The Norwegian Exception?

Norway's Liberal Democracy Since 1814

Mathilde Fasting, Oystein Sorensen

• Publisher: Hurst Publishers
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN: 9781787385603
• eBook ISBN: 9781787386761
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: European History
• Index: History

How did Norway become a highly successful liberal democracy? Will its prosperity and stability last, or has modern history been an exception? Is the Norwegian experience based on luck, or has a part been played by clever politicians and sound institutions, including a well-functioning rule of law? How does Norway combine social democracy with a market economy, and extensive foreign trade? Since the 1970s, Norway has become an oil-producing giant in Northern Europe–how can that role be reconciled with the realities of climate change, and increasing awareness of that crisis?

This highly engaging book introduces Norwegian political and economic history to a broad audience, offering a deeper understanding of a country always looked upon with great interest, but perhaps not profoundly understood. The Norwegian Exception? takes the reader back through 200 years of state-building to explain Norway’s current position as a top- ranking nation, and to consider its chances of keeping that status in the twenty-first century. In particular, it unpacks how Norwegian politics and governance have shaped the country’s world-famous oil fund and unique relationship with the European Union. Leading historians Mathilde Fasting and Oystein Sorensen skilfully draw back the curtain on the inner workings of the Norwegian ‘utopia’.

PART ONE

FORMING A NATION, 1814–1905

1

THE 1814 EXPERIENCE

For Norway, 1814 was an establishment year par excellence, proclaiming the creation of a new state with a new political system. The ideas of 1814 became the frame of reference for all Norwegian political life, for Norwegian nation-building, and for all strands of Norwegian nationalism. These notions became the core of modern Norwegian political culture and identity.

1814 was coined Norway’s ‘miracle year’—annus mirabilis—by some contemporary observers. One of them noted in his diary on 31 December 1814: ‘I don’t believe any other nation’s history can show anything like this.’¹

Indeed, the transformation of Norway during that year did seem quite miraculous. Consider for instance that the independent Norwegian state—quasi-independent if one may—was established without any previous demands for independence before 1814. During the prior thirty to forty years there were numerous indications of an increased awareness and interest in the small sections of the elite classes in Norway. Yet there is virtually no concept of (certainly no calls for) an independent Norwegian state. Nationalist historians have searched in vain for evidence of such demands for nearly 200 years.

If someone were to argue that the Danish absolutist regime allowed no room for public demands of this sort, there are no traces of a desire for a separate Norwegian polity in private letters or journals either. Furthermore, the ideological climate was rather unusually liberal and open in the late eighteenth-century Danish monarchy, particularly during the years 1784–99. A number of opposing and even explicitly revolutionary ideas were quite freely expressed. Thus, during the Jacobin dictatorship in 1793–94, the most radical phase of the French Revolution, a periodical was published in Copenhagen which supported the French Republic fully, and which freely reprinted the great and militant speeches of Robespierre in the National Convent.

Of course, the experience of 1814 did not take place in a vacuum, and the ideas proclaimed were not uniquely Norwegian. The events in Norway were part of a larger movement through the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, with revolutionary thinking based on Enlightenment philosophy and political theory which produced the spectacular events of the North American and French revolutions. But even in this big picture, there were some distinctly Norwegian strands. The Norwegian ideas of 1814 were the result of a meeting, an amalgamation or clash, between certain international impulses and domestic traditions.

A treaty and a revolt—historical background

The French Revolution generated wars which had raged almost continuously for over twenty years. In 1814, however, the Napoleonic Wars were drawing to a close, and a broad alliance of states was on the point of defeating the French Emperor.

The kingdom of Denmark, which we Norwegians like to call the dual kingdom of Denmark-Norway, found itself on the losing side. In 1807, afraid that Napoleon might conquer the kingdom’s large fleet, the British navy had captured it instead. Since then, Denmark had been an ally of Napoleon; the Swedes, however, were members of the victorious alliance.

In fact, the main Swedish protagonist in this Scandinavian drama was Crown Prince Carl Johan (1763–1844). The Swedish king was old, ailing and without heirs, and Carl Johan had been chosen as crown prince in 1810. In many ways he was an odd choice. Christened Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, he was a lawyer’s son from the south of France who had risen quickly through the French revolutionary army, being an exceptionally proficient soldier. In 1804 he had been appointed to the highest rank, Marshal of France.

When the Swedes selected this French Marshal to succeed their throne, it was because they wanted to ally themselves with Napoleon’s French Empire against Russia. Russia had seized Finland from Sweden in 1809, and the hope was that a Swedish-French alliance would bring about the return of Finland.

Yet Carl Johan—the ‘Swedified’ name the new crown princ had given himself—did not do what the Swedish elite expected, instead turning against his old friend Napoleon and bringing Sweden into the war against France. In treaties with Great Britain and Russia he had been promised a new reward: Norway, a prize Sweden had coveted for a long time.

During the autumn of 1813, Swedish troops attacked Denmark from the south and threatened to overrun the whole of Jutland. King Frederik VI of Denmark appealed for peace, signing a treaty on 14 January 1814 at Kiel. Dominion over Norway was transferred from the King of Denmark to the King of Sweden, but its old dependencies—Greenland, Iceland and the Faroe Islands—were not included in the transfer, instead continuing to belong to Denmark. In Norway there had been some dissatisfaction with the government during the Napoleonic Wars; many businessmen had close contacts with England and disliked being dragged into the war on Napoleon’s side. Nevertheless, the Treaty of Kiel came as a great shock to Norwegians.

The single most important figure in the story of the Norwegian Experience in 1814 was the Danish Prince Christian Frederik (1786–1848). He was a member of the Oldenburg dynasty, who had ruled Denmark and Norway for nearly 400 years, but to be more precise he was the king’s cousin and heir to the throne. In May 1813, the war situation was critical, and the twenty-six-year-old crown prince was sent to Norway as Governor. Christian Frederik was charming, eager and easily fired with enthusiasm; as Governor he soon became popular in Norway. For a time he had had Norwegian friends and advisers, and once he was situated in Norway he immediately set about developing new friendships and connections.

Prince Christian Frederik refused to accept the Treaty of Kiel and tried to foment resistance in Norway. The Norwegian elite responded enthusiastically and he won adherents among the military. In the spring of 1814, it appeared that there was hardly a soul in Norway who did not support the insurrection. So far, the revolt was a peaceful one.

The timing of the revolt was auspicious. The Swedish military forces were preoccupied with the war against Napoleon in continental Europe, so the Swedish king was not ready to collect his prize from the Treaty of Kiel. Christian Frederik’s revolt was against the Treaty of Kiel and against the Swedes. However, he did not intend to return to the dual monarchy of Denmark-Norway, instead raising the banner of Norwegian independence.

In a broader, historical sense this revolution may seem unique and perhaps a little confusing; one would have thought that after 400 years of Danish rule, a separatist insurrection in Norway would be directed against the Danes. However, thanks to a historical coincidence like the Treaty of Kiel, this was not the case.

Originally, Christian Frederik had intended to have himself proclaimed king and absolute ruler of Norway considering his right to the throne, but this idea received little support among his Norwegian advisers. On 16 February, the Danish prince and a select group of influential Norwegians held a private meeting which became known as the 1814 Assembly of Notables. There, Christian Frederik agreed to let himself be elected King of Norway. It was resolved that a national assembly should be summoned, one which would elect the king and decide on a new constitution for Norway.

After this meeting, Christian Frederik revealed himself to be a brilliant political tactician. He issued a decree to the effect that, on an extraordinary day of worship, all Norwegian men were to congregate in the churches and elect delegates to the national assembly. Immediately before the election they were obliged to swear an oath, promising to ‘assert Norway’s independence and to venture life and blood for the beloved country.’ It was difficult to refuse to take such an oath, and so even if a few quietly grumbled about the Prince’s ulterior motives, Christian Frederik was able to claim the entire people’s support for his insurrection. The Oath may be called both clever politics and the principle of popular sovereignty in action. A parallel here, and a possible role model, is Napoleon’s love of referendums as a means of claiming legitimacy.

On 11 April, 112 men came together as a constituent national assembly. They met at Eidsvoll, sixty kilometres north of the capital Christiania (today Oslo), at a manor house belonging to one of Christian Frederik’s closest advisers. By European standards the manor house was not particularly large or luxurious, and many of the delegates had to make do with cramped and basic accommodation.

The National Council that met at Eidsvoll in April 1814 was elected by local parishes and military bases. Of the 112 members of the National Assembly, thirty-three were specially elected from the military, while the rest represented the rural districts and the towns. More than half of the assembly were holders of civil and military public office; a handful of delegates were owners of large estates; and thirteen were merchants. Christian Frederik’s election rules ensured that farmers should be well represented, making up nearly a third of the group. Many of the men at Eidsvoll were also very young, with an average age of 42.8 years.

A national assembly of this nature would have been unthinkable in any other country, with the possible exception, perhaps, of France at certain times during the Revolution. However, if we disregard the numerical strength of the various groups, the constituent assembly accurately reflected Norwegian society in 1814: no aristocracy to speak of, many small farmers, and an elite dominated by civil servants.

The leading faction at Eidsvoll was made up of Christian Frederik’s supporters, who were wholeheartedly in favour of the revolution against the Swedes. They called themselves the Independence Party but were dubbed the Prince’s Party by their opponents. The most prominent member of this party was a magistrate, Christian Magnus Falsen (1782–1830). He had participated in preparing an important draft constitution for Norway, one which gave the monarch a fairly powerful role. Falsen and his associates were fierce opponents both of absolute monarchy and of a Swedish union, though a number of them did not totally reject the possibility of restoring the union with Denmark.

The other main faction at Eidsvoll had a more conciliatory attitude towards Sweden and was sceptical of Christian Frederik. Their opponents called them the Swedish Party and they later became known as the Unionist Party. The natural leader of the unionists was Count Herman Wedel Jarlsberg (1779–1840), one of very few noblemen in Norway. Wedel Jarlsberg probably had more political experience and insight than any other representative at Eidsvoll, having been in touch with Swedish circles since 1809 and having worked to achieve a union of Norway and Sweden. However, there is much evidence to suggest that such a union was first and foremost a means for Wedel to rid Norway of the system of absolute monarchy.

When Christian Frederik raised the banner of revolution against the Treaty of Kiel, Wedel and his supporters had to adopt a low profile, but at Eidsvoll they made their mark. In their view, a union with Sweden was unavoidable and the only realistic solution. They suspected Christian Frederik and his supporters of having as their ultimate goal the reunification of Norway and Denmark. Thus the stage was set for a showdown between two different visions of Norway’s future.

The 1814 Constitution

At the Eidsvoll Assembly there were many opinions as to the type of Constitution Norway should have. Yet absolute monarchy had few, if any, direct advocates; likewise, there were no supporters for republicanism. The adopted Constitution represented a drastic break with the past. The elite at Eidsvoll had been educated in Copenhagen, which in the 1790s was a place where intellectuals discussed new and foreign concepts. Many of the men at Eidsvoll were captivated by these ideas.

Wedel and his followers were defeated in some important votes at Eidsvoll regarding Norway’s relations with Sweden, but they accepted the defeat and rallied behind Christian Frederik and the sovereign Norwegian state.

On 17 May 1814, all the representatives at Eidsvoll signed a new constitution for an independent Norway and elected Christian Frederik king. The new monarchy was to be hereditary, and the king’s son Frederik became crown prince of Norway. The most important notions expressed in the Constitution were the radical beliefs that had triumphed in the American War of Independence and the French Revolution.

At the root of these ideas was the sovereignty of the people, stating that ultimately power should rest with them. The Eidsvoll Assembly saw itself as an embodiment of this principle: as the representatives of the people, they were to provide Norway with a new political system. In this system power in the political community should be shared between the new king and a popularly elected assembly. The king’s power was executive, while the elected assembly would primarily legislate, impose taxes and grant funds. The king in person would appoint his ministers, who were to be appointed and dismissed individually.

Another important idea was freedom of the individual. From this point all Norwegian citizens were guaranteed certain rights, the most important being freedom of expression. They were also assured the rule of law.

Compared with most constitutions at that time, the Norwegian 1814 Constitution was highly democratic, especially concerning the right to vote. It was mostly conditional on property ownership, but the qualifying limit was set very low. Nearly forty per cent of the adult male population was enfranchised; there were no movements to liberate women in 1814.

On the other hand, the power of the new national assembly was somewhat limited. It was to meet for a few months every three years. In the meantime, Norway would be ruled by the king and his ministers. The king could make provisional laws when the assembly was not in session, and he also had suspensory veto to the assembly’s legislation. In this arrangement, the king and his advisers would be a strong force. The Constitution was designed for Christian Frederik by his friends and followers, who made up the majority at Eidsvoll.

The Eidsvoll Assembly considered several proposed constitutions for which there were various foreign prototypes. The model that in the event was the most influential was the French Constitution of 1791. However, the new Constitution was not solely the sum of its foreign influences. Among the Eidsvoll Assembly members, the Norwegian elite and many writers pre-1814, there existed a strong awareness of Norway’s historical traditions and of the Norwegian national character. In some ways this was expressed in the Constitution itself.

The new national assembly was named the Storting, a name which had associations with the old Norse word ting, meaning a deliberative assembly which was an important institution in the Viking Age and Medieval Norway.

The strong position of the civil servants was revealed in two ways in the 1814 Constitution. They all received the right to vote—being the sole exception from the property ownership rule—and it was determined that an official could be dismissed only after a trial in a court of law. In 1814, there were around 1,800 civil servants in Norway. The country’s total population was around 900,000, and the overwhelming majority of them were members of farming communities.

The interests of the farmers were safeguarded in that the odal rights, the principle of pre-emption and redemption of family land, was written into the Constitution. This system of ownership and inheritance was considered specifically Norwegian, the cornerstone of the free peasant society of Norway. The reformist absolutist regime, with its liberal ideas on economy, had been preparing to abolish the odal rights before 1814, so this particular reform was reversed in the 1814 rebellion.

A shameful feature of the Constitution was its article two, which denied Jews the right to enter the realm, and stated that Jesuits and monastic orders would not be tolerated. The article became particularly discreditable because it was initially supposed to contain a passage about religious freedom, but this part was forgotten during the deliberations. Only the planned exceptions remained in the Constitution, and to make things worse, at the prominent place of article two.

One may also add in this context that the Constitution didn’t change the strict pre-1814 legislation regarding religious gatherings. Such gatherings without permission were banned, and this ban continued until 1842.

The Constitution was signed in May, but just a couple of months later independent Norway was obliged to fight a war against Sweden. Carl Johan and his troops had returned from the war against Napoleon, determined to take possession of Norway, and Swedish troops invaded Norway in late July 1814.

The war was conducted half-heartedly by the Norwegians and ended within a few weeks. The outcome may be called a swift victory for the Swedes but not a crushing one. Christian Frederik received an offer of armistice and negotiations in early August, and accepted after some deliberations with his government and military advisors. In certain quarters he was considered a coward, there being quite a few Norwegians who wanted to fight to the last man—or at least who said they would.

Yet in the spring and summer of 1814, events were in fact decided by the Great Powers of Europe. Christian Frederik’s envoys received no real encouragement for their revolution. The Great Powers had given firm guarantees to the Swedes and Carl Johan, even in the case of G...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Introduction
• Part One: Forming a Nation, 1814–1905
• Part Two: Modernity, 1905–70
• Part Three: Still an Exception? the 1970s to the Present
• Acknowledgements
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index