Political and Social Tendencies in Iceland 
By Kemp Malone 
In these days of self-determination, national feeling tends to 
degenerate into a vicious particularism, expressing itself in the con¬ 
struction of Chinese walls and the persecution ot foreigners caught 
inside. Thus, even in the United States the immigrant has become 
an undesirable citizen, or at best an object of suspicion, while Europe 
is envisaged as a region with which the less we have to do the better. 
Perhaps this cast of public opinion is an inevitable consequence of the 
spirit of the times, but at any rate it is refreshing to turn for a while 
to a country like Iceland, where patriotism is still real without being 
rampant. 
Certainly the national consciousness of the Icelander has none ot 
the callowness of youth, and this may well have been the decisive 
factor in preventing the development there of anything analogous to 
the nationalistic monomania that has balkanized Europe. Yet other¬ 
wise the conditions were favorable for such a development. Origi¬ 
nally a republic (the first since ancient times) Iceland eventually 
became subject to Denmark, and for hundreds of years was exploited 
and neglected, with little other solace than the contemplation of a 
golden age that lay emphatically in the past. This long subjection 
and the struggle for freedom which followed it have indeed profoundly 
affected the national character and given it a sensitive edge likely to 
endure for many years to come. Fortunately, however, Denmark is 
not an imperialistic nation; the rise of Danish democracy was there¬ 
fore accompanied by an increasing disposition to let Iceland deteimine 
her own destinies, and the development has finally culminated in a 
peaceable separation and the establishment of the Kingdom of Iceland, 
a sovereign state having in common with Denmark only its king and, 
with certain limitations, its diplomatic and consular services. 
During the struggle for self-determination, Icelandic politics were 
naturally dominated by that issue, the moderates advocating Home 
Rule, while the extremists stood for entire independence. Just as 
naturally, now that the former shibboleths have become meaningless, 
the old parties are breaking up, and new groups are forming, based 
primarily on common economic and social interests. Intelligent con¬ 
sideration of present tendencies, however, is impossible except on the 
basis of a survey of existing conditions, and such a survey is there¬ 
fore presented at this point; limitations of space may serve to excuse 
the extreme brevity of the summary which follows it. 
In the old days Iceland was ruled by a comparatively small num¬ 
ber of local chieftains, who met from time to time in provincial or 
national assembly to compose their differences. The same group of 
