Nordic Democracy: Endangered by Populist Extremism?

In Finland, the recent election victory (relatively speaking: 19%, tied 2^nd place) of the anti-immigration, anti-EU, anti-establishment party “The True Finns” (Sannfinländarna) has detonated a shock-wave rattling the other member countries of the European Union. The shock is real, to the extent that the new Finnish government has to approve the emergency package for Portugal which the True Finns have made a prime target of their EU critique. How could such “bottom dregs” win an election – in yet another European country? Memories go to Jörg Haider's former glory, of which little is heard nowadays, but the trauma of his party's ascendance to the height of Austrian politics and thus also that of the EU, little more than a decade ago, is a continuing nightmare in Brussels. Gradually, of course, it was found that the world did not come to an end, and the whole thing was brushed off understandingly as something one had to expect from Austrians, given their history.

The Nordics, on the other hand, have long prided themselves on being the most democratic countries in the world, and have also been accepted by many others as such. Even with the rightful claims to democratic excellence of the Americans, the Brits, the Frenchmen and the Dutch, the Nordic countries have a head start in many ways - in Iceland they have the world's oldest parliament still working; the Nordic flora of voluntary associations is about as rich as they come; and they have what many consider to be the world's most advanced welfare societies - despite the struggle in recent years to keep that flagship financially afloat. In all of this, the Nordic Social Democratic parties (variously through history also called Labour or Socialist parties), have been the leading political force everywhere.

Enter the so-called right-wing parties, in Denmark since the 1970s (currently Dansk Folkeparti, last election 14%), in Norway, also since the 1970s (Fremskrittspartiet 23%), even recently in Sweden (Sverigedemokraterna 5%). The oldest of these parties began as tax-protest movements, but all of them criticize the immigration from non-Eurpopean countries as excessive and want less interference from the EU in their country's affairs. They even gain support from many former Social-Democratic voters – what shame for the formerly progressive North!

But are they right-wing? And are they all the same? The label “right-wing” has possibly attached itself to them because they have all targeted the dominance of the social democratic labour parties.

Yet when the Finnish election results were recently published, the Norwegian Fremskrittspartiet's spokesperson disdainfully rejected any comparison with the Finnish party, saying they had rejected approaches for cooperation. “They want a strong state, but we are a liberalistic party”, he says. And indeed, the True Finns look more like a populistic centrist party.  In a recent analytical article in Svenska Dagbladet, Swedish-Finnish political scientist Ann-Cathrine Jungar lays out an illuminating comparison. She regards all of these parties as “center-extreme” rather than right-wing because they all have socio-economic policies typical of centrist positions. Yet she also points out that the “West-Nordic” (Danish, Norwegian) parties have moved in this direction from an originally more liberalistic, anti-tax position whereas the Finnish and Swedish parties had different origins. The True Finns are successors to an agrarian populist movement, while the Swedish party has roots both in anti-tax movements and neo-fascist movements of the 1990s.

Some take this as a danger signal for Sweden. However, I think Sverigedemokraterna's recent success has shown the party it does better with a more democratic profile. One can nevertheless perceive strands of influence here from nationalistic right-wing parties in Europe, emphasizing the need for a strong state, both in the Finnish and the Swedish party. Personally I would also regard the Norwegian party as mainly a rightist anti-tax, small-government party. Such differences are nuances, but not without significance.

In any case, all of these parties are strongly critical of the immigration policies of the EU and their own countries, regarding both this and the never-ending stream of money to foreign aid as pure waste that should have been channelled to the country's own citizens instead.

Here is where the establishment Social Democrats raise their charges of “fremmedfientlighet” / ”främlingsfientlighet” (xenophobia) and extremism. Controllers of the incumbent political correctness in the Nordic world for half a century, they dislike being challenged on their generosity, and strike back with the labels above and that of “populism” as well. To some it might sound a bit peculiar to hear Social Democrats derogating something that is “of the people”, but that is perhaps because they are quick to label as “populist” whatever grass-roots phenomenon they cannot themselves control.

The label xenophobic is part of Nordic party politics. In my view, it is a misnomer. Most of these voters have no particular dislike of foreigners; what they do object to is the government lavishing “social support” funds on immigrants who in most cases are not able to enter the labour market directly and who are allowed (indeed, for a long time were encouraged) to keep their own language and thus to remain unemployable in the long run. Next, the principle of “family reunion” allows them to bring their relatives to join them in the new country. These are in most cases not “the poorest of the poor”. They are those sufficiently healthy, crafty, moneyed and enterprising to beat their less fortunate brethren to the departure point on the Mediterranean coast or Turkey's eastern border.

Had there been a selection at the source it would have been possible to pick out only the really needy. As it is, the selection of non-European immigrants arriving is a confused self-selection, such that there is no obvious criterion to say, why not admit all others as well? In short, the policies of the EU and the individual destination countries are not sustainable. Even worse, the Nordic governments have refused to take the full and open debate required. The Swedish elections last autumn showed how this dam of political correctness – intended to stop populists from taking advantage of the immigration unrest - probably only served to channel additional power to Sverigedemokraterna.

So, the problem is partly that Social Democracy is disintegrating in the Nordic countries while the successor parties have not yet fully established themselves. In the process, the loyalty of “the people” - previously the unquestioned prize of the Left - is up for grabs. Beyond that, the current maelstrom of change also reflects the painful effort of disoriented voters to find a way to stop the effects of a world without borders. Messy, perhaps, but this is no threat to Nordic democracy.

TO MAKE A COMMENT, please check the option "anonymous" before clicking "publish" - even if you sign by name, otherwise the system will not show your comment.