«NATO" election results in unstable parliament A SNAP election was called by rightist premier Poul Schlüter on May 10 to get a mandate for subordinating Denmark to the discipline of NATO. This was his response to a majority vote by the Socialist People's Party, the social democrats and the Radical Liberals for reaffirming the policy excluding ships carrying nuclear weapons from Danish ports. (The Radical Liberals, a small bourgeois party with an anti-militarist tradition, have been the Achilles heel of the rightist coalition.) GERRY FOLEY S CHLÜTER's move had a certain, limited success. The parties identified with opposition to NATO or its military policies all suffered losses. The Socialist People's PartySF), a left social-democratic formation originating from a split in the Communist Party, suffered a loss of 1.6%. The Left Socialist Party (VS) dropped from 1.2% to 0.6%, falling far short of the 2% required for representation in parliament. The Communist Party dropped from 0.9% to 0.8%. The Radical Liberals lost 0.6%, falling to 5.6%. The pro-NATO social-democratic party gained 0.5%.
But the government parties did not gain in the voting either. The two main parties in the coalition, the Conservatives (Schlüter's party) and the Liberals, had roughly balancing gains and losses, the former losing 1.5% and the latter gaining 1.3%. The bigwithout dumping austerity?"
gest winner was the anti-immigrant ultra- rest winner was the time right demagogic Progress Party of Mogens Glistrup, which nearly doubled its vote, going from 5.5% to 9%, a gain of 4.2%.
Despite the losses of the anti-NATO forces, the overall effect of the election was to weaken the government and destabilize parliament. The "respectable right" did not get enough seats to form a majority government. In fact, its vote declined. In an editorial on the election results in its May 14 issue, the Copenhagen daily Politiken noted: "In the 1984 election the government parties got 48% of the vote; in 1987, they fell to under 45%; this time these parties got only 43.5%."
The "respectable right" can continue in office only by getting passive or active support from either Glistrup on the one side, or the workers' parties on the other. The right's parliamentary game is further complicated by the fact that the Radical Liberals and the Progress Party are sharply opposed, and it seems difficult to form any sort of bloc including both.
Like Le Pen's score in France, the vote for Glistrup's Progress Party seems to reflect contradictory currents. Some observers think that a large part of it could be an anti-political vote, in particular a protest against too many elections. The last parliamentary election was less than a year ago.
The Radical Liberal party is based largely on well-off professionals, who favor anti-working class economic policies but are traditionally anti-militarist and philosophically liberal. Thus, it remains an awkward partner for the bigger parties of the right, and an obstacle to any understanding with the Progress Party.
There are 179 seats in the Danish parliament (175 for Denmark and four for Greenland and the Faeroe Islands). The two working-class parties have a total of 79 seats, well below a majority. The parliamentary right parties have a total of 80 seats, also well below a majority. The Progress Party has 16. In fact, if a far left party or bloc had topped the 2% barrier, the working-class parties would have had four more seats and a clear lead over the parliamentary right.
The Socialist Workers Party (SAP), the Danish section of the Fourth International, supported a common slate with the CP and the VS. But the bloc was broken at the last minute by the Communist Party. After this, the SAP decided to run candidates on the VS list.
Two types of governments have been talked about. One is a combination of the SF, the Social Democrats and the Radical Liberals (89 seats); the other is a minority government of the parliamentary rightist government or the parnamentary nignust parties. The social democrats allowed a minority rightist government to rule in the past. There is also said to be some support in the Progress Party parliamentary group for supporting a government of the parlia mentary right from the outside, but the presence of the Radical Liberals in a coalition would be a big stumbling block to that.
Participation in a coalition with the Social Democrats and the Radicals would force the SF to accept austerity policies. Nonetheless, the SF leadership decided on May 12 to go for such a combination. "With only one vote against," the Copenhagen daily Information reported," the national executive gave its negotiators a mandate that was chemically clean of demands that the Radicals could be expected to oppose."
Information also said: "Several participants in SF's national executive told us that there is an overwhelming mood in the party leadership to overcome the differences on economic policy that have until now led the Radicals to write off SF as a firm partner."
In an editorial in the May 12 issue of its paper, Klassekampen, the SAP made the following comment on the setback for the left in the elections: "Despite the fact that opposition to nuclear weapons and NATO has been the distinguishing mark of the SF since its birth, this party managed to 'fudge' both on the question that provoked this election and on a series of others -'Yes we are against NATO, but we don't want to talk about that,' 'Yes we are a workers' party, but the workers have to prepare themselves for a wage freeze,' 'Yes, the Radicals are a reactionary bourgeois party, but if necessary we will collaborate with them'"
The SAP stressed the setback caused by the Communist Party's decision to go it alone: "The SF left lots of room for a left alternative. After the last election it was clear that neither the VS or the CP had much of a chance to get over the threshold. The way to assure a left presence in parliament was electoral cooperation... the main responsi-
DENMARK bility for the failure to achieve that lies with the CP.... When the CP broke away, it opened up the way for the argument about not 'wasting your vote'."
Even so there were other opportunities that were lost: "The SAP and VS took a small step in the right direction, when we ran candidates on the same slate. In the course of the campaign, the Humanists declared that they were supporting Slate Y [the VS], but the VS did not seize the opportunity to present Slate Y as a power that wanted collaboration on the left. Even if the VS stood firm in its opposition to NATO, forced pension saving and incomes policy, the party was not up to clarifying its political profile, which was obscured in the last election.
"Especially on radio and TV, the VS did not stand out as a clear left alternative to SF. The party's decision not to criticize other workers' parties certainly appealed to many people....But it was a political error, because it remained unclear what decisive difference there was between the VS and SF." The lessons had to be drawn from the advance of the Progress Party, the SAP stressed: "The way forward is not taking responsibility for an irresponsible capitalist economy and realistically accepting the rules of an unserious parliamentary playground. There is a need for a clear and aggressive left that criticizes the system and acts outside parliament, which unconditionally defends the interests of the working people and other oppressed layers."
The lack of a clear left alternative had opened up the way for reactionary demagogues whose sphere of activity would not be limited to a deadlocked and discredited parliament. "With a clear and aggressive proposal for a "solution,' the Progress Party was able to almost double its votes and become the winner in the elections. The extreme right has gained strength from a racist policy... and a sharp criticism of parliamentary frivolity.
"This is going to have consequences not only for the parliament. The Progress Party's gains will make it easier for racist gangs and Nazi groups that find a breeding ground among Glistrup's followers."
In the context of great economic instability (Denmark is heavily dependent on foreign trade, has a huge foreign debt and high unemployment), parliamentary breakdown and a number of racist outbreaks in the recent period, the advance of the Progress Party is threatening. It points up the need for two things that were notably lacking in this election — a clear working-class alternative and a working-class united 5 front. *
THULE
THULE