Red Rose Forum

Denmark, like many other European democracies, has an electoral system based on proportional representation in which every vote ‘counts’. In Denmark, as elsewhere, this leads to a plethora of parties, large and small, each with a realistic chance of winning parliamentary seats because parties can more precisely tailor themselves to the different needs and values of a variety of social groups and interests. The ‘market’ for politics can thus be more finely tuned than in the UK’s first-past-the-post system where many votes are ‘lost’. The UK thus has 2-3 large parties, each of which constitutes a very ‘big tent’ or ‘broad church’ (read coalition). Because politics in a democracy is, inter alia, always a matter of compromise and of coalitions seeking power, in Denmark this is instead achieved through coalitions of parties, rather than coalitions within parties as in the UK. Both systems have their pros and cons, but in this report I will instead concentrate on the changing nature of coalitions in Denmark, and the broader lessons arising from this, rather than the voting system as such.

Traditionally, Danish parties tend to coalesce around a right and a left block forming governing coalitions. On the left, the Social Democrats, Labour’s sister party in Denmark, forms the largest party and has historically been Denmark’s leading political force, mainly responsible for transforming a still remarkably agriculturally-based economy on the eve of the Second World War, into one of the world’s richest, most democratic, socially just and most economically dynamic countries. Although the Social Democrats held centre stage as the dominant party for much of the formative pre- and post-war period, they were able to form a widespread national consensus across the majority of the population around social justice and a progressive welfare state, with high taxes to pay for them. Such an approach has historically been a highly successful feature of Danish politics – the open and positive attitude to making compromises in public between parties, and even when necessary ‘across the middle’ (between the blocks). Still today, no budget is passed without the assent of most parties from across the political spectrum, even though the block in power could technically win a vote in parliament on its own. In my view, this is Danish democracy and politics at its best, and something we in the UK could learn much from. Denmark does have its share of ‘yah-boo’ politics, but this does not, by and large, impede constructive policy debate.

One of the greatest post war legacies of this progressive consensus is the Danish so-called ‘flexi-curity’ model, largely given its modern form by the Social Democratic Prime Minister until 2002, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, who is now President of PES, the Party of European Socialists. This highly successful model arises out of the strong tripartite cooperation between government, employers and trades unions, in which each plays an active labour market role, fully recognised by the other parties, and driven by an acceptance on all sides that their common interests far outweigh their individual narrow interests. The ‘flexi-curity’ model aims to deliver economic strength and full employment with good well-paid jobs for all who are able and willing to work. On the one hand, it is flexible for employers who are able to hire and fire relatively easily, thus enabling them to respond rapidly to market signals and focus on both efficiency and innovation, unconstrained by a rigid labour market structure.

The other side of the coin is the relative security given to workers through generous job transition payments and highly proactive support in re-training and job placement. Here, the focus is on employability, i.e. the ability to find new well paid work in line with market requirements, rather than artificially holding on to an untenable job no longer economically viable for the employer. Just as important is the support given to people in work to constant up-date their qualifications in line with market developments through a huge variety of theoretical and practical courses, provided by both the public sector and employers, but also through on-the-job skills and competence development strategies designed to support improved performance and innovation by all employees and not just the most qualified. In fact, many more workers leave an employer because they are actively seeking a better job than are fired by them. So, security means security of employment rather than security of the same job for life. We see strong echoes here in many of New Labour’s successful policies (such as the minimum wage, a strong focus on re-training, skills and productivity, as well as welfare-to-work), but also now many other countries are looking at this model, especially France, to see if it can help reduce unemployment and revitalise the economy. Notwithstanding the difficulties of transferring systems and institutions between highly different countries with different histories and cultures (like Denmark and France), ‘flexi-curity’ and similar strategies are now becoming good practice in progressive politics.

(Editors Note: Nordicmodel.info  gives an insight to "flexicurity" and the Nordic model as it is discussed amongst social democrats, trade unionists and others)

The overall dominance of the Social Democrats has unfortunately waned in the last fifteen to twenty years, initially resulting from the onslaught of Thatcherism and monetarism, and more latterly because of some lack of cohesion and direction on the left generally, which is not just a Danish problem of course. On the right, the Liberal Party, which traditionally represents the farmers and landowners, and today also the business elite, high-flyers and dot.com generation, is the largest party vying for national prominence with the Social Democrats. The right block has been in power since 2002, and renewed their mandate in 2005 as a coalition between Liberals and Conservatives, but also alarmingly propped up by an ultra populist and nationalist "Danish Peoples’ Party". This party’s agenda is quite typical of many such parties around Europe, i.e. lower taxes, anti-Europe or Euro-sceptic, and anti-immigration, although Interestingly they also have strong social welfare policies, especially in relation to high pensions and support for the elderly designed to appeal to the less well off and older population.

Danish politics and political parties are currently on a knife edge, poised to go either way in the near future. On the one hand, the ruling ‘right block’ is presiding over a booming economy with record low unemployment and inflation, as well as an escalating current accounts surplus. A closer look suggests that this is largely due to ‘flexi-curity’, the Danish tripartite cooperative approach to labour market conditions, and the generally favourable international economic environment, rather than the sitting government’s economic management. The danger for the Social Democrats and progressive politics generally is, however, that the ‘right block’, including the Peoples’ Party, will buy-off the trades unions and working population using the state’s growing surpluses, and thereby ensure at least one more term for this unholy coalition at the next election due within two years.

Things are, however, never that simple. The present government is very timid and unsure about how to tackle the new 21^st Century challenges of welfare reform, globalisation, investment in and exploitation of new technology innovation, immigration, climate change, etc., not least because of the incompatibility of the coalition’s unholy alliance. About the only thing the parties that make it up have in common is unswerving support for the Iraq war. The Liberals and Conservatives, as in many other parts of Europe, tend to be internationalist and pro-European, and even in some cases pro-environment, whilst the Peoples’ Party is anything but these things. Tensions come regularly to the surface. This new agenda is where the Social Democrats, and other progressive parties, have a chance to seize back the initiative. With a relatively new, young and attractive leader in Helle Thorning- Schmidt (married, incidentally, to Neil Kinnock’s son), who is increasingly finding her feet and successfully cutting her political teeth, a new and much more optimistic mood is spreading amongst all supporters of progressive politics in Denmark. The re-making of (New) Labour in the UK and of the Social Democrats, and progressives generally, in Denmark, have much in common. There are size, historical and institutional differences to be sure, but both are facing the same societal and economic challenges in terms of policy, and similar challenges from political rivals. In the new mood of internationalism and ‘global progressive values’, strongly promoted by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, we need to cultivate ever closer cooperation and mutual learning amongst progressives everywhere and between sister parties across Europe as well as further afield.

But even here, things never really are that simple! The unstable coalition of strange bed-fellows we see on the Danish right exemplifies a wider current of change in party building and voter allegiances more generally. There is burgeoning evidence that our notions of ‘left’ and ‘right’ in politics, forged in the class struggles of the Industrial Revolution where the relationship to or ownership of the means of production defined political allegiance, are breaking down. The extremes are coming together and making common cause, so that, instead of a linear axis, a circle of political activism is being created.

Thus, the ‘creative-classes’, or ‘progressives’, drawn from the better educated in left and right parties close to the political centre, are starting to define their political agendas in similar terms. They all recognise complexity and are outward looking, they think long-term and strategically, they understand the benefits (as well as the challenges) of global trade and investment, and recognise the value of strong international ethics, cooperation and institutions. In many countries this entails an increasing coalition of socio-liberals as the new progressives, which explains the sometimes inelegant scramble to claim the ‘middle-ground’ by most mainstream parties of left and right. This process is already much advanced in the UK under New Labour, but is also starting to happen in Denmark as shown by the Social Democrats’ recent election of their current leader rather than a more ‘left-wing’ opponent. It also explains the outwardly contradictory, and frustrating for many, good relations between Tony Blair and the Danish Liberal Prime Minister, which goes somewhat wider than their joint support for the Iraq War. Although the Social Democrats remain much closer to the ideals and policies of New Labour, for example in terms of social justice and the welfare state, many of the more liberal and market-oriented New Labour policies are being copied by the current Danish right-of-centre Government, often, it must also be said, without strong opposition from the Social Democrats.

A striking example of current upheavals around the progressive centre of Danish politics is the formation in early May 2007 of a new political party called ‘New Alliance’, which is drawing in some well respected politicians from a number of existing parties, including a few Social Democrats. It is interesting to note that almost all the politicians leaving the established right block parties cite frustration and anger at their erstwhile parties’ current dependence on the support of the Peoples’ Party as the main cause.

On the other side of the circle, we see a growing coalition of populists, previously at the margins of left and right whose voters tend to be less well educated, more introvert, insecure and intolerant of difference, and who see politics and the world generally more black-and-white, them- and-us, and think short term and more fearfully of the future. In the 21^st Century, it is access to and use of knowledge which is starting to define politics and political allegiance, rather than ownership of capital. Thus, many of the shrinking number of lower paid traditional working classes, who used to vote Labour in the UK and Social Democrat in Denmark, are being drawn to the BNP/UKIP and the Peoples’ Party respectively.

These developments are taking place at the same time as a general loosening of party allegiances across the political spectrum, not least illustrated by lower voting at elections and lower membership of parties in most of Europe. There is much talk of the ‘democratic deficit’ and loss of trust in politicians and the political process. But this does not mean there is less political engagement, rather that new forms are surfacing. The last twenty to thirty years have seen the rise of single issue grass-roots political involvement, starting with the environment and ban the bomb, but extending today to a very broad spectrum of often contradictory single issue groups from anti-blood sports and animal rights, to car owner blockades and the countryside alliance in the UK, and anarchist groups in Denmark. More recently, mobile phones and the Internet have provided powerful tools for small dispersed groups to organise and undertake real-time as well as longer term political action. Many of these single issue groups disappear almost as soon as they are established, in many cases because their original grievance has been meet or is no longer relevant, but their impact on the political agenda is increasing.

And, this is no bad thing as it reflects an increasing and healthy tendency for bottom-up, do-it-yourself politics which can engage a wider range of people if only for a relatively short period. As the examples given above show, it is possible to divide many of these movements into either progressive or populist. The challenge for organised progressive politics is to engage with, nurture and exploit these developments, without trying to take them over. In some ways it is a return to the older semi-anarchism of the founding days of trades unionism and the creativity and vitality this gave to left of centre parties, although today the issues are vastly different now that these earlier goals have largely been achieved. The time is now ripe for a re-newal of such creativity and vitality. Indeed, the current more fragmented and networked developments can also be seen within the established political parties themselves, with an increasing number of politicians crossing between parties in both Denmark and the UK, and the greater dissent (read healthy policy debate) being tolerated within the party umbrella.

Progressive political parties need to recognise and respond positively to these challenges. They should hold on to the notion that political movements must, as now, be coalitions of compromise across the full range of issues, as this, after all, is the very essence of our successful democracies which recognise that trade-offs must always be made and that responsibilities for decisions must be widely shared. But, they must also recognise the new political realities of progressive realignment, and a looser networked form of engagement, which can incorporate single issue enthusiasm, but bend it to a wider more holistic and integrative policy dynamic, necessary in a globalised and knowledge society.

Politics is thus in flux, and not just in Denmark and the UK. Left-right, progressive-populist, and single issue-networked politics, are all important ingredients of the new political sea of democracy heaving around us. The Danish Social Democrats and New Labour, together with other progressive parties across Europe and globally, have much to teach each other, but also much new to learn in partnership in order to successfully navigate this uncharted ocean.

Jeremy Millard

LI Country Correspondent -- Denmark

May 2007