Lessons from the study of power and democracy in Denmark

1. Jørgen Goul AndersenAalborg UniversityNordic Workshop on Democracy University of Iceland, Jan. 30-31, 2014. Lessons from the study of power and democracy in Denmark

2. Lessons … • General background • Previous Nordic Power studies and their contributions • Danish and Norwegian Power study 1998-2003. Accomplishments – and highly different conclusions! • What did we learn + How should changes be interpreted? What did we do wrong? What did we forget?

3. Strong Democracies in the Nordic Countries Longest Tradition • 900- Løgtingið. Faroe Islands • 930- Alþingi. Iceland • 1814- Democratic Constitution in Norway • 1849- Democratic Constitution in Denmark

4. Strong Democracies ... • Unusually strong mass parties and interest associations • High participation – high equality in participation • High civic literacy – engagement, knowledge • High trust in politicians who are incorrupt and democratically accountable • Strong governments resting on a belief in “The Possibility of Politics”(Ringen, 2006) • Low poverty rates, relatively high equality, relatively high gender equality • Rich economies with the capacity and willingness to ensure welfare and full citizenship of all citizens

5. Troubling observations and challenges in several/most modern democracies … • Decline of Parliament? (debated since the 1960s) • Declining party membership • Declining electoral participation • Declining political trust • Weakening of voluntary associations • Growth in big corporations • Changes in the media structure

6. Some “new” challenges ... • European integration • Economic globalization • Internationalization, more generally • Changes in decision making structures • Immigration and multiculturalism • Individualisation • Decline of class-based politics / broken linkage between social groups and political parties

7. Even newer challenges … • Increasing inequality, higher levels of poverty since the 1990s • Concentration of income/wealth (and power?) at the top since the 1990s • Growth in “populist” parties all over Europe since the 1990s (heterogeneous family with some very black sheep)

8. Parliamentary decision makers’ motives for having a Power and Democracy study in Denmark… • Inspiration from Norway and Sweden • Concern about political parties (+ could be used as an argument for higher economic support from the state) • Concern about loss of political power from democratically elected parliament to other (non-democratic/less democratic) bodies • Had anybody “stolen” power from the parliament – who had done it, what had they used it for, how could the power of parliament be reinstalled? (+ lobbyism by entrepreneurs from the social science community...but the entrepreneurs were not appointed...)

9. Previous power projects in Norway (1972-1980) and Sweden (1985-1990)… and an unknown Danish replication (1978-1982) Ole P. Kristensen (1981). ”Norwegian Power: A Review of a Research Project”, European Journal of Political Research, vol. 9 (4), pp. 433-440. Journal of Contemporary European Studies Vol. 21 (3), 2013 Ainur Elmgren & Norbert Götz, ”Power Investigation: The Political Culture of Nordic Self-Understanding: Introduction”, pp. 338-340. Norbert Götz, ”Introspective Performance: The Scandinavian Power Investigation as a Politico-Cultural Practice”, pp. 341-356 Carl Marklund, ”From the Swedish Model to the Open Society: The Swedish Power Investigation and the Power to Investigate Power, 1985–1990”, pp. 357-371 Ann-Cathrine Jungar, ”Three Nordic Power Investigations on the Repercussions of the European Union on Sovereignty and Democracy”, pp. 372-381 LottaLounasmeri, ”’Power Investigation’ Neglected: The Case of the FinnishNewspaperHelsinginSanomat”, pp. 382-395. Ainur Elmgren, ”Power and Society in Finland: Change and Continuity”, pp. 397-412. Scandinavian Political Studies , vol-29 (1), 2006. Christiansen, Peter Munk & LiseTogeby (2006). ” Power and democracy in Denmark: Still a viable democracy”,1-24. Østerud, Øyvind & Per Selle (2006). ”Power and Democracy in Norway: The Transformation of Norwegian Politics”, 25–46. Lindvall, Johannes & Bo Rothstein (2006). ” Sweden: The Fall of the Strong State”, 47 –63. Journal of European Public PolicyVol.13 (4). 2006 Urban Strandberg ”Introduction: Historical and theoretical perspectives on Scandinavian political systems”, pp. 537-550 Per Selle & Øyvind Østerud ”The eroding of representative democracy in Norway”, pp 551-568 Jørgen Goul Andersen ”Political power and democracy in Denmark: decline of democracy or change in democracy?”, pp 569-586 Erik Amnå ”Playing with fire? Swedish mobilization for participatory democracy” pp 587-606 Sørensen, Curt (2004). ”Magt og demokrati på norsk og dansk”, GRUS 71, 103-118. Goul Andersen, Jørgen et al. (2004). ”Replik til Nils Bredsdorff, Gorm Harste og Ulf Hedetoft”, GRUS 71, 93-98. Bredsdorff, Nils (2004). ”Læsninger i udredninger af magten”, GRUS 71, 7-38. Harste, Gorm (2004). ”Magtudredningens magt – i enevældens skygge?”, GRUS 71, 45-68. Denmark 1978-1982. Erik Damgaard (red.). Folkets veje i Dansk Politik (1980). Dansk demokrati under forandring (1984). And others. Copenhagen: Schultz.

10. Norwegian power study 1972-1980(Gudmund Hernes + Johan P. Olsen) • Really impressive in its conceptual achievements • Guided by organisation theory and what would become new institutionalism • (perhaps slightly less impressive in its empirical findings) • Described the corporatism of the Norwegian society • New concepts and analyses of the negotiated economy, segmentation and routine politics, corresponding with the notion of corporatism • New concept of Grass-root actions - or ad hoc participation - as an independent form of political participation - and partly as an effect of segmentation and routine politics that would leave some issues outside • The issue of the media-distorted society

11. Norwegian power study …Parliamentary Chain of Governance An ideal type which, roughly speaking, summarizes democracy according to the constitution: • Parliament is elected by universal suffrage and responsible to the people; • Government is responsible to Parliament • The government controls the Administration. • The Administration is apolitical, carries out the law, directed by the minister, and bureaucrats cannot take any action unless the law grants them the right to do so - the principle of legality. In short, the parliamentary chain of governance describes the rights of democratic accountability

12. Parliamentary Chain of Governance (with an extra arrow, JGA)

13. Parliamentary Chain of Governance- ideal or ideal type? • As an ideal type, the parliamentary chain of governance is extremely well suited for describing all sorts of deviance, like corporatism etc. • However, the ideal type never existed - not a description of the past. (All sorts of other actors had influence 100 years ago, and the early welfare state was a bunch of strange mixes between public and private insurance arrangements). • It is an ideal type, not an ideal. It sketches a somewhat elitist model of democracy that does not grant the people very much influence in-between the elections. • Subconsciously, the ideal type may be perceived both at an ideal and as something real. Risk of comparing current reality with an idealised/distorted image of a golden age.

14. A small Danish replication 1978-1982 • I happened to be a member of a smaller Danish "power project" 1978-1982 which actually replicated a good deal of the data collection of the Norwegian project • Most significant finding: wherever we sought to measure power perceptions, we always found the feeling among all types of actors that "power belongs to the others" (Damgaard, 1980) • Reflected a basic pluralism, but it also reflected that political actors always feel the constraints to their power or influence.

15. The Swedish Power Study 1985-1990(Olof Petersson et al.) Most important new ideas: • Studied political participation and political culture under the headline of Citizenship. • Introduced the notion of Small-scale democrayas a way of describing influence in daily life, at the workplace, in public service institutions, etc. • It illuminated the limits of state power and planning – and some alienating and disempowering effects of the big welfare state (the people's home). • It emphasized the "soft" forms of power such as the power of discourse and ideas • Gender inequalityaround the top of the priority list  

16. The Danish and Norwegian Power Studies 1998-2003 Conceptually perhaps less innovative But the problems addressed were new: - effect of economic globalisation - Europeanization - political internationalisation - immigration - individualisation - concentration of economic power - Marketization - medialisation

17. Danish and Norwegian … Economic globalisation: Small, open economies acquainted with international competition. Direct impact on the tax/welfare system, or on equality, is exaggerated – or globalization is used as blame avoidance. Slight disagreement regarding impact on equality. Denmark: Inequality attributable to political decisions. Tax competition does not lead to a "race to the bottom”. Lower ambition of macroeconomic steering, and fewer instruments at disposal. But more cautious steering ambitions mostly reflect mainstream economic thinking on what the state should do. Europeanization important. But quantitative accounts exaggerate. A study of some the most important Danish tax/welfare reforms in Denmark revealed insignificant impact of EU – and less concern than previously. Judicialisation observed in both countries. Norwegian project emphasized the growth of international law out of reach of parliamentary control, for instance human rights.

18. market has gained in overall importance. Not only vis-à-vis the state, but also in the management of the state, e.g. privatization, outsourcing and new public management (NPM). The Norwegian project spoke of a certain "hollowing out of the (nation-) state" – vis-à-vis supra-national bodies level, and vis-à-vis the market. Some would prefer to speak of multi-level governance. Development/change rather than decline.

19. Three priority areas of Danish project Immigration. Changed the political conflict structure. Generated new forms of inequality. Full citizenship (=participation) of immigrants becomes a central democratic concern Studies of Political Decision-Making Processes. Used to be rare in Danish pol.science. Utterly important for assessment of power and democracy More Diversified studies of Media and Media impact. Beyond the “media distorted society”. Assess highly different situations and aspects, including: - Campaign Journalism (resembling the picture of media distortion) - Routine Journalism (the importance of news criteria and news routines) - Interaction between politicians using media and media using politicians. Mutually beneficial relationship. Media cannot do much without political conflict - Reception of information from media, and influence on citizens: Citizens’ competence increase - The influence of media on key political decisions: Utterly UN-important – and sometimes absent – when big political decisions are made. Little impact on political agenda!

20. Decline of democracy in Norway and happydays in Denmark? Highlydifferentconclusions Why such different assessment? 1. Increasing deviation from the parliamentary chain of governance? • Norway: Much deviation. Denmark: Net changes.not very big • the Danish and Norwegian situation is different. Denmark has been the political forerunner in Scandinavia. In building modern political institutions. And in dismantling them! - Decline in party membership & identification - Decline in political trust, increase in electoral volatility - But 1990-2007 Denmark= most stable and trustful polity. - Weak minority governments came early in Denmark. decision makers learn to govern anyway! - European Union constraints not new in Denmark - Denmark is a MEMBER: EU is multi level democracy. Should nation state level be THAT privileged? • Too high political trust, participation, satisfaction with democracy etc. In Denmark. Data was a too strong enemy for a really critical conclusion! Bad for social scientists

21. 2. Should the Parliamentary Chain of Governance be the normative Standard of Evaluation? • Perhaps one of the key differences between the Norwegian and the Danish assessments • In my view the parliamentary chain of governance is an ideal type. Should not serve as an ideal • not an adequate description of the past - idealised past / golden age problem • Biased standard for assessing change. Can hardly avoid seeing decline. • Alternatively, one could take multilevel governance as the point of departure: • Not ask whether the nation-state has lost power • but whether there is adequate democratic control at the other levels of governance. • Decisions at a European level might even improce democracy, if this level provides the capacity to deal with cross-national problems.Democracy also has an efficiency dimension. • But obvious democratic deficits in multilevel governance processes

22. The parliamentary chain of governance leaves little space for active participation of citizens. Only emphasis on electoral participation or participation in political parties This is perhaps not even the most important aspects of citizen participation anymore 1. Making comparisons over time, we should ask about functional equivalence. If something disappears, what replaces it? E.g. • What has happened to the linkage between political decision makers and the citizens? • Does increased participation at the outcome side compensate decreased participation at the input side of politics? Are there new forms of participation building up to replace those forms that decline? 2. Should we apply new democratic criteria: Deliberation, participation, dialogue, responsive government, to take some examples. Is there a public debate? The parliamentary chain of governance has nothing to say about this – it does not even provide any criteria of assessment. 3. Does the increased speed of change in decision making (pertinent in Denmark) constitute a new democratic problem? Speed does not run counter to the parliamentary chain of governance. High-speed processes rather an indicator of a strengthening of the parliamentary chain of governance – fewer obstacles, e.g. interest groups, to veto a decision. But is that desirable?

23. What did we miss? • Asked the wrong question? Did anybody take power from democratically elected bodies? Largely: No. But we did not ask frequently enough: What did the democratically elected bodies do with the power? E.g. (1) Policy failure like in Iceland (and Denmark): How come? (2) Lack of dialogue & understanding with surrounding society? Etc. • Concerned about poverty problems, but did not focus on the accumulation of wealth in the upper circles. Like Hacker & Pierson Winner take all economics – not the same in Scandinavia, but how can this be avoided. C.f. Pikkety’s latest work on the increasing incompability of capitalism and democracy (and a lot of works of economists Pikkety, Saez, Atkinson, as well as increasing OECD & IMF concern about inequality getting out of control)

24. Thank you verymuch!

25. - Togeby, Lise et al. (2003). Magt og demokrati i Danmark – hovedresultater fra Magtudredningen. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag. • - Togeby, Lise et al. (2003). Demokratiske udfordringer. Kort udgave af magtudredningens hovedresultater. Aarhus:Magtudredningen. (alsoenglish version)

27. Teacherconflict 2013