Norway's Generasjonspartiet leader Gyda Oddekalv has defended her party's controversial decision to allocate over half its public funding to salaries for herself and her mother. The party, which received 21,589 votes in last year's election, is set to get about 2.5 million Norwegian kroner in annual state support. Oddekalv addressed the mounting criticism in an interview, stating she understands why the arrangement appears problematic.
A Budget Under Scrutiny
The party's annual meeting approved a budget framework that included two salaried positions. One position is slated for 850,000 kroner for the party leader, and another for 400,000 kroner for an organizational secretary. Oddekalv confirmed that she and her mother currently fill those roles, though she later clarified no formal employment contracts have been signed. The party leader abstained from voting on the budget proposal, which was prepared by the central committee she chairs.
Oddekalv addressed the core of the criticism directly. 'I have understanding for that people can think it's unmelodic because we are family,' she said. 'But then I have a different view on it. When you are going to start something and are very engaged, it is not so strange that you have family who are also engaged in the same thing. It is very natural that it starts like that.'
Whistleblower Complaint Dismissed
The controversy first came to light through a whistleblower complaint filed with the Political Party Committee. The complaint alleged deficiencies in how the party's annual meeting was called and conducted. It also raised concerns about the treatment of whistleblowers and the roles of committee members. A key issue was the plan for salaries to go to Oddekalv and her mother. The committee later dismissed the complaint, deciding the matter fell outside its formal jurisdiction.
When pressed on whether she accepted any of the criticism, Oddekalv responded, 'Yes, I have understanding for that people can think it's unmelodic because we are family.' She maintained that paying salaries is normal. 'Even though there is a bit of noise around salary levels, I think it is completely normal that people get a salary, so I think that in itself is not problematic,' she stated.
Plans for Remaining Funds
With over 1.2 million kroner earmarked for two family members, questions arose about the use of the remaining party subsidy. Oddekalv outlined plans focused on internal development. 'It will be a lot of focus on courses, community, and solidarity,' she explained. 'And to build structure and wholeness. So now we are going to have a number of meetings. In all things that are a bit difficult and uncomfortable and such, there is an insane amount of learning.'
This approach highlights the party's nascent stage. Generasjonspartiet is a relatively new political entity, and its operational strategy is still forming. The decision to invest heavily in salaries for its founding core, rather than in broader campaign activities or external outreach, marks a distinct political and organizational choice.
The Rules of Political Funding
Norwegian political parties receive public funding based on their electoral performance and membership numbers. This system is designed to ensure a diversity of political voices and reduce dependency on private interests. The Generasjonspartiet's use of these funds for internal salaries is legal, provided it is approved through the party's democratic processes, as it reportedly was. However, the arrangement tests the boundaries of public expectation regarding how state support should be utilized.
The incident raises questions about transparency and internal governance within small political parties. The whistleblower's concerns about meeting procedures and the handling of complaints suggest internal disagreements over the party's direction and management. How a party manages dissent and adheres to its own statutes is often seen as a reflection of its broader democratic values.
Public Trust and Political Newcomers
For new parties like Generasjonspartiet, building public trust is essential for growth. Controversies over financial management can significantly hamper that effort. Voters who supported the party for its policy platform may now be questioning its operational priorities. The perception of nepotism, even if technically within the rules, can be damaging in a political culture that places a high value on transparency and fairness.
Oddekalv's defense centers on the practical realities of starting a political movement from scratch. She portrays the involvement of dedicated family members as a logical, almost inevitable, first step. This perspective clashes with the public's view of political parties as formal institutions that should separate family ties from official roles and finances from the outset.