DOCSLIB.ORG

Unicameralism in Denmark: Abolition of the Senate, Current Functioning

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Unicameralism in Denmark: Abolition of the Senate, Current Functioning 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).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions.
    [Show full text]
  • PAPPA – Parties and Policies in Parliaments
    PAPPA Parties and Policies in Parliament Version 1.0 (August 2004) Data description Martin Ejnar Hansen, Robert Klemmensen and Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard Political Science Publications No. 3/2004 Name: PAPPA: Parties and Policies in Parliaments, version 1.0 (August 2004) Authors: Martin Ejnar Hansen, Robert Klemmensen & Peter Kurrild- Klitgaard. Contents: All legislation passed in the Danish Folketing, 1945-2003. Availability: The dataset is at present not generally available to the public. Academics should please contact one of the authors with a request for data stating purpose and scope; it will then be determined whether or not the data can be released at present, or the requested results will be provided. Data will be made available on a website and through Dansk Data Arkiv (DDA) when the authors have finished their work with the data. Citation: Hansen, Martin Ejnar, Robert Klemmensen and Peter Kurrild- Klitgaard (2004): PAPPA: Parties and Policies in Parliaments, version 1.0, Odense: Department of Political Science and Public Management, University of Southern Denmark. Variables The total number of variables in the dataset is 186. The following variables have all been coded on the basis of the Folketingets Årbog (the parliamentary hansard) and (to a smaller degree) the parliamentary website (www.ft.dk): nr The number given in the parliamentary hansard (Folketingets Årbog), or (in recent years) the law number. sam The legislative session. eu Whether or not the particular piece of legislation was EU/EEC initiated. change Whether or not the particular piece of legislation was a change of already existing legislation. vedt Whether the particular piece of legislation was passed or not.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sørmarka Declaration We Build the Nordics
    THE SØRMARKA DECLARATION WE BUILD THE NORDICS SAMAK WE BUILD THE NORDICS INTRODUCTION 3 SOLIDARITY CREATES FREEDOM 4 POLITICAL CHALLENGES AND POSSIBILITIES IN THE NORDIC COUNTRIES TOWARDS 2030 8 POLITICAL CAPACITY AND LEADERSHIP 35 A GREENER LABOUR MOVEMENT 37 This political declaration was adopted by the congress held by the co-operation committee of the Nordic Social Democratic parties and trade union LOs – SAMAK – 12 November 2014 at Sørmarka, outside Oslo, Norway. The declaration is based on a unique research project for the future of the Nordic model, NordMod2030. The first Workers’ Congress was held in Gothenburg, Sweden, in 1886. SAMAK member organizations: The Social Democratic Party, Sweden LO, Sweden The Labour Party, Norway LO, Norway The Social Democratic Party of Finland SAK/FFC, Finland The Social Democrats, Denmark LO, Denmark The Social Democratic Alliance Samfylkingin, Iceland ASI, Iceland Føroya Javnadarflokkurin, The Faroe Islands Siumut, Greenland Åland Social Democrats 2 INTRODUCTION It is time to look ahead. During the last century, the Social Democrats, together with the trade union movements, were the first to introduce radical social developments in the Nordic countries, which made it possible to achieve living conditions at a level previously unknown in the history of humanity. There is still, however, so much to be achieved. The various challenges of the twenty-first century are easily identified but difficult to overcome. The threat of climate change, for example, an ageing population and ever-increasing competition are no longer future threats - they are with us now. I am firmly convinced, however, that the broad based labour movement, with its values and its approach to difficulties, has the necessary tools to convert these challenges into opportunities.
    [Show full text]
  • Factsheet: the Danish Folketinget
    Directorate-General for the Presidency Directorate for Relations with National Parliaments Factsheet: The Danish Folketinget 1. At a glance Denmark is a Constitutional Monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. The Folketinget is a unicameral Parliament composed of 179 Members. The two self-governing regions, Greenland and the Faeroe Islands, each elect two Members. Of the other 175 Members, 135 are elected from ten multi-Member constituencies on a party list, proportional representation system using the d'Hondt method. The remaining 40 seats are allocated to ensure proportionality at a national level. Elections of the Folketinget must take place every four years, unless the Monarch, on the advice of the Prime Minister, calls for early elections. The general election on 5 June 2019 gave the "Red Bloc" a parliamentary majority in support of Social Democrats leader Mette Frederiksen as Prime Minister. The coalition comprises the Social Democrats, the Social Liberals, Socialist People's Party, the Red– Green Alliance, the Faroese Social Democratic Party and the Greenlandic Siumut, and won 93 of the 179 seats. The Government, announced on 27 June, is a single-party government. 2. Composition Results of the Folketinget elections on 5 June 2019 Party EP affiliation % Seats Socialdemokraterne (Social Democrats) 25,9% 48 Venstre, Danmarks Liberale Parti) (V) (Liberals) 23,45% 43 Dansk Folkeparti (DF) (Danish People's Party) 8,7% 16 Det Radikale Venstre (Danish Social Liberal Party) 8,6% 16 Socialistisk Folkeparti (SF) (Socialist People's Party) 7,7% 14 Red-Green Alliance (Enhedslisten) 13 6,9% Det Konservative Folkeparti (Conservative People's Party) 6,6% 12 The Alternative (Alternativet) 3% 5 The New Right (Nye Borgerlige) 2,4% 4 Liberal Alliance (Liberal Alliance) 2,3% 4 Others <1 % 0 Faroe Islands Union Party (Sambandsflokkurin) 28,8% 1 Javnaðarflokkurin (Social Democratic Party) 25,5% 1 Greenland Inuit Ataqatigiit (Inuit Community) 33,4% 1 Siumut 29,4% 1 Forward 179 Turnout: 84.6% 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3: an Overview of Swedish Constitutional History
    Perfecting Parliament Succession, and the Riksdag Acts). It is this portion--the written constitution--that defines the electoral system, specifies the organization of parliament, the relation of the king to parliament, and characterizes many of the constraints that define the limits of governmental activities. These written rules directly shape the broad outlines of Swedish governance, and most clearly characterize the general manner in which the preferences of Swedish citizens are used to determine which specific public policies are put in place. It bears noting, this usage of the term constitution differs somewhat from that used by some Swedish scholars. The term constitution, as used here, refers to the fundamental procedures and constraints faced by Swedish government, rather then the subset of relevant legal documents which claim constitutional status, per se. By the usage adopted here, the Swedish state may be said to have operated under four different constitutions: one written in 1809, one that emerged from amendment in 1866, one that emerged from amendment and additional structural and electoral reform in 1920, and one that was adopted by major structural reforms in 1970. That is to say, the result of major reforms of fundamental procedures and constraints is regarded as creating a new constitution. (There were only two Instruments of Government during the period of interest, those of 1809 and 1975, but there have been four substantially different procedures for making new laws.) This convention is faithful to the discussion above, and simplifies the description of major reforms. The result of the major reforms of the Riksdag adopted in 1866 and in 1909-20 period will be referred to as the Constitution of 1866 and Constitution of 1920, rather than some less descriptive and more cumbersome phrase.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenger Party List
    Appendix List of Challenger Parties Operationalization of Challenger Parties A party is considered a challenger party if in any given year it has not been a member of a central government after 1930. A party is considered a dominant party if in any given year it has been part of a central government after 1930. Only parties with ministers in cabinet are considered to be members of a central government. A party ceases to be a challenger party once it enters central government (in the election immediately preceding entry into office, it is classified as a challenger party). Participation in a national war/crisis cabinets and national unity governments (e.g., Communists in France’s provisional government) does not in itself qualify a party as a dominant party. A dominant party will continue to be considered a dominant party after merging with a challenger party, but a party will be considered a challenger party if it splits from a dominant party. Using this definition, the following parties were challenger parties in Western Europe in the period under investigation (1950–2017). The parties that became dominant parties during the period are indicated with an asterisk. Last election in dataset Country Party Party name (as abbreviation challenger party) Austria ALÖ Alternative List Austria 1983 DU The Independents—Lugner’s List 1999 FPÖ Freedom Party of Austria 1983 * Fritz The Citizens’ Forum Austria 2008 Grüne The Greens—The Green Alternative 2017 LiF Liberal Forum 2008 Martin Hans-Peter Martin’s List 2006 Nein No—Citizens’ Initiative against
    [Show full text]
  • Unicameralism and the Indiana Constitutional Convention of 1850 Val Nolan, Jr.*
    DOCUMENT UNICAMERALISM AND THE INDIANA CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1850 VAL NOLAN, JR.* Bicameralism as a principle of legislative structure was given "casual, un- questioning acceptance" in the state constitutions adopted in the nineteenth century, states Willard Hurst in his recent study of main trends in the insti- tutional development of American law.1 Occasioning only mild and sporadic interest in the states in the post-Revolutionary period,2 problems of legislative * A.B. 1941, Indiana University; J.D. 1949; Assistant Professor of Law, Indiana Uni- versity School of Law. 1. HURST, THE GROWTH OF AMERICAN LAW, THE LAW MAKERS 88 (1950). "O 1ur two-chambered legislatures . were adopted mainly by default." Id. at 140. During this same period and by 1840 many city councils, unicameral in colonial days, became bicameral, the result of easy analogy to state governmental forms. The trend was reversed, and since 1900 most cities have come to use one chamber. MACDONALD, AmER- ICAN CITY GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 49, 58, 169 (4th ed. 1946); MUNRO, MUNICIPAL GOVERN-MENT AND ADMINISTRATION C. XVIII (1930). 2. "[T]he [American] political theory of a second chamber was first formulated in the constitutional convention held in Philadelphia in 1787 and more systematically developed later in the Federalist." Carroll, The Background of Unicameralisnl and Bicameralism, in UNICAMERAL LEGISLATURES, THE ELEVENTH ANNUAL DEBATE HAND- BOOK, 1937-38, 42 (Aly ed. 1938). The legislature of the confederation was unicameral. ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, V. Early American proponents of a bicameral legislature founded their arguments on theoretical grounds. Some, like John Adams, advocated a second state legislative house to represent property and wealth.
    [Show full text]
  • The Parliamentary Electoral System in Denmark
    The Parliamentary Electoral System in Denmark GUIDE TO THE DANISH ELECTORAL SYSTEM 00 Contents 1 Contents Preface ....................................................................................................................................................................................................3 1. The Parliamentary Electoral System in Denmark ..................................................................................................4 1.1. Electoral Districts and Local Distribution of Seats ......................................................................................................4 1.2. The Electoral System Step by Step ..................................................................................................................................6 1.2.1. Step One: Allocating Constituency Seats ......................................................................................................................6 1.2.2. Step Two: Determining of Passing the Threshold .......................................................................................................7 1.2.3. Step Three: Allocating Compensatory Seats to Parties ...........................................................................................7 1.2.4. Step Four: Allocating Compensatory Seats to Provinces .........................................................................................8 1.2.5. Step Five: Allocating Compensatory Seats to Constituencies ...............................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Planting Parliaments in Eurasia, 1850–1950
    Planting Parliaments in Eurasia, 1850–1950 Parliaments are often seen as Western European and North American institutions and their establishment in other parts of the world as a derivative and mostly defec- tive process. This book challenges such Eurocentric visions by retracing the evo- lution of modern institutions of collective decision-making in Eurasia. Breaching the divide between different area studies, the book provides nine case studies cov- ering the area between the eastern edge of Asia and Eastern Europe, including the former Russian, Ottoman, Qing, and Japanese Empires as well as their succes- sor states. In particular, it explores the appeals to concepts of parliamentarism, deliberative decision-making, and constitutionalism; historical practices related to parliamentarism; and political mythologies across Eurasia. It focuses on the historical and “reestablished” institutions of decision-making, which consciously hark back to indigenous traditions and adapt them to the changing circumstances in imperial and postimperial contexts. Thereby, the book explains how represent- ative institutions were needed for the establishment of modernized empires or postimperial states but at the same time offered a connection to the past. Ivan Sablin is a research group leader in the Department of History at Heidelberg University, Germany. Egas Moniz Bandeira is a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Legal History and Legal Theory, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Routledge Studies in the Modern History of Asia 152. Caste in Early Modern Japan Danzaemon and the Edo Outcaste Order Timothy D. Amos 153. Performing the Politics of Translation in Modern Japan Staging the Resistance Aragorn Quinn 154. Malaysia and the Cold War Era Edited by Ooi Keat Gin 155.
    [Show full text]
  • As Always Turnout Was High in Denmark: 84.50% Severely Regarding Migrants, but Also Regarding Danes I.E
    GENERAL ELECTION IN DENMARK 5th June 2019 European The left-wing forces ahead Elections monitor in the general elections in Denmark Corinne Deloy The Social Democratic Party (SD) came out ahead in the general elections that took place on 5th June in Denmark. Led by Mette Frederiksen it won 25.9% of the vote, taking 48 seats in the Folketing, the single house of the Parliament, i.e. one more than in the previous Results elections on 18th June 2015. The People’s Socialist Party (SF), led by Pia Olsen Dyhr party led by Kristian Thulesen Dahl suffered a serious won 7.7% of the vote and doubled its number of seats defeat winning 8.7% of the vote, i.e. its weakest result rising from 7 to 14. Undeniably it benefited from the since the general elections in 1998. It lost more than present situation, i.e. the European elections that help half of its seats, dropping to 16 (-21). It is true that to push global warming to the heart of public debate. its defeat in the ballot box should be relativized since This issue supplanted the others over the last days of the populists have succeeded in influencing national the electoral campaign. “It seems that the Danes voted political life. The issue of immigration has been central to in support of hope, the climate, children and the future,” political debate for many years and as time has gone by declared the party chair. all governments have introduced increasingly restrictive measures. According to the Interior Ministry 114 of these The Social Liberal Party (RV), led by Morten Ostergaard measures to make access to Denmark more difficult for doubled also its number of seats: 8.6% of the vote and migrants were taken in the last legislature.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenland in Figures 2016 13Th Revised Edition · Editorial Deadline: February 2016 Published by Statistics Greenland Tel
    Greenland in Figures 2016 Index Greenland · Kalaallit Nunaat 3 Key Figures 5 Population 9 Fishing and Hunting 13 Labour Market 16 Income and Prices 17 Economy 19 Foreign Trade 20 Business 21 Transportation 22 Energy 24 Education and Culture 25 Tourism 27 Health 28 Social Welfare 31 Raw Materials 32 Climate 33 Political Parties in Greenland 35 More Information about Greenland 38 The Largest Island of the World 40 3 Greenland · Kalaallit Nunaat Indigenous people from the North American continent settled in Greenland over 4,500 years ago Since then Greenland has been in- habited by several indigenous peoples Around 1,000 years ago Greenlandic ancestors (the Thule Culture) settled in northern Green- land, whereas Scandinavian Viking settlers arrived in the southern Greenland around the same time Today the country is called Kalaallit Nunaat, which means “the Country of the Greenlanders” Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark that consists of Denmark, the Faroe Islands and Greenland However, Greenland is not part of the EU as it withdrew from the union as February 1 1985 fol- lowing a referendum in 1982 Greenland has its own national flag, issues its own stamps, and is part of the Danish monetary and exchange union In 1979, Greenland was granted home rule In June 2009, a bill on self-government was passed following a referendum on the question on November 25 2008 Self-government was established on June 21 2009, 30 years after the introduction of the home rule 4 Qaanaaq Pituffik/Thule National Park Qaasuitsup Kommunia Upernavik Uummannaq
    [Show full text]
  • Mixed-Member Electoral Systems in Constitutional Context
    0/-*/&4637&: *ODPMMBCPSBUJPOXJUI6OHMVFJU XFIBWFTFUVQBTVSWFZ POMZUFORVFTUJPOT UP MFBSONPSFBCPVUIPXPQFOBDDFTTFCPPLTBSFEJTDPWFSFEBOEVTFE 8FSFBMMZWBMVFZPVSQBSUJDJQBUJPOQMFBTFUBLFQBSU $-*$,)&3& "OFMFDUSPOJDWFSTJPOPGUIJTCPPLJTGSFFMZBWBJMBCMF UIBOLTUP UIFTVQQPSUPGMJCSBSJFTXPSLJOHXJUI,OPXMFEHF6OMBUDIFE ,6JTBDPMMBCPSBUJWFJOJUJBUJWFEFTJHOFEUPNBLFIJHIRVBMJUZ CPPLT0QFO"DDFTTGPSUIFQVCMJDHPPE MIXED-MEMBER ELECTORAL SYSTEMS IN CONSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT TAIWAN, JAPAN, and BEYOND EDITED BY NATHAN F. BATTO, CHI HUANG, ALEXANDER C. TAN, & GARY W. COX New Comparative Politics Mixed- Member Electoral Systems in Constitutional Context Reformers have promoted mixed- member electoral systems as the “best of both worlds.” In this volume, internationally recognized political sci- entists evaluate the ways in which the introduction of a mixed-member electoral system affects the coniguration of political parties. The con- tributors examine several political phenomena, including cabinet post allocation, nominations, preelectoral coalitions, split-ticket voting, and the size of party systems and faction systems. Signiicantly, they also consider various ways in which the constitutional system— especially whether the head of government is elected directly or indirectly—can modify the incentives created by the electoral system. Part I of the book provides an in-depth comparison of Taiwan and Japan, both of which moved from single nontransferable vote systems to mixed- member majoritarian systems. These cases demonstrate that the higher the payoffs of attaining the executive ofice and the greater degree of cross-district coordination required to win it, the stronger the incentives for elites to form and stay in the major parties. In such a context, a country will move rapidly toward a two-party system. In Part II, the contributors apply this theoretical logic to other countries with mixed- member systems and ind that executive competition has the same effect on legislative electoral rules in countries as disparate as Thailand, the Philippines, New Zealand, Bolivia, and Russia.
    [Show full text]