Political Participation in the Arctic: Who is heard, when, and how?
Photo by Anne Schäfer
In late October 2024, like every October for the
last 11 years, former President of Iceland Ólafur
Ragnar Grímsson welcomed thousands of visitors
to what he calls an open space for frank dialogue,
a “dynamic Arctic village”, the Arctic Circle Assembly
(ACA) in Reykjavík. As readers of the blog will know, this is a large-scale event that aims to bring science, policy, and business together and provide an opportunity for broad participation in political discussion. It was the challenge of full political participation in Arctic decision-making that we, the authors, sought to explore further in a roundtable at this same event.
“Open dialogue” has remained a key aim of the conference since its beginning, and efforts are made to include a diversity of plenary speakers and discussants – not least involving Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic to a larger extent than was perhaps previously the case, and most recently including more youth. However, as all who have participated will know, neither the conference itself nor the wider context of visiting Iceland are readily accessibly without substantial funds.
And, for better or worse, the ACA only lasts for three days, while political participation should be strengthened not just within Harpa’s halls but also during the remainder of the year. Indeed, the region’s central forum, the Arctic Council, is often described as lacking transparency and currently operating in a limited fashion; and much of Arctic political discussions happen at the seemingly inaccessible foreign policy arenas, rather than through voting boxes and public engagements.
Photo by Anne Schäfer
Joining us to discuss these challenges, our roundtable included viewpoints from six distinguished and different speakers:
-
Pirita Näkkäläjärvi, President of the Sámi Parliament in Finland,
-
Merje Kuus, Professor of Geography at the University of British Columbia,
-
Øystein Solvang, PhD candidate at UiT the Arctic University of Norway,
-
Beate Steinveg, Associate Professor at Nord University,
-
Kim Insuk, Author, Associate Fellow at the UArctic Chair of Arctic Legal Research and Education,
-
Tiril Vold Hansen, PhD candidate at Nord University.
Each reflected on what they consider the most important channels for participation in Arctic politics at present, before moving on to discuss barriers, and eventually some suggestions for broadening participation in the future.
In addition to the perspectives offered by the speakers, the audience was also invited to participate – in the spirit of our core challenge – and added their thoughts through a digital participation tool via smartphones, as well as asking
questions in person. Although the audience was inevitably made up of a relatively selective group of conference attendees, they represented different viewpoints, ages, nationalities, genders, and more. Honouring their generous contributions to our brief 55 minutes together, we share some of their perspectives below.
Political participation – barriers and opportunities: The roundtable speakers each mentioned different challenges to participation – for example, language barriers in terms of policy documents not being available for a non-native speaking audience and written in a complicated and cumbersome language.
The audience also pointed to both geographical and financial barriers, as well as language abilities, an expectation of “volunteerism” by Indigenous Peoples and disadvantaged groups, and wider lack of access and capacity. Arguably underlying many of these, one barrier identified was also “colonialism impacts in political structure”, and another pointed to uneven power dynamics even within dialogues.
Turning our attention from problems to solutions, the speakers had prepared some concrete suggestions, such as empowering local and regional elected assemblies – a suggestion made by Øystein Solvang, who is currently writing a PhD on political reforms in Northern Norway.
As for the audience, their suggestions are again worth highlighting – suggesting improvements to school curricula as “awareness and ability are pre-condition[s] for political participation”. More resources and funds were mentioned, as were comprehensive language learning resources – presumably beyond school-level. Having grown up in Korea, Kim Insuk shared her experience living in Greenland, explaining how traditional media (tv, radio, newspapers), social media (most importantly Facebook) and public meetings present language barriers at times: “As a foreign resident, I’ve experienced the challenges of exclusion due to language barriers, which limit full participation in political discourse for those who don’t speak either language fluently.”
However, Insuk also highlighted steps towards broadening political participation: “... a few months ago, the Sermersooq Municipality, which includes the capital, Nuuk, took a significant step toward inclusivity. They wanted to hear the opinions of international residents regarding the city's urban planning. The municipality invited foreigners, including myself, to a meeting to listen to our perspectives. This was a thoughtful initiative, and it made us feel like we weren’t invisible in the city. It was a different but very positive experience.”
Others advocated for more youth involvement and empowerment, and particularly called for voices of those who feel “lesser than others”, and “open platforms where anyone can attend”.
Photo by H. Hansen-Magnusson
What is clear from the above is that there is no lack of awareness of the problem, nor is there a lack of will to improve it. However, in order to foster broader inclusion of viewpoints, opinions, and peoples, both financial resources and time are needed. Ending on a hopeful note, Beate Steinveg, an expert on the power of Arctic conferences, reminded us of the gradual but nevertheless substantive improvements that have taken place over the years. With a combination of patience and voicing the need for change, the ideal of open dialogue may extend beyond the confines of Reykjavík, beyond three days in October, to include more of the rich diversity of the Arctic regions.
Ingrid A. Medby is a Senior Lecturer in Human Geography at Newcastle University in the United Kingdom. Her research focuses on Arctic geopolitics, identity, and diplomacy; and her book ‘Arctic State Identity’ will be published early 2025. She is currently vice-chair of the Social & Human Working Group of the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), and a committee member of the UK Arctic-Antarctic Partnership.
Charlotte Gehrke is a PhD fellow at Nord University and a 2024 Fellow of the International Arctic Science Committee. She is currently a visiting researcher at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research (AWI), where she researches the institute’s science communication and diplomacy practices in the context of Germany’s Arctic policy.
Tiril Vold Hansen is a PhD fellow at Nord University and a member of Svalbard Social Science Initiative. She submitted her thesis on power and interests in Norway’s Svalbard policies in June 2024. Her research interests include energy transition, environmental policy processes, and research policy in relation to geopolitics and sovereignty issues in the Svalbard context.
Pirita Näkkäläjärvi is the President of the Sámi Parliament in Finland. She has a background in business and media, including YLE, and is also completing a PhD in Music, looking at the cultural appropriation of Sámi yoik.
Kim Insuk, Digital Content Manager at Visit Greenland and an Associate Fellow at the UArctic Chair Initiative: Arctic Legal Research and Education, brings expertise in Greenlandic cultural heritage through her studies in Cultural Heritage. Originally from South Korea, she is dedicated to sharing Greenland’s unique stories and spirit through digital content.