 |
Features The Emperor's New Clothes: The Danish General Election 2001 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ECPR Central
Services |
The emperor's new clothes: the Danish general election of 20 November, 2001Mads Qvortrup The Danish general election of 20 November 2001, held at the same time as the municipal and county elections, marked a turning point in Danish electoral history. Staunchly supportive of the welfare state, the three Scandinavian countries, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, have traditionally supported the Social Democrats - the largest party in all three countries since the 1920s. The election in Denmark broke this tradition. A massive swing to the main bourgeois party, Venstre (the Liberals), allowed the latter to overtake the Social Democrats and to secure a majority for the rightist parties for the first time since 1929 (Table 1). Within hours of losing the election, outgoing Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen found himself handing over power to another Rasmussen, Venstre's leader and former minister of taxation and economic affairs, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Table 1: The election result
Source: Ministry of the Interior The campaign The campaign focussed less on economic policies (there were no major differences between the two blocks) than on what was dubbed the 'immigration crisis', that is, the growing Muslim population in the country. According to the press, the campaign was the most negative one ever. The voters in the countless polls - more than ever a central feature of modern election campaigns - supported this assessment. Anders Fogh Rasmussen entered the campaign well ahead of the incumbent Prime Minister. The latter, who had held office since 1993, was supported by his own Social Democrats, by the junior coalition partner, the Social Liberals (Radikale), and by the two socialist parties, the Socialist People's Party and the far-left Unity List (a coalition of former Communist, Trotskyist, and left-wing socialist parties). Anders Fogh Rasmussen was supported by his own party, Venstre, and its traditional ally, the Conservative Party. He could further rely on conditional support from the right-wing (some would say xenophobic) Danish People's Party, the even more right-wing (and openly xenophobic) Progress Party, the centrist Centre Democrats and the socially conservative - but economically progressive - Christian People's Party. While Fogh (all Danish names end in 'sen', so most politicians are known by their middle names) was all but certain he would win a majority, it remained an open question whether he would be able to unite the rightist and the centrist parties. The Centre Democrats had openly denounced the Danish People's Party as racists, a charge that had been repeated by the Christian People's Party. However, and this was Fogh's problem, the opinion polls (at least initially) indicated that he had to bring these parties together if they were to challenge the incumbent centre-left coalition. The Centre Democrats, who had entered the Folketinget (Parliament) in 1973, had split before the election, when the party's colourful spokesperson for foreign affairs, Mr Arne Melchior (the former chief rabbi's older brother) had supported Israel's shooting of alleged terrorists. This departed from the party line. The party responded by removing him from the Foreign Affairs Committee, an action to which he himself responded by resigning the whip. These difficulties pushed the party to below two per cent in the opinion polls, thus threatening the prospects of an overall bourgeois majority. Struggling for her political life, party-leader Mimi Jacobsen campaigned on a pro-immigration platform, thus antagonising most bourgeois parties, as well as the Social Democrats who wanted tighter immigration controls. Immigration was the most significant issue in the campaign. Yet, there was precious little to distinguish the camps from each other. Karen Jespersen - a former Marxist turned immigrant-bashing minister of the interior - had introduced considerable restrictions since her appointment in 2000. Venstre, sensing the salience of the issue, as well as the public's discontent with the Government's policies, sought to capitalise on the anti-immigration feeling. Exploiting the public outrage that followed the acquittal of three oriental men suspected of group rape, the party published a poster showing the men leaving court, with the accompanying message, 'this will not be tolerated once Venstre gets in'. The poster stirred controversy, but earned Venstre more supporters. The ruling coalition had wanted to fight a campaign on the Government's economic record and on what they described as the Prime Minister's skilled and diplomatic handling of the war on terrorism. An accomplished diplomat, Poul Nyrup has impeccable French, German and English - skills that earned him respect among the voting public, but not votes. His efforts were overshadowed by Venstre's relentless criticism of the Government's immigration policy. The same was true of the Government's repeated assurances concerning sound economic prospects - at a time when other countries seemed to be headed for recession. Psephologists Martin Paldam and Peter Nannestad have previously shown that Danish elections tend to be won on the Government's economic record (Paldam and Nannestad, 1994). Not so this time it seems. Having snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the election in 1998, Venstre's leader was determined not to succumb to the same tactical blunders, those of letting the Government set the agenda. Hence the party's focus on the immigration issue. Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, a self-styled comeback kid, took heart from his triumph in 1998, when he - rather like John Major in Britain in 1992 - had defied the polls and won - notwithstanding the predictions of the pundits. Insisting that he could repeat the feat, he travelled the country warning of the 'dangers of letting Venstre's cavemen dismantle the welfare state'. His fate was rather like that of John Major. Focusing attention on From the Social State to the Minimal State, a libertarian book written by his opponent a decade previously, Nyrup warned that Venstre would introduce a Nozick-style minimal state along with Hayek-like public policies. These philosophical subtleties were lost on the Danish electorate. Rather than defending themselves, Venstre spokespersons piled on allegations concerning the Government's supposed sins of omission in the area of immigration policies, while Fogh, now appearing as a born-again believer in the welfare state, promised extra spending on the health services. The Social Democrats' warnings that 'would-be emperor Fogh was as naked as a fairy-tale figure', failed to convince the voters. Realising that the voters were failing to believe the Social Democrats' dire predictions of 'run-amok libertarianism', an increasingly desperate Nyrup resorted to tearing up Fogh's book during a live television broadcast. Politiken, an otherwise staunchly Social Democratic newspaper, condemned the act as 'silly'. The campaign was unusually presidential, and focussed almost exclusively on the 'two Rasmussens'. This squeezed the smaller parties, and ultimately resulted in the demise of the Centre Democrats. Yet, with the exception of the Danish People's Party, even the medium-sized parties seem to suffer from the clash of the two largest parties. The Socialist People's party - a medium-sized socialist party with blackmail potential aspiring to acquire coalition potential (to use Sartori's terminology) - found it difficult to get access to the media. The same was true of the Conservative party. Having been the second-largest party in the Folketinget in the 1980s, under the then Prime Minister Poul Schlüter, the party had suffered from internal divisions - mainly based on personal disagreements. Having suffered a catastrophic defeat in the general election of 1998, the leader Per Stig M?ller had been replaced by Pia Christmas-Moller, a technically able - though hardly charismatic - leader, whose main asset was that she was the niece of the legendary leader and wartime hero John Christmas-Moller (who had been leader of the Conservatives in the 1930s and 1940s). Following several attempted coup de palaces, Pia Christmas-Moller resigned in 1999, leaving the leadership to Bendt Bendtsen. While the former policeman secured law and order in the unruly party, he failed to improve its share of the vote, thus prompting newspaper columnists to suggest that the party would face oblivion at the next election. Predictions of this kind are almost always completely implausible. It is noteworthy that in 1975, Venstre more than doubled its vote share to take forty seats, while the Conservatives slipped back to a mere six MPs. Ten years later, the Conservatives had risen to forty-two seats, while a dwindling Venstre had shrunk to become the fourth largest party. Traditional allies and coalition partners, Venstre and the Conservatives are also bitter electoral rivals. They can only make electoral gains at each other's expense. Not all small parties suffered from the clash of the titans. The Danish People's Party capitalised on the focus on immigration. The same, though for the opposite reason, was true of the Social Liberals. Having been severely critical of its coalition partner's stance on the immigration issue, the party leader Marianne Jelved was free to speak her mind during the campaign. In a campaign dominated by semi-xenophobic statements, the Social Liberals, or Radikale, fielded several candidates of oriental origin and emphasised the benefits of a multicultural society. This was a courageous decision that paid off, especially as some disillusioned middle-class voters decided to vote for the Radikale The Outcome Both the campaign and the election outcome were historic. The Social Democrats, the dominant force in Danish politics for more than 100 years, had been relegated to second place. It was not the first time that they - the party with the highest number of party identifiers - had been behind in the polls. However, they had always been able to mobilise support and crawl back. The Conservatives had been ahead of the Social Democrats in 1984 and 1987 but had failed to beat them to the number one spot. Not so this time. Venstre and the Social Democrats entered the campaign neck and neck. However, unanticipated by experts and the Social Democrats' strategists, the governing party failed to win the election. It is interesting from a theoretical point of view that the turnout broke new records. At the previous election in 1992 it had been eighty-two per cent. This time it was a stunning eighty-seven per cent. It is also interesting that the exit polls indicate that the Social Democrats' core supporters defected to Venstre in large numbers, although a majority of them indicated that this had been a means of registering a protest. These factors seem to suggest that the election was - to use the terminology of the Michigan-school - a deviating election (Campbell et. al., 1960). Short-term forces, in this case immigration, caused Social Democratic party identifiers to lend their votes to Venstre. Given this interpretation, it is far from certain that Venstre will be able to repeat the feat come the next election. The process of government formation is typically slow and cumbersome in multiparty democracies and in the present instance the process was almost as historic as the outcome of the election. As predicted, Anders Fogh Rasmussen formed a Liberal-Conservative minority government. Saved from the embarrassment of having to rely upon the votes of the openly xenophobic Progress Party, the new Prime Minister did not find it difficult to win support in the Folketinget. Meanwhile the Social Democrats claimed, in the words of the outgoing minister for the environment, Svend Auken, that this was 'the most right-wing government since 1929'. While this may be true, it is unlikely that it will pursue a rightist agenda. In the aftermath of the election the new Prime Minister hinted that he would seek long-term co-operation with the Social Liberals. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose! Conclusion It is difficult to gauge the wider implications of events when they occur. It is possible that Venstre's stunning victory, and the Social Democrats' equally spectacular defeat, represent but a momentary exception to the general dominance of the latter party. It seems possible - thought any definite conclusions would be premature - that the Danish general election of 2001 was a deviating election. It is instructive to note that the election bore all the hallmarks of this ideal type, in particular, salient short-term issues, defections of party-identifiers, and a high turnout. Venstre's historic victory does not - at least not automatically - signal that the result was caused by a re-alignment of the electorate. It is also interesting that the outcome did not support the otherwise well-established finding that economic factors determine the outcome of Danish elections. Whether the outcome signifies, in theoretical terms, the resurgence of the Michigan model, the demise of economic voting, or the return of issue voting is an open question. What seems certain, however, is that it is likely to keep psephologists occupied for some years to come. References |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
