The question arises: who truly commands more credibility in the realm of leadership—the captain steadfastly following his chosen course, unflinching despite looming icebergs, or the captain who deftly alters his path to safeguard his vessel from disaster? This philosophical inquiry was posed by Kim Kielsen (Løsgänger) in a recent press release during his tenure as chairman of Inatsisartut.
As chairman, Kielsen’s primary responsibility is to ensure a constructive dialogue between the members of Inatsisartut and the Naalakkersuisut. However, his recent communiqué sparked backlash from both Siumut and Naleraq, who accused him of siding with the government and undermining the opposition.
In response, Kielsen has issued another press release aimed at addressing these criticisms and reframing his initial statements.
Misunderstood Criticism
Erik Jensen (S) contended that Kielsen’s rhetoric amounted to an attempt to silence opposition voices, suggesting a breach of the impartiality expected of the chairman. Jens NapãtôK (N) echoed these concerns, remarking, “In my years of engaging with Greenlandic politics, I cannot recall a time when the presidency of Inatsisartut has acted with such overt partisanship in favor of the current government.”
“Highlighting broken promises or a lack of follow-through on election pledges doesn’t disrespect democracy; rather, it’s fundamental to its health,” Jens NapãtôK stated to KNR earlier this month.
Kielsen elaborates that his initial press release was intended as a commentary on foundational aspects of parliamentary work, rather than a critique of the opposition. He argues that it is natural for any new coalition to amend its election promises upon taking power, thereby forming a vital role for the opposition in holding them accountable.
“I sought to highlight how this creates an opportunity for the opposition to potentially erode public trust in a governing coalition—an opportunity they often seize with enthusiasm,” Kielsen explained. “Regrettably, some members of the press have misinterpreted this as a reprimand directed at the opposition. This was not my intention.”
Rather than viewing the opposition’s role as mere oversight of the government, Kielsen characterized their criticisms as part of what he termed “political banter.” “Attributing blame to coalition parties for unmet election commitments is a tactic widely employed and entirely permissible in politics,” he asserted. “It’s a game that the current opposition is not the first to play, nor will they be the last.”
A Defense of the Naalakkersuisut
Kielsen conceded that, to some degree, he has defended the Naalakkersuisut during his time as chairman. Yet, he contends that this defense was meant to apply to all coalition governments, not just the current one. “It’s accurate to say I pointed out universal principles that apply to every governing coalition, including the one presently in charge,” he said.
He concluded his latest press release by expressing his frustration that the discussion shifted focus from the substance of his message to issues surrounding his freedom of expression as chairman. “Yet, that too is a pertinent and entirely valid debate in a democratic society,” Kielsen remarked.