16 Unicameralism in Denmark Abolition of the Senate, current functioning and debate Asbjørn Skjæveland Introduction The Danish Senate, the Landsting, not only experienced a crisis but was also abolished. This paper investigates the abolition of the Landsting and the introduc­ tion of unicameralism (Arter 1991; Eigaard 1993; Thorsen s.d.). Furthermore, it investigates how well Danish unicameral democracy is working, and it pre­ sents the current low-intensity debate on the possible introduction of an additional chamber. This chapter shows that while redundancy, which is due in part to the development of the composition of the Landsting, did play a role in its abolition, so did party tactics and even the entanglement with the matters of voting age and royal succession. Thus, the full explanation for the introduction of unicameralism cannot be found in the category of rational, national-level explanations. Yet Dan­ ish democracy is doing fine. Danish voters are satisfied and the overall diagnoses of political scientists are generally positive. Clearly, not all democracies need a senate to do well. Only rarely is a new senate proposed as a solution to problems identified by observers and actors. Per Stig Møller (former minister and MP for the conservatives [Det Konservative Folkeparti]) is an exception to the rule. He suggests that it would be a good idea to reintroduce something resembling the Landsting (Møller & Jensen 2010). Still, Danish democracy is not perfect, and in a recent book it has been suggested that it could be improved by introducing an additional chamber elected by lottery (Mulvad, Larsen & Ellersgaard 2017) to improve the descriptive representation of the Danish Parliament, since the new chamber would mirror the composition of the Danish voters in terms of descrip­ tors, such as gender and education. The demise and abolition of the Landsting Key years on the timeline of the demise and abolition of the Landsting are 1901, when Folketing (Danish name for the lower house, 1849–1953, for the Danish parliament after 1953) parliamentarism was introduced; 1915, when privileged voting to the Landsting was abolished; 1936, when the conservative party and the liberal party (Venstre) lost their majority in the Landsting and 1953, when the Landsting was abolished through a constitutional change. 226 Asbjørn Skjæveland In the last decades of the nineteenth century, a constitutional battle raged between the king and conservatives on the one hand and the liberals on the other. In 1866, the 1849 constitution was replaced with a revised constitution that intro­ duced privileged voting rights to the Landsting, allocating special voting rights to the largest taxpayers and some members selected by the king or government (Hvidt 2004; Wendel-Hansen 2016). In 1901, with the political system change (Systemskiftet), the king agreed to appointing governments that were consid­ ered acceptable by the Folketing. Cabinet responsibility to the Folketing was not reflected in the words of the constitution until 1953. In the years preceding the change of system, the king had appointed conservative prime ministers leading governments of the Højre party (i.e. the ‘Right’). The people surrounding the court worked to the letter of the law, giving the king the right to appoint govern­ ments, and the appointment of conservative prime ministers could be justified by reference to the Landsting. The conservatives had a majority in the Senate, while the liberal party (or parties) had a majority in the Folketing (Hvidt 2004; Thorsen (s.d.); Haue, Olsen & Aarup-Kristensen 1981; Thorsen 1972; Elklit 1984; Eigaard 1993). While the system change that introduced governments based on the Folketing was a major victory for the liberal party, privileged voting for the Senate still existed, and bills had to be passed by both chambers. The liberal party wanted privileged voting for the Landsting abolished, and the social democratic party had even proposed to abolish the Senate. Højre wanted to keep their power in the Landsting but wanted the electoral system for the lower chamber to change, in which both Højre and social democrats were underrepresented (Himmelstrup & Møller 1932; Hvidt 2004; Elklit 1984). The death of J.B.S. Estrup (prime minister during the constitutional battle) on Christmas Eve, 1913, and the elections in 1914, with the supporters of reform winning a clear majority in the Senate, paved the way for constitutional reform, which was passed in 1915 (Thorsen 1972; Christiansen 2004). In 1915, equal and universal suffrage to the lower chamber was introduced (beginning the shift to a proportional system that was completed in 1920). Privileged voting to the upper chamber was abolished. Voters eligible to vote in Folketing elections were also allowed to vote in Landsting elections. However, they had to be 35 years old, compared to 25 years for elections for the Folketing. Moreover, the election determined only 75 per cent of the seats, while the remaining 25 per cent was determined by the previous Senate. Members were elected for eight years, with elections every four years and selection by the previous Senate every eight years. (Himmelstrup & Møller 1932; Elklit 1984). As Table 16.1 shows, the liberal party and the conservative party held a solid majority in the early days of the new elec­ toral system. However, a steady and substantial increase in the representation of the social democratic party (Socialdemokratiet) changed this, and in 1936 social democrats and the social liberal party (Det Radikale Venstre) held a majority in the Landsting, as they did in the Folketing (see Table 16.1). Still, until 1936, the conservative party and the liberal party combined held a majority in the Senate (see Table 16.1), giving them the ability to block legislation, Unicameralism in Denmark 227 Table 16.1 Composition of the Danish parliament, the Rigsdag, 1920–1953, four old par­ ties only Year the Landsting the Folketing Total S SL L C Total S SL L C 1920 76 21 9 32 13 149 48 18 51 27 1924 25 8 30 12 55 20 44 28 1926 53 16 46 30 1928 27 8 28 12 1929 61 16 43 24 1932 27 7 28 13 62 14 38 27 1935 68 14 28 26 1936 31 7 22 15 1939 35 8 18 13 64 14 30 26 1943 34 8 18 14 66 13 28 31 1945 34 8 19 14 48 11 38 26 1947 33 7 21 13 150 57 10 49 17 1950 151 59 12 32 27 1951 33 6 22 12 1953 33 6 22 13 61 13 33 26 Sources: Folketinget 2019b; Johansen 2005 Note: Only totals include Faroese members. S: The social democratic party SL: The social liberal party L: The liberal party C: The conservative party which they did. Until its abolition, the Senate enjoyed substantial legislative powers. Bills could be proposed here and had to be passed by the Landsting to become law (Himmelstrup & Møller 1932; Wendel-Hansen 2016). This had con­ sequences. For instance, the social democrats and the social liberals proposed substantial cuts in defence spending in the 1920s, but the majority held by the conservatives and the liberal party in the Senate allowed the two parties to block such proposals (Kaarsted & Trommer 2004). This might be used as an example to argue that the Landsting served a purpose in protecting the country from overly eager progressive forces. The purpose of the Senate, presumably, was to be mod­ erating and reflective (Wendel-Hansen 2016; Thorsen s.d.). It limited the cuts in defence spending and made it necessary for the social democrats and social liber­ als, despite their majority in the lower house, to seek cooperation with the liberal party (Kanslergadeforliget) in 1933 to have important social and economic pro­ posals passed (Arter 1991; Kaarsted & Trommer 2004). Unsurprisingly, the social democrats and the social liberals wanted the Danish Senate abolished (Arter 1991; Eigaard 1993). After the 1915 reform, the electorates for the Landsting and for the Folketing were virtually identical (except for the different age limits and the 25 per cent rule, as described earlier). The electoral system for the Landsting was proportional and 228 Asbjørn Skjæveland indirect. In 1936, the voters and the outgoing Landsting elected thirty-seven social democrats and social liberals, as well as thirty-seven liberals and conservatives. On the island Bornholm, the voters elected twenty-three electors for the social democrats and the social liberals and twenty-three electors for the liberal party and the conservatives. It had to be decided by lottery which party was to receive the remaining seat from Denmark proper. The social democrats won (Kaarsted & Trommer 2004; Himmelstrup & Møller 1932). After the victory of the social democrats and the social liberals in 1936, the leader of the conservative party, John Christmas Møller, looked for new con­ servative guarantees. He wanted constitutional reform that could also bring the conservative party closer to the social democrats, which might further the con­ servatives’ pro-defence stance. After various proposals, the social democratic– social liberal government proposed constitutional reform, which the conservative party but not the liberal party could support. The Landsting would be replaced by a Rigsting, which would become the new upper house. Thirty-four members would be chosen in an election in which the entire country constituted one con­ stituency, and thirty-five would be chosen from those elected to the Folketing. With an additional Faroese member, the Rigsting would have seventy members; the Folketing, 140 members. The Norwegian inspiration was evident (cf. Smith, E., this volume), and some even considered it a camouflaged one-chamber sys­ tem. Had it been passed, it would have maintained a Danish senate. In reality, it was passed by two consecutive Parliaments with a parliamentary election in between, as stipulated in the constitution (Kaarsted & Trommer 2004).