(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
On the question of amending section 100 of the Constitution, I have missed SV's vote in the public debate. Therefore, it is useful with challenges of the kind Svein Tuastad presented in the last issue of Ny Tid. My input in the debate nevertheless has a somewhat different focus than the article by Tuastad; namely freedom of expression for employees.
Some years ago, I put forward the following proposal in the presidency in Kristiansand: "Employees in the municipality must have the right to participate in the public debate – also in their own subject area." This may very well be obvious. But the proposal was rejected. The new trend with a focus on efficiency, exposure to competition and profiling water over the supervision of free exchange of opinions as a basis for a living democracy ..
Less visibility
The proponents of privatization and market liberalism seem to portray themselves as champions of an open society. But the result is often the opposite. When municipal services are exposed to competition, the municipality must adapt to the culture of the private business sector and put a lid on some information. Municipal agencies must be careful to release information that may impair competitiveness. Thus, most people get less insight into the municipal activity that we all depend on.
An open and fresh discussion of municipal services can give the private competitors insight and argument that they can use in the next offer. Such exchanges of opinion can also put municipal services in a negative light in public opinion. Private competitors, on the other hand, can strengthen their position by using the loyalty requirement to hide corresponding conditions in their own organization. To avoid this distortion of competition, the municipalities tighten the duty of loyalty and weaken freedom of speech.
self censorship
Self-censorship and loyalty requirements in the municipal sector are increasing in line with the demands for competitive exposure and effective profiling. Public debate that can damage business interests and reputation is seen as an issue. Competition and profiling becomes more important than nuanced information as a basis for a broad public debate.
In 2003, the Norwegian Editors' Association published an overview of information and pronunciation regulations in Norwegian municipalities. Here, reference is made to many examples of how the municipalities develop information strategies that are close to what is usual in the private business sector. The Editors' Association warns against this and calls on the municipalities to take responsibility for strengthening the public debate. As an example, reference is made to the media strategy for the city of Stockholm, which states: “It is an obvious right for all employees in the city of Stockholm to be allowed to contact and speak for the mass media. Freedom of expression and freedom of information are among the cornerstones of Swedish democracy. Investigations of employees' contacts with the mass media must not take place ".
Minor reactions
The demand for business efficiency and streamlined profile leads politicians to increasingly dislike the appointment of participants with differing views in the debate. These elected officials do not always tolerate the fact that employees have their professional integrity and give expression to the unseemly professional themselves if they specify that they will do their best to implement what is adopted. I myself have seen petty reactions from elected officials in such situations.
Politicians must have the power and take responsibility, but all relevant knowledge and views must emerge. However, any argument that does not reach the head of state, the councilor or the political majority must be able to come up in the discussion. What some find unimportant can be of great value to others who are going to get involved in the case. Personally, I have often gained momentum in the political struggle by obtaining information and points of view that were not included in the official case presentation.
But it is important to add that not all information has a natural place in the public space. If the freedom of speech of employees is abused to position themselves in internal conflicts or to achieve personal gain, it is in discredit, and those who wish to narrow it in, receive new arguments.
Open debate
The Government has recently submitted a report to the Storting on freedom of expression and amendments to the Constitution. The report that the Storting is to consider this autumn addresses, among other things, the issue of freedom of expression for employees. Here it is pointed out that the question of freedom of expression versus the duty of loyalty is not just a question that is about the interests of the employer and employee. The White Paper emphasizes a third consideration, namely the need for information and open debate, and in particular information from those who have relevant knowledge for the debate – both from the business community and from the public sector. However, the report does not point to any concrete measures on this point.
The Freedom of Expression Commission, which was hired by Francis Sejersted, is also concerned that persons with important information for society must have real freedom of expression. The Commission is skeptical of media strategies in which public agencies propose that all information should go through a select few who "know" how the media and public opinion should be handled. The Commission recalls that the Constitution sets limits on restrictions on freedom of expression for public employees.
Not enough whistle blowing
After a quarter as private groups gain more power, and public tasks are privatized at an accelerating pace, freedom of expression for employees in the private sector becomes increasingly important for the public debate. So far, our focus has been on the right to publish information about illegal or highly reprehensible matters, so-called "whistle blowing". But socialists should not settle for that.
Employees in private enterprises increasingly have access to information that is of decisive value to the public debate, for example when it comes to the environment, health, biotechnology and energy policy. The fear of being labeled as unfair and being made responsible for financial losses probably scares many from providing such information.
False liberal rhetoric
Competition exposure and privatization create loyalty requirements that reduce the breadth of public information. At the same time, we see that private groups in which the freedom of expression for employees are in strict condition, are gaining ever-greater power and are taking on more and more public tasks. The result will be less diversity and a narrower knowledge base in the public debate.
What the market liberals are trying to portray as a liberal society is the opposite. Market liberalism creates conditions that weaken real freedom of expression and narrow the critical debate that must form the basis for good and free choices – both individual and political. Freedom of expression for employees is more than a struggle for statutory rights. It is also a struggle against the market liberals and their false liberal rhetoric.
