University of Aarhus

In an article about electoral research in Denmark, Mogens Pedersen has stated that Denmark seems "to be one of the most dull countries to deal with for an empirically oriented student of voting behaviour. Apparently the Danish political system lacks most of the characteristics that form the point of departure for many modern research workers, i.e. conflicts, cleavages, and instabilities. Homogeneity characterizes the Danish electorate. No religious, ethnic, regional, or other types of significant subcultures exist, which might threaten the maintenance of the political system or at least produce conflicts and tensions among the voters."¹ The period 1960-1968, which this article deals with, has not been as dull as that, in spite of the lack of marked cleavages in the Danish political system. The last two elections, 1966 and 1968, have been remarkable in various ways.

The aim of this paper is to give a brief outline of the main trends in electoral behavior in Denmark during the sixties, but with emphasis upon the last two elections. Some of the longitudinal aspects of Danish electoral behavior, up till the election of 1964, have been dealt with in volume II of Scandinavian Political Studies.2 This also applies to the general background and the results of the elections in 1964 and 1966.3

1. Development Since 1947

The fifties may be characterized as a period of ambivalence and stability in Danish electoral behavior. Ambivalence was demonstrated partly by the relatively low electoral participation which is typical of the whole period, and partly by the lack of a sharp and distinct right-left polarization. It was not comme il faut to be a communist, especially not after the events in Hungary in 1956. On the other hand, ultra right manifestations were identified with McCarthyism, and were not accepted either.

Stability was manifested in several ways. First of all, there were only modest
fluctuations in the shares of the three main political parties. The Social Democrats
at the one hand and the Conservatives and Liberals at the other were balanced

in relative strength, each with about one third of the total electorate.⁴ Secondly, this stability was reflected in the development of the relative shares of the total number of voters in different types of communities. These shares remained unchanged during the whole period.5 First during the sixties, and especially during the last two elections, we observe marked differences in the development of the relative strength of a certain party between ecological units. The first signs of such changes occurred in the 1960 election. The Social Democrats as well as the Conservatives increased their strength all over the country, but remarkably more in the less urbanized parts than in the Copenhagen area.

2. The Elections in 1960 and 1964

The election in 1960 can be characterized partly as a "deviating" election, partly as a "realigning" election, according to Campbell's typology.6 This election was deviating because of the sharp increase in voting turnout, and also because of the changes in the strength of the larger as well as the smaller political parties. To some extent it was also a realigning election. The right-left polarization was increased. On the right, the Independents entered the Danish Folketing, on the left, the new Socialist People's Party started off with about 5 percent of the total electorate. The two center parties, the Radical Liberals and the Justice Party (Single taxers) decreased in strength, and one of them, the Justice Party, lost all its seats in the Folketing. Political developments in the early sixties must be evaluated against the background of two important changes in the general environment of the elections, conditions which by no means were specific for Denmark only. In the first place, the general increase in economic activity and prosperity must be taken in account. Secondly, there was the general decrease in cold-war tensions. During the beginning of the sixties as well as throughout the period, it was again accepted to take extreme standpoints, to have either really left or really right opinions. The period of deideologization which was typical for the fifties came gradually to an end. Polarization and an increase of the ideological debate became more and more prominent

features of politics during the sixties, especially during the second half of this
period.

Also from an ecological point of view, the 1960 election may be classified as the starting point of a new period, especially for the three main political parties. A general tendency for different ecological units was a trend towards equalization of regional contrasts as well as contrasts between units with a varying degree of urbanization. This tendency began with the 1960 election and continued through 1964 and to some extent also during the last two elections.

The election in 1964 may by and large be considered as a maintaining election,
especially with regard to the results for the country as a whole.7 No marked changes

in the relative strength of the participating parties occurred. Ecologically, however, the 1964 election reveals some interesting developments. The Social Democrats were reduced in relative strength in the Copenhagen area as well as the other urbanized parts of the country. They gained in the rural areas. The general result was more or less a status quo, but regional contrasts in the relative strength of the party had diminished remarkably. The Liberals continued to lose in the rural areas, but were able to make up for these losses by an increase in strength in the Copenhagen area and other cities. The Conservatives, the only party which increased its vote, strengthened its position in the rural areas, and to a much less extent in the cities. For all three main parties, it was observed that their results were best in those parts of the country where their position, traditionally, had been weak. They lost, or had relatively small increases in strength, in regions where their position traditionally had been strong.

3. The Elections in 1966 and 1968

Election results are often described and interpreted on the basis of observed deviances
from the foregoing election. Especially in the case of marked deviances one

may be tempted to jump to conclusions. The 1966 election, for example, has been characterized as being "a demarcation line in Danish politics". A socialist majority was returned to parliament for the first time. The conditions were thereby created for a political course other than the far-reaching co-operation between social democracy and the bourgeois parties that has characterized Danish politics this century to a far greater extent than it has in Norway and Sweden.⁸ The following election in 1968 revealed that the Socialist majority of 1966 was a very temporary one, and that the re-strengthening of the center parties (especially the Radicals) which started in 1966, and which in the light of the Socialist majority remained more or less unobserved, increased remarkably.

What happened in 1966?9 Several developments turned this election and its results into something rather unique in Danish political history. The interest in the main issue at stake (a pay-as-you-earn tax-reform) was remarkably high. The voting turnout reached a peak (88.6 per cent). Contrary to the general trend of municipal

elections earlier the same year, and contrary to the results of opinion polls during the summer, the Conservative and Liberal parties decreased in strength. So did the Social Democrats. The 1966 election resulted in a strengthening of the far left, as well as the center parties. The Socialist People's Party doubled its relative strength as well as its number of seats in the Folketing. The new Liberal Center party and the gains of the Radicals strongly increased the relative strength of the center parties in parliament. The right-wing Independents did not obtain enough votes to remain in parliament.

Thus, the 1966 election resulted in a gain of 10 seats for the extreme left, a loss of 7 seats for the moderate left, a gain of 7 seats for the center, and a loss of 10 seats for the right. This meant that the traditional Social Democratic cooperation with the center appeared less attractive than before. On the other hand, it was possible to find a majority by cooperation with the left (Socialist People's Party). The Social Democrats chose the latter alternative, and although the Social Democratic minority government remained in office, it now acted mainly on support from the left. A contact committee was set up, by the opposition named the "red cabinet", as a link between the Social Democrats and the Socialist People's Party.

It was a very narrow majority, however, and almost from the start, traces of discontent could be found among some of the most radical representatives of the Socialist People's Party. The cleavage in that party became more apparent in the course of the summer and autumn of 1967, and culminated in November when a number of bills following the devaluation were presented to the Folketing. Some of the members of the Socialist People's Party voted against the bills, thereby bringing down the Social Democratic government.

The ensuing election in January 1968 resulted in substantial losses for the leftist
parties. The Social Democrats lost 7 seats, and the extreme left 5 seats while the

center parties gained 10 seats and the right-wing parties 2 seats. A new left-wing party emerged, the Left Socialists, composed of the faction which had broken away from the Socialist People's Party, and it won 4 seats. In the middle of the spectrum, the Liberal Center lost its four seats, so that the Radical party was the great winner of the election and more than doubled its number of seats, from 13 to 27.

The new government was formed by the Radicals, the Conservatives, and the Liberals in coalition. This combination was unprecedented in Danish politics, but must be understood as based on common opposition to the "red cabinet". The Radical Party felt that it had been shut out from its former influence on Social Democratic politics. Its traditional role of mediating between the left and right could not be successful when the Social Democrats had chosen to cooperate with the extreme left. The alignment during the campaign up to the election in January 1968 showed that the situation resembled a two-block system more than usually found in Danish politics. The only party trying to bridge the gap was the Liberal Center, and its activity was heavily punished at the polls.

4. Ecological Evidence

It is interesting to see to what degree the hypotheses concerning the transfer of votes, derived from this outline of the two elections, are actually confirmed. The election of November 1966 still has the flavor of the multiparty system with an extreme left aiming at discontent among Social Democratic voters who might feel that the old party had been working just as much in the interest of the middle class as in the interests of the workers; with a Social Democratic party defending its center-oriented policy and trying to identify the extreme left with Communism; with the Radical Liberals representing the socially concerned part of the middle class population and cooperating with the Social Democrats in a moderate reform policy; and with the Conservatives and Liberals consisting mainly of the middleclass population in urban and rural areas, respectively. The major feature of the 1966 election was the large swing to the left, and the natural hypothesis is that this is accounted for by a transfer of votes from Social Democrats to Left Socialists. Indeed, the breakdown of the election results in types of constituencies (see table 3) shows that the gains of People's Socialists were largest in the working-class districts in Copenhagen, and the losses of the Social Democrats were heaviest in these same districts. The role of the voting turnout is not to be disregarded, however. The turnout increased by 3.2 per cent of the eligible population, and the ecological pattern of this increase shows that, in general, areas with traditionally low turnout increased their turnout most. The turnout has been traditionally lowest in two types of constituencies, those in the inner districts of Copenhagen and those in peripheral rural areas, mainly in North Jutland. These same two types of constituencies show the highest increase in voting turnout at the 1966 election. The pattern suggests a general mobilization of non-voters, the proportion of non-voters being reduced by 20-25

per cent in all types of constituencies. This is, however, not unrelated to the distribution of party strength. The combined strength of the Socialist parties (Socialist People's Party, Communists, and Social Democrats) increased more, the more the turnout increased. Ecologically, the following three variables are rather closely correlated: non-voting in 1964, increase in turnout in 1964-66, and increase in the Socialist share of the votes cast in 1964-66. However, the internal distribution of this strength between the extreme left and the moderate left is quite another matter. Where the Socialist parties were strongest, and especially in the capital, the left wing gained strongly and the moderate wing lost correspondingly; where the Socialist strength traditionally was low, as for example in the rural areas peripheral to Copenhagen, the gain in Socialist strength fell mainly on the moderate wing, i.e., the Social Democrats.

The strengthening of the political center, which was the other conspicuous feature of the 1966 election, has a less distinctive ecological pattern. However, it appears from Table 111 that both center parties gained especially in the urban areas, and in particular in the fast growing suburbs of Copenhagen. For this reason, it is of course not possible to make inferences from compensating changes in the strength of other parties.

The election in 1968, on the other hand, shows in its ecological pattern some features that are more usual in two-party systems than in multiparty systems. If we draw a demarcation line between the Socialist parties (A, F, K and Y) on the one hand, and the other parties on the other, we find that the decrease in Socialist strength (in votes cast) is almost proportional to the former Socialist strength from the 1966 election. The loss was heaviest in the Socialist-dominated districts of Copenhagen and least heavy in the rural areas, especially in peripheral regions.

Within the Socialist "bloc", one finds an interesting change in strength between the parties. It may be seen from Table II that the left-wing parties (F, K and Y) decreased in their combined strength almost in proportion to their level of strength in the 1966 election — the largest losses occurred where these parties were strongest, as in the working-class districts of Copenhagen. These two features are necessary to understand the change in Social Democratic strength. Where combined Socialist strength was high, but left-wing strength relatively low, the Social Democrats lost heavily because they had to carry the bulk of the decrease in combined Socialist strength and because there was not much to gain from left-wing votes. This is typical of the constituencies with medium-sized towns. In the rural areas, the Social Democratic loss was moderate because the combined Socialist strength was low. In the working-class districts of Copenhagen, the Social Democrats had their best election because, although the combined Socialist strength was high here and the decrease in Socialist strength also large, this decrease was almost exclusively carried by the left-wing parties, which were also strong here. In this way, the change in Social Democratic strength in the 1968 election appears as a difference between two more or less autonomous changes, a decrease in left-wing strength in proportion to the former strength of these parties, and a decrease in total Socialist strength in proportion to the size of this strength.

With regard to the strong increase in the center (Radicals) one might hypothesize that this primarily was based on voters coming from the Socialist camp, and therefore that it would be strongest in the constituencies where the former Socialist strength was particularly high. Traces of this connection can be found, but more important is that the Radical increase once more was concentrated in the fast growing suburb-areas with a traditionally low Radical vote. On this point, the 1968 was clearly not a reaction to the 1966 election, but rather a continuation of the tendencies already found in November 1966. Besides that, the Radical increase happened at an almost uniform rate of 7 per cent all over the country.

Ecological differentials in the change in voting turnout can to a considerable degree also be found in January 1968. As will be seen from Table 111, the voting turnout actually decreased in working-class districts in Copenhagen and in the largest provincial towns, but increased in all other types of constituencies. Most of all, voting turnout increased in South Jutland, but this must be regarded as a consequence of the German Minority party again participating, after having skipped the 1966 election. The general tendency, however, was that voting turnout increased most in areas where the former Socialist vote was lowest. The natural interpretation would be that dissatisfied Socialist voters declined to vote rather than to vote for a Nonsocialist party, although these kinds of explanation admittedly are dangerous on the basis of ecological differences. But regardless of how one interprets the negative correlation between level of Socialist strength and decrease in Socialist strength on the one hand, and increase in voting turnout on the other hand, one cannot deny that the change in voting turnout played quite a different role in 1968 from that in 1966. The increasing turnout in 1966 seems to be an extension of the habit of voting, favoring the winning side, i.e., the Socialist parties; while the changes in voting turnout in 1968 primarily seem to be a consequence of short-term forces acting against the Socialist parties.¹⁰

Looking in retrospect at the last two elections in Denmark, it is possible to distinguish between several outstanding features: (1) the unprecedented high voting turnout of close to 90 per cent both elections, but with entirely different effects on election results; (2) the rise and fall of the first Socialist majority in Danish politics; (3) the accelerated growth of the strength of the main center party, after a period of continuous decline; (4) the continuation of ecological trends in the development of several of the main parties: the Social Democrats gaining in rural and losing in the Copenhagen area, the gradual growth of the Conservatives, especially in rural areas, and (5) the discontinuation of other ecological trends, as for example the Liberals' losses in the Copenhagen area and their gains in 1968 in the rural parts of the country, the Radicals' tremendous increases in areas where they traditionally had weak representation. Most outstanding of all, however, was the turbulent type of changes which occurred at the last two elections, and their dramatic impact on political life, in a country which more and more had become used to elections of the maintaining type.

---

NOTES

1 Mogens Pedersen, "Current Electoral Research in Denmark", Scand. Pol. Studies, Vol. 111, Oslo 1969, p. 253.

2 Jan Stehouwer, "Long Term Ecological Analysis of Electoral Statistics in Denmark", Scand. Pol. Studies, Vol. 11, Helsinki 1967, p. 94 ff.

3 Ingemar Glans, "The 1964 Folketing Election", Scand. Pol. Studies, Vol. 11, p. 231, and by the same author, "The Danish Parliamentary Election of 1966", Scand. Pol. Studies, Vol. 111, 1969, p. 266.

4 Jan Stehouwer, op. cit., 1967, p. 100-101.

5 Jan Stehouwer, op. cit., 1967, p. 103 ff.

6 Angus Campbell, "A Classification of the Presidential Elections", in Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., and Stokes, D. E., Elections and the Political Order, Wiley & Sons, New York 1966, p. 64 ff.

7 According to Campbell's classification, op. cit., 1966.

8 Ingemar Glans, op. cit., 1967, p. 266.

9 For the political background of this election, see Ingemar Glans, op. cit., 1967.

10 The difference between the two elections in this respect can be illustrated as below. The four variables are: VT — Voting turnout; S— Socialist strength (per cent of votes cast); AVT — Increase in voting turnout; and A S — Increase in Socialist strength. The figures given are simple coefficients of correlation. Observations represent counties, not including South Jutland (N = 22). Only coefficients that differ significantly from 0(1% level) are given. 7966 Election: 1968 Election: VT, 1964 S, 1964 VT, 1966 S, 1966 f^» 76^77 -.76 \^ I I .56 ,76 1 AVT, 1964-66 AS, 1964-66 AVT, 1966-68 AS, 1966-68