Democracy

Back in the 1980s and 90s, support for joining the European Union in Iceland was split into three, a bit like it is today: for, against and undecided. But popularity for the EU has slowly fluctuated between these two periods of time due to the financial crisis, Brexit and domestic politics etc.

Voluntary organisations were a new and important phenomenon in Norway in the nineteenth century and included many different types of associations, unions and clubs. Among other things, they functioned as places to learn about democracy for the wider population.

Vigdís Finnbogadóttir is an Icelandic politician. She served as the country’s president for 16 years, using the office to promote Icelandic culture around the world, amongst other things. Since her retirement, she has served on various international organizations, has campaigned for women’s rights, and been recognized for her work in Icelandic politics, language, and theater.

The Nordic region is frequently presented in the American media as prosperous and business-friendly, as well as allowing for extensive welfare benefits. US media coverage often positions one or more of the Nordic countries between the monolithic and highly politicized understandings of ‘socialism’ and ‘capitalism’ – with the many shades of mixed economies that coexist within the Western liberal and democratic sphere unacknowledged. In this way, the Nordic countries often function in the American political imaginary as blank screens upon which politicians and pundits project justifications for their own version of American economic policy—either for or against a social welfare state. The resulting images of the Nordics in the US reveal less about the complexities of the region itself, and more about current American national anxieties and the enduring legacy of the Cold War upon American self-definitions.

In this short video, Anna Sandberg, Associate Professor in the Department of English, Germanic and Romance Studies at Copenhagen University, gives an historical overview of the political and cultural relationship between Denmark and Germany over the last 200 years. Their relationship is an important one not least because it is the southern-most border of the Nordics - one of the 'gateways to Scandinavia'. Focus is specifically given to the events in 1864, when Prussia and Austria won a war against Denmark leading to the smaller state losing a great deal of its territory in Southern Jutland/Northern Schleswig. Another focus is 1920, when there was a plebiscite in this same borderland region to find out whether the people who lived there wanted to be Danish or German. This process of self-determination occurred without conflict, unlike other disputed regions after the first world war.

The “Nordic model” is often presented as a solution to the dominance of neoliberalism and the rise of populism. Populist tendencies within the region, including the reclaiming of nationalist identities and anti-immigration and anti-globalisation sentiment, can often be overlooked by outside observers. Whereas elsewhere economic crises encourage states to bow to market forces at the expense of democracy, the Nordics are seen as having been relatively unscathed by economic downturns. However, economic vulnerability is also felt by sections of the population in the Nordic countries who are subsequently more likely to turn to populism. Attempts to revitalise trust in political institutions e.g. citizen initiatives, are often piecemeal and insufficient. Democracy is not a ‘fate’ even for the Nordic countries; on the contrary, it is a tortuous path, the outcome of which can never be taken for granted.

Even though Iceland remained under Danish rule, the Icelandic ‘Althing’ was restored in 1845 as a national consultative assembly, and in 1874 the country obtained a constitution giving the Althing its own legislative power. Home rule was introduced in 1904, and in 1918 Iceland became an independent and sovereign state in personal union with Denmark. Among other things, the union meant a joint monarchy and that Denmark was responsible for Iceland's foreign affairs. The union came to an end in 1944.

In the summer of 2019, the Trump Administration voiced an interest in buying Greenland from Denmark. The historical background for this stretches at least as far back as a case brought by Norway at the International Court in 1933 when it was decided that Denmark had full sovereignty over Greenland. Since then, Danish governments have engaged in reformulations and re-negotiations with respect to Greenland’s sovereign rule, including the 1979 home rule agreement and self rule in 2009. It is arguable, however, that the US had de facto sovereignty for periods of the 20th century. For example, a defense pact in 1941 allowed the US extensive rights to military bases in Greenland in exchange for military protection while mainland Denmark was occupied by Germany. This led to the Truman administration making an actual bid to purchase the world’s largest island in 1946. During the Cold War, Denmark relied on the US to defend Greenland. While today, after obtaining self rule in 2009, it is recognized that Greenland has the right to become independent if it so wishes, questions of its sovereignty remain. These were highlighted by the recent diplomatic spat between Trump and the Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, indicating that the sovereignty issue will continue to be contested and pose a considerable challenge even for a fully independent Greenland of the future. Greenland has been and continues to be a vital strategic asset, not least to the US - and perhaps even more so due to the possible effects of climate change.

Both Denmark and Norway held referenda on whether to join the European Economic Community in 1972. After Danes supported joining and Norwegians did not, this editorial was published in a federalist journal in which the editors try to understand the differing results.

Nordic countries have been labelled ‘consensual democracies’ due to the use of cross-party coalitions in forming governments. As political parties that are in competition with one another end up working together, it arguably reduces aggressive, oppositional electioneering, and fosters collaboration. On the other hand, it is difficult for voters to fully trust election pledges, when they may have to be altered due to political horse-trading.