"For reasons of conscience": fighting conscription then, and again

On November 1, 2024, my father Anton Fertl passed away on his farm in Australia aged 74. Retired, living alone among the trees, plants (not least his beloved orchids), animals, and insects, few locals knew of his youthful adventures, traveling overland from Bavaria to Australia (and back again, and then to Australia again!). These tales take quite the telling, but are for another time. Yet another achievement that he proudly carried with him throughout his years was his refusal to allow himself to be conscripted into West Germany's Bundeswehr at age 19, and the battle he fought to win this small victory for peace and reason. This is a tale worth telling - not least because of the rapid and reckless militarisation taking hold of Europe once more - but also, because in sorting through his paperwork, I've come across the key documents again, and so it seems opportune. First, however, some quick background.

In the Shadow of the War 

The Second World War ended in Europe with the unconditional surrender of the Nazi Wehrmacht on May 8, 1945. In November 1945, conscription in Germany was abolished, and the Wehrmacht itself was disbanded in August 1946. Influenced by the anti-war, anti-militarist sentiment that formally drove the development of the post-war German state, the 1949 Grundgesetz (constitution) of the new Federal Republic of Germany explicitly mentioned the possibility of Kriegsdienstverweigerung (conscientious objection), but made no such reference to Wehrpflicht (conscription).  

When the current German army - the Bundeswehr - was formed in 1955, it was promoted as a "parliamentary army" made up of "citizens in uniform", and with a revised definition of military obedience, all of which was meant to prevent future Nazi-style excesses. This new army was, however, tainted from the outset: in the late 1950s, the Bundeswehr hired 300 officers from the Waffen-SS to fill its ranks, and more than 12,000 Wehrmacht officers were soon serving in the Bundeswehr - including over 40 Nazi-era generals. 

Unfortunately, this was only one aspect of a widespread rehabilitation of Nazis in the new West Germany. At local, institutional, and civic levels, former members and collaborators were welcomed back into the fold. Military barracks were named after "good Nazis", even as the story of German collective responsibility for the Nazi horror was expounded, providing a smokescreen for the generals, the industrialists, the politicians, and others, all themselves guilty as sin of helping the fascists take - and keep - power. This has also allowed those most responsible to shift blame onto a collective "national failing", rather than face justice for their role in constructing and supporting a fascist dictatorship, of which the first victims were the West German left and the representatives of the working class. Meanwhile many elements of the antifascist and communist left were vilified, hounded, and even banned outright. 

My father's generation had few illusions in the greatness and goodness of their rulers and betters - they knew exactly who their parents, uncles, grandparents, and neighbours were - and inspired by social movements and student protests elsewhere they dreamed of a better, fairer society than the patronising, smug, suffocating capitalist one into which they had been born and raised, under the shadow of the Cold War and nuclear sabre-rattling. Simultaneously, the war in Vietnam provided a stark reminder that actual, blood-soaked, war hadn't ended with the fall of Hitler, and that imperialist violence and mass murder continued to reap a grim harvest among the world's population beyond the borders of Europe.

Cold War and Social Discontent

In the 1950s, the Cold War was in full swing, and as part of the associated military build-up across Europe, West Germany underwent a rapid Wiederbewaffnung (rearming). With the entry into force, in April 1957, of the Military Promotion Act, all West German men born after June 30, 1937, were once again subject to military service. A decade later, in 1968, this requirement was modified to allow for the option of substitute service due to "reasons of conscience", reflected in the following text enshrined in the West German Constitution:

Art. 12a [obligation of service]

(1) Men may be obliged to serve in the armed forces, the Federal Border Guard or a Civil Protection Association from the age of eighteen.

(2) Anyone who refuses military service with weapons for reasons of conscience may be obliged to provide a substitute service. The duration of the replacement service must not exceed the duration of military service.

1968 was also the peak of several years of protests and strikes across France and West Germany. In West Germany, these were led by a student movement deeply disillusioned with a political establishment heavily populated by former Nazis, worried that it was becoming increasingly authoritarian. In 1962, several journalists had been briefly arrested for "treason" for writing about the weakness of the Bundeswehr in the magazine Der Spiegel. In the fallout of the affair, the suddenly-unpopular ruling Christian Democratic Union was force to form a first "grand coalition" with the Social Democratic Party in 1966. However, the appointment of Kurt Georg Kiesinger - a former Nazi with close links to Joseph Goebbels - as Chancellor did nothing to quell fears of a quiet Nazi restoration.

In June 1967, first-time student protester Benno Ohnesorg was shot in the back of the head by a police officer at a protest in West Berlin against a visit by the Shah of Iran - a murder that further spurred the growth of the student movement and radicalised it. Then, on 11 April, 1968, German student leader Rudi Dutschke was also shot in Berlin in an attempted assassination attempt by a Josef Bachmann, a petty criminal with links to neo-Nazis, inspired by the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. only days earlier. The right-wing Springer Press was accused of complicity for its vilification of Dutschke and the student movement, and demonstrators tried to storm the Springer house in Berlin and set fire to Bild delivery vans. In Munich, a demonstrator and a policeman were killed when students ransacked the Bild editorial offices. Over a thousand people were arrested. 

Federal Chancellor Kurt Kiesinger claimed the protests had a "revolutionary character", and on May 30, 1968, the Notstandsgesetze (Emergency Acts) were passed (by a government controlling 95 percent of the Bundestag and led by an ex-Nazi). They inserted emergency clauses into the West German Constitution allowing the government to restrict civil rights (such as privacy and freedom of movement) during crises such as natural disasters, uprisings, or war. Critics drew parallels to the emergency decrees power of the Weimar Republic, which Adolf Hitler had used to establish a totalitarian dictatorship by "legal" means.

Indeed, by 1968, such was the scale of the protests, which had spread - especially in France - to the trade unions and other sectors of society - that there was discussion in both countries about deploying the army against protesters, and in West Germany there was also talk of using widespread preventive detention. In West Germany, ultimately only the police were deployed, but the fact that the police were - then, as now - deeply infiltrated by Nazis and the far-right only intensified the fear that right-wing authoritarianism was once again being imposed on West Germany's fragile democracy.

And so, in this broader context, on January 14, 1969, my 19 year old Bavarian father was called in for muster and a physical examination for conscription into the Bundeswehr, with a special Wehrpaß (military passport) quickly issued to him, dated March 14, 1969. Already on February 28, however, he had indicated his intention to register as a conscientious objector - taking advantage of the renewed recognition of that right - and he was given until April 21 to submit his justifications and grounds for refusing to serve. Submit them he did indeed, as we shall see. 

No to War and all its Trappings

Perhaps ten years ago, my father took me through his most prized papers and documents. These included various stamp-filled passports, photos from his journeys through Iran, India and South-East Asia, papers for the purchase of the farm in Australia, the charge sheet for an arrest in Munich 1970 for possessing hashish, and his official renunciation of the Catholic Church in 1973. (This letter only formalised a mundane reality that had already taken hold when he was 8, and had decided he would rather go fishing with his friends, or play table tennis in the priest's garage, while the rest of the village suffered through mass). But pride of place in these documents were his letter justifying his conscientious objection, and another (which we shall come to below) that accompanied it.

The full text of my father's letter is as follows:

Betrifft: Begründung meines Antrags

Sehr geehrte Herren!

Aus Gewissensgründen habe ich mich gegen den Dienst mit der Waffe entschieden. Krieg oder Kriegsdrohung oder schon allein die Existenz von riesigen Armeen als politisches Machtmittel erkenne ich nicht an. Denn der Krieg ist für mich das schrecklichste und folgenreichste Verbrechen, das es je unter den Menschen gab.

Krieg ist nicht nur sinnlos, sondern auch menschenunwürdig, grausam und verbrecherisch. Er ist die Summe alles Bösen schlecht-hin. Darüber erübrigt sich jegliche Diskussion.

So will ich nicht nur selbst passiv und zugleich aktiv meinen Beitrag zum Frieden leisten, indem ich mich dem Waffendienst verweigere, sondern ich versuche auch, andere von der Verabscheuungswürdigkeit des Krieges und seiner Vorbereitung in der Bundeswehr wie in allen Armeen zu überzeugen.

Die Summen, die die Kriegsmaschinerien in aller Welt jährlich verschlingen, müßten nach meiner Überzeugung besser und nutzbringender für Bildung und Entwicklungshilfe aufgewandt werden. Auf diese Weise wären sie ein Beitrag für dauerhaften Fortschritt und langfristige Entspannung zwischen der jetzigen Dritten Welt und den hochindustrialisierten Ländern.

Hauptgrund für die Verweigerung ist meine Überzeugung als katholischer Christ, daß es ein immer und überall geltendes Gesetz sein muß, fremdes Menschenleben zu achten. “Du sollst nicht töten!" gilt für mich ohne Ausnahme. (Extreme Fälle ziviler Notwehr sind Ausnahmen) Nächstenliebe und Gewaltlosigkeit sind aber nicht nur christliche, sondern auch ethische Prinzipien, die das friedliche Zusammenleben der Menschen besser garantieren als waffenstarrende und Jederzeit für das kollektive Morden einsatzbereite Armeen. Diese sind für die Zerstörung ausgebildet, nicht für den Frieden.

Es gilt also, die Armeen in Ost und West abzuschaffen. Jeder muß dazu seinen Beitrag leisten. Natürlich können das nur aufgeklärte, denkende Menschen, die frei sind von dem Wussch, ihr mögliches Groskapital mit dem Einsatz fremder Menschenleben zu verteidigen. Natürlich hat ein Staat das Recht, sich selbst zu verteidigen, aber die beste Verteidigung ist die Überlegenheit seiner Kultur, und im Notfall (an den ich nicht glaube) passiver widerstand gegen eventuelle Unterdrücker, jedenfalls kein Blutvergießen um irgendwelcher propagandistischer Fiktionen willen wie “freiheitliche Ordnung", “Vaterland", "Heimat" etc.. "Freiheitliche Ordnung" ist deshalb als Fiktion zu sehen, weil sie selbst bei uns recht relativ ist und im Begriff ist, die Ordnung zu werden, die die Freiheit der Herrschenden garantieren soll. Hierbei ist a die Jüngste Entwicklung zu denken, vor allem a die Verabschiedung der Notstandsgesetze und die Pläne für die faschistische Vorbeugehaft. "Freiheitliche Ordnung " in Opposition zu kommunistisch-diktatorischer Unfreiheit im Osten ist ebenfalls fragwürdig, denn diese Gegenüberstellung ist zweifelsohne einseitig und dient nur propagandistischer Hetze, nach der unsere Nachbarn im Osten böse und äußerst angriffslustig sind. Gegen sie gelte es aufzumarschieren. In der Tat ist die Kommunistenhetze schon traditionell und die Höhe, die sie im Dritten Reich erreichte, wurde in der Ära des Kalten Kriegs fast wieder erreicht.

Aus all diesen Gründen leite ich ab, daß das bei uns existierende Recht auf Kriegsdienstverweigerung nicht nur erhalten, sondern voll ausgenützt und sogar zur moralischen Pflicht erhoben wird. Brat wenn dies erreicht sein wird, wird es einen "ersten deutschen Friedenstaat” geben. Ulbrichts Staat ist aus diesem Grund nicht dieser erste deutsche Friedensstaat.

Der nach den Notstandsgesetzen mögliche Einsatz der Bundeswehr im Inneren gegen demonstrierende Arbeiter und Studenten stellt für mich einen weiteren Gewissensgrund dar, diesen “Dienst" zu verweigern. Wer kann es noch als Dienst am deutschen Volk ansehen, auf demonstrierende und unbewaffnete Menschen, noch dazu möglicherweise auf Bekannte und sogar Verwandte zu schießen.

Besänftigende Worte können diese reale Möglichkeit nicht aus der Welt schaffen.

Anton Fertl 

In English:

Subject: Reasons for my application 

Dear Sirs! 

For reasons of conscience, I have decided against serving with a weapon. I do not recognise war, the threat of war, or even the mere existence of huge armies as a political means of power. For me, war is the most terrible and consequential crime that has ever existed among humans.

War is not only senseless but also inhuman, cruel, and criminal. It is the sum of all evil, plain and simple. Any further discussion is unnecessary.

Thus, I want not only to make my own passive and active contribution to peace by refusing military service, but I also endeavor to convince others of the abhorrence of war and its preparation in the Bundeswehr, as in all armies. 

It is my conviction that the sums that war machines around the world devour annually should be better and more usefully spent on education and development aid. In this way, they would contribute to lasting progress and long-term détente between the current Third World and the highly industrialised countries. 

The main reason for this refusal is my conviction as a Catholic Christian that respecting the life of others must be a law that applies always and everywhere. "Thou shalt not kill!" applies for me without exception. (Extreme cases of civilian self-defense are exceptions.) Love for one's fellow man and nonviolence are not only Christian but also ethical principles that better guarantee the peaceful coexistence of people than armies armed to the teeth and ready to commit collective murder at any time. These are trained for destruction, not for peace. 

Therefore, the goal must be to abolish the armies in East and West. Everyone must contribute to this. Of course, this can only be done by enlightened, thinking people who are free from the desire to defend the potential for big business by sacrificing the lives of others. Of course, a state has the right to defend itself, but the best defense is the superiority of its culture, and in an emergency (which I don't believe we are in), passive resistance against potential oppressors, certainly not bloodshed for the sake of any propagandistic fictions like "Free [Democratic] Order," "Fatherland," "Homeland," etc.. "Free Order" should be viewed as a fiction because, even here, it is quite relative and is in the process of becoming an order that is meant to guarantee the freedom of those in power. Recent developments are important to consider here, especially the passage of emergency laws and the plans for fascistic preventive detention. "Free Order" in opposition to communist-dictatorial oppression in the East is also questionable, because this juxtaposition is undoubtedly one-sided and only serves propagandistic agitation, according to which our neighbors in the East are evil and extremely aggressive, and it is necessary to march against them. Indeed, anti-communist agitation has a long tradition, and the heights it reached during the Third Reich were almost matched again during the Cold War era. 

For all these reasons, I conclude that the right to conscientious objection that exists in our country must not only be preserved but fully used - and even elevated to a moral duty. Only when that has been achieved will there be a “first German peace state.” For this reason, Ulbricht’s state is [also] not this first German peace state. 

The possibility, under the emergency laws, of internal deployment of the Bundeswehr against demonstrating workers and students represents, for me, yet another reason of conscience to refuse this "service." Who can still consider it a service to the German people to shoot at demonstrating and unarmed people, and possibly even shooting at acquaintances and relatives?

Soothing words cannot erase this real possibility from the world.

Anton Fertl 

A father's support

Together with this letter was a shorter one written by his father in support of his case. My father and grandfather were never that close. My uncle - 8 years the senior - was their father's heir (even sharing his name), and he was similarly distant to my father, being almost of a different generation. My father, on the other hand, was his mother's son, and more a product of the post-war era. He was quickly caught up in dreams of social change, and bewitched by vistas of far-off lands - a very different worldview to his village-dwelling blacksmith father. So, to receive such a letter of support from his own father meant the world to mine, still bringing tears to his eyes fifty years later. 

Erklärung 

Ich bin politisch nicht besonders interessiert, aber soviel an elementarenn Überzeugungen besitz ich, daß ich mit der Kriegsdienstverweigerung meines Sohnes Anton vollkommen übereinstimme. Er und mein weiterer Sihn Hans haben mich von der menschlichen Notwendigkeit dieser Verweigerung überzeugt.

Ich selbst war nicht an der Front, habe aber genug Elend miterlebt, un alles war eine Folge des Krieges, den von den aufgehetzt durch die Propaganda, aber heute soll das meined Söhned ersparts bleiben und ich halte ihre eigene, verantwortliche Entscheidung für mutig und richtig. 

Auf einzelne Äußerungen kann ich mich natürlich nicht entsinnen, das wäre zuviel verlangt. Ich hoffe, daß die Gewissensentscheidung meaines Sohns anerkannt wird.

Johann Fertl 

Again, in English:

Declaration 

I'm not particularly interested in politics, but I possess enough fundamental convictions to completely agree with my son Anton's conscientious objection to military service. He and my other son, Hans, convinced me of the human necessity of this refusal. 

I was not at the front myself, but I witnessed enough misery, and it was all a consequence of the war, incited by propaganda. But today, my sons should be spared that, and I consider their own responsible decision to be courageous and right. 

Of course, I can't recall individual statements; that would be asking too much. I hope that my son's decision of conscience will be recognised. 

Johann Fertl 

My grandfather's disavowal of politics here is not quite as disingenuous as my father's invocation of Catholic values earlier, which some readers may have picked up on. The burden of the War fell heavily on Johann Fertl, who had lost his four year old daughter to Scarlet Fever because the Wehrmacht had taken all the medicines, and was later provided a (very non-optional) "job" working at a chemical weapons factory near the Austrian border. The facility was a satellite camp of Dachau Concentration Camp, and used slave labour, while forcing more "free" Germans to work there as well (under strict supervision and controls). Already a political outsider in the village for his progressive politics, my grandfather's subsequent PTSD and alcoholism after the War served to further drive him, a somewhat broken man, away from politics.

Even so, he recognised the importance of making himself heard here - and not only for my father's benefit. The possibility of a civil alternative to military service, justified by "reasons of conscience", had only been introduced the year before, and my father claimed that he was one of the first (perhaps even the first) in Bavaria to avail of this avenue to avoid military service. When I asked him what he would have done had such an option not existed, he said "Go to prison, perhaps. Or leave Germany - but where would I have gone?".

So convinced was my father of the moral imperative to oppose war and militarism, he managed to convice two of his friends to make similar arguments and to refuse to serve, and he even convinced his elder brother - who had already carried out his own military service, and had continued in a non-commissioned role - to abruptly end his own association with the military (indeed, my grandfather's letter makes references to both his sons in this regard). 

War drums beat once more

This, one of my proudest memories of my father, is now a core motivating issue for me too, nearly 60 years later. As I write, the German government has breached its own austerity-mad, quasi-religious spending cap to enable enormous expenditure on weapons (ensuring megaprofits for the arms companies), remilitarising in a way not seen since the Third Reich. The German government is also threatening to reintroduce conscription if enough people "fail" to volunteer for the new, expanded army reserve. 

At the same time, Germany is defending - and has helped arm - an Israeli government hell-bent of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people of Gaza. Germany's own dark history has now been twisted so far by those in power that - for "reasons of state" - the population is expected to support war crimes and genocide without question, while those who call for the defence of international law, and decry the deliberate murder of tens of thousands of children, are demonised as "anti-semitic" (ironically, disgustingly even, this includes Jews in Germany and elsewhere critical of the slaughter). Recent polls show that ordinary Germans overwhemingly oppose Israel's war crimes, but the media and political elites allow no such opinion to enjoy oxygen.

The European Union, too, is beating the drums of war loudly, with its ReArmEurope agenda - ostensibly driven by the need to defend the bloc from Russia since its ongoing aggression escalated into a full-blown invasion of Ukraine, but in reality part of a larger agenda, including a resurgent European imperialism, and expansionist NATO politics. Whether Russia, under Putin's fascistic leadership, poses a threat to Europe, or not, is entirely irrelevant to this militarisation of Europe - there have long been reckless warmongers on all sides. Indeed, the European Commission's Vice President and High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, seems hell-bent on picking a fight with Russia anyway, calling for it to be broken up into smaller states.

The other side of my family has roots in Ireland, which - due to its centuries-long experience of colonial violence by Britain - has been militarily neutral for years (at least in the part not still occupied by Britain). But, here too, the media, government, and establishment are busily undermining the country's "triple lock", to enable the country to join in the military projects underway across the continent and further afield. The European Union - supposedly formed as a "peace project" for Europe, is rapidly being converted into a "war project", with military spending joining austerity in the hearts of Brussels' policy-makers. Even Denmark's traditionally "frugal" (that is, pro-austerity) government has recently distanced itself from its penny-pinching outlook in order to facilitate expanded military spending across Europe.

This last example is perhaps the most relevant today, for I - too - am a father, with a young daughter growing up with dreams and hopes in the relative safety of Denmark. I say "relative" with some bitterness: as of July 1 2025, Denmark's (admittedly limited) military conscription has been lengthened to 11 months and extended to include women - ostensibly in the name of "equality". While military experts, and even the Danish military union, opposed the move (many arguing against conscription entirely, for being expensive, ineffective, and damaging to education, careers, and even to democracy itself), the political class - including even the country's main radical left party - all supported the change. The dark reality, of course, has less to do with defence, and more to do with preparing the population for the idea of a coming war (when conscription would likely be extended much further, creating a generation of cannon fodder).

If Denmark's conscription law remains as it is now, and my daughter remains in Denmark, when she reaches 18 she will be entered into a lottery to serve in a military force that has joined in brutal illegal invasions and occupations, such as Afghanistan. Words cannot express my rage. Fortunately, the right to conscientious objection also exists in Denmark too - for now - and my father's words ring in my head: "the right to conscientious objection that exists in our country must not only be preserved but fully used - and even elevated to a moral duty". 

As the far-right rises in many countries once again, and the sabres rattle louder than ever, resisting normalisation of war, stopping the far-right, and putting an end to militarism and war entirely - redirecting the countless billions spent on bombs to be spent on books, beds, and a better future for all the world - must be a paramount struggle, alongside the fight to rescue a liveable climate on this small planet of ours. For my father, and my daughter, I can demand nothing less. 

“Back to Basics”

An interview with Red-Green Alliance candidate Frederikke Hellemann on the challenges facing the Danish Left in 2024.

As the European Parliament elections this June draw nearer, the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation is conducting a series of interviews with left-wing parties and candidates from across the EU on the election campaign, their political programmes, and the challenges facing left-wing forces domestically and at a European level.

The foundation’s Duroyan Fertl spoke to Frederikke Hellemann, second on the list for Danish Left-Green Alliance, or Enhedslisten, about the Danish Left’s priorities in this super election year.

What are Enhedslisten’s key priorities or campaign areas in this European Parliament election campaign?

For this campaign, we have an umbrella theme of convincing people that Enhedslisten is on their side. This means creating a Europe that is safe, green, and just, that is safe from climate change. We are finding dangerous pesticides and PFAS — so-called “forever chemicals” — in over half of the drinking water in Denmark. We see flooding and forest fires in the south of Europe. All these things point to a Europe that is not safe and not healthy and the only way to combat these things is to complete the green transition.

For this to happen we need everyone on board, and to make sure that it is the polluters — the richest — who pay. Luckily, when you renovate homes, when you build windmills, when you do all the things that are necessary to create a green Europe, you also create many well-paying jobs. And, of course, we want to make sure that those jobs have collective agreements.

Therefore, for us the key priorities are going to be climate action and biodiversity — to finish what we started with the Green Deal, with the Nature Restoration Law, and with the proposals touching on agriculture. We are also campaigning on ensuring public money is spent in the right way. We want to reopen the EU Public Procurement law so we can demand collective agreements when we are buying as governments or as municipalities. We want a fair Europe and a better deal for refugees, with a fairer division among member states, and for all of this to be paid for by the rich.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

Northern Lights? Nordic lessons for the just transition

For many, Scandinavia is synonymous with social democracy, high union density, public ownership, and progressive governments inclined to climate action and sustainable policies. A recent study tour to Norway and Denmark, hosted by Rosa Luxemburg Foundation’s New York and Brussels offices, found that both countries still struggle with entrenched interests – local and international – holding back a genuine “just transition”.

The five-day study tour in October brought ten experts – legislators, researchers, and activists – from North America and Europe to Norway and Denmark. It was the aim of the tour to explore the renewable energy landscape in Scandinavia, and to exchange experiences from both sides of the Atlantic around building a “just transition”: a greening of the economy in a fair and inclusive manner that creates decent work opportunities and leaves no one behind.

Taking as its starting point the role and strategies of left parties, trade unions and climate justice groups in the Nordic region, the visit also looked at the larger challenges, including the regional and global dynamics surrounding a green transition. The results were challenging, and sometimes inspiring, but contradictory.

Leading on renewables?

Denmark and Norway are rightly seen as world leaders on renewable energy, but this status is riddled with incongruities. While Norway’s hydro sector supplies over 99 percent of the country’s electricity needs and is more than 90 percent state-owned, wind power faces significant public opposition. Unlike hydro, onshore wind generation in Norway is 75 percent privately owned, largely exported for profit, and pays lower taxes than other energy sectors. Offshore wind production – which faces less criticism – mostly serves to electrify Norwegian oil and gas platforms.

Opposition to onshore wind has even emerged within Norway’s environmental movement and indigenous Sámi population, most notably around the Fosen wind farm in central Norway. In October 2021, Norway’s Supreme Court ruled the wind farm had been built in clear violation of the Sámi people’s human rights, but the government has failed to take any action. Both environmental groups and the Sámi people continue to protest against the wind farm, and the case has only helped deepen public opposition to wind energy in the country.

Read the full report at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office or Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - New York Office. 

“Security and the Left” - Impact Workshop

On 8-9 June 2023 the Brussels Office of the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung (RLS) hosted a workshop in Malmö to facilitate the exchange of experiences and strategies between several left-wing parties grappling with the issue of security policy, particularly in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The event was held face-to-face and invitation-only to guarantee an atmosphere of trust and confidentiality to participants.

The workshop brought together 20 party activists and decision-makers from the political left in Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Germany.[1] Participation included current MPs, and members of party leaderships, from Enhedslisten (Denmark), Vänsterpartiet (Sweden), Vasemmistoliitto (Finland), Socialistisk Venstreparti (Norway), Rødt (Norway), and DIE LINKE (Germany).

Participants had the opportunity to exchange views on analysis and strategy, to connect and to learn from each other – gaining useful insights into the experiences of, and debates within, left parties in the Nordic countries and Germany. Through a dynamic mix of inputs and interactive discussions, the workshop concentrated on key questions and challenges for the left in the area of security policy, including the thorny question of left strategies and tactics towards military and security alliances such as NATO.

The workshop was part of an ongoing series of events with a focus on the Nordic countries organised by RLS Brussels.

Read the full report at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.  

Impact workshop: “The Left in Power”, Copenhagen 9-10 June

In June 2022, the Brussels Office of Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung hosted a workshop in Copenhagen to better understand and compare the central issues, experiences and strategies of left-wing parties’ participation in, or support of, governments in the region. The event was face-to-face and by-invitation only to guarantee an atmosphere of trust and confidentiality to participants.

The workshop brought together 30 party activists and decision-makers from among the political left in Sweden, Denmark and Germany.[1] Participation included current MPs, members of the party leadership, and activists with experience at the regional and local level from Enhedslisten (Denmark) and Vänsterpartiet (Sweden), as well as DIE LINKE officials and elected representatives from several German states and state parliaments (Thuringia, Brandenburg, Berlin, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Bremen and Hamburg).

Participants had the opportunity to exchange viewpoints on analysis and strategy, learn from each other and connect, gaining useful insights into the experiences and debates of left parties in the Nordic countries and Germany. A dynamic mix of inputs, interactive methods, small group discussions and strategy development, concentrated on a number of key questions, including the case for the “left in power”, strategies and tactics for making this a reality, and the question of placing limits or “red lines” on government participation.

The workshop was part of an ongoing series of events with a focus on the Nordic countries organised by RLS Brussels.

Read the full report at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

Denmark’s left in crisis?

Denmark’s radical left party, the Red Green Alliance, is in a spin. At the November 1 general election, it lost a quarter of its support, a third of its seats, and its influence with government. Alongside the immediate financial and political ramifications, the result has opened up both internal and public debate on what went wrong and why – exposing strategic disagreements over the party’s direction.

This was the Red Green Alliance’s (RGA) third electoral retreat in a row, following the 2019 national election and last year’s municipal vote. The party won just 5.1 percent of the vote, down from 6.9 percent in 2019 and its historic high-water mark of 7.8 percent in 2015. The result is worse if you consider the party was averaging 8.1 percent support when the election was called in October. Compared to expectations during the campaign, the election results came as something of a shock.

In the regions, the party’s vote continued to drop, with many voters turning to the Social Democrats or the Green Left party, and confining RGA support largely to the big urban centres. There too the party faced setbacks, with many supporters of radical change backing the new Independent Greens or the environmentalist Alternative instead.

The party’s Main Board soon announced an internal review and plans to address the sudden financial shortfall, but this review was pre-empted somewhat by an article in Politiken, Denmark’s main newspaper. In it, former party spokesperson and outgoing MP Pernille Skipper blamed the poor result on – among other things – outdated party structures, calling for an intensification of the “modernisation” process begun a decade and a half ago, and for greater political manoeuvrability for MPs.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

Denmark to hold early elections as Social Democrats move right

On November 1, Denmark will vote, seven months ahead of schedule. Polls show left and right blocs almost neck-and-neck, and the risk of an outright win for the right-wing remains real. However, with Social Democratic Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen seeking to hold onto power through an unlikely coalition across the middle, a rightwards shift seems inevitable.

The early election was called when the Social Liberals, one of three smaller parties propping up the Social Democrat minority government, threatened a no-confidence motion after damaging criticisms in a report on the government’s handling of a Covid-19 mutation on Danish mink farms in 2020.

Frederiksen, widely applauded for her handling of the Covid pandemic, faced accusations of arrogance and abuse of power over the government’s cull of all 17 million of the country’s farmed mink. The official investigation revealed no legal basis for the cull, and while the Prime Minister avoided sanction, it has damaged her popularity.

Denmark is dominated by bloc politics and coalition governments, and both major political blocs – red (left) and blue (right) – currently sit even in the polls, with a slight advantage to the red bloc. With no obvious winner, two new parties – one nominally centrist, the other on the right – may decide the outcome.

Unusually, Frederiksen has called on centrist and centre-right parties to join her in a broad coalition across the political middle ground, to find "joint solutions to the country's major challenges”. While the Social Liberals, the Socialist People’s Party and the Moderates agree, the leaders of the two traditional opposition parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, have rejected the idea.

The proposal is also opposed by parties on the far-right, and by the radical left Red-Green Alliance, another of the parties that has kept the government in power for the last three years. Indeed, Frederiksen’s proposed coalition is also deliberately designed to diminish left-wing influence on government, and to shift Danish politics further to the right.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

Historic Copenhagen budget leaves Social Democrats out in the cold

Duroyan Fertl interviews Line Barfod, a former Enhedslisten MP and the current Mayor for Technical and Environmental affairs on Copenhagen Council.

On September 9, the 2023 budget for the City of Copenhagen was agreed in historic circumstances. For the first time in a century, Denmark’s Social Democratic Party – which has long treated Copenhagen as its crown jewel – was outside the deal. Instead, radical left party Enhedslisten (the “Red-Green Alliance”) took the lead in budget negotiations, delivering robust funding for social welfare and the climate, with support from parties of the centre, right and even far-right.

In November 2021 municipal elections, Enhedslisten eclipsed the Social Democrats in Copenhagen for the first time, taking a quarter of the vote. In the negotiations that followed, however, the Social Democrats held on to the coveted position of Lord Mayor thanks to support from the right-wing parties. Enhedslisten took responsibility for the Technical and Environmental, and Social Affairs, portfolios instead.

But in negotiations for the first budget since that vote, the Social Democrats, along with the Socialist People’s Party (or “Green Left”, as it now wants to be known internationally), found themselves outside the room, as their budget proposal failed to win support. Instead, Enhedslisten brokered a budget agreement that secured significant climate and welfare spending while bridging the political divide.

Rather controversially, Enhedslisten’s budget agreement was built on the support, not only of the political centre, but of parties of the right and even the extreme right, with the Danish People’s Party and even more radical Nye Borgelige (the “New Right”) both participating in negotiations and signing up to the agreement.

Being cut out of the budget is yet another massive defeat for Lord Mayor Sophie Hæstorp Andersen and the Social Democrats in Copenhagen, but what does the deal mean for Enhedslisten, and for the broader political situation in Denmark, where early elections will be held on 1 November?

The new 2023 budget agreement is a pretty big departure from the norm, and has left quite a few people scratching their heads. Why did Enhedslisten make a deal with parties of the centre and right, rather than with what many would consider your more natural allies on the left wing, the Social Democrats or Socialist People’s Party?

This is the first time ever in Copenhagen that the Lord Mayor, a social democrat, is not part of the budget, but we had thought the whole way through negotiations that we would make a budget with the Social Democrats. However, after four days of negotiations they still hadn’t delivered anything on climate, and only very little on welfare – both issues that we had said from the start were our key areas. This was particularly the case on the matter of the climate crisis – we simply couldn’t agree the budget unless we had agreement on something that really made a difference for the climate.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

„Wir müssen mit Dänemark zusammenarbeiten, aber gleichberechtigter“

Duroyan Fertl interviewt Aaja Chemnitz Larsen, Mitglied des dänischen Parlaments für Inuit Ataqatigiit

In Kalaallit Nunaat (Grönland) errang die linke Partei Inuit Ataqatigiit („Volksgemeinschaft“) bei den Wahlen im vergangenen Jahr einen Erdrutschsieg und gewann 37 Prozent der Stimmen und 12 der 31 Sitze im Inatsisartut (Parlament Grönlands).

Das vergangene Jahr erwies sich jedoch als schwierig und führte zu einem Wechsel der Koalitionspartner. Unterdessen steht das Land vor zahlreichen Herausforderungen, da es einen Ausgleich zwischen wirtschaftlicher Entwicklung und sozialer Gerechtigkeit und Maßnahmen in den Bereichen Klimawandel und Umweltschutz herstellen muss und mit einer sich verändernden globalen Sicherheitslage konfrontiert ist, wobei Dänemark noch immer die Kontrolle über die auswärtigen Beziehungen und die Verteidigung hat.

Ihre Partei, die Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA), gewann im April letzten Jahres die vorgezogenen Wahlen in Grönland. Welche Erfahrungen hat die IA als linke Regierungspartei seither gemacht?

Der Schwerpunkt unserer nun bereits beinahe einjährigen Tätigkeit lag auf der Zusammenarbeit mit unseren Koalitionspartnern der Partei Naleraq, einer noch weiter links angesiedelten Partei als wir, die sich aber auch sehr stark auf die Unabhängigkeit Grönlands konzentrierte und dies viel früher tat als wir bei der IA.

Es ist normal, dass sich die grönländische Bevölkerung über die Unabhängigkeit Gedanken macht – wenn man sich die Geschichte anschaut, sieht man, dass wir schon 1953 unabhängig werden hätten können, als wir (zumindest auf dem Papier) mit Dänemark gleichberechtigt wurden.

Der Schwerpunkt lag sehr auf der Unabhängigkeit und darauf, wie wir in der Außenpolitik eine andere Rolle spielen können. Wir haben eine Redewendung: „Nichts über uns ohne uns“, was bedeutet, dass jede Diskussion über Grönland oder die Arktis im dänischen Parlament (das über unsere Außenpolitik verfügt) mit grönländischer Beteiligung geschehen sollte.

Wir haben uns also sehr auf diese Themen konzentriert. Die Zusammenarbeit mit der Naleraq verlief nicht immer reibungslos. Es war irgendwie chaotisch und es gab einen ziemlich großen internen Fokus auf diese Zusammenarbeit.

Sie haben kürzlich die Koalitionspartner gewechselt, von der Naleraq zur sozialdemokratischen Partei Siumut. Gab es andere politische Gründe für einen Wechsel der Koalitionspartner oder war es vor allem die Frage der Unabhängigkeit?

Ich denke, es ging vor allem um die Haltung gegenüber Dänemark. Ich denke, dass sowohl die Siumut als auch die IA verstehen, dass wir mit Dänemark zusammenarbeiten müssen, aber wir müssen dies auf viel gleichberechtigtere Weise tun.

Wir müssen eine gute Zusammenarbeit sicherstellen und respektvoll miteinander sprechen. Dies ist für uns bei der Inuit Ataqatigiit sehr natürlich, aber nicht unbedingt für die Naleraq.

Aus diesem Grund sind die auswärtigen Angelegenheiten – insbesondere die Beziehungen zu Dänemark, aber auch zu den USA – etwas, das in den grönländischen Zeitungen viele Schlagzeilen gemacht hat.

Jetzt sind wir also zur Siumut als Koalitionspartner gewechselt. Hoffentlich können wir uns jetzt viel mehr auf die außenpolitischen Fragen konzentrieren, mit denen wir uns befassen müssen.

Lesen Sie den vollständigen Artikel auf der Website der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung - Büro Brüssel.

“We need to collaborate with Denmark, but in a more equal way”

Duroyan Fertl interviews Aaja Chemnitz Larsen, Member of the Danish Parliament for Inuit Ataqatigiit.

In Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland), the radical left party, Inuit Ataqatigiit (‘Community of the People’) won a landslide election last year, taking 37 percent of the vote and 12 of the 31 seats in the Inatsisartut (Greenlandic parliament). The past year has proved difficult, however, leading to a change in coalition partners. Meanwhile the country faces multiple challenges, balancing economic development and social justice with action on climate change and environmental protection, and an evolving global security situation, where Denmark still controls all foreign affairs and defence powers.

Your party, Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA), won Greenland’s snap elections in April last year. What have IA’s experiences as a left party in government been over this time?

The main focus for the nearly a year was on collaborating with our coalition partners Naleraq, which is a party even more left-wing than us but which also very much focused on achieving independence for Greenland and doing so much sooner than for us at IA.

Independence is, of course, something that is natural for the people of Greenland to think about - looking at history you can see that we could have been independent already in 1953 when we became an equal party (at least on paper) with Denmark.

The focus has been very much on independence, as well as on how we can play a different role in foreign affairs. We have a saying: “nothing about us without us”, meaning that every time something concerning Greenland or the Arctic is being discussed in the Danish parliament (which has authority over our foreign affairs) it should be with Greenlandic involvement.

So, we have been focusing very much on these issues. It hasn’t always been a smooth ride for us with Naleraq. It’s been kind of chaotic and there’s been quite an internal focus, I would say, on this collaboration.

You recently changed coalition partners, from Naleraq to the social democratic party, Siumut. Were there other policy reasons for changing coalition partners, or was it mainly the independence issue?

I think it was mostly about the attitude towards Denmark. I think both for Siumut and for IA we understand that we need to collaborate with Denmark, but we need to do it in a much more equal way.

We need to make sure that we have a good collaboration and talk respectfully to each other. This is something that is very natural for us in Inuit Ataqatigiit but not necessarily for Naleraq.

For this reason, foreign affairs - especially the relationship towards Denmark, but also towards the United States - is something that has been filling a lot of headlines in the Greenlandic newspapers.

So now we have changed to Siumut as a coalition partner. Hopefully now we’ll be able to focus much more on the external political issues that we need to deal with.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

„Die dänische Regierung hat die Angst vor Russlands brutalem Krieg genutzt, um im Eiltempo große politische Veränderungen durchzusetzen“

Russlands völkerrechtswidriger Angriffskrieg auf die Ukraine wirft eine Reihe fundamentaler Fragen auf. Ist es in einem Klima zunehmender Spannungen und Militarisierung möglich, sich Putins Aggression zu widersetzen und gleichzeitig eine Perspektive des Friedens und der Abrüstung aufrechtzuerhalten?

Die dänische Regierung nutzt die Krise in der Ukraine auch, um die militärischen Beziehungen zu den USA weiter zu vertiefen und die Ausnahme des Landes von der Teilnahme an EU-Sicherheits- und Verteidigungsoperationen abzuschaffen.

Die Linkspartei Dänemarks, die Rot-Grüne Einheitsliste, hielt kürzlich ihre Jahreskonferenz ab, auf der ihre Ansichten über NATO und EU heftig diskutiert wurden. Dennoch, so betont Christine Lundgaard, hielt die Rot-Grüne Einheitsliste an ihrem Engagement für Frieden, Abrüstung und ein Ende aller imperialistischen Kriege fest.

Duroyan Fertl interviewte sie über die dänische Haltung zum Krieg, den Vorstoß für eine stärkere Militarisierung und die zu erwartenden Folgen.

Wie hat die dänische Regierung auf den Krieg in der Ukraine reagiert?

Die dänische Regierung hat den brutalen Krieg Russlands und die von ihm ausgelöste Angst als eine Art „Schockdoktrin“ benutzt und versucht, unter dem Deckmantel einer gewaltigen Krise überstürzt große politische Veränderungen durchzudrücken, die sonst in der politischen Debatte nur schwer zu vertreten wären. Dies gilt sowohl für Aufrüstung und Militarisierung auf nationaler und EU-Ebene als auch in der NATO. Es geht darum, Dänemark sicherheitspolitisch noch enger mit den USA zusammenzuschweißen. Und es geht um eine sich immer weiter zuspitzende Konzentration auf das Militär als Gegenreaktion zu Bedrohungen unserer Sicherheit.

Das klingt nach einem deutlichen Positionswechsel.

Inmitten der Ukraine-Krise kündigte Premierministerin Mette Frederiksen am 10. Februar an, die Regierung befinde sich in konkreten Verhandlungen mit den USA über eine neue Verteidigungskooperation, die auch amerikanische Truppen auf dänischem Boden einschließen würde. Ihr zufolge habe die Initiative nicht direkt mit dem Krieg in der Ukraine zu tun, aber niemand bezweifelt, dass der Krieg als Entschuldigung für einen politischen Schritt benutzt wird, der in Dänemark höchst umstritten ist.

Es handelt sich um eine Änderung der dänischen Sicherheitspolitik der letzten 70 Jahre, in der wir ausländischen Mächten die Stationierung von Truppen und militärischer Ausrüstung – insbesondere von Atomwaffen – auf dänischem Boden nicht gestattet haben.

Wir sollten jedoch den Teil unserer Geschichte nicht vergessen, dass dänische Regierungen geheime Vereinbarungen mit der US-Regierung getroffen haben, Dänemark entgegen der offiziellen dänischen Politik nicht über die mögliche Stationierung von Atomwaffen in Grönland zu informieren. Die Erfahrung zeigt also, dass Vereinbarungen mit den USA über Stationierungen auch für Atomwaffen gelten können, ohne dass die Bevölkerung darüber informiert wird.

Lesen Sie den vollständigen Artikel auf der Website der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung - Büro Brüssel.

“The Danish government has used fear of Russia's brutal war to rush through major policy changes”

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is an unacceptable violation of international law, posing serious questions about how best to respond. In a climate of increasing tension and militarisation, is it possible to oppose Putin’s aggression while maintaining a perspective of peace and disarmament?

The Danish government is also using the crisis in Ukraine to further deepen military with the US and to remove the country’s exemption from participation in EU security and defence operations.

Denmark’s left-wing party, the Red-Green Alliance, recently held its annual conference, where its perspectives on NATO and the EU were fiercely debated. Nonetheless, Christine Lundgaard insists, the Red-Green Alliance maintains its commitment to peace, disarmament and an end to all imperialist wars.

Duroyan Fertl interviewed her about Denmark’s position on the war, the push for greater militarisation and the expected consequences.

How has the Danish government responded to the war in Ukraine?

The Danish government has used Russia's brutal war and the fear it has created as a kind of “shock doctrine”, to rush through major policy changes – otherwise difficult to argue for in the political debate – under cover of a huge crisis. This applies to armaments and militarisation at both a national and EU level, and in NATO. It is about welding Denmark even closer together with the United States in security policy. And it applies to a narrowing focus on the military as a counter to threats to our security.

This sounds like a substantial shift in position.

In the midst of the heated Ukraine crisis, on February 10, the Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen announced that the government was in concrete negotiations with the United States on a new defence cooperation, involving American troops on Danish soil. According to her, the initiative was not directly related to the crisis in Ukraine, but no one doubts that the crisis is being used as an excuse for a political move which in Denmark is deeply controversial.

It is a change to Danish security policy of the last 70 years, where we have not allowed foreign powers to deploy troops and military equipment, and in particular not nuclear weapons, on Danish soil.

We should not forget though that it is part of history that Danish governments have had secret agreements with the US government not to inform Denmark about the possible placement of nuclear weapons in Greenland, against this official Danish policy. So the experience is that agreements with the United States on deployments can also apply to nuclear weapons without the people being told.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

Brexit vil plage Europa, indtil Irland er genforenet

Brexit vil fortsætte med at plage Europa, så længe der er en britisk grænse gennem Irland. Danmark og EU skal støtte opfordringen til folkeafstemning om forening af Irland for at løse problemet.

Med brexit blev den britiske grænse mellem Irland og det nordlige Irland forvandlet til en ydre grænse for EU’s indre marked og toldunionen. Det skabte en række nye problemer, der ikke kan løses, imens grænsen eksisterer.

Den irske grænse løber 500 kilometer tværs gennem boliger, bygninger, kirkegårde og marker. Der er mere end 300 grænseovergange, men kun 11 ligger ved egentlige hovedveje. 

Læs mere: https://jyllands-posten.dk/debat/breve/ECE13582329/brexit-vil-plage-europa-indtil-irland-er-genforenet/

 

Climate Neutrality and Democratic Ownership after COVID

On 21 October, the Copenhagen-based Democracy in Europe Organisation (DEO), along with the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung Brussels Office, hosted a forum on the challenges of a socially just transition to clean energy, with former Copenhagen City councillor Ulrik Kohl. Kohl, a researcher on community energy in the Nordic countries and Southeast Europe with Malmö University and Roskilde University, spoke about the role of the left and communities in organising grassroots, working class alternatives to the capitalist Green Deal.

The idea of a ‘Green Deal’, or ‘Green New Deal’, has increasingly been seen as a panacea for the unfolding climate crisis. Since the outbreak of the Covid-19, it has also been presented as a solution to the global health and economic crises unfolding in the wake of the pandemic. In Europe, the call for an ‘EU Green Deal’ emerged in 2019, centring around a target of European Union carbon neutrality by 2050. This year EU leaders made this a binding target, setting a further preliminary greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of at least 55% by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels).

Such a rapid transition to green energy and climate neutrality is an urgent necessity, but while welcome, the promised reductions have also been criticised as inadequate. Worse yet, they are unlikely to be met. The reliance on market mechanisms and emissions trading has proved worse than useless, cuts foreshadowed in 2015’s Paris Agreement have simply not eventuated, and without a major change in approach, the latest pledges by world governments at the COP26 summit in Glasgow are likely to go the same way.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

Denmark: Local election set-back for Social Democrats; wins for the left and centre-right

Denmark’s local elections have delivered a stark warning to the governing Social Democrats, and handed big wins to both the far-left and the centre-right, amidst an historically low voter turn-out.

Denmark’s municipal and regional elections, held on November 16, brought mixed results across the political spectrum. The biggest wins came for the centre-right Conservatives and the far left’s Enhedslisten (the “Red-Green Alliance”), but the stand-out story is the disastrous result for the governing Social Democrats. Poor results across the country and in the capital are a warning to Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen that the political ground has shifted beneath her government as she faces revelations of political impropriety, a new wave of Covid-19, and simmering discontent over issues both local and crossing the local-national divide, such as the mishandling of healthcare and childcare.

Already navigating an unfolding scandal over the forced closure of Denmark’s mink industry after a Covid-19 outbreak last year, the pandemic’s resurgence has brought into sharp relief government mismanagement of the recent nurse’s strike. Underpaid and under-resourced, nurses rejected a pay offer that fell short of their demands, only to have it foisted on them when the government legislated an end to negotiations. There are fears that future waves of the virus could drive an exodus of nurses and break the back of a public health system run by underfunded regional government. Similar issues of pay and recruitment plague the childcare sector, which is administered at a municipal level.

While the Social Democrats remained the largest party in local elections, as they have been for over 100 years, there were heavy losses across the country, with retreats in 70 of the 98 council areas. The damage was most obvious in the party’s urban heartlands, and in the four largest cities (Copenhagen, Aarhus, Odense and Aalborg) support dropped by over 10 percent. The result was worsened by a record low turnout nation-wide - the third lowest in a century at just 67.2 percent - that reached its nadir in many urban working class areas. The worst participation rate came in the area around Tingbjerg, Copenhagen, where only one in three of those eligible cast their vote.

It was in Copenhagen, too, where the Social Democrats suffered their greatest and most symbolic defeat. After 112 years, they are no longer the most voted-for party on Copenhagen Council, slumping to just 17.3 percent support. They were overtaken by the radical left party Enhedslisten, topping the polls for the first time with a record 24.6 percent - nearly a quarter of the electorate. As well as taking the party vote, Enhedslisten’s lead candidate, Line Barfod, took the most direct candidate votes.

The Copenhagen result has several causes, but a key theme was development, with the city caught in the grip of a housing crisis, fuelled by housing speculation and development firms such as Blackstone. The market having failed to fix the crisis, the Social Democrat-run council and previous liberal government cooked up a controversial scheme to create an artificial island, “Lynetteholmen” in Copenhagen harbour to house 35,000 new residents, funded through loans to be paid off through the sale of public land.

The project’s potential traffic congestion alone is astounding: it would require transporting 80 million tonnes of soil through the city - some 350 truck journeys per day. The climate and environmental impact would be disastrous, and - rather than making housing more affordable - the initiative will create a new market for private real estate speculation. Lynetteholmen faces considerable opposition from local communities, climate and environment NGOs, and affordable housing advocates, but approval was rammed through the national parliament by the Social Democrats and the right, and given to development company By & Havn (“City & Port”) to implement.

A similar issue emerged in Copenhagen’s south, where the planned destruction and development of one of the city’s very few extensive nature areas - Amager Fælled, which hosts deer, endangered salamander, lark nests and other wildlife - was met with fierce resistance and a popular protest movement. Ostensibly, the project - also tendered to By & Havn - was to meet the city’s growing housing needs, but again the reality does not match the rhetoric. In both cases, the intersection of housing, climate and the environment played to the strengths of the left, and Enhedslisten in particular.

Finally, some more specific issues have hurt the Social Democrats, with former Lord Mayor - and vice president of the party - Frank Jensen being forced to resign last year after multiple sexual harassment allegations, and an attempt to fob off the issue by offering to be “part of the solution” to the problems he had caused. As a small wave of MeToo scandals hit the country’s political elite, Jensen was forced to resign his posts, and his replacement at council level has failed to impress.

The result in Copenhagen was an outstanding success for Enhedslisten, tapping popular support for action on the climate emergency and housing affordability, and from young voters. Despite its historic result and largest-party status - which would traditionally afford it the position of Lord Mayor - Enhedslisten was locked out when the Social Democrats formed a block with the right-wing parties to install their candidate Sophie Hæstorp Andersen instead. Reflecting the party’s new size, Enhedslisten nonetheless took both the Environment and Technical, and Social Affairs, deputy mayor portfolios on council.

Enhedslisten also saw success on Denmark’s “summer isle”, Bornholm, taking 23.1 percent on the back of a 17 percent swing among the islands 40,000 residents. The ruling Social Democrats and liberal party Venstre had pushed through a disastrous municipal budget that slashed social security while splurging millions on a new town hall. Enhedslisten - led by deputy mayor Morten Riis - were cut out of the decision-making, and quickly became the face of opposition. As in Copenhagen, however, the numbers weren’t there for a left mayor, and Enhedslisten lent its support to the Conservatives for the role, breaking the Venstre-Social Democrats duopoly and winning a re-negotiation of the budget.

This election saw Enhedslisten’s greatest results at the municipal level in its 32 year history. It elected 114 councillors on 68 councils - a slight drop on 2017 - but reached a new high in overall support, 7.3 percent nationwide. The results in Copenhagen and Bornholm were a high water mark, making a serious statement about the party’s role in Danish politics and strengthening its negotiation position in the national parliament. Unlike the Socialist People’s Party, however, which held onto its single mayor on the island of Langeland, Enhedslisten failed to win the position of mayor in any council, with parties of both right and “left” uniting against it.

A Blue Denmark?

A struggle of a different kind unfolded on the right wing of Danish politics, with liberal party Venstre suffering modest setbacks and the Conservative Peoples Party earning the largest swing and most impressive gains of any party. Meanwhile, the extreme right saw a splintering, as the Danish People Party lost more than half its votes, and its new, more pro-market, competitor on the right fringe, Nye Borgerlige (“New Right”) failing to fully capitalise. The results continue an emerging trend of the Conservative party leading the charge on Denmark’s political right.

Venstre had anticipated worse losses than it experienced, and its poor results paled in comparison to those of its main opponent, the Social Democrats. Some losses were self-inflicted, however, such as in Tønder, where internal discontent led a large part of the local branch to run its own list of candidates, costing Venstre the mayoral post in the area. As a result, the Schleswig Party - representing the German-speaking minority in southern Denmark - took the helm of the council for the first time since 1946.

The biggest winner was the Conservative Peoples Party, which saw a swing of 6.4 percent (over 10 percent in 15 councils) and improved support in nearly every council area. The party took over the position of mayor in several councils, including Bornholm and in Kolding, where the Socialist People’s Party’s former chairman and foreign minister, Villy Søvndal - infamous for his role in the sale of the state energy company DONG - gifted the Conservatives the mayor’s seat in order to keep Venstre out.

Despite this, the Conservatives suffered a humiliation in their stronghold of Frederiksberg - a wealthy enclave within Copenhagen with its own council. Up until now, it had been the Conservative’s crown jewel - under their control for 112 years - but a clever campaign, and a strong left vote (including a surge in support for Enhedslisten, which secured second spot with 17.5 percent, ahead of the Social Democrats) gave the area a social democratic mayor for the first time.

Further to the right, a different drama was being played out. The far right populist Danish Peoples Party lost more than half its votes and 133 seats, losing support in every single municipality. The party, which once polled over 20 percent, dropped from 8.7 percent in 2017 to only 4.1 percent, prompting national leader Kristian Thulesen Dahl to announce his resignation and call a special party congress. With internal squabbling and no obvious replacement, and leading figures in the party facing legal and criminal investigations, the party appears to be in a state of deepening crisis.

Even so, perhaps only half of the support lost by the Danish People's Party went to its more extreme rival Nye Borgerlige, in the first serious local challenge between the two. Nye Borgerlige increased its representation by 63 seats, but many disaffected Danish People’s Party voters seem to have stayed home, or lent their support to the Conservatives or Venstre. Some may also have supported the Social Democrats, who have adopted many of the xenophobic immigration and social policies of the far right.

Ultimately, however, the main story remains the bloody lip Danish voters have delivered to the government. Before summer, it looked unassailable, coolly managing the pandemic crisis through sensible lockdown measures and Keynesian supports to workers and business that made life difficult for rivals on both sides. Adopting a far-right position on migration and refugees, it removed the issue as a political threat - breaching the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which Denmark was the first signatory, in a cynical move to maintain electoral support.

This overall strategy gave the Social Democrats a powerful position at the very centre of Danish politics, capable of forming majorities to both the right and left. However, it also fed a tendency towards arrogance and overreach reflected in the mishandled mink scandal, the nurses strike, and development projects in Copenhagen. These latest results show that in politics, such moments are fleeting, and change is coming from both a restored conservative right, and from a re-energised radical left, that has a project for change.