Transcript Lessons from the study of power and democracy in Denmark Jørgen Goul Andersen Aalborg University Nordic Workshop on Democracy University of Iceland, Jan.

Lessons from the study of
power and democracy in Denmark
Jørgen Goul Andersen
Aalborg University
Nordic Workshop on Democracy
University of Iceland, Jan. 30-31, 2014.
Lessons …
1. General background
2. Previous Nordic Power studies and their
contributions
3. Danish and Norwegian Power study 19982003. Accomplishments – and highly
different conclusions!
4. What did we learn + How should changes be
interpreted? What did we do wrong? What
did we forget?
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
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
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
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
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)
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 (nondemocratic/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...)
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
Lotta Lounasmeri, ”’Power Investigation’ Neglected: The Case of the Finnish Newspaper Helsingin Sanomat”, 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 & Lise Togeby (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 Policy Vol.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.
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
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
Parliamentary Chain of Governance
(with an extra arrow, JGA)
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.
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.
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 democray as 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 inequality around the top of the priority list
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
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.
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.
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!
Decline of democracy in Norway and happy days
in Denmark? Highly different conclusions
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
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
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?
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)
Thank you very much!
• - 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. (also
english version)
Teacher conflict 2013