In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

3 ✦ Change and Challenges of Danish Parliamentary Democracy E R I K D A M G A A R D Denmark is the oldest of the Nordic states, with a continuous history of sovereignty that goes back more than a thousand years. It also has one of the world’s oldest continuous monarchies. Although Denmark experienced the longest period of royal absolutism (1660–1849) of the Nordic states, it has gradually evolved, since 1849, into a constitutional monarchy that exhibits many of the most typical features of parliamentary democracy. Today, European integration, an unrivaled tendency toward minority parliamentarism , and an increasingly vigorous form of direct democracy pose new challenges for this very old and well-established state. The Danish constitution (1953) does not use the term citizen sovereignty, but it is generally recognized that “the sovereign people” is the ultimate basis of the Danish system of representative government (Sørensen 1973). Although citizens are regarded as the ultimate principal, they do not have the right to recall elected representatives. In addition, an imperative mandate is explicitly ruled out by the constitution (Section 56), which states, “The members of the Folketing shall be bound solely by their own consciences and not by any directions given by their electors.” The original constitution (of 1849) introduced a separation-of-powers political system (formally still in force) in which legislative authority was to be vested in the king and parliament conjointly, while executive authority was to rest with the king and judicial authority in the courts of justice. After a protracted political struggle, this Madisonian system was modified by the introduction of the Westminster idea of cabinet accountability to the lower chamber of parliament (Folketinget) in 1901. Since that time, a legislative majority can control lawmaking as well as cabinet formation and dismissal. The story of Danish parliamentary democracy since World War II must 67 necessarily include a discussion of three changes or transformations that, to some extent, are interrelated: the consolidation of minority rule, a reduction (in some respects) in the power of established parties, and greater external constraints on parliamentary actors in general. It must also include a discussion of several specific changes to the various steps, or links, of delegation and accountability in the parliamentary chain of governance. Traditionally, the scholarly literature treated minority cabinets as abnormal or unfortunate deviations from healthier and stable majority cabinets consisting of one or more coherent parties (Herman and Pope 1973; Taylor and Laver 1973; Laver and Schofield 1990). A successful counterattack on that approach was initiated by Kaare Strøm (1990) and others (cf. Bergman 1995; Damgaard 2000b), who argued that the formation of minority cabinets can often be a sensible result of rational party behavior in competitive situations and that minority cabinets are not necessarily inferior in terms of political and economic performance compared with majority cabinets. Strøm argued that such is the case in the Scandinavian countries . This is particularly true for Denmark, which holds the world record for incidence of minority cabinets among parliamentary democracies since 1945 (Mitchell 2001). Majority coalitions were not unknown in Denmark in the 1950s and 1960s (Damgaard 1992), but since the early 1970s, there have been no such cabinets, except for a short interlude of about 18 months in the early 1990s (the first Nyrup Rasmussen cabinet of 1993–94; cf. Damgaard 2000a). Danish minority cabinets are not only controlled by the power of noncabinet parties but also constrained by various national and international institutions and actors external to the parliamentary chain of governance. Referendums, mass media, the courts, the central bank, independent state enterprises, international actors, and, not least, the European Union (EU) have assumed increasing importance in Danish political decision making. In some instances (e.g., referendums), these developments do not reduce citizen control of the political process. However, in other cases (e.g., the EU) they clearly do, although they may simultaneously reinforce other forms of citizen control, protect human rights, or promote particular interests in some respects. A number of changes in the parliamentary chain of delegation and accountability are also quite visible and important. Parties, despite important changes, continue to be key actors in mass politics, parliament, and executive cabinets, so the first section of this chapter will present the main features of the Danish parties and party system. The second section focuses on the actors and institutions (voters, parliament, cabinet, civil servants) in the con68 ✦ T H E M A D I S O N I...

Share