Prime Ministers, and the constitutional role of the Norwegian Monarch

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Well, to understand this, people have to read post 19 from last night.

The Christian Democratic Party has this afternoon decided to support that a motion of no confidence will be put forward tomorrow (at 10:00).

A government crisis due to a facebook post? Yes, that is Norway for you (and we Norwegians can be pretty dramatic).

What happens now?

1. The Christian Democratic Party's decision will forse PM Erna Solberg to the Storting Chamber where she most likely wil put forward a kabinettspørsmål (vote of confidence).

2. If The Christian Democratic Party then voted against it, then the PM and her government will resign.

Two main questions:

But will The Christian Democratic Party vote against a prime minister who is generally well-liked (also among their own voters)?

Or is The Christian Democratic Party only doing this to set an example - and say that they are fed up with that Sylvi Listhaug woman?

Well, most commentators (and I agree) would say about 50% to both questions (so everything can happen).

What will happen if the PM and her government resigns?

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Royal Norway: Thank you for sustaining this stimulating thread.

The continuation of scandals within these last months has plainly become tumultous and embarrassing for the political parties. But granted that no larger crisis than outrage against abrasive Facebook posts has occurred since 18 years ago, Norwegian politics are clearly kept in immaculate condition.

If the Prime Minister resigns, whom would the parties and the Norwegian people be expecting her to ask the King to contact?

You're very welcome!

She must go to the King and ask him to contact the leader of the largest party in the Storting (that will be Jonas Gahr Støre - Leader of The Labour Party):

1. He can then try to form a minority government which only consist of the Labour party, or he can try to form a minority government with The Centre Party and The Socialist Left Party.

2. Both alternatives will be difficult since it is a non-socialist majority in the Storting.

She can also ask the King to contact the leader of another party (that wil mean the leader of the largest non-socialist party in the storting) - especially if that party is supported by a coalition with the greatest support in the Storting (that will be herself as the leader of The Conservative Party):

1. She can then try to form a minority government which only consist of The Conservative Party, or she can try to form a minority government with The Liberal Party and Christian Democratic Party (or a minority government with the Progress Part).

2. These three alternatives will be very difficult since The Progress Party wont support a government which they are not part of - and The Christian Democratic Party wont support a government which consist of The Progress Party.

--------------------

Confidence in politicians in Norway:

Well, after various sex scandals and the construction scandal at the Storting building, the trust in politicians, and political parties (which is usually quite high here), is now at a low point.

--------------------

The CP Couple:

As people can read in post 123 in the ''Norway: Republic or monarchy?'' thread, the CP couple have their problems - but as someone said it on facebook last week, they are far better than the alternative.

So I think we can say that this political soap opera (which has lasted since December last year) has actually been quite good for Haakon and MM.

[Muhler]

Couldn't a government reshuffle be a palatable alternative?
Or is the opposition determined on outing Sylvi Listhaugh?

Why is the statement on Facebook so controversial that it merits a vote of no confidence?
Or is it more a case of seizing on an opportunity of annoying the government as much as possible?
Is there a public interest in the opposition taking over now? After all that is the ultimate outcome.

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Question 1: No, as I wrote in post 19, the Progress Party refuses to move Listhaug (who is very important to them and their voters).

Question 2: Everyone is determined on outing Sylvi Listhaug, including the two other government parties, but The Progress Party refuses.

Question 3: What she said was very hurtful to Labour supporters (especially to the victims of the utøya attacks in 2011).

Read this article to see what she said (also posted in post 19):
Listhaug’s ”Canossagang”, bends the knee - Norway today

Question 4: No, Erna Solberg is quite popular with the Christian Democratic Party (and its leadership).

Question 5: The answer to that is a big NO.

The Labour party is dogged by sex scandals, unpopular politicians and low poll numbers.
Yes, I'm an Labour Supporter, but I have no trouble admitting the truth.

--------------------

I will come back with more information tomorrow, especially about the King's constitutional role in all of this, because he will be heavily involved if the PM resigns.

[Muhler]

Thanks.

As a matter of fact I read about the government crisis on TV2 (DK) tonight. The first time I read about it actually, because it hasn't reached the prime time news yet here in DK.

Yes, I understand the reaction by the labor party. However my next questions may be brutal and controversial, so please forgive me for that.

So, if the PM decides to resign and call for a general election (I assume it's the PM who calls a general election, not the King.), the major government parties are almost certain to win, and as such form a new government.
How about the progress party? What are the opinion polls saying about them? Will they go back or forward?
Would the rest of the government coalition prefer to govern without the Progress Party? In which case a general election will be a not undesirable option. Or is the influence of the Progress Party too important? (I noticed you mentioned that the Progress Party will not support the government without being in the government. - But not doing so, means little or no direct influence.)

It sounds to me like the Progress Party refuses to back down, because:
A) They are too stubborn and won't be able to back down without losing face. - Which to me sounds pretty unlikely.
B) They are looking for a way to get out of the government coalition while at the same time being seen as standing up for their views in the eyes of their voters.
C) Their involvement in the government have cost them too many votes and this is a way to reclaim some of their voters. I.e by standing up for their core values, even to the point of risking the government.
D) And this leads me to my next question: In the eyes of the general public, does the Progress Party have a point? I.e. is the opposition, here in particular the Labor Party, being seen as being too soft on immigration, integration and cracking down on crime perpetrated by immigrants?
In which case the refusal of the Progress Party to back down makes perfect sense.

I suspect that a vote of no confidence, which the opposition is almost forced to call for, may very well backfire, because if a general election is called now, the main topic may very well be immigration?
A soft point of the opposition, I imagine, and right up the alley for the Progress Party.
- Or is my analyses completely off the mark?

[Muhler]

Follow up.

I see that the Minister of Justice has resigned, so no need for the government to resign or call a general election.

Now what? Will the new Justice Minister also be one from the Progress Party?
Or will there be a reshuffle?

And for you, Royal Norway. You may find this comment from the Danish Minister for Integration interesting. https://politiken.dk/indland/politik...6ret-hysterisk

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Today's happenings:

1. Sylvi Listhaug has resigned as Minister of Justice, Public Security and Immigration.

2. The Progress Party (Right-wing) was prepared to leve the government to support her, and PM Erna Solberg, Leader of the Conservative Party (Centre-right), was prepered to put forward a kabinettspørsmål (vote of confidence).

3. According to reliable sources in the media both the PM and Siv Jensen (Minister of Finance and leader of the Progress Party) was surprised over Listhaug's decision.

What happens now:

1. The Royal Court has been asked by the Prime Minister's office to inform the King about Listhaug's decision.

2. His Majesty The King grants The Prime Minister an extraordinary audience at 11:45. The Crown Prince will also be in attendance (audiences with the PM usually happens one Friday every month).

3. His Majesty the King presides over an extraordinary Council of State at the Royal Palace at 12:00. The Crown Prince will also be in attendance (ordinary Councils of State are held every Friday).
Listhaug will officially resign and Per Sandberg (Minister of Fisheries from the Progress Party) will temporary take over.
The King will then sign a Royal Decree to this effect.

And to Muhler's two posts:

General elections in Norway:
1. According to the Norwegian constitution, parliamentary elections must be held every four years. Rather uniquely, the Norwegian parliament may not be dissolved before such a parliamentary four-year term has ended, which in practice makes snap elections impossible to hold without breaking the constitutional electoral law of the country.

2. All general elections in Norway since 1945 have occurred every four years (every third year from 1815 to 1945).

3. The next general election will take place in September 2021 (motions/votes of no confidence or resignations of PMs/governments doesn't changes that at all).

4. If a PM/government is forced to resign, then she/he must go to the king and ask him to contact the leader of the largest party in the Storting or the leader of another party - especially if that party is supported by a coalition with the greatest support in the Storting (that could mean the sitting PM).
The new or sitting PM must then try to form a majority/minority government.

I won't go into politics here, but I can say this:
No, the Progress Party are not looking for a way to get out of the government - but if Listhaug had not resigned voluntarily, then they would have gone with her.
Why? Because she is (as I said in the previous posts) very important for them and their voters.

The Progress Party's poll numbeers since the 2017 general election: 10 to 16% (10% is pretty bad - 16% is very good).

Is this crisis good or bad for them? Well, most commentators will say (and I agree) that its good for them.

--------------------

BTV, I answered the question about the new Justice Minister above in this post.

[Muhler]

Thanks Royal Norway.

I learned something today.

Here is a most interesting portrait of Sylvi Listhauge, for your reading pleasure.
https://politiken.dk/video/udland/ar...iver-en-martyr
The DK paper Politiken has a political stance that is directly opposite of that of the Norwegian Progress Party, hence why the portrait is interesting.

[ROYAL NORWAY]

You're welcome, Muhler.

And thanks for the two articles!

--------------------

These have been some very good days for the Progress Party (just as I thought it would be). A Kantar TNS poll for TV2 has them at 20% (up 10% from March 7) - their highest numbers in 7 years.
Will it last? Probably not (since they always does well under pressure).
Another poll has them at 15% (more usual numbers for them).
The Kantar TNS poll for TV2 also show that 84% think it was right of Listhaug to resign.

--------------------

Well, the Christian Democratic Party is now rid of its biggest political enemy (Listhaug), which makes it much easier for them to join the government (as the Liberal Party did back in January).
And both Erna Solberg and Siv Jensen stated yesterday that the dor is still open for them (despite the fact that they nearly forced the government to resign).
Will they do it (join the government, I mean)? Yes, I think they will - but not before in September or October.
What happens then? The same that happened when the Liberal Party became part of the government in January (see posts 14, 15, 16 and 17).
HM The King will again be heavily involved.
And most importantly, Erna Solberg's dream about a majority government comes true.

--------------------

If the PM had resigned yesterday, and Labour Leader Jonas Gahr Støre had been asked by the King to form a government? Well, then we had ended up with a prime minister who has a personal friendship with the CP couple (to the annoyance of the Conservative Party and the Progress Party).
And if the King (God forbid) had died within the next 4 years, then we had in fact ended up with a monarch who has a personal friendship with his prime minister.
Do I need to say more?

[Muhler]

Thanks, Royal Norway, as usual a great reply.

Why wait until the autumn to join the government? Because they will have the whole of the summer to work out a new basis for a majority government before joining?

I'm sure the CP-couple are professional enough not to be influenced too much politically should the opposition be in power. - But it will of course lead to criticism.

I read an interesting political analyses today.
The 68 generation, especially the men are now in considerable numbers joining parties like the Progress Party, and their equivalents all over Europe. That is nationalist parties who are in position where they either have joined a government coalition or excersize direct political influence.
Interesting because the 68 generation typically started out as very left wing.
- I have long had the feeling that certainly Haakon would have felt very much at home in the academic milieus back around 1968.

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Thanks Muhler!

Well, for the Christian Democratic Party to join a government that the Progress Party is a part of, is a VERY BIG step for them to take, so they need time to debate it.
But I don't think they have that much choice. - Why?
1. If they continue to stand outside the government, they will be squeezed from both sides, which has been the case since the election in 2017 - and that have cost them some voters.
2. If they switch side politically, they will most likely be voted out of the Storting in 2021, since they are essentially losing voters to non-socialist parties (the government parties).

--------------------

Yes, the CP couple are professional enough not to be influenced too much politically should the opposition be in power, but that is not the problem, I think.
The problem is as I have written in other threads (and as you mentioned above), that they will be criticised by both the non-socialist parties and the media.
Per Sandberg (MP from 1997 to 2017, first deputy leader of the Progress Party from 2006, Minister of Fisheries from 2015 and temporary Minister of Justice, Public Security and Immigration from 2018) accused Haakon in 2014 of being a Labour Party supporter and for interfering in politics.

BTW, Sandberg is known for his bad temper and controversial comments.
In 1997, a court slapped him with a 3,000 kroner (around 400 euros) fine for hitting an asylum seeker from the former Yugoslavia at a late-night party at his home.
He has also been in several conflicts with the Christian Democratic Party, but unlike Sylvi Listhaug, he has been more careful after he joined the government in 2015 (and has been praised for that by the leader of the Christian Democratic Party Knut Arild Hareide).
Will he get the job (of Justice Minister) permanently? Yes, the job is his if he wants it, and he is currently thinking about it until to after easter.
He thanked no to two heavy ministerial posts in 2013 (because he didn't want the pressure). - And last week he said he was afraid that his past comments and actions could create problems for the prime minister and his family if he thanked yes to such a heavy ministerial post.

--------------------

And then to your third point:

I will describe Haakon as a politically interested intellectual who belongs in the Centre-left category (just like me), and there is nothing wrong with that, but in his role as a future apolitical constitutional monarch, he must learn two very important things:

1. To not make friends with politicians.

2. To keep his mouth shut when it comes to political matters (especially those that can be perceived as party political).

And after seeing most of the King's speeches and interviews, I can almost certainly say that HM belongs in the same category, but he is much more careful in the way he speaks - and he doesn't befriends politicians.

[Muhler]

Thanks, Royal Norway, for your always interesting replies.

I agree with your assessment of Haakon's political adherence, were he to vote.
That IMO is consistent with Frederik and certainly Mary's political views.
Almost certainly also Victoria. I'm not so sure about Daniel though. I think he may be more to the right, a Liberal.
Charles too is undoubtedly in my mind also a center-left, political intellectual. (in Danish party-political context, a Radical.)

I imagine King W-A and Queen Maxima may also be found around that area of the political spectrum. - To mention some of Haakon and Mette-Marit's more close royal friends.

I'm a little surprised though that you place Mette-Marit at center-left, like Haakon. I have always imagined her to be more to the left of Haakon.

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Thanks Muhler!

Well, I don't think I placed Mette-Marit at center-left. - But perhaps you referred to this quote:

And after seeing most of the King's speeches and interviews, I can almost certainly say that HM belongs in the same category, but he is much more careful in the way he speaks - and he doesn't befriends politicians.

That was about the King.
As you know, HM means His Majesty, but maybe you did read it a bit too fast and confused HM with MM (Mette-Marit).

--------------------

And then to her political views:

This may surprise you even more, but I will actually place her in the Centre category (where the Liberal Party and the Christian Democratic Party belongs).
1. She seems to share many of the Liberal Party's thoughts about environmental issues, young people and education.
2. She also seems to share many of the values of the Christian Democratic Party. - Not that surprising, since she is a devoted Christian.

--------------------

So I think my assessment (after following them closely since I was 18 in 2006) of how the NRF would have voted is something like this:

The King, Queen and CP Haakon: Labour Party (belongs to the socialist parties).
The party's Ideology: Social democracy.
The party's Position: Centre-left.

But the Queen seems to be a bit more conservative than the King and Haakon, so she could easily also have voted for the Conservative Party (belongs to the non-socialist parties).
The party's Ideology: Liberal conservatism.
The party's Position: Centre-right.
The similarities between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party are many these days - and Labour continues to lose voters to them and the other non-socialist parties.

CP Mette-Marit: The Liberal Party (belongs to the non-socialist parties).
The party's Ideology: Liberalism.
The party's Position: Centre.

Or the Christian Democratic Party (belongs to the non-socialist parties).
The party's Ideology: Christian democracy.
The party's Position: Centre.

[Muhler]

I did indeed mistake HM for MM, my apologies...

So His Majesty, is a center left?
Interesting, because if we compare him with what I think are his closest colleagues, I'll say that King Carl Gustav is an arch conservative.
QMII and QEII are what I will call "modern/humanist conservatives" that is adhering strongly to conservative values but with a strong humanist-idealist dedication, that is very comparable to the center-left stance which IMO is perhaps more on an intellectual level, while the conservative humanism is more practical and down to earth.

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Yes, (IMO) the King is without doubt a Centre-left (with that I mean his position politically, because he's not what I will describe as an intellectual).
I will also place him more to the left than Haakon (who I, on the other hand, will describe as an intellectual).
Some (mostly conservatives) have even described the King as Left-wing, but that is to take it a bit to far, I think.

Here are some few thoughts from me about the King's views - and how they affect his role as an apolitical constitutional monarch:

He is regarded as an advocate for immigrants and a multicultural society, to the obvious annoyance of the Right-winged Progress Party - but due to the two points below, they can't criticize him.
1. His HUGE popularity (not even Sylvi Listhaug or Per Sandberg would dare to challenge that force).
2. Unlike his son, he never gets himself into a situation where he appears to be party political.

[ROYAL NORWAY]

There were changes in the government wednesday, April 4:

The King granted The Prime Minister an extraordinary audience at 15:15.
He then presided over an extraordinary Council of State at the Royal Palace at 15:30, where he honourably discharged Per Sandberg (Minister of Fisheries and first deputy leader of the Progress Party) as acting Minister of Justice, Public Security and Immigration - and appointed Tor Mikkel Wara as his replacement.
The King then signed a Royal Decree to this effect.

--------------------

Tor Mikkel Wara is one of the Right-winged Progress Party's most moderate and liberal politicians (in stark contrast to Sylvi Listhaug and Per Sandberg).
So this is seen as a step by Siv Jensen (Minister of Finance and leader of the Progress Party) to make it easier for the Christian Democratic Party to join the government.

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Well, from Tuesday (yesterday), the King is no longer sacred:

NRK article - with google translation:
Fra tirsdag er ikke kongen lenger hellig - NRK - translation

Information from the Storting (Parliament) - with google translation:
Stortinget - Møte tirsdag den 8. mai 2018 (under arbeid) - Stortinget - translation

Here's a summary from me:
The Storting made changes to the Constitution and removed the ''sacred'' part from Article 5, yesterday.
The wording about the King being sacred have remained unchanged since 1814, when Norway was forced to join in a personal union with Sweden. However, a provision that the monarch should be "King by God's grace" was removed in November that year (in 1814).

The proposal to amend the Constitution had been put forward by three Conservative Party MPs (all monarchists) on the initiative of law professor Eivind Smith. The proposal was unanimously approved.
"The religious reasons for the King's elevated position seem quite remote for today's generations. It is no longer natural to see the King's power as part of the divine order, where all rulings radiate from our Lord," Michael Tetzschner, one of the MPs behind the proposal, explained.

The previous wording of Article 5:
"The King’s person is sacred; he cannot be censured or accused. The responsibility rests with his Council.''

The new wording of Article 5:
"The King's person cannot be censured or accused. The responsibility rests with his Council."

How has this been received?
Well, it has angered some Christian commentators and a few right-winged nationalists, but I think most Norwegians (if they knew about it) thought it was completely ridiculous that the Head of State should go around and be ''sacred'' in 2018 (so, IMO, a good proposal from Tetzschner and the other MPs).

[Muhler]

I read about it in DK press a couple of days ago.

What do you think about it, Royal Norway?

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Well, I received almost the same question from another poster, so let's go through some facts:

1. After the constitutional amendment of May 21, 2012, the Church of Norway is self-governed with regard to doctrinal issues and appointment of clergy - and the monarch is no longer its head.

--------------------

Part 2 of point 1. - This is for those who wants to read the whole story about how the separation of church and state affected the monarch, but it has nothing to do with my response to Muhler:

However, when the King was asked by Trond Giske (the then Minister of Culture and Church Affairs from the Labour Party) in 2008 on whether he had an opinion of how the constitutional changes (regarding the Church) should affect the monarch, HM replied that he wanted parts of Article 4 in the Constitution to be maintained.
A majority of the MPs disagreed with him, but according to the republican political commentator Kjetil Alstadheim, none of them dared to go against the King (due to his popularity).

The pre-2012 wording of Article 4:
''The King shall at all times profess the Evangelical-Lutheran religion, and uphold and protect the same.''

The current wording of Article 4:
''The King shall at all times profess the Evangelical-Lutheran religion.''

The church and state were first separated, when an act approved in 2016 created the Church of Norway as an independent legal entity, which became effective from 1 January 2017 (this had no effect on Article 4).

--------------------

Back to my response to Muhler:

2. The monarch will (as you can read in post 36) keep his immunity, and the three Conservative Party MPs behind the proposal are all monarchists.

3. King Harald is regarded by many (due to his speeches) as an advocate for a multicultural society, despite the fact that he wanted Article 4 in the Constitution to be maintained.

And when we take these 3 points into consideration, I think this proposal was a pretty good idea, both historically and culturally.

[Muhler]

Thanks, Royal Norway.
I interpreted this as the person of the Monarch being sacrosanct in regards to the state church.
As head of the state church the Monarch would be sacrosanct by his own person and authority - I.e. above the state church. With only God as his superior.

If the Monarch is sacrosanct in eyes of the state church, without the Monarch also being the head of the state church, then it's the Church of Norway that bestow that status. In other words: The Monarch is technically subservient to the state church - and as such in matters regarding the state church subservient of the at any time head of the Church of Norway - who BTW is appointed by a minister...

A minor detail that could become complicated if you are pedantic!

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Originally Posted by Muhler

Thanks, Royal Norway.

You're welcome! And thanks for your always interesting responses.

Originally Posted by Muhler

I interpreted this as the person of the Monarch being sacrosanct in regards to the state church.
As head of the state church the Monarch would be sacrosanct by his own person and authority - I.e. above the state church. With only God as his superior.

Well, this was the case pre-2012, although the monarch wasn't described as ''sacrosanct'' (fredhellig) as the Danish monarch is in Article 13 in your constitution.
The Norwegian monarch was just described as ''sacred'' (hellig).

Originally Posted by Muhler

If the Monarch is sacrosanct in eyes of the state church, without the Monarch also being the head of the state church, then it's the Church of Norway that bestow that status. In other words: The Monarch is technically subservient to the state church - and as such in matters regarding the state church subservient of the at any time head of the Church of Norway - who BTW is appointed by a minister...

A minor detail that could become complicated if you are pedantic!

Well, the monarch was from 2012 to 2017, according to Article 5 in the constitution, described as ''sacred'' without being the head of the church, but that was just because the MPs hadn't changed it yet.
And although the church and state were not properly separated before 1 January 2017, the Norwegian Church was technically not a state church after the constitutional amendment of May 21, 2012, when it become self-governed with regard to doctrinal issues and appointment of clergy (which means that the government is no longer responsible for appointing bishops).