University of Latvia

Department of Political Science

“Scandinavian Politics”

(H. Smith-Sivertsen)

Populist Parties in Latvia and Nordic Countries

Irita Íîse

3rd student

political science

December 11th, 1995

Free election is one of the components of a democratic society. Without election you cannot regard a country to be democratic. It is also democratic when people elect representatives which support authoritarian regime. People has expressed its will. Such a situation has accured in the past more than once. Politicians can claim the people for being stupid but most of the times there have been relevant preconditions why populist parties gain success in elections. In this paper I want to compare causes of populist parties’ emergence in Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Latvia and see if there exist any links and similarities in development. In Denmark and Norway populist parties exist longer time therefore it is easier to follow their development and foresee Latvian populist parties’ future.

Though some of populist parties were at first dismissed as short-term protest phenomena, the growing number of them and their relative staying power have made them a subject of some interest. Generally speaking, though, these parties are viewed as conservative, reactionary, anti-modern proponents of the past, rather than purveyors of something new and different. Weather reacting to growing taxes, growing bureaucracies, or growing numbers of immigrants, such parties presumably offer reflections of the past rather than gimpses of the future. (Harmel and Gibson, 1995)

Importance of populist parties is quite big. In many cases such party can be the one which decides who is going to form government. A good example for that is the situation in Norway in 1987 when three non-socialist parties tried to defeat Labour Party minority government. The three parties neded to get support from Progress Party which also wanted to change government. Unpredictability of populist party and uncertainty of information lead to failure of planned no-confinence voting.(Str¸m, 1994) In other cases populist party contributes to the instability of the political system.

The main reason for writing this paper was situation in Latvia after election in October. Populist parties in Nordic countries have not become dominant, they have not followed the development of Germany in 20th-30th. Is it going to be a pattern in Latvia, too? Which causes make these populist parties to increase or decrease their popularity and support in society.

Emergence of new parties

New parties emerge when there is need for new organization that could express expectations of one part of the society. In Norway and Denmark the great change in party system happened in 70th when new small parties were formed and got seats in parliaments. The sudden emergence of new parties in Scandinavia was called the “unholy trinity”. The first radical right party emerged in Finland. Rural Party was founded in 1958. In 1970 general election the party got 10.5% of the votes. Denmark’s Progress Party was registered in 1972 and after a year became the second largest party in the parliament getting 15.9% of votes. In Norway Anders Lange founded his own party and got 5% in general elections 1973. It was explained by people’s disappointment in traditional parties and their politics. That time was characterized also by low level of trust in parties and politicians.

New parties took stand in the main questions and won voters support. Three factors contributed to factionalism, votality and populism: 1) high levels of personal taxation needed to fund the rising costs of the welfare state; 2) industrialization and related with it structural and sectional changes; 3) international relations (Norway’s and Denmark’s expected membership in EEC; Finland’s relationship with USSR).

The Latvian situation is much the same: people’s disappointment in parties, corruption, distrust in politicians. In Latvia a new aspect must be taken in account - low living standard and no improvement in last few years. It would not be wrong to say that populist party in Latvia was possible because established parties did not understand one of their tasks - to be between voters and state. Lack of democratic experience created a situation when parties in power were becoming more and more far from people and were enjoying the situation to get more benefits for themselves.

I can conclude that populist parties emerge in situation of crisis. For both Latvia and Scandinavia it was crisis of trust in politicians. The causes of that in each country were different. Latvia faces major problems in economics and people are disappointed in slow economical progress. Scandinavia on contrary did quite well but people’s expectations rise with higher economical level. The long history of consensus did not satisfy people anymore, some adapted postmaterial values and were active in ecological movement, others were more concerned with country’s problems in economics and politics which, of course, influenced each one personally.

In Norway and Latvia people’s distrust was indicated by lower voting activity comparing with latest elections. In Norway 1971 - 83.8%, 1973 - 80.2%. In Latvia 1993 - 85%, 1995 - 72%.

A great deal of right-wing parties’ success in Scandinavia can be explained by conflicts in traditional parties that weakened their ability to keep their voters and win new ones.

New parties face also some problems - they have no traditions and no impact in socialization process. The most influential agents of socialization are family and school. Old parties are established in people’s lives and their ideology is present in everyday contacts. People know this party and what they can expect from it. Newly established party has no traditions and it has to make great effort in order to convince people to vote for its ideas. Here this new party cannot get help from family. Individual’s predisposition is determined by socialization and if he votes for a new party he most likely returns to the old one after some time.(Boalt, 1980)

Populist parties are not imaginable without their leaders who always are outstanding charismatic personalities. All parties I am interested in have been formed by such leaders. In most cases they have been first in one or another traditional party and after a conflict left it. Latvian populist party’s leader Joachim Siegerist was a member of LNNK ( National Conservative Party) and even got a seat in parliament after election in 1993. Rural Parties leader Veikko Vennamo broke with the Agrarians, but Mogens Glistrup, the founder of Danish Progress Party tried to be accepted as candidate for the Conservatives but was turned down. (Nannestad, 1989: 79)

Characteristics of populist parties

The first thing that is visible - each party has a strong leader. In Norway the populist party in the beginning was called after its founder Anders Lange. Movement for Latvia also used its leaders name to identify the party in election - in case that voters would confuse it with Latvian way.

Another characteristic feature is anti-bureaucratic position. Parties are against bureaucracy and that is understandable because these parties require change but bureaucracy is a symbol of stability.

In Latvia the prevailing opinion about parties which have power is that they are corrupt and only want to get benefits for themselves and are not caring for the whole state. Movement for Latvia came with another kind of image - helping poor people, giving medicine to older people, caring about children. People did not know where the money came from and that was not important only journalists were considered with that. Such situation can be possible only in society were the scarcity values are dominating.

Even parties inside organization is different from traditional parties, they try to underline that they are close to voters. At least party leaders have declared their party’s democratic structure. Lars Bille examines the case of Denmark and states that the organizational build-up of Danish Progress Party is by and large similar to those of the old parties. It was not Mogens Glistrup’s original intention to form a traditional party, but instead to create what he labeled a “Progress Movement”. The majority of the delegates to the party founding conference were invited by Glistrup personally. (Bille)

Anders Lange, The Norwegian Progress Party’s founder, believed in “spontaneous action” and rejected the idea of formal party organization. After his death in 1974, however, the party lost support, and a new leadership took over with the idea of building an organization which would make the party credible in the eyes of voters as well as among other parties. (Svåsand)

Swedish New Democracy also lacked a formalized structure, the party was supposed to be more like business operation with quick decisions and few organizational layers. ( Pierre and Widfeldt) In 1993 New Democracy had 10 000 members.

Movement for Latvia announced that it was the largest political party in Latvia with several thousand members.

Action of populist parties

Most of all these parties focus on some essential questions which sometimes are not in agenda of traditional parties because they are supposed to be undoubtful for tolerant and democratic citizen. Very often people do not think in the way they are supposed to think and populist parties are not afraid to express these hidden sentiments. For example, no one says that he is against human rights but in case of immigrants it can be different...

The Progress Parties in Denmark and Norway began as anti-tax, anti-big government, quasi-libertarian movements which saw in their platforms what their names imply - progress ( Both parties have since added anti-immigration positions to their profiles, emphasizing the economic dimension). Indeed when Mogens Glistrup started his Danish Progress Party in 1972 and when Anders Lange followed suit in Norway in 1973, both saw their offspring as more than just “anti-tax”, they were also anti-establishment. (Harmel and Gibson, 1995)

Danish Progress Party as its main goal identifies the freedom of the individual. Emphasis is also on property rights, market economy and cutting down of public sector. Reducing the size of the public sector will enable to reduce taxes. The Progress Party wants to give the people a direct influence on political decisions through referendums. The party is against economical refugees. It also wants to reduce restrictive legislation in agriculture. The Danish Progress Party is against European Union as expressed in the Maastricht Treaty. ( Danish political parties - in their own words, 1993)

Swedish New Democracy has almost the same positions in its program as Danish Progress Party.

In Latvia populist parties did not use hidden sentiments because all kinds of beliefs circulate in Latvian society (our political culture is in transition) and they had to choose ones that could get most support. Siegerist’s party has not declared any reasonable economical program. Mostly they are against all that was done by parties in power. Latvian party system is characterized by two dimensions: right - left in property issue and tolerant - radical in ethnic problem. Movement for Latvia does not fit into this scheme. The movement is for property rights even for foreigners but also for more social guarantees. Money for social help it wanted to get from Western countries as humanitarian aid. In national question Movement for Latvia was not radical and was oriented towards all nationalities living in Latvia. A special subject in the program of the party was Latvian recent past in Soviet Union. All Communists were claimed to be bad and the cause of all problems in Latvia.

People that vote for populist parties

Usually voters mobility is within one block, but in case of emergence of new parties it is different. New parties attract people from all parties. I look at parties that are right-radical therefore their supporters come from right-wing parties. There are certain channels for voter mobility that are typical of the particular party system. If one block increases its support at an election, there is a chance of predicting which other blocks will suffer. Only the emergence of new parties shifts these channels. The Danish Progress Party, for example, established a new channel for vote switching between conservatives and the Social-Democratic blocks.

New Democracy’s voters came from Social Democrats, conservatives and those who were not voting before.

For example, Movement for Latvia attracted people who in last elections voted for Latvian Way and nationalist right-wing parties. Such shift was seen in the outcome of election and also in voters’ interviews on TV and radio. In Latvian case one more problem existed - people who were not supporters or Movement for Latvia but still voted for it. These voters wanted to punish the dominant parties for their ignorance and not listening to people’s needs. After the election these people were surprised and regreted their choice.

In Latvia old countryside women voted most for populist parties. Their economical status is the lowest. Such results of opinions polls were presented by Ilze Ostrovska, Department of Sociology ( University of Latvia). In Sweden 2/3 of those who voted for New Democracy were male. Also in Norway the Progress Party is mostly supported by males.

Lena Wängnerud presents results of research on gender voting. While both men and women voters for New Democracy mentioned taxation as the most important issue in the election (1991), the refugee issue was seen as the main reason for party choice and it received the most positive evaluations regarding the parties policies. Taxation was number four for men and number two for women. Refugee probleem was not ranked among top five for women, for men it was number two. The women voters mentioned instead social, family, and pensions issues. (Wängnerud, 1994)

Decline of populist parties

Loss of leaders or splitting inside party have been major causes behind decline of populist parties. They are too much dependent on their leaders and the issues they focus on. If an issue does not exist anymore party can lose its supporters which were voting for this party because of its position in that particular issue.

For example, New Democracy has problems in leadership. The whole party was splitted into two parts: one group was oriented to business people and had leader Ian Wachtmeister; the other group was more oriented to ordinary people with leader Bert Karlsson. In 1994 party’s leader Wachtmeister left the top position. After that began new conflicts within the party and specially in its lead. These tensions weakened the party and did nt contribute to its good image in eyes of voters. New Democracy did not get seats in parliament after 1994 election.

Conclusion

Although in many positions Scandinavian and Latvian populist parties are similar their foundation is not caused by the same kind of causes. Therefore it becomes more difficult to adress the same causes of decline to Latvian as for Scandinavian populist parties. I think that economical development will be of greater importance in Latvia. Siegerist’s party cannot offer a reasonable program of economical development and that will help to lose voters’ support. Latvia can hope only that people will become more educated and will not believe in promises which are impossible to fulfill.

Literature:

Str¸m, Kaare (1994) “The Presthus Debacle: Intraparty Politics and Bargaining Failure in Norway” from American Political Science Review Vol.88, No. 1

Harmel, Robert and Gibson, Rachel K. (1995) “Right-Libertarian Parties and the “New Values”: A Re-examination” from Scandinavian Political Studies Vol. 18 - No.2

Danish political parties - in their own words (1993) Published by the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Bille, Lars “The Decline of the Membership Party?” from How Parties Organize Ed. By R.S.Katz and P.Mair

Borre, Ole Critical Electoral Change in Scandinavia

Svåsand, Lars “Change and Adaption in Norwegian Party Organization” from How Parties Organize Ed. By R.S.Katz and P.Mair

Pierre, Jon and Widfeldt Anders “Party Organization in Sweden: Colossuses with Feet of Clay or Flexible Pillars of Government” from How Parties Organize Ed. By R.S.Katz and P.Mair

Boalt,