democracy school

Less than two per cent of Norwegian voters help determine who will represent the people in the Storting. It is this small group that participates in the nomination process in the Norwegian parties, where electoral lists are put together. Then the voters get to vote for the parties, but with little influence on which representatives are elected.

Norway has one of the most closed nomination processes in the Nordic countries, or even in Europe. The nomination process in the Norwegian parties is criticized for being exclusive and for the few. Last week it emerged that no parties have so far prioritized minority politicians in safe places. There is therefore much evidence that there will not be a single politician with a minority background in the Storting after the election next autumn. 169 representatives, none with multicultural background.
The contrast is great with the American nomination process and the election that has been followed for a long time by a whole world.

- In a democracy, it is important to get people involved in the processes and not get too great a distance between those in power and those in power. We see the excitement Obama has created among voters in the United States. Involving voters to a greater extent is a challenge that the Norwegian party system should take seriously, says election researcher Bernt Aardal.
He does not, however, believe that primary elections such as the United States are the way to go, but he believes that a more open and more inclusive nomination process is an opportunity to generate greater political interest.

Popular process

Interest in the US elections means that many countries are now talking about reforming their own political system. Canadian journalist John Ibbitson is one of those who praise American democracy. Last week, he wrote in The Globe and Mail that the system may simply be too democratic for Canadians, at least for the political, intellectual and cultural elite that are in power.

In the United States, voters get to choose the party's candidates for the main election by registering which party they support and then being able to participate in the primary election. It is this popular process that has raised Democrats Barack Obama as the first colored presidential candidate in the United States. While Hillary Clinton got a record-high 18 million votes, beating all middle-aged white men before losing to Obama. Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin also creates enthusiasm and political commitment. Can Norwegian democracy be inspired? Can Norway become more democratic?

While the nomination in the US is now over, the nomination process ahead of the Norwegian parliamentary elections is next fall. So far, the nomination battle in the Oslo Labor Party has received the most attention. The Labor Party leadership has decided on a "liberal interpretation" of the gender quota rules and in this way the party has adapted the rules to what key players want. This is how it is possible for Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre to secure a seat in the Storting, without Jens Stoltenberg or the leader of Oslo Ap, Jan Bøhler, having to depart from their safe seats. It is the women who are sacrificed, and Marianne Marthinsen and Saera Khan have to go down the list to make room for Støre. This has caused parts of Aps women's network to look red over what they see as manipulation and undemocratic behavior to secure Støre's parliamentary seat.

– This case shows that key party actors have great influence, but will at the same time be able to start a discussion about how the nomination processes in Norway take place and how to introduce a scheme where ordinary party members participate to a greater extent, says professor of political science Lars Svåsand at the Department of Comparative Politics at the University of Bergen. He believes the case in the Oslo Labor Party is unfavorable for party democracy.

International trend

The critics of the democratic processes sit both inside and outside. In a post in Dagsavisen on 3 September, Mari Sanden from the Trade Union Labor Party writes that the last annual meeting of the Oslo Labor Party was not democratic. Sanden is now a member of the Oslo Labor Party's nomination committee and will not elaborate on his position to Ny Tid.

Does the statement indicate that something is wrong with democracy in Norway?

- It may seem undemocratic that there are so few who are actively participating in the recruitment of politicians, says professor of political science Hanne Marthe Narud at the University of Oslo. At the same time, she emphasizes that the view of who and how many people should participate varies with the democratic ideals on which they are based. Of the parties' paying members, only one in six in Norway participates in the nomination process. According to Narud, eight percent of Norwegians say they are party members. This is a halving of the number of party members compared to 30 years ago. This narrows the recruitment base. Based on these figures, about 1,3 per cent of the population participate in the nomination process. If we compare ourselves with parties in other European countries, we have one of the most closed nomination processes because ordinary party members have little influence.

While developments in other European countries have hated opener nominations, Norway is lagging behind in addressing the problems of lack of political involvement.
– In several countries, the nomination process has moved from nomination in the parties with delegates to a more open process in which several of the party members participate. This is an international trend that we also see in the election of party leaders, says Svåsand and points out that when the Israeli Prime Minister and party leader Ehud Olmert these days thanks for himself, all members of the Kadima party will vote on who will be the new leader. Svåsand also believes it would be an advantage for the parties to open up more. He has three suggestions for how this can be done: The parties can hold a nomination meeting where all registered party members can participate in the vote, a nomination meeting that results in a list to be accepted by the majority of party members, or one can have a primary election system where party members can vote , not at a meeting, but within a certain time.

Want personal choices

In addition to the more open nomination process, election researcher Bernt Aardal believes in increased use of the internet and modern technology to create better contact with voters. He points out that new democracies, such as Estonia, dare to invest more in new technology in election contexts than countries like Norway – which have longer democratic traditions. Estonia has been a pioneer in electronic voting, and in the local elections in 2005 it was possible to vote over the internet for the first time. 9000 voters took this opportunity. In 2007, the Estonians were the world's first voters to cast electronic votes in the National Assembly elections.

- Will online voting in elections make Norway more democratic?

- It can do that by opening up to groups that are not currently involved, and opening up the political field also to those who are not party members, Aardal believes.
In the Nordic region, the Icelandic right-wing party The Independence Party is the only party that, according to Narud, has practiced totally open nomination processes. Voters have been selected to list candidates and it has not been a condition that they are party members. But although primary choices are more inclusive, the American model also has its downsides.

- Open primary elections give actors other than the parties more influence. The media gets more power and communication advisors and money become a bigger part of the process. The primary elections also take the focus away from the party program and over to populist features of the candidate, says Narud.

The question that is asked is whether the primary election scheme causes the candidate to focus on electing voters and not following the party's program. In that case, it can create instability. Another problem with open nominations, Narud believes, is that it can be difficult to get lists where gender, age and place of residence are balanced.

While the US system is candidate-run and primary elections are governed by the states, the systems in Norway and Europe are built around parties. In several European parties, according to Narud, there has been more focus on the lists to reflect the population. Therefore, instead of primary elections, the electorate has given greater influence to the personal election on election day to increase engagement. Here, Norway differs from the other Nordic countries in that we are the only country without the possibility to cast personal votes in elections to the National Assembly. In Denmark, the voters have had the opportunity to prioritize the candidates themselves for many years, while the Swedes were given this opportunity at the national election in 1998. In Finland, voters may have the greatest influence over who is to represent them in parliament because it is the voters who make the election of the candidates. They vote for a candidate from a party and the votes of the party are the sum of the person votes.
– To engage the voters, I think it may be desirable to open up for personal elections also in the Storting election, says Narud.

Can go beyond minorities

In Norway, in the case of parliamentary elections, the order in which the candidates are set may be changed by deleting the candidate or by putting a number by the name. But in practice, it takes a lot to change the party's priority list because more than half of the electorate must correct for there to be a change. It never happened. In the county council and municipal elections, one person may vote by marking the candidate's name.

State magistrate Hanne Marthe Narud refers to an international survey published in the acclaimed journal European Journal of Political Research in 2006 which shows that voters in countries where there is a person-choice scheme are more satisfied with democracy and feel that they participate to a greater extent and can influence the political process. But in Norway, the majority in the Storting opposed such a scheme when it was proposed by the government in connection with the new electoral scheme from 2003. Most party voters are also lukewarm to personal votes.

- Personally, it is my opinion that [personal election] would strengthen Norwegian democracy significantly, said Conservative leader Erna Solberg when the matter was taken up in the Odelsting in 2005.

According to researchers Ny Tid has talked to, one of the reasons why we have not had a greater element of personal voting in Norway is that there is a fear that voters in personal elections will turn the balance on the lists upside down and that women and minorities will thus break out. But it is not a given that it will happen.

- The fear that women will perform worse in personal elections is based on the premise that women are not able to mobilize, and that is a static view. We remember the women's coup in the 1970s. We have also seen that personal elections in municipal elections have given the opportunity for immigrant groups to be better represented than before, says Aardal.

Power for grassroots

Such is the situation today, however, it seems dark for politicians with a minority background ahead of the next Storting election. A review by NRK shows that after the election in 2009, there will probably not be a single permanent representative with a minority background in the Storting. It becomes unrepresentative when one in ten inhabitants of the country has a non-Norwegian background. Lack of representation is a democratic problem, according to Akhenaton de Leon, the leader of the Anti-Discrimination Organization.

- There are many competent politicians with a minority background in the parties, but they have not reached. Therefore, there must be something wrong with the system, says de Leon.
He believes that the political parties must ensure diversity if we are to preserve democracy and that the method must be to go within itself to find the reasons why the minority politicians do not reach. He is not in favor of quotas, but believes that the nomination process needs to be made more transparent.

Just making the process more open is something Oslo Right is doing for the first time in its nomination for the Storting elections in 2009. The party has invited all members to an urn nomination, and via the net they can give their input and influence who is placed where on the electoral list. The SV and the Labor Party are among the parties that have tried their votes in previous elections. Investigations by English parties who have tried this method have shown that several join the party. It also gives the grass root more power.

Deputy Representative at the Storting for the Right, Afshan Rafiq, believes that getting the widest possible nomination process will not only engage, but that it can also be an advantage for both women and minority politicians.
– Many people know many at the grassroots, but not up in the party system, and for them it can then be easier to get involved when the nomination committee and the nomination meeting do not decide everything, Rafiq says. She believes that a more open nomination that avoids candidates who are favored in the party is the most democratic way to carry out a nomination process.

- Norway has a lot to learn from the nomination process in the USA. It is tougher, but also more open. We must also become better at staying in Norway, says Rafiq.

For direct democracy

US expert and writer in Minerva, Jan Arild Snoen, also thinks we have a lot to learn from American democracy, not just in the nomination process.
– As in Switzerland, the United States has a greater tradition of direct democracy. This is something that is worth looking into in Norway as well, says Snoen.

He believes that direct democracy in the form of referendums is important because it reduces the power of the political class.
– We have a political clique that governs Norway and there are fewer and fewer of them. In the United States, on the other hand, there are channels for making more direct popular decisions. But since the decisions now go through the parties, it is natural that they want to keep it that way, says Snoen.

He is also skeptical of professional politicians and we believe in Norway where there is also something to learn from the United States where the last decades has been a movement that wants to limit how long politicians can sit as elected representatives. He believes that there is a problem for democracy if the group of professional politicians gets too much power. But even though there are many positive aspects of American democracy, it must also be borne in mind that they have significantly lower turnout than Norway and that money has a great influence, says Snoen.

It is now under one year for the next Storting election. Voters have little influence on who is going to represent us at the Storting since the nomination process is closed and we cannot cast a person vote. Although neither the next nor future elections will be like the US, it does not mean that we cannot be inspired by electoral systems beyond our own borders. Maybe then Norway can become more democratic. Or maybe we will increase political engagement at least.