2009-04-26

Scandinavian Politics: Icelandic election

Greetings to all on the Scandinavian Politics list.

Yesterday there was an early parliamentary election in Iceland,
occasioned by the collapse in January of the previous government after
extraordinary public demonstrations. Here are some background and some
key points.

* From 1995 the Independence Party, which spans the broad ideological
right in a rather un-Nordic way, had governed in coalition with the
agrarian flavoured Progressive Party. The latter secured the prime
minister's job in 2004.

The Progressive Party did badly in the 2007 election, however.
Afterwards, the social democratic Alliance (the result of a merger in
1999-2000) stepped in to replace it as the Independence Party's
coalition partner. (Such ostensibly "unconnected" coalitions are not
that unusual in Iceland.)

* Then came last autumn's economic catastrophe. The Independence Party
seemed to take most of the popular flak for it, having been in power so
long and having, allegedly, formed unhealthily intimate ties to the
discredited banking elite. (David Oddsson, the party's leader and prime
minister from 1991 to 2004, went straight to being head of the central
bank.)

* After the government's resignation nearly three months ago, an
Alliance minister, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir - or, minus the Icelandic
letters, Johanna Sigurdardottir - took over as prime minister, after
bringing the Left-Green Movement (originally refuseniks from the parties
that formed the Alliance) into government to replace the Independence Party.

* Yesterday the two government parties won the combined left's first
ever parliamentary majority. Predictably, the Independence Party got
hammered, getting its worst-ever score, although it didn't fall behind
the Left-Greens, as some polls had predicted. The Progressive Party did
well, too.

* So too did one new party, the Citizens Movement, formed by people
involved in the protests that saw off the previous government. Its
hastily concocted platform seems to constitute an intriguing sort of
populism, with the sort of demands for more direct democratic mechanisms
(referendums, personal-preference voting, fewer parliamentary seats,
term limits for MPs) that we might recognise from right-wing populists,
but combined with demands for higher taxes rather than public-spending
cuts to pay back Iceland's loan from the IMF. Obervers seem to see the
party as more inclined to the left than to the right. (Source: the
Swedish-language Islandsbloggen.) The right-populist-tinged Liberals, on
the other hand, lost all their seats.

* Of the 63 MPs in the new parliament, 27 are themselves new and 26 are
women. (Source: IceNews.)

* Here are those results in full (plus comparison with the 2007
performance).

Left-Green Movement - 14 seats (+5), 21.7% (+7.4%)
Alliance - 20 seats (+2), 29.8% (+3%)

Citizens Movement - 4 seats (-), 7.2% (-)

Progressive Party - 9 seats (+2), 14.8% (+3.1%)
Liberals - 0 seats (-4), 2.2% (-5.1%)
Independence Party - 16 seats (-9), 23.7% (-12.9%).

turnout: 85.1% (+1.5%)

(Sources: Icelandic National Broadcasting Service, RUV; Parties and
Elections in Europe.)

* Despite their success, it is not absolutely certain that the two
government parties will continue their coalition. For one major issue
divides them: whether Iceland should apply for EU membership. The
Alliance is now strongly in favour of an application, subject to a
referendum; the Left-Greens' opposition to EU membership hardened during
the campaign. The Progressive Party and (in another interesting policy
twist) the Citizens Movement are both pro-EU, meanwhile. With those two
parties jointly holding just one seat fewer than the Left-Greens, the
Alliance might just consider a majority coalition with them instead.
(See a very interesting article on the issue in the Iceland Review Online.)

Once more, we see the EU having a funny effect on Nordic party politics.

* If people with genuine knowledge of Icelandic politics would like to
correct any of the above "analysis", please feel very free to do so.

Nick Aylott.
--
Dr Nicholas Aylott, senior lecturer (docent) in political science
School of Social Sciences, Södertörn University, Stockholm
SE-141 89 Huddinge, Sweden
www.sh.se/statsvetenskap

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@sh.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/scandinavia/

2009-04-24

Scandinavian Politics: our group's future

Dear all on the Scandinavian Politics list,

I don't think anything massively important has happened in Nordic
politics since I last wrote. But I have three notices of a more
administrative character. NOTE: the last one is especially important.


* JOB. Nick Sitter informs me of a job in political economy that's going
at one of his places of work, the Central European University in
Budapest. I attach more details. The deadline for applications is May 16th.


* FUNDING. I've been informed that the PSA will grant us £600 this year
for our activity. This isn't a bad outcome. Please let me know of any
event - workshop, seminar, etc - that you think might deserve some of
these resources.

However, this leads directly on to the third point.


* PSA RELATIONSHIP. I've also been informed by the PSA that three new
demands are to be made by the association of its specialist groups, like
ours. The first, that "all...groups receiving funding [are] to place at
least one announcement in the PSA Newsletter", is unproblematic. The
second, that "all...groups [must] adopt a constitution", is also one we
could live with quite easily.

The third is more awkward, however. "[T]he PSA", we are told, "will now
require that all specialist groups charge membership fees -- and there
must be a discount for current PSA members...Groups may charge whatever
they want. Some may even choose to charge every two years or so. This is
all perfectly acceptable. However, there must be membership fees in
place by 15th April 2010."

I can understand why the PSA might want to insist on membership fees.
Presumably, it wants to make sure that its specialist groups are
sufficiently active to have the capacity to charge fees. It probably
also wants its subsidy to the groups to go largely to PSA members,
rather than to what it might see as free-riders, who benefit from its
munificence without contributing to the association's upkeep.

But I personally am unenthusiastic, to put it very mildly, about the
prospect of changing the Scandinavian Politics group's current structure
into something more formal. The simple reason is that I don't feel I
have the time to administer such a organisation - particularly when I
suspect that the resources that it would generate through fees would be
completely trivial.

So I reckon that the following are the options we have.

1. We bite together, as the Swedes say, and just comply with the PSA's
requirement for membership fees. As I say, though, I really don't want
to do this.

2. We comply, but someone else - ideally, but not absolutely
necessarily, based in Britain - takes over the job of convenor (and
announcement maker, and constitution drafter, and membership-fee
administrator). I would retire as convenor extremely graciously.

3. We ask for some sort of exemption, on the grounds that, as an
area-studies specialist group with members (I use the term loosely) in
lots of different countries, the administrative burden would be
unreasonable (think of all those currencies, for one thing).

4. We resign our formal status as a PSA specialist group and carry on as
we are - that is, basically a list of newsletter authors and recipients,
who occasionally organise panels at the PSA annual conference and other
academic events. Except, of course, that it wouldn't be as we are now,
for the obvious reason that we would lose our annual funding from the
association. Does that really matter? Would anyone really care?

5. We agree that, yes, of course, it's been fun; but things change, etc,
etc; and it's just time that we pursued our interests in Nordic politics
in our own separate ways.

I'm keen to get list members' reactions to these various scenarios. I'll
then make a suggestion to the group about what I think we should do.


Nick Aylott.
--
Dr Nicholas Aylott, senior lecturer (docent) in political science
School of Social Sciences, Södertörn University, Stockholm
SE-141 89 Huddinge, Sweden
www.sh.se/statsvetenskap

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@sh.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/scandinavia/

2009-04-05

Scandinavian Politics. Danish PM, Swedish opposition

Hej to all on the Scandinavian Politics list,

Apologies for the absence of messages recently. Here's one about
developments in Danish and Swedish politics.


1. Probably by the time you read this, DENMARK WILL HAVE A NEW PRIME
MINISTER.

Finance minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen will meet the queen today to
formalise his appointment, minutes after the incumbent since 2001,
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has popped in to submit his resignation. The
reason, as you'll doubtless know, is that Fogh Rasmussen is going to
become NATO's secretary-general. His new job had been thrown into doubt
at the last minute my Turkey's opposition to his candidacy (which,
reportedly, had prompted the German chancellor to threaten Turkey's EU
membership prospects if it wasn't dropped). But after months of rumours
and rather tiresomely unconvincing denials, Fogh Rasmussen's belated
admission late last week of his interest in the NATO job made it clear
that his time at the summit of Danish politics was over.

Løkke Rasmussen, who will also ascend to leadership of the Liberals, is
assured of the support of the other coalition party, the Conservatives,
and of the Danish People's Party, whose backing gives the government a
parliamentary majority.

But the opposition has the wind in its sails. Ten days ago the Social
Liberals, in a fairly historic statement, announced that they hoped to
govern not only with the Social Democrats, as they have often done
before, but also with the Socialist People's Party, which has taken some
hefty strides towards the political mainstream in the last couple of
years. Narrowly ahead in the polls, it will be further emboldened by
Løkke Rasmussen's being less than wildly popular among voters. He's a
more colourful character than his predecessor: he's a smoker who likes a
drink, too - and the latter trait has featured in at least one of the
less than flattering stories about his expense claims.

No election is necessary until late 2011, so Løkke Rasmussen will have
time to make his mark. The resignation on Friday of another colourful
character, welfare minister Karen Jespersen, gives him an early chance
to reshape the cabinet.


2. Meanwhile, things are not going nearly so well for the left-of-centre
OPPOSITION PARTIES IN SWEDEN.

Six months ago, polls put them up to 20 points ahead of the four
centre-right government parties. Since then, that lead has consistently
shrivelled. Yesterday one poll not only put the governing quartet ahead,
it even gave the Moderates, the dominant party in the coalition, a
significant lead over the Social Democrats, whose support has seemingly
collapsed. The economic situation, meanwhile, is disastrous. So what's
going on?

One short-term cause, which the Social Democrats' new secretary-general
has acknowledged, is a desperately embarrassing twist to a controversial
issue that will be familiar in lots of countries - namely, the excessive
rewards claimed by corporate executives. The left-wing parties were
preparing to make hay with the eyebrow-raising pay rises and other
benefits that various bosses, including those of banks in precarious
financial positions, had obtained. But then it emerged that one
particularly grotesque act of self-aggrandisement had occurred in a big
pensions provider, AMF - on whose board sits Wanja Lundby-Wedin, chair
of the trade-union confederation LO and member of the Social Democrats'
executive committee. Her furious protests that she had been mislead by
others in the company over the issue have not won widespread sympathy in
the Swedish media.

But there may be other, longer-term causes of this remarkable turnaround
in political fortunes. One is that it's hard to blame the government for
the main cause of the economic downturn, which is the drastic fall in
demand in Sweden's' main export markets. Unlike in Britain, for example,
the Swedish government's finances were in robust shape when the
recession started to bite. It may be that these considerations have
reinforced Swedish voters' tendency to rally behind their current
leaders in times of crisis.

But yesterday's opinion poll also marks the culmination of a dreadful
period for the Social Democrats' leader, Mona Sahlin.

For a year and a half after the 2006 election, she could do little wrong
- mainly because she hardly did anything at all, at least publicly.
Instead, she kept her head down and concentrated on renewing her party's
policy platform, a task that she delegated to several party commissions.
Then, however, she made her only really big decision so far - and it
looks like it might prove to be a huge mistake.

As I wrote to the list in December, Sahlin stumbled badly when her own
party forced her to include the Left Party in the pre-electoral alliance
that she wanted to form with the Greens. Her initial reason for
excluding the Left was its reluctance to commit itself to existing and
quite restrictive rules on budget finance. That tactic proved
unfortunately timed once nearly all Western governments had decided that
budget discipline is now, as one columnist put it, all very 1990s.

More fundamental, however, is the fact that the three members of this
nascent red-green alliance are - in marked contrast the centre-right
four when they formed their Alliance for Sweden - still quite far apart
ideologically. This was cunningly exposed by the governing parties in
February, when they announced a major policy turn towards nuclear power.
To the dismay of many in her party, but presumably at the behest of her
deeply anti-nuclear alliance partners, Sahlin immediately declared her
continued support for decommissioning the industry, which is not popular
these days among voters. (All three parties have since rowed back from
this a bit.)

Perhaps above all, it has also become increasingly clear that the Social
Democrats have had little to say about the economic crisis. The party's
policy commissions are due to finalise their work only in the run-up to
this autumn's party congress. As the economic context has changed, what
seemed a year ago like patience now looks like paralysis. And now, even
before the party has decided what it thinks about major issues, it needs
to co-ordinate with two other parties with some very different positions.

No wonder Sahlin has cut an unhappy figure recently. The argument that
the party should stick to its traditional strategy of running its own
election campaign and trying to form a government after the vote, rather
than making pre-electoral commitments to govern with other parties, may
just have been right all along.


Have a good Easter.


Nick Aylott.
--
Dr Nicholas Aylott, senior lecturer (docent) in political science
School of Social Sciences, Södertörn University, Stockholm
SE-141 89 Huddinge, Sweden
www.sh.se/statsvetenskap

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@sh.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/scandinavia/

Blog Archive