Hej to members of the Scandinavian Politics list,
The debate about the cartoons crisis continues in Sweden. On the radio this morning, an MP from the Liberals, the only Swedish party to have even half-defended the Danish government's handling of it, clashed with a vetaren politician from the Greens, who was fiercely critical. The debate illuminated a rather fascinating divide in Sweden about the limits of free expression, which some here clearly regard as both flexible and dependent on the aims of the person or organisation exercising it.
Denmark, however, is obviously at the epicentre of the crisis. Below is a summary and analysis that emphasises Danish domestic politics. It's written by Flemming Juul Christiansen of the Department of Political Science, Aarhus University.
-----
In the last few weeks Denmark has been in the centre of an international crisis. Nordic embassies have been burned. Other embassies have been evacuated. Here, however, I will mainly consider domestic aspects of the crisis.
The 12 cartoons were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllandsposten on September 30th 2005. The purpose was to show that the newspaper did not impose self-censorship. Shortly before, it had only been possible to illustrate a book told for children on the Koran and the life of Muhammad if the illustrator was granted anonymity. The book, authored by Kåre Bluitgen, was published January 2006. Jyllandsposten is the only national, broadsheet daily based outside Copenhagen, in Aarhus. The views expressed by the newspaper are generally clearly marked right-wing, including on immigration, and mostly supportive of the present centre-right government.
In October a group of 11 ambassadors from the Muslim world asked for a meeting with the prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. The wanted him to take legal steps against the newspaper, but Rasmussen refused to schedule such a meeting, arguing that he could not interfere with Danish freedom of speech, protected by the constitution. (In fact, the press historically falls under a portfolio belonging to the office of the prime minister.) The prime minister also refused to comment on the drawings. In January the public prosecutor found no reason to believe the newspaper had broken the criminal code on blasphemy.
I guess it should be noted that, at this point, there seemed to be a general public mood that foreign involvement was not appropriate, especially not from a group of countries run as dictatorships with limited freedom of speech. Debate on the appropriateness of the cartoons was on the rise. But few questioned the right of Jyllandsposten to print them, only the wisdom of doing it.
Meanwhile, municipal elections took place. They resulted overall, in a Social Democratic victory, with 34% support. The drawings did not seem to play any important role in the election campaign.
In December a group of retired Danish diplomats criticized the prime minister for his stance. So did Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, a former newspaper editor and TV journalist, minister of foreign affairs in 1982-1993 and predecessor of the prime minister as leader of the Liberal Party. So too did parts of the opposition.
In his traditional new years’ speech, with more than a million viewers, the prime minister stressed the importance of not offending religious feelings, but most of all he insisted on freedom of speech and a tradition of open debate using satire. Overall, the speech was seen as moderation on the part of the prime minister to calm things down. The night before, the queen had stressed similar topics.
But it only worked for a while. Most likely initiated by visits from Danish imams to Middle Eastern countries, protests and boycotts of Danish products began. The major Danish-Swedish dairy Arla was severely hit and Danish Industry – a major branch organization – began to protest. Later followed the more violent incidents viewed on television.
Since then, the Danish government has taken a more active approach. The prime minister has been on Arab TV channels saying that he would not have condoned such drawings, but he has refused to apologize on behalf of the government, pointing to the freedom of speech. Jyllandsposten has on several occasions apologized for hurting Muslim feelings, but not for printing them in the first place. Now there has been a meeting with all ambassadors to Denmark at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A major domestic reaction to cartoons may have been noted this weekend. An opinion poll printed in Jyllandsposten showed a gain of eight seats for the Danish People’s Party (DF), to 32, and a loss of nine seats for the Social Democrats, to 38 (21%). The difference of the two parties has never been smaller. Support for the two parties in government remained unchanged.
This opinion poll is the only one yet showing such dramatic trends, so it remains to be confirmed. In addition, things may calm down in a few months and this topic may become less exposed. But several analysts have pointed out that the Social Democrats have had problems regaining voters once they have been lost to DF. The two parties share a group of voters with relatively low education and often ‘right-wing’ views on ‘new-politics’ issues such as immigration and crime. If the trend in the opinion poll represents a more permanent realignment, the government’s chance of winning the next election has increased. It would, however, more dependent on DF.
Other opinion polls have shown that Danes have a more nuanced view of the incidents. In Berlingske Tidende, 56% understood that Muslims were offended by the drawings. It also showed belief in the idea of combining Islam with democracy. Yet other opinion polls have shown that 79% felt that the prime minister should not apologize; 58% thought it was the right of the newspaper to print the drawings, but at the same time understand Muslim feelings was hurt.
Throughout these events, the prime minister has had a domestic level to consider – namely, public opinion plus the government's support party, DF. At some point, pressure rose on the international level; but the government has never had a free hand to apologize for the drawings too explicitly, even if it had wanted to. It has been a Putnamesque two-level game. The prime minister seems to have followed the line of the public, though only on the domestic level.
The opposition has generally supported the defence of freedom of speech, but it has attempted to criticize the government’s handling of the affair. The government and DF has also been blamed for creating a ‘climate’ for such drawings with its very strict policies on immigration.
A major incident occurred in question time in parliament two weeks ago. The prime minister clashed with Social Democratic leader Helle Thorning-Schmidt, as well as one of her predecessors, the vetaren Svend Auken, who is associated with the left wing of the party. This broke a ‘ceasefire’ agreed the day before. It has been noted by political journalists, however, that the government provoked the Social Democrats and that the prime minister presented himself for question time during the agreed ceasefire.
Some analysts have pointed to this incident as leading to the opinion polls described above. For my part, I am more inclined to believe that the general exposure of this topic has had an effect on a section of Social Democratic voters. During the crisis, DF has deliberately chosen a low profile, probably in order to support the government. In addition, and as the polls show, DF ‘owns’ this issue. However, the DF leader, Pia Kjærsgaard, has labelled the imams who travelled to the Middle East as ‘traitors’.
Another major long term effect can happen if Denmark at some point is hit by terrorist attacks. Denmark is also present in Iraq and Afghanistan as US allies. This cartoon crisis could bring Denmark, and maybe also other Nordic
countries, to the fore in the minds of fanatics.
The debate has also revealed that Danish Muslims are not as coherent as a group as is often conceived in the press. It is a very mixed group about which we lack knowledge.
-----
Best,
Nick Aylott.
--
Dr Nicholas Aylott, senior lecturer (docent) | Department of Political Science, Umeå University | SE-901 87, Sweden | www.pol.umu.se
Please feel free to forward this message to anyone who might be interested.
To join the Scandinavian Politics mailing list, send a message to me, the convenor (nicholas.aylott@pol.umu.se). If you want to send something to the list, or if you don't want to receive these occasional messages, just let me know. See also www.psa.ac.uk/spgrp/scandinavia/
