This is a comment.
When a minister or top bureaucrat declares himself incompetent in a matter, the purpose is to ensure neutrality and trust. But in practice, the effect can be the opposite. Because what kind of signal is actually sent down the system when the boss withdraws from a decision – while everyone knows what he or she wants?
The competence rules are based on a simple assumption that the problem lies primarily in the formal decision. If the person who may be influenced by personal relationships is removed from the decision itself, the decision must be neutral. But in hierarchical systems, power rarely works so mechanically. Influence is exercised not only through the signature, but through expectations, loyalty and career considerations.
A small and tightly woven network
An illustrative example is from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As Minister for Foreign Affairs (2017-21), Ine Eriksen Søreide declared herself incompetent in the processing of appointments that affected Mona Juul, whom she described as a close friend. At the same time, Søreide has claimed that she barely knew Juul’s husband, Terje Rød-Larsen.
In the same ministry, Geir O. Pedersen sat as head of expedition, with responsibility for significant grants to the International Peace Institute (IPI) in New York, led by Rød-Larsen in particular. Between 2005 and 2018, IPI received around NOK 130 million. In 2021 criticized the National Audit Office that Pedersen handled the cases, because his friendship with Rød-Larsen was considered too close.
Jonas Gahr Støre was also foreign minister in the period (2005-12) when IPI received large sums. He has explained that he was not incompetent, because he had no personal relationship with Rød-Larsen. The network doesn’t stop there either: Jens Stoltenberg’s wife, Ingrid Schulerud, is also a friend of Mona Juul.
When everyone knows who knows who
The point here is not to establish who was formally incompetent or not in these cases. The point is to show how small and tight-knit the Norwegian elite is. In such an environment, everyone knows who knows who, and which outcomes will be perceived as desirable – or undesirable – by powerful people.
The Norwegian elite is small and dense. Stepping wrong can have consequences far into the future.
Disability shifts the decision – not the expectations
When incapacity arises in practice, it is often “solved” by a subordinate or subordinate taking over the formal decision-making authority. In the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, this may mean that another head of department makes the decision, or that the matter is moved to another minister.
Temptations are visible – preferences are unspoken
The rules of competence are based on the concept of temptation. The decision maker may be influenced to give a benefit to a close relationship. But when the supreme commander declares himself incompetent, the preferences do not disappear. They just go unsaid.
Take the appointment of UN Ambassador in New York. It is a prestigious position. If everyone understands that a certain candidate wants the job – and that the minister who declares himself incompetent wants the same – this will also be obvious to those who are delegated the task of submitting and making the decision.
Søreide declared herself ineligible for the appointment of UN ambassador in 2019, and her friend Mona Juul was (still?) appointed.
Subordinates read signals
For these subordinates, the calculation is simple. Choosing a candidate other than the one everyone assumes the boss prefers can be perceived as a direct challenge. Disappointment at the top can have consequences later. Following the assumed will, on the other hand, is safe.
Shifted responsibility – not shifted power
The question is therefore whether a case in which a powerful person declares himself incompetent actually receives a neutral treatment. The answer is in practice obvious. The mechanism provides no guarantee that a close relationship will not receive an advantage. On the contrary, the declaration of incapacity can strengthen the system’s incentive to make exactly the decision the incompetent is believed to want.
Disability thus shifts responsibility, but not necessarily influence. In a system where the elite is small and tight-knit, there is no easy solution to this problem. And that is precisely why it is a problem that the elite themselves understand better than most.
iNyheter needs your support. Subscribe or support us at Vipps 763291 bank 1506.80.92768 or PayPal
date:2026-02-09 14:43:00