|
How can one describe so that others may understand it the Norwegian monarchy of today? How can one explain that a modern state can maintain such an "antiquated" system? In attempting to find an answer we must turn to history, because traditions as they are learned and perceived create attitudes, which in turn lead to actions.
However, it is the current system we are dealing with here, and not primarily the events leading up to it.
A natural starting point is a simple indication of some keynotes.
We shall only briefly touch upon the many centuries from the state's unification, through the Middle Ages, and up to 1814. More important milestones are the secession from Denmark in 1814, and the dissolution of the union with Sweden in 1905. Perhaps the most important period was that following Norway's total independence in 1905. The events of WWII were also highly significant while the fifty subsequent years illustrate tradition in practice. I intend to pursue a number of these points.
The major consequence of the assembly of representatives at Eidsvoll in 1814 was the brief national autonomy which laid the foundation for a lasting constitution with national political institutions. In the same year the newly-won independence was replaced by a union with Sweden. The new political system, with necessary modifications M was retained.
In the total political process which took place during this remarkable year, the monarchy itself was never under dispute. But both during the period of independence and the dissolution of the union with Sweden one important principle was defined: the Constitution stood above the king. It was this that was first adopted; the choice of a king followed later.
This provided the system with an ideological basis which it has subsequently retained. It was rooted neither in an existing nobility nor a divinity. It was adopted by representatives of the people, and thus gained legitimacy also by the standards of the time. The manner in which this somewhat diffuse term, legitimacy, was to be given substance, and the monarchy provided with a deeper rooting, was a core issue during subsequent decades.
These decades were characterized by a major, complex and lengthy struggle between the king in the union, who was supported by Sweden, and the Norwegian national assembly, the Storting. The conflict revolved around the right to define the system's centre of gravity , with regard to practical politics. This discord ran parallel to purely nationally-based antagonisms between the two partners to the union. Furthermore, it must be viewed in connection with the democratization taking place in Norway, with the emergence of political parties, an expanded franchise, and the adoption of the parliamentary system in 1884. In this context the key events were the entry into the political arena of the farmers, the workers, and later women and the influence they exerted there.
It is part and parcel of this historical outline that the actual form of the monarchy, the institution itself, was a theme of conflict decidedly subordinate to its content. The outcome of the discord was a resounding victory for the national assembly. And the essence of this triumph was precisely that the slightest element of genuine and personal, kingly power was eliminated, as far back as in 1884 and even more clearly after 1905. With its famous resolution of 7 June 1905 the Storting unilaterally deposed the union king. But it did more than that, by firmly placing the monarchy within a wider framework. The deed that gave the deathblow to kingly power, also gave the monarchy greater legitimacy.
A few more words on the events of 1905 will add greater depth. The Storting dissolved the union and deposed the king, though without mentioning the monarchy. The government's next move was to ask the king to let a Swedish prince ascend the vacant throne of Norway. This was a subtle tactical move, though it could scarcely be called anti-monarchical. In a referendum in August the Norwegian people pledged almost unanimous support to the resolution, without expressing any negative attitudes towards the form of government. Not until the autumn did it transpire that strong republican undercurrents existed after all. Real conflict arose regarding the form of government that was to be chosen: a republic or a monarchy. This was resolved through yet another referendum, which was partly bungled via government tactics and plebiscitary elements. But despite a significant republican minority, the outcome was never in doubt.
Therefore, the year 1905 marked in Norwegian history the dissolution of a union and the deposal of a king, but the preservation of a system of government.
What makes it even more remarkable is that for many decades the nation had struggled against Sweden and the power of the king. Norway's political leaders backed up by their voters demonstrated a rather astonishing political maturity in their ability to distinguish between the system and the person. In addition, the republicans showed a truly democratic attitude by loyally deferring to the will of the majority. It is actions like this that promote acceptance of the system.
The new monarchy, like the old, was hereditary, this too underlining continuity. But its new progenitor was selected by the Storting. This emphasizes a possibly even stronger line. For there was no shadow of doubt that the constitutional monarchy of 1905 was built on a democratic basis.
The period from 1905 and to the present day can be regarded as a continuous consolidation of the status that was originally established. The monarchy is legally rooted in the first section of the Norwegian Constitution, where Norway is defined as "a Kingdom " with a "limited and hereditary monarchy". This means that the monarchy can only be abolished by law, through an amendment to the Constitution. A proposal to this effect has long been in existence and is regularly tabled in the Storting. But this has become virtually a compulsory exercise on the part of the republicans and is scarcely taken seriously even by them.
On this point the reports of the Storting make pathetic reading. But they do illuminate one point in addition to the monarchy's traditional hold on even the avowed republicans. They reveal how intimately the constitutional monarchy has been woven into and become a part of the political democracy . "The democratic monarchy" is by definition self-contradictory. But the world of real politics ignores such linguistic paradoxes. Other things count more.
The legal basis of our form of government has long been far removed from topical interest: it does not constitute a political theme. When the wording of the Constitution still establishes that the executive power lies with the king, almost every schoolchild is aware that this means the king in Council, which again means the Government. And when it is stated that the king chooses his Council, more than 100 years of constitutional common law have demonstrated that it is the Storting, through parliamentary procedures, that makes this choice. To make doubly sure, the Constitution states that the king's decisions must be countersigned in order to be valid, and that the responsibility for this rests not with him, but with his Council.
Norwegian democracy still gives no leeway for the exercising of personal, royal power. In a democratic monarchy the emphasis is on the Constitution, not on the monarch. Democracy can do without him, but not without the Constitution.
Nevertheless, the function of the monarch in this system is many-sided. In situations where he has no real or formal power, he can still exert influence. Though he makes no decisions, his pronouncements may still carry weight. Whatever he wishes to leave unchanged, he can preserve through tradition. Every system of monarchy contains loopholes; these can be exploited by the monarch in accordance with his capabilities and wishes.
In this perspective the requirements to the monarchy, and the attitudes of the monarch become one and the same. Or, one could say that the function of the system is dependent upon the practice of the role. "The King" is synonymous with the government. But the institution is shaped by the person, by the king, not the King.
This is apparent in three different situations, historically and contemporarily : in everyday life, at changes of government, and during national crises.
The day-to-day role of the head of state in a modern monarchy is primarily of a symbolic nature. He represents his state and people. He is the master of ceremonies par excellence.
Thus, the mission of the monarch is to fulfil the everyday assignments. When a government rules, the king provides the necessary endorsements. When he addresses Norwegians at sea, makes a declaration on the status of the realm at New Year, he is the king of our childhood fairy tales, the father of his people, regardless of whether he speaks Danish or Norwegian. The king has been given his due: from a political viewpoint he is the powerless head of a democratic state. But the people have also been given their due.
There have been times also in everyday life when a king has tried to exceed the bounds of what is personal, acceptable influence. This occurred just after 1905, and rather more dramatically in 1913, when the threat of abdication was imminent. But such events serve only to prove the main rule: the subordination of the monarch to the political leaders of the state system.
On the other hand changes of government are potential "kingly" situations. The king's normal function at such times is to effect the transition from loser to victor. But if the parliamentary succession is not clear, he must exercise his own judgement. At such times his actions have a political content. The cardinal example of this is King Håkon VII in 1928, who appointed against the advice of the outgoing government the first Labour Party government. This action doubtless contributed towards an alteration of this party's basic anti-monarchical line.
Situations like this enforce upon the king the role of a political participant. With numerous small parties and continued minority governments, several fragile political constellations may appear in the future. These serve to illustrate the interdependence of system and person.
National crises are less frequent. In these the king can scarcely avoid a central role. During the war and the occupation King Håkon's role was diverse; as a participant in continuing processes, and as a symbol of national unity. His resounding "No" to the German/Quisling demands on 10 April 1940 stands sharply illuminated in the history of the monarchy and the country. His statement to the government was:M "The decision is yours. But if you choose to accept the German demands, I must abdicate. For I cannot appoint Quisling as prime minister". No stronger words of counsel have ever been given by a Norwegian monarch to his "advisers". One is tempted to make a bombastic statement: In Nybergsund where the king pronounced these words the personal power of the monarchy was revived, if only for a few dramatic hours.
After this came the long years of WWII. From its exile existence in London the government represented the power of the Norwegian state, but with no Storting at its side. It attended as far as possible to national interests. But it was the king this time with a small k, who symbolized the nation. In this manner he also played his part in elevating the institution of monarchy even more almost from the terrestrial world where it belongs, to the celestial, where the eternal things abide.
With the liberation in 1945 the last elements in this development were cemented into place. The transition to a reconstructed political system was a painless one, surprisingly painless given the preceding five years of turbulence. But the most automatic process of all was the resumption of the functions of the monarch and the monarchy. Even the communists a powerful group in Norway at that time joined in the overwhelming reception which was accorded to King Håkon when he returned to Norway. They knew, with a sure fingertip feeling that to do otherwise would be political suicide.
All the same, one may well ask, and in other countries the question is often posed, how a modern state can still retain a form of government that in a world perspective belongs in a museum? There is only partial substance in this question. A form of government which has functioned for so long is only antiquated in the eyes of those who do not understand it. But if it is taken seriously, the answer is implicit in what I have said. This form of government has not been any impediment to the development of a modern society and to the nation's political possibility of choosing its own path. Conditions have been favourable for the growth of democracy. The monarchy has been a framework, not a brake. It has undergone a process of democratization of at least the same magnitude as the "monarchization" of the democracy.
However, a specific form of government does not only survive because it does not apply the brakes. Has the monarchy functioned in a democratically functional way?. What have been the positive effects of maintaining an outer framework which may seem old fashioned?. This is a natural point at which to emphasize how the division at the top of the system is limited both politically and functionally. Therefore the position of head of State is elevated above conflict, but that of head of government implies power, and is therefore controversial. The normal democratic conflicts of groups and political parties follow their usual course. The traditions that are a part of the form of government automatically channel them in the right direction, in keeping with their goals of jockeying for a favourable position. But at the very top, far from all sounds of strife, some element, at least, in this quarrelsome people, has been neutralized, subdued and made sacrosanct.
It is at this level that the monarch can play the role of father, of the king in fairy tales, who fulfils our common need for fantasies and also for identification. He can symbolize unity in the midst of political confusion, be the focal point, far removed from sector interests. This is of course a mystical, indeed a mythical thing and to modern eyes undoubtedly a relic of the past. But how blind are those who have completely lost their sense of the irrational!. Is the monarchy, perhaps, a purely conservative element linked as it is to the church, to the military, to the solid pillars of the establishment ? Certainly it is. But no more so than any other system which is loyally adhered to. It has never been reactionary and is still not so. Other factors have shaped our society: technology and industrialization, primary and secondary industries, oil in the North Sea and security policy; the monarchical system of government has served neither as a brake nor a locomotive force.
Much of this was illustrated on the recent death of King Olav V. The peoples' grief was genuine. It was not just sadness at the passing of an old man, but personal sorrow at the loss of one who was dear to many. Some might consider the myriad flickering candles which the people lit before the Royal Palace in Oslo to be pathetic and oversentimental. But did they not have a deeper import: genuine emotion, in an age when feelings are often bargain price goods at a sale?
But there is more to come. In many countries which are perhaps more modern than Norway the head of State is replaced following an election, a coup d'etat, a revolution. Not infrequently there are assassinations.
This is not the case in Norway. Calmly and peacefully the power M though not the role of the second-in command is passed on. The system is in no way affected, possibly quite the opposite.
The overall significance of the monarchy is not easy to describe. The personal role of the monarch is equally difficult to understand.
Only if the monarchy were to fall would its full significance be clearly revealed.
The monarchy rests on a legal basis: in both the written and the unwritten constitution. It has a political anchorage; in that the state system is elevated above the day-to-day political struggle. But neither of these anchorages would prove safe in a storm without additional security. This is found in the legitimacy that the monarchy has gained among the people.
This is perhaps a rather elusive term. But it represents the attitude of the people towards the system, the acceptance of the system's representatives by those they represent, the hopes the people invest in those who fill the various roles, and the manner in which these expectations are met. The two monarchs of modern Norway, King Håkon VII who ruled from 1905 to 1957 and King Olav V, 1957-1991 have strengthened this acceptance in every way. This in not the place for panegyrics, but for plain analysis; an analysis which includes the fact that the words chosen by the two monarchs as their motto: "Alt for Norge" (All for Norway) has been put into practice as consistent, democratic loyalty towards the system.
Therefore, an account like this rests on two pillars: upon the system and upon the men who have given it form. The one can only be understood by way of the other.