporters as well. In retrospect this will be judged differently than it is in the present.