At the same time, there is an
imbalance in the distribution of resources. The gap
between the richest and poorest on the planet is
increasing. While some have overabundance, a fourth of
the world's population lives in absolute poverty unable
to meet its most basic needs.
All people and nations share a common ecological space.
At present those who already have the most from before
are the ones who continue to take a disproportionately
large share of the earth's resources. The unfair
distribution of resources and the environmental
destruction are not only a challenge to our ideals of
freedom and equality here and now, but also a threat to
future generations. This lack of equality and ecological
balance challenges our social democratic values more than
anything else.
In the rich countries, the patterns of production and
consumption are based on short-term profits, on a
throwaway mentality, on the use of large amounts of
energy and the generation of polluting effluents. In the
poor countries, species and soil are overtaxed in order
to ensure day-to-day survival. An explosive population
growth further exacerbates these problems.
Some nations are sinking deeper into poverty. At the same
time other countries are emerging from it. A number of
countries that were previously poor, have undergone an
economic and social development in recent decades that
has raised a majority of the population out of poverty
and ensured them a minimum amount of welfare. Their share
of global production is growing. Their expected lifetime
is increasing and the percentage of those who have a
higher education is rising. Many are approaching a
standard of living and a pattern of consumption similar
to that of the wealthy countries. It is difficult to
criticise this as long as the high income countries
merely continue to increase their own consumption.
Researchers, however, are giving us a clear message that
the development is heading in a very dangerous direction.
A steadily greater consumption of energy increases the
combustion of fossil fuels and hence the emission of
carbon dioxide, among other gases, which results in
global warming and climate changes. Nuclear power plants
produce radioactive waste that can damage all life for
thousands of years in the future. Sulphur emissions give
rise to acid rain, destroy life in the sea and lakes and
have laid certain land areas more or less to waste. New
chemicals are introduced without our knowing enough about
their possible damaging effects. Inhabitants of cities
throughout the entire planet suffer from emissions from
highway traffic. Some people's ingenuity and
inventiveness is misused to develop weapons that not only
result in death and great loss at present, but which also
have the capacity to spread destruction in ways that can
never be repaired.
Confronted with this reality, we have only one choice. We
must recognise that we are not the ruler's of nature, but
merely creatures living in and coexisting with the
natural world. We must mobilise for change. It is the sum
of individual actions that has created these problems.
Now all countries and peoples face a common fate. Never
before has a just distribution of resources and a
democracy that transcends each country's national borders
been so necessary.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of
communism, some parts of the world have become calmer.
Some old conflicts have been put aside, but new wars and
conflicts have broken out - in many cases within the
borders of individual countries. Based on ethnic
differences, social distinctions and differences of
belief and opinion, people are being incited to violence,
war and terrorism. Those who suffer under war,
repression, social need and environmental destruction are
forced to flee from their homes and set out in search of
security and better conditions.
We see that repression of ethnic groups and individuals
is being called Çdomestic affairsÈ. This is not
acceptable because every single individual is unique and
has inviolable rights that must be protected. The global
society must have the possibility of overruling a
nation's sovereignty in some areas if the basic rights of
individuals are violated.
Commerce and international trade make positive
contributions to increased contact across national
borders, but the increasing trade is also a challenge to
the environment, jobs and social welfare arrangements.
Better transport possibilities and an increasingly
advanced information technology help generate more
co-operation and understanding. A free news service makes
it more difficult for every regime to suppress
information, but the free flow of information also gives
increased opportunities to undemocratic forces.
The challenges associated with the distribution of
resources, peace and the environment make us dependent on
each other in ways that extend beyond individual
nationalities and ethnic groups. Hence, the solutions can
no longer be found by each country's acting on its own.
They must be surmounted globally. Trying to turn back the
clock to a time when nations were less dependent on each
other's actions and development will not resolve these
problems.
In today's global society most of the co-operative bodies
are not strong enough. As a result nations too often
await each others' initiatives and actions. In
environmental policy few are willing to be among the
first to implement measures that are correct for the
planet as a whole because they are uncertain whether
other countries will follow their good example. The task
of introducing environmental taxes, debt-relief measures
for the poorest countries and a trade policy that is more
in tune with the poor countries' premises is proceeding
very slowly, but those who act responsibly and lie ahead
of the pack will acquire a technological and
organisational head start that will be important in a
world where rich countries will have to make changes in
their production processes and lifestyles regardless.
There is a need for countries that are willing to take
the lead in the global society, but the need for
effective regional and global co-operative bodies in
which countries can conduct joint discussions, make joint
resolutions about things that must be done, and work
together to see them implemented is even greater. The UN
is currently weakened by the lack of willingness among
its member nations to adequately finance its activities
and by the reluctance of many countries to enter into
agreements and compromises that may be at the expense of
certain nation's special interests.
The realisation of how dependent we are on each other
must give rise to changes in our political institutions.
This will make it easier to make changes in policies. In
matters that will have international consequences, the
importance of countries' own sovereign decisions must be
subordinate to the importance of arriving at joint
decisions for the best interests of the planet as a
whole. We must develop international co-determination
that enables the family of nations to arrive at joint
solutions, i.e. the principle of majority rule in
decision-making must also be accepted internationally. If
not, those who want the least international interference
and those who are strongest in the international market
will increasingly be the ones who determine the future
development.
Supranational control mechanisms are dependent on the
support of the people in the various countries. The
recognition that our own actions affect others and that
the actions of others affect us is greater than it used
to be. Nevertheless, solidarity is something that most
people associate with their local community, not with the
international society. It is therefore a difficult task
to develop international political bodies that have the
legitimacy to make decisions on behalf of us all.
Jobs for
Everyone
The challenge for social democracy is to create
work for everyone, and jobs with fewer differences and a
better environment, where we are all able to affect our
own job situation.
Work is a source of rights, greater opportunities and
increased welfare. Work for everyone is the most
important element of a policy that guarantees economic
security to the individual, a just distribution of
resources, and a secure foundation for our welfare
arrangements. Increased employment gives rise to growth
in the national economy and the possibility of collecting
taxes and duties that can be used to finance the common
welfare.
The teamwork between labour and capital makes this
development possible. It is based on negotiations between
equivalent parties with the government acting as a
partner and guarantor. This teamwork must continue. An
important factor in achieving a good social development
will be whether we can utilise our creative power and
knowledge to develop and employ new technology. Working
life is an arena where peoples' abilities and knowledge
are put to use for the benefit of the individual and for
the society at large.
Through the solidarity alternative, i.e. co-operation
between the parties in working life and the authorities,
it has been possible in recent years to reverse a trend
toward increasing unemployment to one of increased
employment and declining unemployment figures. The
employees have committed themselves to solidarity in wage
settlements; the employers have committed themselves to
create more jobs; and the authorities have committed
themselves to improving labour market measures and the
general welfare. This kind of collective good sense
benefits the whole society. Therefore, we want to further
develop the solidarity alternative.
The co-operation must also continue because there are
still too many who want work are unable to find it. It is
especially important to prevent long-term unemployment.
Long-term unemployment can primarily be ascribed to
structural causes, such as a mismatch between the
unemployed person's education and place of residence and
the available jobs.
Historically our struggle for a just distribution of
wealth has involved the struggle between labour and
capital. This conflict over distribution has not
disappeared. We must still develop democratic instruments
for the control and distribution of capital, but in the
information society education is of even greater
importance for the distribution of income and influence.
Thus, it is more important than ever to give everyone the
opportunity for education and better qualifications. The
rapid changes in the society, the quantity of
information, and the technological innovations mean that
education is no longer something an individual can
acquire once and for all in childhood and youth. The
opportunity for education must be available throughout
our whole lives.
At present post-school training and further education are
very unevenly distributed among the work force. Those who
already have a higher education receive most of it, and
those who have least, receive least. In addition, both
the business community and public activities have a
systematic tendency to under-invest in the knowledge of
their employees. Therefore, there is a need for
co-operation, where employees, employers and the
government take joint responsibility for the development
and distribution of new knowledge. This can prevent the
widening of current gaps and the creation of new ones.
Knowledge and creativity are means of production owned by
the employees themselves. They are properties that no one
can be ordered to make use of. Therefore, a strategy to
encourage lifelong learning and better qualifications is
also a strategy for the democratisation of the work
force. This work must be organised in such a way that the
individual is given greater influence over his or her job
situation. Democracy and co-operation will be necessary
conditions for the growth and development of these
activities.
There are big differences associated with the working
environment and the influence enjoyed by employees. It is
often the case that poor working conditions go hand in
hand with low wages. Many employees must leave their jobs
before they themselves are ready to do so. Disablement
insurance resulting from repetitive strain injuries and
psychological problems occur all the way down to the
30-40 year old age group.
Women are particularly vulnerable because many of them
are in vocations where the psychological and physical
working environments are among the toughest, such as the
health and social care professions. Many adapt to this
situation by working part-time, others destroy their own
health, while some choose to withdraw completely from
working life. The strain on women is also great because
they still have to do most of the housework, even though
new generations of men take more responsibility in this
area than previous ones.
Older employees are also vulnerable because they have
been on the job for many years and have more difficulty
adapting to changes. Easier jobs that used to be
available to the oldest employees during the last years
of their working life are becoming increasingly scarce in
the workplace. Again the result has been too many on
disability insurance or early retirement pensions. Many
immigrants and refugees also have problems in the labour
market. There can be many reasons for this, such as
difficulties gaining approval for a foreign education and
converting it to a Norwegian equivalent and deficient
Norwegian language skills.
The concept of work does not simply mean paid employment.
Work is a source of personal development and the creation
of wealth. These are activities that also take place in
other arenas beside gainful employment and which cannot
be measured in terms of money alone. Work includes paid
employment, the provision of care, and education.
Education and the provision of care are just as valuable
as the efforts that bring wages. The individual's
opportunity for personal development depends on putting
the various forms of work in perspective and being able
to combine them at different stages of life.
A good job must leave room for alternating between
education and career. There must also be room for women
and men who are also responsible for providing care and
for those who do not perform with peak efficiency.
People's working hours must be adapted to the
circumstances of their lives. No one should be put in a
position that forces them to choose between having
children and being economically independent through paid
labour. Given our basic values of freedom, equality and
solidarity, we cannot accept an economy that does not
provide jobs for everyone who wants to work. Good jobs
must be realised through democracy, opportunities for
education, working hour arrangements adapted to people's
lives and jobs that suit their abilities. These can be
achieved through politically approved welfare
arrangements, but also through the distribution of wealth
created through work.
Profits should be divided fairly. In a country with a
high level of prosperity, wage increases are not the only
way to draw off this surplus. Pensions, time for
providing care or improved opportunities for education
are examples of other alternatives. In this way capital
can be employed to create welfare and new jobs. Capital
must serve the common good as a means of social
development and not just be accumulated by short-sighted,
profit-oriented ownership interests. The mixed economy
presumes that those who manage capital are aware of their
social responsibility. This kind of attitude can be
promoted by a strong trade union movement. Government
ownership of certain businesses and industries can help
promote this as well, and in addition ensure a proper
balance between Norwegian and foreign ownership.
Another area where co-operation is completely necessary
is in the relationship between urban and rural
development. Throughout the entire post-war period the
Labour Party has practised a regional policy in
accordance with the slogan, Çcity and land, hand in
handÈ. Instead of promoting the conflicts and
competitive relationship between the rural regions and
the urban municipalities, we base our policy on the
acknowledgement that city and country are mutually
dependent on each other. Only by making use of the whole
country's resources is it possible to build a sufficient
economic base to take care of and promote culture and
secure our welfare.
The Labour Party wants to maintain the main features in
the pattern of settlement, both by creating new jobs and
by further developing the primary industries. This will
also provide job opportunities to many young people with
a good education in many municipalities and thus greater
freedom in choosing their place of residence.
Equivalent welfare services should continue to help
maintain the pattern of settlement. The differences in
living conditions that exist today are not mainly between
city and country, but among the different inhabitants of
certain regions or towns. The effort to improve living
conditions must be concentrated where the current
services are the worst, while simultaneously maintaining
and further developing these services where they already
are good.
Distribution of Welfare
The challenge for social democracy is to ensure
solidarity in the welfare state and equalise living
conditions. We want to make choices that ensure our
welfare arrangements in a situation where obligations to
take care of health and provide care and pensions are
increasing.
The Norwegian welfare state is universal; it includes
everyone. The welfare state is based on the presumption
that we accomplish more in solidarity than if each of us
is the architect of his or her own fortune. If this
insight is to leave its mark on the society, we must all
recognise that we each have a stake in the society. A
welfare state where everyone has rights and obligation is
more secure and just than a society where public
programmes are based on compassion and charity for those
who have least.
The welfare arrangements are our most important policy
instrument for equalising and distributing the wealth.
They provide differential treatment for the benefit of
those who initially need it most. This is necessary in
order to ensure equal opportunities and small social
differences among people and thereby enhance their
security.
We cannot simply content ourselves with preserving and
defending benefits, transfers of funds and services that
are already established, and the results that have been
achieved. Social democracy must be capable of perceiving
the factors that create differences in today's welfare
society and giving priority to factors that will benefit
those who have least so that the distribution of wealth
steadily improves. If instead of taking the time to
analyse the situation, we merely listen to those who
always clamour the loudest, we risk letting our course be
determined by the discontent arising from the steadily
increasing expectations of those who are already well
off.
The differences among those who receive income from
employment are less than they used to be, but many years
with a difficult labour market and high unemployment have
left more people dependent on various welfare benefits,
which provide less income than wages. At the same time
investment income has increased somewhat. All in all this
has caused the gap between those with the lowest incomes
and those with the highest to increase somewhat. The
Labour Party cannot accept that economic differences
between people should increase and wants to promote
measures to bring about a more equitable distribution.
The problems with living conditions for those who have
least are associated with a lack of work, with their
phase of life, with their level of education, with their
marital status, with the extent to which they are
handicapped and with their ethnic background. These
problems may involve jobs with high requirements for
formal skills and efficiency; they may involve
psychological problems; they may involve an existence
based on social assistance or national insurance that is
difficult to escape; and they may involve substance
abuse. Problems also have a tendency to accumulate for
certain groups and individuals. Our challenge must be to
find policy instruments and devise strategies for
generating more equality in the opportunities and
conditions that shape people's lives. Social democracy
will not accept that the differences between people
increase or that anyone is excluded.
Different welfare arrangements must be weighed against
each other when we want to find out what will promote
equality. Transfer payments and cash transfers help
ensure everyone a minimum of welfare, but they can also
easily create a false sense of security and become a
replacement for services and programmes that do not
exist. At the same time that cash transfers are
increasing, differences and deficiencies in the services
that are provided are in the process of consolidating and
creating inequalities. A child of pre-school age who
despite applications is not given a place in a
kindergarten loses something that cannot easily be
replaced with higher cash transfers. Unemployment
compensation helps rescue the financial situation of
certain unemployed persons, but it is mainly offers of
education or training that can get the person in question
back to work again - and thereby prevent the gaps from
widening.
Over a million of Norway's total population receive
national insurance benefits. Two million have paid jobs.
The ratio between those with paid jobs and those who
receive national insurance will become even more
disproportionate a few years into the next century. As a
result of better social and health conditions and because
fewer children are being born than was the case a few
decades ago, the percentage of elderly will increase. The
need for health services and care for the elderly will
become greater, and those who are retired will have
earned the right to greater compensation from national
insurance than today's elderly receive. Increasing
retirement pension and welfare expenses must be covered
by the working population. We must make distribution
policy choices now that will keep the welfare state's
economy afloat as we enter the next millennium.
Investments in education and research are expenditures
aimed at the future acquisition of income. They provide
new jobs and increased generation of wealth, which are
necessary in order to support the welfare arrangements
economically. Experience shows that countries with high
unemployment are also forced to cut down on welfare. Some
countries are caught in a vicious circle where big
deficits in public sector budgets force them to make
steadily increasing cutbacks, which give rise in turn to
further increases in unemployment.
Our alternative must be to husband our resources in such
a way that the welfare state does not get caught in a
debt squeeze. This means that we must exercise tight
control over both income and expenditures in the public
accounts. If we appropriate more than the economy will
permit, those who are most dependent on our common
welfare will be the biggest losers. This will be a
setback for our attempts to achieve equality.
The right to assistance in case of illness is fundamental
for equal conditions and quality of life. New technology
and medical discoveries make it possible to cure more
diseases and complaints, but more and better treatment
programmes also create increased demand and longer
waiting lists. Despite the fact that there have never
been so many people treated by the Norwegian national
health service, the waiting period for many patients is
still too long. New methods of treatment and a higher
proportion of elderly in the population will require
greater appropriations for health in the coming years. At
the same time they challenge our ability to choose
priorities, organise and co-operate better in the
national health service, and our willingness to invest in
measures that prevent disease.
In the last two decades a revolution in equal status has
taken place. An increasing percentage of women have
entered working life and become economically independent.
Two thirds of the mothers of small children are currently
gainfully employed, and a steadily increasing number have
full-time jobs. This has resulted in big changes in the
family pattern, among other things. The welfare state has
met these changes with offers of child-care leave
arrangements, more places in kindergartens, and an
expanded care of the elderly. This has made it easier to
combine family life, the provision of care and a job.
Women are especially dependent on the welfare
arrangements in a double sense. They make labour force
participation possible, and many women have their paid
job in the public sector. Welfare arrangements are a
necessary condition for equal status. They are essential
for enabling women and men to have the same opportunities
for independence and for achieving their wishes and
goals. However, equal status must not just entail that
women assert themselves in areas that have previously
been dominated by men. It must also mean a greater
appreciation of women's values and contributions.
Equal status for men and women has not yet been fully
achieved. There are still systematic differences in wages
and assets, in responsibility for children and other
provision of care, in working conditions, in power, and
in management. In other areas of the society as well
there is still a way to go before equal opportunity for
everyone is a reality. This is usually related to
attitudes and prejudices, which negatively affect people
who have a background in an ethnic minority and people
with homosexual inclinations, among others. As a group,
homosexuals have managed to get many of their legal
rights affirmed, but many still experience discrimination
and unpleasant social experiences in their everyday life.
Reciprocation between The Individual
and The Society
The challenge for social democracy is to
strengthen the reciprocal obligations between the
individual and the society. Solidarity must be based on
the individual's participation and willingness to take
responsibility.
The social democratic principles are based on the
presumption that all people are unique individuals of
equal worth who work together in solidarity. People need
each other's mutual respect and recognition. Each
individual's self-worth is related to the others. The
strong person is not the one who can stand alone, but the
one who recognises that we are dependent on each other
and who sees in others the human worth that makes the
idea of solidarity a reality. A society consists of
individuals who take responsibility for each other and
who are able to work together to achieve goals that they
jointly set for themselves.
Social, psychological, democratic and ethical needs and
considerations are equally important for human
development and well-being as the economic ones. The
society currently consists of a diversity of norms,
opinions and cultural expressions. This allows greater
freedom and makes tolerance a necessity. Tolerance
involves allowing for a diversity of values and of ways
in which moral guidelines are formulated and interpreted,
but it must also involve agreement on general principles.
In diversity there are many who search for their roots:
something permanent and lasting. They search for a
context in which to perceive themselves that can give
them an identity, which is crucial for being able to meet
rapid changes with a sense of security and acceptance.
Cultural activities and expression can help the
individual to develop an identity and bring us closer to
each other. Culture's potential for providing experience,
insight and development is needed more than ever in the
information and technological society. We must create
both equal opportunities and diversity of expression.
Through cultural policy, the conditions are to be
properly arranged so that the individual's creative
ability and creativity will find expression in the
greatest possible number of areas.
The relationship between the individual and society must
be given continuous thought. This is especially important
at a time when great changes are occurring at all levels.
It is necessary to regularly evaluate whether the
institutions and policy instruments that are developed
serve the individual and whether they are organised in
such a way that people find it appropriate and rational
to behave loyally and responsibly in relation to them.
The degree of responsibility we feel in relation to
arrangements and services we manage jointly depends on
their being arranged and functioning in such a way that
individuals feel as if they own them.
Many people have difficulty keeping up with the tempo of
the social development, and with finding their way in the
enormous amount of information they are given access to.
Many people adapt to policy decisions after they have
been made, rather than taking advantage of opportunities
to influence them beforehand. The result may be
powerlessness, pessimism and less faith that it is
possible to help steer the development. The risk is that
the key feature of democracy - the fact that everyone is
of equal worth and therefore has an equal right to make
his or her voice heard, will not be completely realised.
Our point of departure is that the individual should have
as much influence as possible over decisions that affect
the circumstances of his or her own life. The opportunity
for influence must begin where individuals spends their
time, i.e. in the neighbourhood, community, classroom and
workplace. Children and youth must be included more often
in the decision-making processes that concern them. In
this way we can help encourage political involvement and
active participation in the society among young people.
If the opportunities for being heard and taking part in
decisions are too few, it is easy to lose faith that it
is possible to affect the national and global
development. Hence it is serious when we find that in
many places involvement and participation in local
democracy are on the wane.
Since our elected bodies are built up around the
political parties, this is a special challenge for them.
The parties have a responsibility to start debates, get
people involved, and serve as an instrument for conveying
opinions and encouraging participation before decisions
are made. Thus, the Labour Party's method of working
should include consultation, broad debates and dialogue.
A vital democracy with public involvement and debate also
requires that we are able to take a critical look at how
the political life and electoral system function. The
electoral system must constantly be the object of debate
so that it helps encourage maximum participation and
involvement.
Information technology offers both opportunities and
threats to democracy. New communication tools can help
the individual make better choices from the flood of
information, provide increased knowledge and allow
greater participation, but it can also create greater
disparities because some learn to master this tool while
others do not. The new information technology must be
utilised to increase people's opportunities for
influencing politics and public administration. The
result will largely depend on whether political decisions
guarantee accessibility and training.
Research gives us new insights into more and more areas.
These are insights for which we are jointly responsible
for better or worse. The developments in medical
technology make it possible to heal more and more
injuries and diseases. Biotechnology is giving us the
capability of affecting the basic conditions of life
itself. Complaints that were fatal a few years ago can
now be cured. Knowledge about genes and hereditary
tendencies makes it possible to take preventive measures
and carry out new treatments., but these new
opportunities also confront us with difficult choices.
This is true, for example, in the case where information
becomes available about serious injuries to a foetus
early in a pregnancy, and where the woman must choose
between abortion and going ahead and giving birth.
Our increased knowledge makes it necessary to determine
boundaries for what is ethically justifiable. Research
and development must be under democratic control. Respect
for people's equal worth and the principle of an
egalitarian society must be the point of departure for
determining what we as social democrats want in this area
as well.
Public services and transfers must be able to achieve
welfare policy objectives relating to equal opportunity
and freedom. At present there are too many people who
perceive the welfare state as bureaucratic, not very
service-minded, impersonal and difficult to find one's
way in. This is particularly serious because it
especially hurts those who are weakest. It may be an
unemployed youth whom neither the social welfare office,
the employment office, nor the education office are able
to help. It may be the substance abuser who is motivated
to undergo treatment one week, but not the next, and who
does not manage to honour agreements with the social
welfare office. Others are inadequate in an educational
system, a job and a society that may not sufficiently
allow individuals to be themselves, set their own goals
and be given an opportunity to achieve them.
In order to preserve public sector programmes, public
services must be adequate and of good quality, but it is
just as important that the individual be able to
influence them. Social democracy's faith in people as
creative beings means that we do not define freedom of
choice as a sufficient condition for participation. The
individual should primarily have the right to influence
the formulation of the welfare arrangements on the basis
of his or her own standpoint and needs. This kind of
openness and right to participate are not a threat to
solidarity, but a necessary condition for preserving it.
Our increasing private wealth confronts the public sector
services and arrangements with a challenge. In Norway
more and more people can afford to pay for an operation,
a place in a kindergarten or some other service providing
care in the private market if the service provided by the
public sector is not good enough. This may help undermine
an important foundation of the welfare state: the fact
that people of different social strata take
responsibility for each other. When everyone makes use of
the same health and social care programmes and goes to
the same schools, the motivation to maintain the quality
of these services increases. Therefore, the Labour Party
opposes the privatisation of important public sector
services and arrangements.
Public welfare and personal responsibility are two
different sides of the same coin, not opposites. The one
form of solidarity does not exclude the other. Joint
responsibility for the care of the elderly, child welfare
and organised after-school activities help make everyday
life more secure for the individual, but not at the
expense of the contributions each individual makes as a
neighbour, friend and relative. In addition, various
independent organisations that provide help and care are
flourishing as never before. Among other things, they are
organising volunteer centres, senior citizens centres and
home visiting services.
Part of the explanation for the negative development
trends in the society may be a lack of social networks,
reciprocation and contact with others. We see that crime
is increasing and likewise substance abuse and
psychological problems. Suicide is one of the most
frequent causes of death among young people. Many feel
lonely. An important counter-trend may be to build on the
solidarity that already exists, and, using this as the
point of departure reach out to those who have problems.
All of the challenges of human life cannot be solved
through political resolutions, a high standard of living
and welfare. Every single human being must take
responsibility for him or herself and for others.
Neighbourhoods, residential areas and schools are still
centres for common activities, but these activities have
been altered and shifted in step with women's increased
job participation and because children spend much of
their day in kindergartens and organised after-school
activities. Even though time is scarce for many families
with children, a large number of children and adults take
part in a number of leisure time activities. New forms of
communication in organisations, physical training, sports
and cultural activities are constantly arising. Much
social activity is associated with being employed at the
same workplace.
Senior citizens centres, recreational clubs and organised
after-school activities offering various cultural
activities provide opportunities for personal development
and fellowship with others. Meeting places of this kind
are important for human contact and shared
responsibility. The challenge is to reach out to those
who remain outside of these social networks because they
lack family relations, a working environment or
activities they share with others.
The individual's opportunity to get involved is closely
related to the balance of power in the society. Since
this has altered in many ways in recent decades, we want
to take the initiative to commission a new study of where
the power lies. It ought to start by looking at how the
individual can influence his or her living conditions and
how the Norwegian society is affected by close contact
with strong international, technological and ecological
forces. It must also consider the question of
distribution, fairness and solidarity and how new social
patterns may also contain the seeds of new social
disparities.
In addition, a new study of where the power lies must
shed light on the roles of various professions, the power
structures that they represent and strategies that they
pursue. It should also discuss matters such as the
necessary conditions for an active local democracy, the
roles of and opportunities for voluntary organisations,
the dominant role of the municipalities in the public
sector, the development of information technology, the
internationalisation of the whole society, the mass
media's power and ability to determine the public agenda,
the changes in the pattern of family life, the work for
equal status for women, plus the specialisation of jobs
and the importance of skills and knowledge.
|
