Here I was with a long diary on the state of European and Scandinavian Social Democracy that I was looking forward to not having anyone read, when this whole Nobel thing came along and upset my plans.
Feeling that I know a bit more than the average bear about the Nobels, (as in actually knowing people involved in the thing) I joined the cacophony and wrote a diary, yesterday. Shouting in the crowd.
So now, of course, the punditocracy has gotten itself into top gear giving their opinions on the subject which they actually know relatively little about. Predictably, the main page is currently featuring the WaPo editorial: "Nominating" someone who'd both be ineligible and far past the nomination date.
It struck me that I forgot to underline another thing yesterday...
To recap, my main point in the entry yesterday was some often-missed points: That the Nobel Peace Prize is in fact, activist by its very nature. That it is often used not only to reward efforts, but to support them.
Since then a few omissions have come to mind, so just to add to the list:
"Obama's being rewarded just for not being Bush"
So? And you could say: "Nelson Mandela got the prize simply for not being P. W. Botha". Unless you take into account the ideological differences between the two, and why the Nobel committee thought those differences were important, it's a fairly meaningless statement.
The fight against racism, BTW, has long been a topic of the Peace Prize. Ask Mandela, or Desmond Tutu or Martin Luther King. The former two have praised Obama highly of course, and Tutu has explicitly commended Obama's Peace Prize. It's hard to imagine MLK being of a different opinion.
Okay. But let's just pretend that Obama doesn't deserve the prize. The Norwegian Nobel committee went nuts. Temporarily insane. They were blinded by his message and imagery.
If he's that potent a symbol - that he can seduce the entire Nobel committee, isn't that worth something in itself? Symbols are not unimportant, and the Nobel Prize itself is evidence of that. What's Aung San Suu Kyi done lately? Not much. Symbols are important, and the Nobel Prize has recognized plenty people 'merely' for what they stand for, rather than what they've accomplished in practice.
The committee, are all professional politicians. The chairman, Jagland, has served as Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of his country. In the terms of accomplishment that the pundits now give such import, he's got them beaten by miles. (How many nations have you lead, Joe Scarborough?). Anyone who claims that they're ignorant or politically naive in any way needs to back that up with some very solid merits, or take a slice of humble pie.
Which brings me to the main point I forgot:
The Nobel committees don't give a flying f--k what you think.
Get the big picture: There are two reasons the Nobel prize has achieved the stature it has. The first is its rather unique nature, being essentially the first prize of its kind, and really, the only prize of its kind - given its stature.
The second is the absolute integrity and secrecy of the prize committees.
It's their opinion that matters and their opinion only. It doesn't matter what you say, or what the million talking heads say. The committee doesn't care - it's their job not to care. Their job is to make up their minds who they think the best candidate is and make that decision. With no outside influence.
When was a Nobel laureate announcement ever leaked? When did you hear that a Nobel was 'bought' or that they'd 'given way to public pressure'? The answer is never, unless you count the inevitable weak rumors and sore losers.
It's not because that pressure doesn't exist. That pressure is massive. Businesses, universities, entire nations sometimes try to campaign for a Nobel. It doesn't work and it's never worked.
The people I know on the committees have certainly never said a word to me. I doubt very much they tell anyone: Not their spouses, not their dogs. Because it is considered an honor just to be on the committee, and because they share the opinion that I'm expressing here: That the prestige and existence of the award is dependent on their integrity. (Add to this that Scandinavians in general are simply honest folks, not prone to conspiracy, corruption and backroom-dealing. They always rank among the least corrupt nations in the world)
If, as sometimes happens, someone claims to have been 'nominated for a Nobel prize', they're BS-ing you. The nominating process is done in absolute secrecy to guard this integrity. Records are kept of the nominations, motivations, discussion and vote. But they are sealed for 50 years. Anyone who claims to know anything is at best circulating an unsubstantiated (and in the near future, unverifiable) rumor. (most of which turn out to be false. Like Edison/Tesla having been offered but refused)
Members of the Swedish Academy are elected for life. By which they mean life. You can't resign even if you tried. Kerstin Ekman did in 1989. The Academy still considers her a member, under the reasoning that they still consider her bound to her oath of silence. (And she's not given away any secrets)
The debate will certainly go on, but realize this: It will never have any bearing on the Prize. Nor should it. Since the start, the Nobel Prizes have followed this principle religiously. They make their own determination, within the guidelines Nobel set up. Because that's what Nobel wanted and they are bound to follow his will to the letter. (Except for the word 'idealistisk' which they eventually decided was really 'idealisk').
It's no wonder the American punditocracy wouldn't understand the Nobels. It's a pretty 'un-American' thing: Neither amenable to money or public opinion. J.K. Rowling isn't going to get the Literature award, and Stephen Hawking isn't likely to get the Physics one. (for reasons a bit less obvious)
It's all served them well. The prestige of the prize, the relative absence of controversy around the winners (over time) is all evidence of that. You'd be hard-pressed to find a pundit with a better track record.
Update: Oh wow, rec list? Thanks! (or as the Swedes would say: Tack så mycket!) I hope you're not expecting me me to pass Kos' name on to those committee-members I mentioned :) (In all humility, it's difficult to have worked as a scientist in Sweden and not end up knowing some committee members)
Correction: I'd written Stoltenberg was the former-PM and chairman. Jagland is the chairman (and former Labour PM and Foreign Minister). Stoltenberg is the current Labour PM (and congrats to the Norwegians on re-electing him last month!)