DENMARK Surprise setback for austerity government THE PERPETUAL smile on the face of Danish Premier Poul Schlueter stiffened, and the Copenhagen stock exchange experienced a moment of panic when the results of the September 8 legislative elections were known. The reason was not because of a victory for the workers' parties, but because the stability of the four-party bourgeois coalition was threatened. SØREN JOHANSEN
N EASY victory had been expected by the outgoing government after a short election campaign lasting three weeks. The workers' parties were not prepared, and they had no governmental alternative to offer. Nonetheless, the government coalition - the Conservative Party, the Left (Venstre, the liberal party), the Christian People's Party, and the Democratic Center Party - lost seven seats, and the bourgeois parties as a whole lost three.
The new parliamentary instability comes from the fact that the government will now have to seek the support of six bourgeois parties in order to get a majority in the 175-seat parliament. However, it is difficult to get the Progress Party and the Radical Left (Radikale Venstre) under the same roof. The Radical Left is a bourgeois center party, largely supported by the educated petty-bourgeoisie.
Over the last four years, the Schlueter government has depended on the support of the Radical Left, which remained outside the cabinet. It's vote went up from 10 to 11 seats in this election. The extreme-right populist Progress Party increased its seats from six to nine. 10 This result reflects the weakness of the Danish workers' movement which International Viewpoint • September 28, 1987 after five years of austerity policy 1s still unable to defeat Schlueter. The unemployed and weaker sections of the working population have been been hit hard by this policy.
Another setback for the social democracy
By far the largest workers' party, the social democracy, has just experienced its third electoral setback in six years. From 38% of the vote in 1959, it has dropped to 28%. The leadership of the party has offered no real alternative to the government's bourgeois policy. For last five years they have not attempted to use their strength, and in particular their leadership of the National Contederation of Labor (LO), to mobilize against the government.
They could have done, especially since the unions negotiated new contracts every two years. In the spring of 1985, the social situation could have led to a general strike overthrowing the government. But the movement was blocked by the LO leadership.
This year, union leaders have come to rapid agreements with the bosses in order to prevent the development of a similar situation.
Once again, the Socialist People's Party (SF) increased its vote. With 27 seats, its electoral support now amounts to half that of the social democracy. SF can be characterized as a left reformist party. It comes from a split in the Communist Party in 1985, but it no longer has any links with Stalinism.
The growing support for SF cannot be explained by its activity among workers or in the social movements. In fact, as a party it has a very limited capacity for mobilizing. But many workers and intellectuals see it as a force for real change. Moreover, unlike the social democracy, it has not been marked by decades of integration into the capitalist state.
"For a workers' majority in parliament"
For many workers, the central theme of the elections was "Down with Schlueter, for a workers' majority in parliament." Many of them saw the Socialist People's Party as the only force that could pull the social democracy to the left, away from its policy of deals with the bourgeois parties. Their hopes will not be realized.
On the left, two major shifts occurred. The Left Socialists (VS) suffered a very serious setback, losing half of their votes and falling below the threshold for representation in parliament. Since its formation in 1969, coming from a split in the Socialist People's Party, this organization of the 1968 generation was considered to represent the extra-parliamentary movements in parliament.'
Its defeat reflects a general decline in its strength resulting from a turn to the right in its political line. That has made it difficult for the VS to differentiate itself from SF, which is much larger. The VS said it wanted to offer a long life to a government of the workers' parties, which meant supporting such a government in parliament, even if it attacked the working class. The VS's loss of its representation in parliament, which had offered a focus around which the party could unite, will certainly accelerate its crisis.
The other major shift on the left was the entry into parliament of the Common Course Party. This organization was formed some years ago by the seafarer's union leader Preben Moeller Hansen. Like the rest of the leadership, he is a former member of the Danish Communist Party. He was expelled from the CP in the 1970s.
A populist campaign with racist statements
Although this party had a general left appearance in the campaign, it refused to be linked in any way to the left or socialism. It conducted an extremely populist campaign, denouncing the "parliamentary circus," and so on. Many observers noted similarities between it and the extreme-right populist Progress Party, including even racist statements.
The Communist Party got 5,000 votes, representing about 1%. It is a turning point for this party, which has been losing , votes at every election since 1969.
The Socialist Workers Party (SAP), Danish section of the Fourth International, also participated in the election. It got 2,000 votes, a few hundred less than in the previous elections. A central point in the SAP's campaign was defence of political refugees and immigrants, along with the fight against the austerity policy and the need for anti-capitalist solutions to the crisis.
The SAP is now going to hold a special congress to discuss its campaign and decide whether it will start to collect the 25,000 signatures necessary to run in the next elections. The organization will also discuss the possibility for collaboration among the left parties and the possibilities of running a common left slate, an idea that is under discussion in the left as a whole. * 1. See "Left socialists at a crossroads" by Tom Gustafsson, IV 109, November 24, 1987.