Nation building

The reunification of Southern Jutland with Denmark was made possible in 1920 with the German defeat in the First World War. It took place in June 1920 after a process that in fact started with Germany's admission of defeat in October 1918 and its ensuing request for an armistice. The reunification followed a plebiscite in the concerned areas. In Denmark, questions over reunification ignited heated political debate, as there was a widespread wish that southern parts of Schleswig should be incorporated into Danish territory as well.

Since the interwar years, foreign observers have regularly portrayed the Nordic countries as well functioning states, successful in solving crises, with happy populations; in short as good societies. Why did this happen? Are the Nordic countries the way they are simply because they are in a relatively safe corner of the world? Because they have plenty of natural resources and small populations? Or are there more convincing cultural explanations, such as, their strong labour movements and trade unions? Listen to these two podcasts on the Nordic Model to find out. In October 2019, the editor of nordics.info Nicola Witcombe caught up with three researchers after an academic workshop on ‘Nordic Democracy: Challenges, Threats and Possibilities’ at the Institute of Contemporary History at Södertörn University in Sweden. All of the three researchers are involved in the project 'Nordic Model in the global circulation of ideas' and are ideally placed to help us find out more about the development of the Nordic Model - and whether it really should be called ‘a model’ in the first place.

Given the striking similarity of the Nordic societies, it is interesting to note how differently some of them have reacted to the current covid-19 crisis. For example, Denmark and Norway were quick to implement a work and school lockdown and close their borders. In contrast, Sweden has raised international interest with a comparatively lax approach to enforcing social distancing by legal measures. Irrespective of which approach is ‘correct’, the diverse reactions have disclosed the different ways each country is run, particularly with respect to the relationship between government and administrative authorities, such as, health boards, as well as to the concerns over the fragility of the democratic system as a whole. These differences are often rooted in historical traditions and experiences. Here, Johan Strang, Associate Professor at the Centre for Nordic Studies at the University of Helsinki, considers some of the reasons for these differences.

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.

In the first decades of the 21st century, some Norwegian commentators have been calling for an increased emphasis on commercial competition in Norwegian business and education, and an increased focus on profits as a measure of relevance and utility. This trend poses a threat to the social welfare model in Norway as it is traditionally construed. We argue that the success of the Nordic model during the last century rests on a synergy between competitiveness, inclusiveness and equality, and this combination is what has made the ‘model’ so sustainable and resilient.

Even though the welfare state in the Nordics is under pressure and its design is continuously debated, it has rarely been more strongly supported in Danish history. Today, nearly all Danish political parties support the basic welfare society model, and they compete over who is best to secure it. Watch this mini-lecture and hear how, from a tentative start around 1900 to its development as a social democratic project in 1960s, the welfare state remains strongly accepted in Denmark.

Iceland was a largely uninhabited island in the northern Atlantic Ocean where Norsemen settled around 870. It began as a ‘free state’ but became a Norwegian province in the years 1262/64. As a dependency of Norway, Iceland came under the Danish-Norwegian Crown in 1380 and was in reality a Danish dependency from 1660. During the course of the 19th century, Icelanders strove for emancipation from Denmark, and gradually the country achieved greater independence.

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.

After a referendum almost unanimously in favour, Iceland was declared an independent republic on 17th June 1944 at Þingvellir. Denmark did not, however, repeal the law which set out the terms of its personal union with Iceland until 1950. Since then, Iceland has been able to re-claim much of its cultural heritage from Danish institutions. Fisheries and power production saw economic growth in Iceland in the post-war era, and even in to the 21st century. However, in 2008, a severe economic downturn led to austerity measures being necessary which proved to be a success.