NIS 7, Denmark, Government and Politics

WARNING: The NIS is National Intelligence and may not be released or shown to representatives of any foreign government or international body except by specific authorization of the Director of Central Intelligence in accordance with the provisions of National Security Council Intelligence Directive No. 1.

For NIS containing unclassified material, however, the portions so marked may be made available for official purposes to foreign nationals and nongovernment personnel provided no attribution is made to National Intelligence or the National Intelligence Survey.

Subsections and graphics are individually classified according to content. Classification/control designations are:
 * (U/OU): Unclassified/For Official Use Only
 * (C): Confidential
 * (S): Secret

A. Introduction (U/OU)
The Danish Government is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy that scrupulously respects the citizen's personal rights and liberties. The Kingdom of Denmark is in fact governed by a Prime Minister and his Cabinet, who are responsible to a unicameral parliament, the Folketing. Because of the small size of the country, the homogeneity of the population, the effectiveness of local elective bodies, and the efficiency of the civil service, few local or regional problems exist that are not considered with care by the national government. The efficiency of governmental processes is reinforced by a press and a broadcast service which disseminate a broad spectrum of information and opinion to a politically enlightened and responsible public. An independent judiciary dispensing equal and humane justice serves as an effective guardian of individual rights.

The Danish citizen displays an uncommonly high interest in the conduct of the affairs of his country. Undemonstrative by nature, he expresses his concerns peacefully through normal political channels. Although voting is not compulsory by law, an average of 86% of the adult population has participated in the 11 national elections since World War II. Approximately 73% to 80% customarily participate in local elections.

Political life is characterized by stability and compromise. As in the other Scandinavian countries, a multi-party system functions with relative efficiency because of the essential pragmatism of Danish politicians and a lack of divisive issues among the population. The Social Democratic Party, while carrying on its pre-World War II role as the leading political force, has seen its strength eroded, first by the rising appeal of parties to its left and then, since 1968, by the enhanced popularity of the parties to its right. In 1968 the Social Democratic Party yielded the reins of government for the first time in 15 years to a center-right coalition of the Radical Liberal, Moderate Liberal, and Conservative Parties. Returning to power in 1971, the Social Democrats were dependent for their plurality of one vote on the small Socialist People's Party and on the consistent support of one (out of two) Greenland and one (out of two) Faroese deputies. A liberal proportional representation system encourages the existence of minor parties.

Danish governments have been generally stable and effective, despite the fact that 9 of the 11 post-World War II governments have not held a parliamentary majority. With the exception of the April 1953 Cabinet, which was dissolved to allow elections under the new Constitution, the life of the average government has been nearly 3 years. National elections must be held at least every 4 years.

The major domestic issues that formerly troubled Danish political life have generally been resolved. Parliamentary government, free enterprise, and the welfare system are accepted by all significant political parties. Differences center about the rate of expansion of the state welfare system, the extent of government controls on business, and, most recently, the desirability of continued socialization in the labor force - the imposition of "economic democracy." Parties tend to represent particular economic interests, which they hope to advance through maneuver and compromise in the delicately balanced multi-party parliament. Although post-World War II governments have taken an increasing interests in international political affairs, they still devote the greater measure of their energies to the regulation of the domestic economy and improvements in the quality of Danish life.

Its isolationist tradition shattered by the German wartime occupation, Denmark has chosen to look to regional and world organizations for its national security and economic well-being. Denmark has been a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) since 1949, although its commitment to the goals of the Western Alliance has at times been less than wholehearted. The Danes took their most dramatic outward-looking step by acceding to the European Communities (EC) through the October 1972 national referendum. Denmark participates actively in the United Nations and, like other Scandinavian countries, regards it as a forum from which a more effective international security system may eventually emerge. The Nordic Council provides the mechanism through which Denmark may coordinate its activities with its northern neighbors.

The centrally controlled police system is fully adequate to the needs of the small country and enjoys respect and confidence of the generally well-ordered and law-abiding population. A special section of the police, the State Police Intelligence Service, maintains internal security. Careful not to infringe on the liberties of the sensitive Danes, it keeps close watch on the very few potential subversives.

1. Roots of the System
The Union of the Danish Viking tribes into the semblance of a nation state may be traced to the 10th century - the reign of the elected King Form the Old. As national unity as consolidated in the succeeding reigns, the kingship became hereditary. It simultaneously evolved in irregular fashion from a limited monarchy, to an absolute monarchy that endured anachronistically until the mid-19th century, to the constitutional monarchy of the present era. The continued acceptance of at least nominal hereditary princely rule stems in important measure from the ability of the monarchy to conform with the aspirations of the rapidly evolving society.

From the 15th to the 17th centuries Danish Kings were subjected to much the same pressures as Monarchs elsewhere in Europe. Efforts of the nobles to establish feudalism as it existed in Europe to the south were resisted and finally crushed by King Frederick III in 1660, after mismanagement and the military defeat had brought the country to the brink of collapse. The Royal Act of 1665, declaring the monarchy absolute, endured for nearly 185 years. Supreme political power now rested with the King, who reestablished most of the old Norse privileges and brought the peasants and burghers under royal protection. During this period the Kings were generally energetic and fair-minded rulers, and justice, on the whole, as dispersed equally through the courts.

Because Denmark was somewhat out of the mainstream of European political development, influences of the 18th century Enlightenment and French Revolution felt in Copenhagen were largely confined to the social and cultural. As long as an adequate and growing measure of social justice was assured, by standards then prevailing, many thoughtful Danes as late as the Napoleonic era still believed in benevolent despotism. By the mid-19th century, however, Denmark became caught up in the general European quest for democratic political reform. In 1848 King Frederick VII sensed a groundswell of opinion against the absolutist system and on the request of a delegation of leading citizens quickly granted his people the right to have a constitution. The document was promulgated in June 1849, and the modern era in Danish political life began. Since then Denmark has been ruled by a governmental assembly, originally consisting of two chambers known as the Folketing (lower house) and Landsting (upper house). The King's position was defined constitutionally, and most Danish men were granted the right to vote.

Although the forms of Danish democracy had been established, the reality was slow to come. The last three decades of the 19th century were given over to a struggle for supremacy between the parliament and the King. The Agrarian Left (Venstre), the larger political grouping in the Folketing and the forerunner of the Moderate Liberal Party, opposed the practice of personal royal selection of the Cabinet, which normally meant that government ministers were members of the minority right. Finally, in 1901 the King was obliged to concede, and in that year he established a Venstre Cabinet, the first having the confidence of a majority of the lower house. A factor in that result had been the introduction of the secret ballot, also in 1901. A new Constitution in 1915 further liberalized the system by granting the ballot in Folketing elections to all persons over 25 years of age, including women and servants. Thus, parliamentary democracy developed in Denmark much as in the other Scandinavian countries - through essentially peaceful evolution.

2. Constitution
Since 1849 Denmark has had seven Constitutions. Five fell within the period 1849-1866, and the major number of these served principally to adjust the stormy relations between Denmark proper, and its Crown Lands, the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. The Constitution of 5 June 1953, which is still in effect, borrows liberally from the Constitution of 1915, which provided Denmark with a centralized liberal democratic government under a constitutional Monarch.

The 1953 Constitution, stemming from pre-World War II demands for further democratization and intensive postwar study of those demand, brought major changes in the structure and function of Danish national politics. The upper chamber of parliament, the Landsting, was abolished, as was the overall parliament name, Rigsdag. The new unicameral parliament is called the Folketing. The voting age was reduced from 25 to 23 years, and subsequently in 1961, by amendment, to 21. The popular referendum was introduced, thereby enabling minorities of one-third or more of the parliamentary membership to transfer the final decision on most categories of national legislation to the electorate. Requirements for amending the Constitution were eased, and in a highly controversial move provision was made for the ultimate delegation of powers, normally the prerogative of national authorities, to supranational authorities established in the furtherance of international law and cooperation.

Parliamentary rule, as opposed to executive fiat, was guaranteed by a provision that no minister may remain in office after a vote of no confidence. It a vote of censure is passed against the Prime Minister, the government must resign. Parliament was given the authority to appoint one or two public affairs commissioners (ombudsman), whose functions is to investigate complaints by citizens against the manner in which state and local officials observe and apply the nation's laws. By a separate Act of Succession of 1953, the line of succession to the throne was broadened to include females, though with male heirs still receiving precedence. Constitution Day, celebrated annually on 5 June, commemorates constitutional evolution in Denmark.

3. Executive
The Danes, while explicitly spelling out several innovations in the 1953 Constitution, left intact such portions of their basic law as seemingly provide for the dominance of the King (now Queen) in the entire scheme of government. Thus, the Constitution in theory gives the Crown wide powers and broad discretion in their use. It states that the Monarch holds legislative power jointly with the Folketing, and that he possesses the supreme executive authority in all national affairs and expresses it through his ministers.

The Constitution merely perpetuates the polite fiction that the Crown rules, as well as reigns. In fact, the Queen, although not quite powerless, is very nearly so. It is the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, acting in the Queen's name, which exercise the bulk of the executive power. Probably the Queen's most significant independent power lies in her right to appoint the Prime Minister and the Cabinet ministers. But here, the Queen must consult with parliamentary leaders to determine the public will, since the Cabinet may be dismissed by a vote of no confidence in the Folketing; only when the political balance is obscure does she tentatively act with independence.

Again, the Constitution gives to the Monarch the determination of the number of government ministers and the distribution of responsibilities among them. However, the fiscal powers of parliament are such as to preclude the Crown from exercising these prerogatives, even if the Monarch were of a mind to do so. The Queen presides over the Cabinet, which when meeting with her is called the Council of State. This highest executive body may also include the royal heir apparent in its deliberations when he or she is of age. The Constitution requires that all bills and important government measures be discussed in the Council of State, except when the Monarch is prevented from holding such a meeting. In practice, the exception has generally proven the rule, with the King or Queen "entrusting" the discussion to the Cabinet presided over by the Prime Minister. It is here that the serious deliberations of the day take place, and a decision, once rendered, is then transmitted to the Queen. To become effective, all government decrees and legislation require the Queen's signature, but this endorsement has become a mere formality.

Powers granted to the Crown by the Constitution and exercised in its behalf by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet include the conduct of foreign affairs, the supreme authority in the direction of military action, and the exercise of emergency powers. In each instance, however, the Folketing, has a check on executive action. The government is constitutionally constrained from making any major foreign policy decision without first consulting the Foreign Affairs Committee of parliament. Except to repel armed attack, military force may not be used against any foreign country without the consent of the Folketing. Provisional laws issued during the absence of parliament must later be approved by it.

The Cabinet may propose legislation. It appoints civil and military officials, grants pardons and amnesties, and through its executive organs it enforces the laws of the land. The Cabinet may be supported directly by only a minority of the parliamentary membership. In such a circumstance, it depends on the occasional support or at least neutrality of one or another party or group of deputies not represented in the cabinet. Only by a formal vote of no confidence is the Cabinet obliged to resign. With the pro forma approval of the Queen, the installed Prime Minister may dissolve the parliament at any time and call for new elections.

Cabinet members may be recruited from outside the ranks of the Folketing, but this is not customary. Previous parliamentary experience, or high position within a political party, or technical expertise helps qualify a person for a Cabinet position. Administrative ability and personableness are natural talents said to be looked for in potential ministers.

The Prime Minister is the political head of the government and oversees political affairs generally. He may also choose to take personal charge of certain areas of national policy. Though subject to the pleasure of the Prime Minister, the other ministers will enjoy some degree of autonomy. The implementation of a law normally falls on one responsible minister; he has the right to issue rules and regulations affecting those agencies under his jurisdiction; and his decisions in administrative matters cannot be appealed. He is administratively and legally responsible not only for his own acts but also for those of his subordinates.

The number of ministers and their deputies are subjects not treated by any constitutional or statutory provision. The 1973 Cabinet of Prime Minister Anker Jorgensen encompassed the usual range of responsibilities associated with a Western-style democratic government. There has been a gradual proliferation of ministries over the years. First established were the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, War, Navy, Finance, and Justice, all of which date from the advent of the modern democratic movement in 1848. The number of ministries has varied according to the importance attached to the various sectors of the national life at various times. Foreign Affairs, Justice, Finance, the military departments (amalgamated into Defense in 1950), Ecclesiastical Affairs, and Education have been firmly established. Other ministries have often been subdivided or merged, not infrequently to meet certain exigencies, such as the balancing of party or personal ambitions within a coalition government.

The ministries dominate the national administrative scene and control many of the large public service organizations, which in other countries enjoy an autonomous public or private status. The Directorate General of Post and Telegraph is a major component of the Ministry of Traffic and Environment. The Minister of Budget and Economics presides over the board of directors of the National Bank, and the Ministry of Finance exerts influence through its account at the bank. Lacking a health ministry, Denmark has instead a National Board of Health (Sundhedsstyrelsen) not directly incorporated in any ministry but closely monitored by the Ministry of Interior, to which it is ultimately responsible. Radio and television broadcasts are the monopoly of Radio Denmark, a public institution directed by a council responsible to the Minister of Cultural Affairs, Disarmament, and Underdeveloped Countries.

Despite the limitations placed upon the Queen's real power, her role as the personification of Danish nationhood accords her considerable prestige. The embodiment of a millennium of Danish history, the Crown is the enduring symbol of the state and a focal point of national unity in times of stress, as during the Nazi German occupation of World War II.

The royal house of Denmark is the most ancient dynasty in Europe, dating back in a more or less direct line to Gorm the Old, who reigned from 900 to 950. Danish Monarchs have blood ties with virtually every other royal family of Europe and special ties of family and friendship with the Norwegian and Swedish Monarchs. The Danes expect their Monarch to be regal on regal occasions, and they would prefer their royalty to marry royalty. Otherwise, they are well pleased with the democratic proclivities of the royal household. It is not uncommon for the royal family to mix in the marketplace with an ease unknown outside Scandinavia. The prevailing attitude toward the monarchy is one of respect; there are in Denmark few passionate royalists and even fewer anti-royalists.

The Queen, Margrethe, succeeded to the throne upon the death of her father, King Frederick IX, on 14 January 1972. The eldest of Frederick's three daughters, Margrethe is widely read and well trained in the niceties of her position. She was married in June 1967 to French-born Count Henri de Monpezat, now Prince Henrik of Denmark.

4. Legislature
Responsibility for national legislative action rests ultimately on the members of a single-house parliament, the Folketing. As note above, prior to the restructuring brought about by the Constitution of 1953, the national legislature had been bicameral. The indirectly chosen and (prior to 1915) partly appointive upper house (Landsting) had been a conservative check to the will of the more representative, popularly elected lower house (Folketing) during the formative years of parliamentary democracy. In its later years the Landsting fell to the political control of the major parties, whereafter it came to be regarded as an anachronistic holdover from earlier concepts of political organization. In the interest of "democratic efficiency," the upper house was finally discarded, and with it another element of the checks and balances organizational doctrine. The concomitant institution of the popular referendum in 1953 (see below) brought parliamentary democracy in Denmark to its purest state. Regrets over the demise of the Landsting, except among a handful of staunch conservatives, have largely dissipated.

The Folketing has 179 members. By constitutional provision two members represent constituencies in Greenland and two in the Faroe Islands. While the overseas representatives have not normally voted on mainland issues, there has been no constitutional restriction preventing them from doing so. As the legislative majorities needed to seat governments and to effect legislation became increasingly difficult to command, these governments in the closely divided Folketing, particularly in the 1970s, tended to press the Faroese and Greenland representatives into participating in decisions on all issues.

Every member of the Folketing must be at least 21 years of age. He is elected for a 4-year term but may serve for a lesser period, depending on the life of the Folketing. The emphasis in the elective process is more often on party than on the ability or charm of the individual candidate, who, as in the British system, is frequently not a resident of the constituency in which he runs. The resulting concentration on national rather than on local party platforms tends to deemphasize purely local considerations and to encourage a stronger central authority. It also underlines the essential similarity of problems - the lack of marked sectional differences throughout this small homogenous kingdom.

A newly elected Folketing is required to convene within 12 days after election day and may sit continuously for 1 year. The parliamentary year lasts from the first Tuesday in October until the same Tuesday of the following year. During this span, meetings are called at the initiative of the presiding officer, the Speaker, and may also be called by the Prime Minister or by request of two-fifths of the parliamentary leadership. A majority of the total membership constitutes a quorum. Meetings are usually public. The Constitution requires the Prime Minister to deliver a state of the nation message at the annual opening session of parliament. The regular parliamentary sessions are held at Christiansborg palace in Copenhagen.

The Folketing has a strong sense of its own sovereignty; it is self-governing and acts as judge of its own behavior. No member may be prosecuted or imprisoned without the consent of the Folketing unless he is caught in the act of committing the crime. The Folketing is ruled over by a steering committee, the Presidium, the dominant figure of which is the Speaker, usually a member of the leading political party. Four deputy speakers and four parliamentary secretaries, the latter having primary responsibility to count the votes, round out the legislative hierarchy.

Much of the work of parliament is carried on in committees, whose responsibilities have grown heavy since the inauguration of the unicameral system. The constitution stipulates that there shall be a Foreign Affairs Committee and requires that the executive branch consult it "prior to the making of any decision of major importance to foreign policy." The Folketing decides from term to term what other regularly established committees it shall have. Additionally, ad hoc committees may be formed to study particular bills. The regularly established committees, of which were some 20-odd in the 1972-1973 session, average around 17 members each.

Most of the important bills submitted for Folketing consideration are presented by the government, but private member bills are also allowed. After the first reading of a draft bill, a thorough study of the measure is normally undertaken by the appropriate regularly constituted Folketing committee, a specially appointed ad hoc commission, or in some instances, both. To be enacted a bill must survive critical examination in committee, tough debate on the floor, and three parliamentary readings. Exceptions to this rule are resolutions and treaty ratifications, which normally require only two readings. Final decisions on bills are made by the vote of a simple majority of the parliamentary quorum - constitutionally defined as "more than one half the members." Once passed by the Folketing, the bill is automatically signed by the Monarch and the responsible minister, after which it becomes law.

Control over taxation, the raising of public loans, naturalization of aliens, and the extent to which aliens may own real property are the exclusive concern of the Folketing. In order to preclude hasty consideration, the Constitution prescribes that a finance bill for the coming fiscal year be laid before the Folketing by the government not later than 4 months before the beginning of the new fiscal year. In the event that it appears that the finance bill will not be passed before the commencement of the new fiscal year, a provisional appropriations bill must be introduced by the government for interim authorization by the Folketing. The Constitution prohibits the passage of new tax laws before the Folketing has passed a finance or provisional appropriation bill for the fiscal year affected by the finance measure.

The Danish political system is weighted in favor of parliament. The Folketing has in hand the destiny of any Cabinet or member thereof by its power to bring a vote of no confidence. Parliamentary members, with majority approval, may direct a formal interpellation to a minister. A reply is normally required within 10 days. A member may also seek information from a minister with the possible intent of harassment or embarrassment, by directing a question to him during the weekly parliamentary question hour. The Folketing may appoint special committees to investigate ministerial activities and also may impeach a minister and cause him to be tried by the Court of the Realm. These two procedures, investigation and impeachment, are rarely used.

Another basic source of control over the executive is the Folketing's power of the purse. Through its prerogative to pass on finance bills and then to vote appropriations and taxation measures, parliament directly influences policy. Further safeguarding its dominant position in money batters, the Folketing appoints auditors, whose job it is to check the financial accounts of the ministries. As mentioned earlier, the parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee must be consulted before the government undertakes a major act of foreign policy.

Denmark, along with Sweden, Norway, and Finland, has adopted the institution of the ombudsman, or public affairs commissioner. The Danes accepted this novel institution in 1953, just 144 years after its creation by the Swedes. The 1953 Constitution provided for the appointment by parliament of one or two persons to protect the rights of the individual Dane against official abuse. Since the inception of the office in 1955, Denmark has had only one ombudsman, although two are authorized by the Constitution. The first person appointed to the office, Stephen Hurwitz, LLD, a highly respected professor of criminal law, was succeeded in 1971 by Lars Nordskov Nielsen, LLB, the former Director of Prisons Administrations. The ombudsman may investigate national government officials of all grades, including those on the ministerial level. Certain local officials also are included in his purview, but not the judiciary.

The ombudsman may look into cases, make criticisms of official conduct, and turn the public spotlight on injustice, but he may not carry out justice by himself. Instead, he may make recommendations to parliament or the courts. He renders an annual report to the Folketing, at whose pleasure he serves. (He must be reappointed after each general election.) He receives about 1,200 complaints a year, up 32% over the period of the latter 1950s and early 1960s. Of these, about 75% are rejected as invalid. The remaining 25% are then investigated, and about one-fifth of these culminate in censure from the ombudsman or in referral by him of the cases to the Public Prosecutor or the courts. The critical attitude toward the officious official, common to the egalitarian Dane, provides a sympathetic climate within which the ombudsman may operate. In his nearly two decades of service, the ombudsman has become one of Denmark's most influential figures.

While the Danish legislators may feel confident of their ability to keep the executive branch in line, they also are aware that they and their works are subject to the judgement of the electorate, which at least once every 4 years has the right to deprive them of their highly prized political position and power. By means of the popular referendum, another innovation of the 1953 Constitution, most categories of the national legislation may be subjected to the review of the electorate and may on occasion be defeated, as were the government land laws in June 1963. One-third of the members of the Folketing may demand a referendum, and if both a majority of those voting in the referendum and not less than 30% of all eligible say "no," then the bill is defeated. Thus the referendum may take the initiative from the representatives of the people squarely to the people, providing a further popular check on governmental processes. Perhaps only among the Danes, and their similarly pragmatic, homogenous Scandinavian neighbors, can so popularly responsive a political system continue to work effectively. Exempt from the referendum are bills relating to government finance, treaty obligation, and certain other special categories.

5. Civil Service
Public servants in Denmark, like those in other Teutonic and some Latin European countries, enjoy a certain prestige in the society. Partly this stems from their relative probity and effectiveness. Following a probationary period, tenure in the service is assured up to the ranks directly below that of minister. Thus, the civil servant tends to share with the Monarch the continuous and permanent political tradition and provides a steady hand for the exercise of long-established policy, a condition highly agreeable to the relatively smooth running Danish welfare state but one occasionally disagreeable to a Cabinet minister with new ideas.

The higher echelons of the civil service are occupied almost invariably by those with a university education. The prestige that comes with an appointment to public office, however, is not yet matched by the pay scales, which have languished behind those prevalent in private industry and have caused the defection of some higher level experts from the public service. Decility usually takes precedence over wanderlust in the Danish character, however, and the promise of a sizable pension has helped overcome such restiveness as may exist.

A civil servant may be discharged if the decision has the concurrence of the appropriate boards and the competent minister, but by tradition the employee enjoys a high degree of job security and by regulation is protected against arbitrary relocation or dismissal. Qualification for employment tend to be less explicitly set down than in the US system, although a competitive merit system is generally in effect. While the civil servant is expected to be neutral in the exercise of his duties, he is guaranteed complete freedom of expression in politics and is even permitted to hold elective office on the national or local level without sacrifice of his permanent job status.

6. Judiciary
Danish law initially owed little to Roman or common law antecedents but, rather, had a history of its own, stretching back at least eight centuries. In the year 1200 there were three separate geographic areas of jurisdiction, each with its own system of law: Jutland, Zealand, and Seanea in the present southern Sweden. The Jutland Code gradually came to supplant the others throughout the kingdom, but was then supplemented in different regions with different local enactments of significance. In 1633 a comprehensive amalgamation to impose uniformity was undertaken, and the Code of King Christian V was set down. In the succeeding two centuries, however, much additional legal legislation, reflecting both Roman and common law influences, was promulgated, without being incorporated into the code proper. Efforts at a renewed amalgamation, begun in the mid-19th century, culminated in the passage in 1916 of the Administration of Justice Act (retsplejeloven), which went into force in 1919. With more than a thousand sections, this comprehensive statute provides a basic Civil Code and sets forth legal procedure in both civil and criminal cases. A comprehensive Criminal Code (straffelov) was collated through a series of studies essentially terminated in 1923, and was finally approved and enacted in 1930.

The Danish Criminal Code is primarily concerned with offenses characterized by general Western usage as crimes against society. In the Danish mind the rehabilitation of the criminal takes precedence both morally and legally over retributive justice. Sentences generally are lenient, and prison environments reflect the enlightened penology for which Scandinavia has gained world renown. Deprivation of liberty remains the primary penalty for a criminal act, but special consideration is accorded in certain cases: the mentally disturbed, youthful offenders, and alcoholics. Capital punishment, abolished in 1933, was reinstated following World War II in the instance of treason during wartime. The intent was to provide adequate punishment for those who betrayed their country during the German occupation (1940-1945). Except under extraordinary circumstances, such as those involving national security, justice is pursued in open trial. Specific ad hoc exceptions, however, may be ruled by the judges in the overriding interests of the parties and witnesses concerned or of public morality.

The independent judiciary of Denmark enjoys popular esteem as an effective guardian of individual rights. The Danish judge is protected by the Constitution from outside pressure. He may not be dismissed from his post except by the judgement of a special court, which, like the judge himself, is independent of the government administration, and he may be transferred only in the event of a court reorganization.

The constitution vests all judicial power in the courts. The exercise of this power can be changed only by law. The courts have the right by law to review acts of the executive branch of government but not those of the legislative branch; nor has any tradition of legislative review grown up in Denmark.

The Constitution specifically establishes only the Court of the Realm, a little used tribunal charged with hearing impeachment cases against Cabinet ministers. By stating first that the membership of this court shall include all judges who sit on "the highest court of the land," the Constitution also provides for a Supreme Court and by implication a series of lesser courts. Additionally, the Constitution refers to administrative courts, to be created by statute and to have competence in questions bearing upon the scope of the authority of the executive power. The administrative court system, operative in other Western European countries, including France and West Germany, has yet to be established by the Danes, who seem satisfied with the overall competence of the regular courts.

It is possible in Denmark for a legal case to be decided before it it brought before an established court or before formal proceedings commence in an established court. Minor offenses, such as traffic violations, may be disposed of by police officials, the procedure being analogous to that in police courts in the United States. The Danish Code of Legal Procedure requires that courts prior to hearing a case first attempt conciliation between the parties, unless it is apparent that conciliation is impossible.

There are three echelons to the regular court system, the lowest rank of which is occupied by the district courts, the underretter. District courts may hear cases on appeal from police courts, but they are primarily trial courts of first instance in all criminal cases involving penalties of less than 8 years' imprisonment and not of such a minor nature as to be broad by police courts. In addition, they exercise first instance jurisdiction in minor civil cases. There are just over 100 underretter in Denmark, each served by one to three judges, depending on the size of the district. Exceptions are the cities of Copenhagen and Aarhus. The capital city, with almost a quarter of the total population, has instead of the conventional district, a Town Court (byret), served by 22 judges, who preside over 17 divisions, each specializing in a different type of case. Aarhus similarly has a Town Court, but with only eight, more broadly specialized, judges.

One step up from the district courts are the two superior courts (landsretter), the Eastern Court, with jurisdiction over Copenhagen and the islands, and the Western Court, for mainland Jutland. The landsretter have original jurisdiction in all criminal cases involving a possible penalty of 8 years' imprisonment or longer, and in major civil cases. They hear appeals from the district courts and are unique in that they are the only courts using the jury system. The Easter Court consists of 33 judges; the Western, of 20. At least three judges must sit in a case tried by the superior court. In criminal cases coming before this tribunal 12 jurymen must sit with the 3 judges. The jury alone may pass on the guilt or innocence of the accused. Unanimity of the jurors is not requires; a majority of eight determines the issue. A verdict of guilty, however, may be overturned by the three judges. If the final verdict of the court is guilty, the sentence is determined by the jury and judges acting jointly.

The highest court of the land, the Supreme Court (Hojesteret), has no original jurisdiction but hears cases only on appeal. In the Danish legal system only a single appeal is normally allowed, and thus most cases reaching the Supreme Court originate in a superior court. At least 5 judges must participate, and in extremely important instances the total membership of 15 sits.

In addition to the regular courts, there are the Maritime and Commercial Court in Copenhagen and several other specialized courts having jurisdiction over cases such as those involving labor-management, civil service, and ecclesiastical disputes. Since the abolition of the military courts in 1919, all court-martial cases have been tried in the ordinary courts.

The Danish judicial system takes care to provide equal justice. Indigents, whether defendants or plaintiffs, are supplied with free legal counsel. To insure further the rights of the individual, the Constitution states that any person arrested shall be brought before a court within 24 hours. The legal concept of trial by one's peers is met by the use of lay judges assisting the professional magistrates in the district courts. The law expressly enjoins the prosecution to avoid proceedings except against persons believed to be culpable, and it is a fundamental principle that an accused person shall have the benefit of any reasonable doubt. A lawyer, public prosecutor, or judge must by law be a graduate of Danish law school, possess high character, and have the experience and demonstrated ability to carry out his duties.

7. Regional and Local Government
As a small, homogenous, relatively prosperous country, Denmark has enjoyed efficient local administration in the 20th century. The little friction that has occurred from time to time was more often traceable to human error than to institutional malfunction. By law the national government remains supreme over local government in all fields. By evolution this supremacy has been reinforced by diminishing regional differences and clear popular acquiescence in ultimate centralized direction.

Regional and local governments to an increasing extent have become administrative arms of the national government. While the national government may legislate broad programs, however, only the local authorities have the intimate knowledge to apply those programs to local needs. In this regard the general European quest for specific local initiatives, seen notably in the student manifestations of the late 1960s, has had some impact on Danish legal prerogatives, as has the transition of Denmark from a principally agricultural to a principally industrial economy. Thus, the enhanced emphasis in the national school system on technical and vocational education has been made responsive to specific local economic needs as defined by local authorities, and the rapid industrial development of the 1950s and 1960s has led to a significant change in the administrative subdivision of the small nation.

Prior to April 1970 the government hierarchy in agricultural Denmark reflected the essential separateness of urban life by subordinating some 1,300 rural municipalities to the 25 provinces (amter, which, in turn, answered to the national government), while separating out 88 urban municipalities to be answerable directly to the Ministry of Interior in Copenhagen, plus the capital city itself, with an independent status dating from ancient times and a structure all its own. The antiquated system endured partly because it permitted a degree of rural overrepresentation in parliament, and agricultural interests remained sufficiently strong to block reform. The administrative reform that went into effect in 1970 left the status of Copenhagen relatively intact, but amalgamated all the other urban with the rural municipalities and reduced the total number from some 1,300 plus 88 to about 300. The number of provinces was reduced from 25 to 14. Henceforward, municipalities, now termed primary local authorities or communes (primaerkommuner), are all directly under the purview of the 14 provinces, which, in turn, answer to the central government.

The primary communes are governed as before, by a popularly elected council (kommuwalbestyrelse), which, in turn, elects a mayor (borgmester). Nearest to the populace, this council evaluates property, determines individual ability to pay taxes, and collects national income and property taxes. Less onerous tasks include the administration of relief and social legislation, the supervision of local educational affairs, the building of local roads, and the preparation of voter lists for local and national balloting.

The provinces are governed pretty much as before by a popularly elected provincial council (amstrad) chosen by proportional representation which now, however, elects a provincial chairman (amtsborgmaster). The chairman assumes some of the executive prerogatives formerly exercised by the state appointed governor (Amtmand). Deprived of exclusive authority in certain purely provincial matters, the governor nevertheless remains. He is now a nonvoting member of the amtsrad, but still appointed for an indefinite term by the Council of State; he is a powerful monitor for the national government in all matters affecting the national interests.

The provinces are expected to assume, during the 1970s, some prerogatives heretofore reserved to the central government, notably in economic development and related schooling and in the administration of the comprehensive social services. The council meets four times a year, usually in public session, to prepare a budget, levy taxes, make appropriations, and scrutinize the work of a small group of paid administrative officials - all of this under the loose supervision of the Minister of Interior through his agent, the governor. A particularly important task for the provincial government is the control of matters relating to public health, including supervision of hospitals, a concern consistently dear to Danish hearts as reflected through the outlays for this purpose in the budgets. The building and maintenance of major highways also take a significant share of the provincial budget. An individual or organization has the right to appeal to the Minister of Interior concerning an act of commission or omission by regional authorities.

Just as the central administration monitors the province, the province monitors the communes, particularly in affairs relating to the purchase or sale of public properties, the borrowing of money, and any unusual increase in the local tax rate. Provincial school boards oversee a centralized school system.

Copenhagen, the national capital and several times over the largest city, has its own special brand of government. As in the case of the provinces, the governor of the city (overpraesident) is a civil servant selected by the national administration and approved by the Monarch. Unlike the provincial governor, however, Copenhagen's governor has been largely a figurehead since 1938 with only an advisory role.

The day-to-day work of coping with the problems of Denmark's sole megalopolis is carried on by a city council (borgerrepraesentation) and a many-headed executive council (magistrat). The 55-member city council, with representation from virtually every political movement of any size, is a legislature in miniature. Its members are elected by proportional representation and serve a 4-year term. Much of the work of the council is carried on in committees. The executive council consists of a chief mayor (overborgmester), five deputy mayors (borgmestere), and five councillors (radimaend), all chosen by the city council from outside its own membership for staggered 8-year terms. Prior to the reorganization of the city government in 1938, the executive council served both as a legislative upper house and as an executive hub. It has retained only its executive capacity.

The executive and city councils interact in much the same fashion as do the national Cabinet and parliament. Most draft city ordinances are proposed by the executive council. The city council fashions them into law. Members of the executive council have the right to participate in city council proceedings but may not vote. Any new taxes, loans, and real estate transactions require the approval of the Minister of Interior.

The chief mayor has responsibility for the supervision and coordination of the activities of the executive council and may temporarily postpone discussions by that body. He has charge of the city executive apparatus as a whole and supervises all general economic affairs. Other city affairs are sorted into five divisions, each headed by a deputy mayor. The five councillors have equal competence with the mayors during a formal meeting of executive council but have no decision-making powers outside that chamber.

Superimposed on the regular government structure are several other administrative grids, each representing special districts fashioned for the implementation of a particular national policy. There are a multitude of electoral district, tax and assessment districts, judicial and police districts, medical districts, national service (military draft) districts, military regions, ecclesiastical divisions, customs districts, factory inspection districts, and civil defense areas.

Greenland is in effect another province of Denmark, but it enjoys greater local autonomy than the provinces of metropolitan Denmark. As set down in the Danish Constitution of 1953, Greenland is an "integral part of the Danish realm." The central administration of the island is in the hands of a governor, appointed by the Monarch and responsible to the Minister for Greenland and the Danish Cabinet. Local affairs are handled by the popularly elected 17-man Greenland National Council. Greenlanders also hold two seats in the Danish Folketing. Aside from the Inuit (People's) Party, a local political movement formed in February 1964, Greenland has no organized party system. The local trade unions provide a base on which a Social Democratic Party could be built.

The Faroe Islands are self-governing within the Kingdom of Denmark. Matters of local concern are the province of a popularly elected regional parliament and cabinet. The Faroe Island has its own flag and currency but is tied to Denmark through common allegiance to the Crown and provisions in the Home Rule Act of 1948 for sharing with the central Danish Government responsibility in the foreign affairs, civil law, social welfare, education, and a few other specified areas. The islands are represented in the Danish Folketing with two seats.

1. The Danish Political Forum
Within the last century Denmark has achieved a political maturity and sophistication that place it in the front rank of European democracies. The parliamentary system, featuring a responsible government and loyal opposition, is entrenched. No thought is given to changing it. The main purpose of government is universally acknowledged to be the guarantee of freedom and security, and the national policies undertaken to attain these ends have a broad consensus. No fundamental ideological differences or philosophical antagonisms divide the nation.

Danish political life is marked by an uncommon political stability. As in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland the average tenure in office of particular governments since World War II has been 3 years. Prime Ministers and other ministers may continue through several Cabinets, virtually making a career of their days in office. Paradoxically, the Danes have established this record for governmental continuity with the same multi-party parliamentary system which has proved the home of democratic government outside of Scandinavia. To the big-party politician in Denmark it is common sense to practice the art of political compromise in the interest of administrative achievement and subsequent reelection. The closed-minded, doctrinaire approach is left to the politicians on the fringes. Since World War II all governments but three, whether single-party or coalition Cabinets, have rested on a shaky minority in parliament. Through practical arrangements with non-Cabinet parties, working majorities have been achieved.

This rational and pragmatic approach to politics is a latter-day phenomenon for Denmark, which has experienced during the millennium of its political existence various political forms and various levels of national power. The Danes derive satisfaction from the history of their ancient kingdom and its long-lived independence, recalling with pride those days when Copenhagen was the capital of northern Europe. Today's Dane, however, knows very well that his country is better suited to export high quality agricultural and industrial goods and set ethical standards for good government than it is to play the game of international power politics. This realization has promoted a "small country" state of mind. It is with some uneasiness that Denmark has again chosen the path of international commitment in the postwar decades. Nonetheless, the notion that the country could take refuge in neutrality - in vogue from 1864 to 1940 - had been pretty thoroughly discredited with the Nazi German occupation of World War II.

While the Danes have yet to resolve doubts concerning their country's international role, they have few qualms over the domestic task of maintaining a well-ordered and progressive society. For them, democratic responsibility has been refined into a tradition. On the average, 85% of the electorate has participated in the 11 postwar national elections. Illiteracy is virtually unknown; newspaper circulation is exceedingly high. Thus, the politician faces not only an active but also an enlightened public. The office-seeker may reason with the voter successfully, but lecturing him usually produces resentment.

The office-seeker's task is eased, however, by the fact that the Danes are the Danes in race, language, and religion. Minority elements - a mere few thousand residents mainly of German, Polish, Catholic, and Jewish ancestry - wield little political power. Pressure groups operate in low-key fashion through established political mechanisms. Class consciousness, such as exists, is mainly covert. As a consequence, political parties may more easily speak with one clear voice, undisturbed by the reactions of a multitude of conflicting interest groups.

Danish society, though homogenous and largely untroubled, has been passing through an evolutionary phase which provides a political challenge. Denmark's economy has moved beyond the fishing and agricultural concentration of earlier days. Its modernized commercial farming required less than 15% of its labor force in 1972. The rapid industrialization of the past two decades and the migration to the cities have tipped the political balance toward the urban dweller, with a consequent scramble among the parties for his vote.

Closely following and directly connected to post-industrial development as a political challenge has been Denmark's relationship with the European Communities. Having to retain the large UK market, particularly for Danish agricultural exports, and requiring further outlets for its expanding manufactures, Denmark broke with Nordic traditions by opting in 1972 for full EC membership. The wrenching impact on such institutions as the Nordic Council between the four Scandinavian countries and Finland had not been fully felt by mid-1973, but it may ultimately have a determinant effect on the self-imposed regionalism of Norway and Sweden. The break with traditional Danish self-determination implicit in a much broader European economic integration has caused unaccustomed sharp differences within the national body politic.

On the more exclusively domestic scene, poverty, inadequate housing, economic and social insecurity have been largely overcome, if not totally conquered. A semi-socialist state and a monitored free-enterprise system now coexist, as do the partisans of socialism and a modified capitalism. Yet, as the existence of splinter parties suggests and as the ebbing strength of the long-dominant Social Democratic Party indicates, the Danish voter reserves his right to express dissatisfaction with the way things are being run. Smugness is a sing the Danes assign to the Swedes. A Danish political party takes its following for granted only at its own risk.

2. Parliamentary Political Parties
Modern political development may be traced to the second quarter of the 19th century, more than a decade before the establishment of constitutional government in 1849. As early as 1835, elections to consultative provincial assemblies brought a coalescence of nascent political bodies into two groups - the Conservatives, favoring the continuation of monarchical absolutism, and the National Liberals, advocates of constitutional government. By mid-century, with constitutionalism per se no longer an issue, a new formation, the Agrarians, appeared on the left of the political spectrum. As the direct forebears of today's Moderate Liberals, they represented for the most part the small peasant proprietors. Following the merging in 1870 of the Conservatives and National Liberals as the right, the Agrarians moved towards the middle, their place on the left being taken by the new Social Democrats, the political spokesmen for the new industrial worker forces. With the rapid industrialization and extension of the vote - universal suffrage was achieved in 1918 - the Social Democrats increased in strength. By the 1920s they were the most important single political force, consistently capturing at least a third of the popular vote from that time forward.

The Radical Liberal Party was formed in 1905 from the dissident left-wing of the former Agrarian Party, now called the Moderate Liberal Party. For more than half a century it remained one of the smaller parties, but by 1970 it had joined the modern day "bourgeois" Conservatives and Moderate Liberals as a significant political force. This belated surge in strength was assured by its leadership - from January 1968 to September 1971 - of the governing coalition of the three parties, each of which now commands the allegiance of 15% to 17% of the electorate, less than half of the 37% marshaled by the Social Democrats in the 1971 national election.

Since the turn of the century, a number of smaller parties have been formed, some coming into being as the result of divisions within the major parties, while others have begun life on their own. Only the Radical Liberals have risen to big party status, displaying a remarkable staying power of nearly 70 years. Most small parties have had to struggle to survive. A few have faded from the scene altogether or have become moribund. At times these smaller parties have had an outsized influence because of their ability to supply the major parties with that added margin of strength needed to form a government or to survive as a government. Before becoming a major party, the Radical Liberals played such a pivotal role on several occasions, allying more often with the Social Democrats than with the parties to the right. The Marxist Socialist People's Party has helped the Social Democrats to survive since the September 1971 election. Encouraged by a liberal proportional representation law, minor parties continue to be born, despite the adverse fate of so many similar earlier ventures. In the 1971 national election 10 political parties in all entered the contest.

The Communist Party of Denmark, formed in 1919 by left-wing Marxist rebels from the Social Democratic Party, is one of the two oldest surviving small parties. The other, the Single Tax or Justice Party, was founded the same year by the Danish followers of the US political economist, Henry George. The Danish Communist movement, after a brief post-World War II surge of strength, was sundered in 1958, when "Titoists" under former Communist chairmen Aksel Larsen were first ousted and then formed their own radical Marxist Socialist People's Party the following year. In turn, an anti-Larsen faction of the new Marxist party broke ranks in 1967, protesting its growing collaboration with the governing Social Democrats. Both renegade Marxist groups fared better than the parent Communist Party, which in the five elections since the initial split failed to gain any representation in the Folketing. The Justice Party, still actively competing in national elections, has failed to win a seat in the last six such elections. The Moderate Liberal Party, despite its size and relative influence today, has spawned several small dissident parties over the past 70 years. Among these are the ultraconservative Independent Party, founded in 1953, and the Liberal Center Party, founded in 1965. Both proved moribund in 1968 and chose not to run in 1971. The Christian People's Party, which garnered 2% of the vote in 1971, was formed largely by former adherents of the Independent and the Liberal Center Party.

The Danish parties, large or small, share many of the same attitudes and objectives, differing more in their views as to how the goals should be attained. Seven of the 10 parties shown - all except the pivotal Socialist People's Party, and the insignificant Left Socialist and Communist Parties - are democratically oriented in the Western sense. Notwithstanding the national sensitivity to political freedom, some citizens would give the Socialist People's Party and the Left Socialist Party the benefit of the doubt. There is general across-the-board agreement among the many parties that the government must on occasion intervene to control the economy - the only recent dissenter being the now defunct Independent Party of the far right, which advocated virtually an unadulterated laissez-faire system. In the realm of foreign policy there is more diversity. Most recently, in the October 1972 plebiscite, nearly 37% of the electorate opposed Denmark joining the European Communities. The dissenters included all left-wing Socialists and Communists, right-wing nationalists, and many Social Democratic intellectuals and factory workers, even though that party was in power and led the movement to join. The Radical Liberals were reported split down the middle on the same issue. NATO membership continues to win majority assent, but barely. Large minorities among the Radical Liberals and indeed the governing Social Democrats disapprove of Denmark's military participation in the Alliance, while all the far left factions remain opposed. Nonetheless, the Social Democrats, the Conservatives, and the two Liberal parties reached accord in February 1973, which in effect assured continued NATO adherence through 1977.

Politicians tend to view most issues as if through bifocals: one lens bringing into sharpest focus their party's history and tradition, the other lends revealing most clear the needs of present day political pragmatism. Since the latter imperatives often taken priority, the non-doctrinaire centrist parties tend to cooperate on policy formulation. They may often find themselves in more of a friendly enemy relationship than one of ideological arch foes.

a. Social Democratic Party
The Social Democratic Party (SDP) has been the strongest single force in Danish politics since the latter 1920s, but it has never had an absolute majority in the Folketing. During its several long tenures as the national government, therefore, it frequently depended on the support of lesser parties for its continuance in power. The SDP has espoused a non-doctrinaire, moderately leftist political philosophy, and although not strictly a labor party, it still enjoys powerful support from the industrial workers. In 1973, as only a single vote holds the balance in parliament and determines that the Socialist bloc has power, some SDP spokesmen urge an accelerated pace for the imposition of economic democracy so as to win votes from the far left. Over the long haul, however, change will continue to be gradual, regardless of the outcome of the election. The SDP leadership appears to recognize that the moneymaking propensities of the entrepreneurs, hence the profit motive, must be maintained to finance the costly welfare system.

At its inception in 1871 the Social Democratic Party represented Marxist socialism. Some of its leaders had participated in the First Internationale in 1864. As Danish life improved, the sharp edges of Marxist doctrine were eroded, and by 1913, with the adoption of the first broad Danish Social Democratic program, strong threats of pragmatism began showing through the party's well-worn red trappings. Sounding a rather uncertain trumpet, the 1913 platform called for nationalization of the means of production when this was in the national interest. Once in power, however, from the mid-1920s forward, the SDP directed relatively little effort toward bringing private manufacturing and merchandising into the public sphere. Instead, the now flourishing private cooperatives - a Danish "first" - continued to be encouraged as the most effective brake on monopolistic practices. Finally, in 1961, the party's platform was forthrightly amended to disavow nationalization as a major goal, stating that the community must acknowledge the right of both private and public ownership.

The Social Democratic Party during the early radical years scored few successes. The party first participated in parliamentary elections in 1872 but remained unrepresented in the Folketing until 1884. By 1895 it had only 8 seats; by 1901, 14; and by 1906, 24. The SDP's increasing strength in the early years of the 20th century was directly related to the extension of the vote to the working classes. With the advent of complete universal suffrage in 1918, the Social Democrats won 39 seats in the national elections of that year. Only in 1924, however, did the party overtake the Moderate Liberals as the strongest political force in the lower House of Parliament. Thereafter, its sway over the government was only rarely interrupted.

Thorvald Stauning, a vigorous and shrewd Socialist with neutralist leanings, led Social Democratic governments from 1924-1926 and from 1929 until his death in 1942. Under Stauning social reforms made Denmark into a welfare state. In the first postwar election of 1945, the Social Democrats stumbled badly, evidently because of their relatively weak record in the wartime resistance compared to that of the Communists. Consequently, a Moderate Liberal government ruled from 1945 to 1947, when the Social Democrats returned to power. Again in 1950 the Social Democrats were ousted, this time in favor of a Moderate Liberal-Conservative regime, but the SDP once more took the reins of government in 1953, continuing its dominance - precarious though its margin was at times - until 1968, when a center-right coalition of the Radical Liberal, Moderate Liberal, and Conservative Parties took over. Returned to power in 1971, in time to lead Denmark into the EC, the Social Democrats relied on the Socialist People's Party (SFP) for a razor-thin one vote majority in the Folketing. The support of the SFP, rendered tenuous by EC accession, to which it was opposed, was further strained by Anker Jorgensen's succession to SDP and government leadership. Jorgensen was named to succeed J.O. Krag, when the latter resigned on 3 October 1972, the day after the referendum confirming Denmark's entry into the EC.

Throughout the post-World War II decades, Social Democratic governments were steady performers, guiding Denmark back to prosperity and ensuring its security by taking it into NATO, despite a persistent undercurrent of neutralist and pacifist sentiment. Those parties in opposition to the SDP were frequently unable to find attractive alternatives to the Social Democratic program of state-sponsored welfarism, nor were the two major bourgeois parties, the Moderate Liberals and the Conservatives, able to bridge their own differences sufficiently well to unite and thereby match the numerical strength of the Social Democrats, which reached a high of 76 Folketing seats in the national elections of 1960 and 1964.

Since World War II the Social Democrats have experienced a leadership problem, as a succession of Socialist Prime Ministers failed to equal pre-war strongman Stauning in leadership qualities or endurance. Hands Hedtoft died in office in 1955, having served as Prime Minister for 4 1/2 years. H.C. Hansen died in 1960 after heading two governments, lasting a total of 5 years. Viggo Kampmann retired from the Prime Ministry in 1962 for reasons of health after 2 1/2 years service. Jens Otto Krag, who at age 47 became Denmark's youngest Prime Minister, proved himself a presentable and generally effective leader, though not as dynamic, appealing, or clever a one as to maintain for the Social Democrats their peak electoral strength of the early and mid-1960s. His last political struggle was in the outcome a resounding success - a national referendum in which an unprecedented turnout of almost 90% of the electorate approved entry of Denmark into the EC by a majority of 63.5%. The resulting internal divisions within the SDP, however, and the exacerbated relationship with its anti-EC SFP ally may have been factors in his decision to resign. Krag's initially less controversial successor, labor leader Anker Jorgensen, seemed not to demonstrate the flexibility and overall leadership capabilities to reunite the party fully and elicit consistent SFP support in parliament.

Krag and his several Socialist predecessors traditionally looked right, to the left-wing of the Danish liberal movement, as represented by the Radical Liberal Party, for the support needed to form a viable government. Following the 1966 election, in which the Social Democrats lost 7 seats and the leftist Socialist People's Party gained 10, Krag turned instead to the SFP and struck an informal alliance whereby Social Democratic sponsored domestic legislation would first be coordinated with the SFP. Krag's seeming shift to the left represented a bow to political pragmatism rather than any evident effort on his part to radicalize Danish social democracy. Krag's shaky quasi-coalition with the SFP lasted 13 months. In December 1967 six of the former followers of Aksel Larsen broke ranks over the continued collaboration of the SFP with the Social Democrats and formed the Left Socialist Party. Nonetheless, when the SDP again assumed the reigns of power in October 1971, it was with the needed parliamentary support of the rump SFP, granted on essentially the same conditions as in 1966. Within the SDP the debate continues regarding the appropriateness of the alliance, in view of SFP opposition to such fundamental Social Democratic external policies as accession to the EC and continued adherence to NATO. Even the pragmatism that first prompted the alliance is now questioned in the light of an apparent shift to the right by the Danish electorate. The moderate political pragmatism that enabled the party to accomplish so much seems pitted against the ideological commitment of those who see in the activist Swedish social democracy an orthodoxy they would wish to have restored to the Danish SDP. Such domestic policies as economic democracy - income leveling, profit sharing, and the participation of labor in management planning - could best be pursued, they feel, by looking to the left for support. Recognizing that welfarism in Denmark approaches saturation and that further taxation for its expansion would be intolerable, the new ideologues are urging instead reforms in the allocation of benefits that would hasten the leveling of incomes.

As of mid-1973, however, despite the SFP alliance and continued internal bickering, the SDP remains attached to relatively moderate, forward looking European social democracy. The party advocates state regulation in industry, agriculture, and commerce for the purpose of achieving maximum production and thereby the highest possible standards of living. The Social Democrats urge that property holdings and incomes be so regulated through price and salary controls, taxation, and social measures as to bring about a more nearly even distribution of national wealth. Full employment, consumer protection, adequate housing, and expanded social services are some of the objectives of their domestic program. No longer the partisans of economic nationalization, they advocate the harmonious coexistence of private enterprise, the cooperative movement, and state enterprise.

In foreign policy and defense matters the Social Democratic Party has altered its position considerably since World War II, abandoning its old platform of neutrality, pacifism, and disarmament in favor of enhanced cooperation among the Scandinavian countries in all fields, economic integration with Western Europe, and staunch support for the United Nations, as well as adherence to regional security pacts until such time as international conditions permit disarmament with adequate controls. The party stands by its 1949 decision to enter NATO, despite the continuing dissent of Socialist left-wingers. The latter element had been partially appeased by the unilateral ban on the presence of foreign troops or nuclear weapons on Danish soil in time of peace. But the SDP's long-standing agreement with its political ally to the left, the SFP, to press for a national plebiscite on the question of NATO membership, was not honored. Instead, in February 1973 the SDP entered into a four party agreement with the Conservatives, the Radical Liberals, and the Moderate Liberals to maintain Denmark's NATO force levels more or less at their present low state through 1977. For more than a decade, largely because of lukewarm Social Democratic support, Danish troop and materiel contributions to NATO have fallen well short of commitment. As a further evidence of its outward-looking stance, the party is pledged to a program of aid to lesser developed countries.

As befits Denmark's largest party, the SDP is closely knit, well-run, and largely self-sustaining. Externally, it cooperates individually with other, particularly European, Socialist parties, and collectively with the Socialist International. Internally, it has close ties to, and to some extent even shares its identity with, the Danish Federation of Trade Unions (LO) and with the Urban Consumer Cooperative Association.

The SDP sponsors evening classes in civic affairs, politics, and practical and academic subjects.

According to the SDP constitution, the national party congress is the most powerful organ. Meeting at least once every 4 years, this body of about 500 voting and some 200 non-voting delegates represents all elements in the party organization. One delegate per 1,000 members is elected from the 120-odd district organizations, and delegates with a somewhat smaller constituency represent the provincial units, trade unions, cooperatives, and party youth. The congress theoretically determines basic party policy and elects the national officials. In practice, however, the congress tends to endorse the recommendations of the national committee, although not without occasionally lively debate.

The national committee or main board (hovedbestyrelse) meets quarterly; it handles party affairs between congresses and largely determines programs and the nomination of candidates to high party position. The committee also approves the nominations of all candidates to the Folketing. Two-thirds of its 45 members are elected by the congress on a geographical basis; the remainder are the members of the executive committee, all of whom are ex officio members.

The executive committee (forretningsudvalget) has as it main functions the direction of the party finances, control of expenditures, and the determination of the budget. It is comprised of the chairman, vice chairman, treasurer, about four elected secretaries, the chairman of the party group in the Folketing, two representatives (including its chairman) from the LO and one from the cooperatives, a representative from the SDP Youth Organization, the editor in chief of the Social Democratic newspaper, Aktuelt, the head of the party's provincial press, and a representative from the cabinet if the party is in power.

b. Moderate Liberal Party
Unlike the enfeebled liberal movement in other Western European countries, Danish liberalism is an active and thriving force, undoubtedly the second strongest political movement in the nation. Danish liberalism is divided into two sections, lately of nearly equal strength. The parent party of the 19th century liberal movement, and until the mid-1960s clearly the most powerful, was the Moderate Liberal Party (MLP). The other section is represented by the Radical Liberal Party.

The Moderate Liberal Party corresponds to the farmers' parties in other Scandinavian countries and is the direct descendant of the Danish Agrarian Left of the middle years of the last century. It has been torn by factionalism throughout its history, suffering defections from both its left-wing and right-wing. Beginning about 1870, the Moderate Liberals were the main champions of parliamentary government, and it was primarily through their efforts that the King was finally impelled in 1901 to select a Cabinet which could command majority support within the lower house of parliament.

The Moderate Liberals became the dominant political formation in Denmark during the first quarter of the 20th century, but were obliged by the election of 1924 to yield this preeminent position to the Social Democrats. Since then the party, often in cooperation with the Conservative Party, has constituted the principal parliamentary opposition, with only a few brief intervals in power. During World War II it was a member of the National Coalition Government, in which all groups were represented, and during the years 1945-1947 it formed a minority government. Again, from 1950 to 1953 it ruled, this time forming a minority government with the Conservatives under Moderate Liberal Prime Minister Erik Eriksen; and in 1968 it joined with the Conservatives and Radical Liberals to serve under Prime Minister Hilmer Baunsgaard, a Radical Liberal.

Espousing the traditional liberal tenet of free trade, the Moderate Liberal Party has had a powerful appeal to the Danish farmer, who must sell abroad to survive. As demographic change has transformed Denmark from an agricultural to an urban society, the Moderate Liberals have tried to adjust accordingly. But despite the efforts of Poul Hartling, one of Denmark's liveliest and ablest politicians, the MLP was unable to maintain its electoral strength. There was a precipitous 25% decline in voter support between 1964 and 1971. Electoral strength since then has remained stable at nearly 16%, according to several polls conducted by the Danish Gallup affiliate. The MLP claimed some increased success at the ballot box in urban areas in 1971. The city dweller of liberal economic tendency, however, still tends to find the Conservative Party more congenial. With the disappearance of EC membership as an issue and the further constriction of the agricultural community, the MLP is searching for an identity that will enable it to remain a viable political force. One fairly significant plank in its platform that separates the MLP from the Conservatives is its support for strong government-sponsored social services. The Moderate Liberals consider themselves a kind of bourgeois welfare party. In keeping with their principle of individual responsibility, however, they would prefer that a greater contribution to such programs be made by those who benefit most from them.

The MLP still holds in theory that liberalism rather than socialism is the best guarantee for the preservation of economic and political freedom and individual rights. The party slogan is "Freedom with Responsibility."

The Moderate Liberals argue the cause of private ownership and management. They oppose increased taxation if it hinders production or private saving, and similarly they seek to cut back high customs duties. They maintain that free competition, as opposed to what they regard as the overextension of state control and the resultant stifling of individual initiative, is the best regulator of the economy.

The dedication of the Moderate Liberals to these principles does not deter them from acceding to a certain amount of state guidance in the economic sector. This includes the prohibition of monopolies and other practices that restrict opportunities for either the businessman or worker and the arrangement of government financial policy so as to level out economic fluctuations and avoid economic crises and unemployment. The intervention of the government is judged a necessity in time of depression or war. The party also advocates state support of the economy in the form of aid to technical research, cultivation of new markets, vocational training, and loans to small business.

The Moderate Liberal Party is committed to internationalism, both politically and economically. With strong support from sales-minded farmers, it was the most vigorous advocate of Danish membership in the EC. Traditionally opposed to the Danish policy of neutrality prior to World War II, the Moderate Liberals have continued in the postwar era to call for strong national defense, and have supported membership in NATO and the United Nations and participation in international programs for peace.

The Moderate Liberals are a truly national party, with about 1,600 local party organizations. Party discipline is considerably less strict than in Social Democratic ranks, and the party hierarchy is much more loosely organized.

In keeping with its emphasis on self-reliance, the MLP has been historically based on strong local units. The national organization was not even established until 1929, and in 1973 it remained relatively the weakest among the significant parties vis-a-vis the local organizations.

All the local party organizations within an electoral district are gathered into a constituency organization. Next comes the provincial organization, and then the regional organization, of which there are three. On the national level the annual congress is theoretically the highest authority and decides all questions concerning the MLP program. It elects the chairman and vice chairman, as well as three members of the national committee. Debates are free and lively, and local influence is clearly felt. The congress is composed of delegates from the constituency organizations, all members of the national committee, all MLP representatives in the Folketing as well as parliamentary candidates, delegates from the leading party newspapers, and delegates from the MLP youth and women's organizations.

The national committee has as its principal function the running of party affairs between congresses. It is composed of 50 to 60 members, including the party chairman and vice chairman, the chairmen of the regional and provincial organizations, the three members elected by the congress, and representatives of the MLP parliamentary group, its press and its youth and women's organizations. Unlike the Social Democratic Party, the MLP does not have an executive committee, its functions being largely performed by a secretariat elected from the national committee.

The MLP youth organization, Liberal Youth (VU) is Denmark's largest politically oriented youth group, numbering in 1970 some 50,000 in 130 local units. Since its popularity and strength have derived from its agrarian character - in rural areas VU dances and other entertainments were the principal source of recreation for the young, its continued preeminence may not be assured. The VU and the women's organization, Venstres Kvinder, are represented at every level of the party structure, and they actively advance their views. The MLP sponsors the Liberal Educational Association, offering evening and vacation courses on political, practical, and academic subjects to party members.

Although the MLP is supported by only 16% of the voters, as deduced from the 1971 election results and subsequent public opinion surveys, newspapers controlled or influenced by the party account for about 22% of total newspaper circulation. A significant proportion of this readership is in the old rural party strongholds. The party's two leading press affiliates, Vestkysten (West Coast) and Fyns Tidende (Fyns News), of Esbjerg and Odense, respectively, have politicians on their boards of directors, as do other party papers, and make wide use of commentaries syndicated by the Liberal Press Service.

c. Radical Liberal Party
The Radical Liberal Party (RLP) has gained spectacularly in electoral strength during the last decade, its share in the vote increasing from slightly over 5% in the election of 1964 to over 14% in the election of 1971, to an estimated 17% voter support in early 1973, according to public opinion surveys. In overall influence it seemed rivaled that year only by the Social Democrats. Doctrinally the RLP is closest to the MLP. Espousing many similar views, it has in recent years been more activist because of the quality of its leadership. Its chairman, Hilmar Baumsgaard, probably the most able leader in contemporary Danish politics, led the RLP, MLP, Conservative coalition as Prime Minister from February 1968 to October 1971. The RLP draws its support from small and middle level businessmen and entrepreneurs, urban technicians, professionals, and intellectuals, and rural small landholders, the last element formerly their mainstay.

The Radical Liberals characterize themselves as the "social liberal" party, connoting support for strong state social programs existing alongside an essentially free, i.e. economically liberal economy. The goals of the party, according to a Danish authority, are:


 * "...to realize the third possibility, the social-liberal society, where the state ensures freedom and order so that the economically strong cannot misuse their power to exploit the economically weaker and so that within this established framework, there is a place for personal initiative, without the state's rulers impeding sound enterprise."

Over the years, it has held a balance of power position between the Social Democratic Party and the Moderate Liberal/Conservative forces. By dint of its capacity to guarantee either side a parliamentary majority, either in a formal or informal alliance, the Radical Liberal Party had assumed a larger role in the political areas during its first 60 years than its small size would seem to have warranted.

The party came into being in 1905, when a wing opposing increased military expenditures broke away from the Moderate Liberal Party. The Radical Liberals soon found themselves more attuned to the Social Democratic Party, then a minority element, with the results that Radical Liberal governments of 1909-1910 won Socialist support. With the advent of a Social Democratic Prime Minister in 1924, the Radical Liberals returned the favor, thus inaugurating a lengthy period of Socialist/Radical Liberal governments. The two parties consistently found each other comfortable partners on domestic issues. They split badly over defense policy, however, when the Social Democrats jettisoned neutrality as a national guideline and took Denmark into NATO in 1949.

In something of a turnabout, Radical Liberals voted for the Defense Compromise Act of 1960, which confirmed Denmark's NATO membership, presumably in exchange for Social Democratic assurances that there would be no change in the policy of prohibiting the stationing of foreign troops and nuclear weapons on Danish soil in peacetime. This seeming ambivalence was also attributable to differences between the generally moderate leadership of the party and activist rank-and-file radicals - differences which have given the Radical Liberals the reputation of being one of the most querulous, if not divided, parties in parliament.

In an apparent effort to smooth other factional differences, the party during the 1968 election campaign avoided taking a stand on the NATO question and instead took the line that Denmark should work for a European security arrangement that would make both NATO and the Warsaw Pact superfluous. It called for a referendum on continued Danish membership in NATO after 1969 and went on record as favoring a revision of the Danish defense establishment, so as to reduce its size and alter its orientation in favor of a UN military contingent. By 1973, however, in the interest of continued cooperation with the Conservatives and Moderate Liberals, it joined those two parties and the Social Democrats to work out a new NATO defense package. In return for the support of the left, the staunchly pro-NATO Conservatives and Moderate Liberals had to concur in the maintenance of minimal force levels and the continued ban on the stationing of foreign troops or the locating of nuclear weapons in Denmark. Thus, much as in 1960, the same four parties, representing 90% of the parliamentary seats, reached a working compromise on continued NATO adherence.

The appeal of the Radical Liberal platform and the political organizing skills of its Folketing chairman (hence party leader), Hilmar Baunsgaard, enabled the party to double its constituency an representation in the Folketing in the 1968 election. In the post-election maneuvering, Baunsgaard succeeded to the Prime Ministry and assumed the direction of a Radical Liberal/Moderate Liberal/Conservative government. Baunsgaard recommended himself to his party and to the more numerous Conservatives and Moderate Liberals by reason of his strong leadership image, his intelligence, his charm, and his facility in parliamentary debate. A moderate in his party, Baunsgaard has taken a more favorable attitude toward NATO than that of the radical/pacifist element of his party.

Their ambivalence on defense matters notwithstanding, the Radical Liberals remain forthrightly and unabashedly internationalist. They have supported the Danish commitment to the United Nations and the Council of Europe and have long urged close cooperation within the Nordic Council. Although divided over Danish accession to the EC, the party leadership supported the initiative, indeed marshalled much of the national support for the beleaguered Social Democratic government during the parliamentary debate and subsequent pre-referendum campaigning.

Money not expended on defense is money available for broadly based social welfare programs, according to Radical Liberal thinking. The Radical Liberals theorize that the stability of Danish society rests upon the strength of the family. Thus, they enthusiastically support Socialist welfare efforts, such as the improvement of housing, old-age pensions, and health coverage. On economic matters, however, the Radicals remain the ideological cousins of the Moderate Liberals, endorsing the principle of private ownership and initiative on the one hand but admitting on the other the need for certain government interventions, as in the case of monopolies and prolonged labor disputes, to protect free enterprise.

The RLP is organized nationally in a manner similar to the other Danish democratic parties, although its discipline is perforce more slack. It has an annually convened national congress composed of local and provincial party representatives, cabinet ministers (if any), members of and candidates for the Folketing, and the editors of the party newspapers. Only the local constituency representatives and those members chosen to sit on the national committee have voting rights, however. The congress recommends policy, adopts platforms, elects the national party chairman and some members of the national committee.

The national committee includes the national chairman, the chairman of the Folketing group, and representatives from the provincial organizations, the Folketing group, the party press, and the youth organization. The national committee may only include five Folketing members at any one time - chosen by the entire party Folketing delegation, in 1973 numbering 27. A small executive committee monitors the party's day-to-day activities. The leadership of the party devolves upon the chairman of the Folketing group rather than on the national chairman.

Like the Moderate Liberals, albeit less pronouncedly, the Radical Liberals enjoy an influence with the Danish press disproportionate to their electoral strength. Radical Liberal-oriented newspapers, hold about 18% of the total daily circulation, and include Politiken (Politics), Denmark's third largest (about 130,000 circulation) and one of its most influential newspapers.

d. Conservative Party
One of the oldest and largest political groups, the Conservative Party draws its support, as it has throughout its history, from the urban upper middle class - the industrialists, financial and business interests, white-collar workers, and state officials - and from the large landowners. During the latter part of the 19th century, it held, with the Monarch's assent, the reins of power, to the deep chagrin of the more numerous Moderate Liberals. In the 20th century is became a close ally, either in government or out, of the Moderate Liberal Party, with which it began to share common policies and interests.

The modern Conservative Party traces its antecedents back more than a century, but the early loose amalgam of conservatives, the "right," had little of the blood, bone, and fiber of the mid-20th century party. First formed in 1870, this direct antecedent did not become a political organization in the modern sense, with close cooperation between the national organization and its parliamentary group, until 1883. It was not until 1896 that the party was able to become sufficiently unified to write a platform. When parliamentary government based on majority rule was established in 1901, the right, with its interior strength in the popularly elected lower house, fell into decline and some disarray. Reorganized and revived in 1915 as the Conservative Party, it shortly found a political soulmate in the old enemy, the Moderate Liberal Party. The new enemy was the rising Social Democratic Party. With the exception of the National Coalition Government during World War II, the Conservatives spent a half-century outside of the government before gaining another, though brief, taste of power, by joining the Moderate Liberal government of 1950-1953. In the mid-1960s the ardor of the Conservatives for the Moderate Liberals cooled, as the Moderate Liberals moved leftward toward the Radical Liberals, but by 1968 the Conservatives felt sufficiently at home with both Liberal parties to join with them in a three-way governing coalition.

The Conservatives desire gradual social and economic development, but, as their name suggests, they abhor radical change. They agree with the Moderate Liberals on the sanctity of private ownership and the superiority of private enterprise over socialism. The state is to be given regulatory powers only in those activities which restrict free enterprise - monopolistic practices, price agreements, and large-scale industrial disputes. The government must also act to promote economic growth. Traditionally the high-tariff party of the Danish businessmen, the Conservatives had shifted their position by the early 1960s, and were staunch proponents of Danish accession to the EC. Social welfare payments should be adjusted to render the greatest assistance to those who deserve help, particularly those who through insurance arrangements have paid the most into health and pension plans. New government-sponsored projects should be tailored to the nation's ability to support them financially.

The credo of the Conservatives would seem almost attainable in the small homogenous societies of Northern Europe. Apprehensive of a state-imposed uniformity, they maintain "inequality" to be "something essential for man's common life, because inequality, combined with freedom, impels men toward constantly more excellent results." But "equally at the state" must be established, "...every child should have a chance to rise, depending solely on his diligence, ability, and character."

The Conservative Party maintains that the government must do all in its power to promote national security. It favors Scandinavian and international cooperation in the Nordic Council, the United Nations, and NATO. Even prior to World War II it rejected the argument that the salvation of Denmark, because of its size, lies in unarmed neutrality, and it has consistently argued for a strong national defense force. This party maintains that way may still be a necessity in an imperfect world, and Conservatives on the whole declined to participate in what one party leader termed the "tide of protest" against US policy in Vietnam.

Somewhat similar in structure to the Social Democratic and Liberal Parties, the Conservative Party also includes local units and constituency and provincial organizations. Like the Moderate Liberals, the Conservatives have three regional organizations. At the national level, however, the structure has unique characteristics. There are, in effect, two congresses, albeit with considerable overlapping. A representative assembly of some 300 to 500 delegates meets annually in the spring. Included in it are members of the party's national committee, the chairmen of the provincial organizations, plus one representative for every 5,000 Conservative votes case in the province in the last Folketing election, the chairmen of the constituency organizations, Conservative representatives and nominees for the Folketing, and representatives of the Conservative Party press, the youth organization, and the women's committee. In addition to electing the party chairman and other officials, the assembly reaches decisions on organizational matters, political issues, and finances. Then a national congress of some 900 to 1,100 delegates meets annually in October or November. In addition to the representative assembly membership who are ex officio delegates to the larger congress, it includes one delegate for every thousand Conservative votes from each constituency, and several more youth organization delegates. The national congress is the "highest authority in party affairs"; it officially adopts the party programs after consideration of proposals from various sources, notably from the Folketing groups.

The Conservative structure is similar to that of the Radical Liberals in that it too has two chairmen; one elected by the representative assembly, called the party chairman, and the chairman of the Folketing group, chosen by the Conservative parliamentary representatives from among their number. As in the Radical Party, it is the Conservative Folketing chairman who wields the most authority and is the true leader. The party chairman is more of a day-to-day administrator. Since the resignation of the dynamic Poul Moller as Folketing chairman in 1971, the party has lost some of its recent forward thrust and has slipped at the polls and in more recent public opinion ratings.

A national committee of 60 to 70 members meets 6 or more times a year to run party affairs between the convening of either congress. Its members are chosen by the provincial and regional party organizations, the Folketing group, the Conservative press, and the youth and women's organizations, which bodies it represents. The national committee may meet jointly with the Folketing group between congresses to discuss important political questions.

An administrative committee of seven members, composed of the party chairman, the chairmen of the three regional organizations, and three other members of the national committee, administers party affairs from day to day.

Like the Social Democrats and the Moderate Liberals, the Conservatives sponsor evening classes through the Popular Educational Association.

Because of its large and influential press, the Conservative party may still carry its message effectively. Although the party enjoyed only 15% voter support according to surveys in early 11973, the Conservative press circulation remains nearly one-third of the total and includes the largest (B.T. circulation 210,000) and second-largest (Berlingske Tidende, circulation 150,000) dailies. With the exception of the expanding B.T., there does appear to be an ebbing of the once preeminent influence of the quality Conservative newspapers.

e. Parties of the Far Left
The stronghold of the Social Democratic Party on the reformist sector of the Danish electorate has left the Marxist revolutionaries relatively little breathing room. Organized in 1919 from a wing of the SDP, the Communist Party of Denmark (DKP) made a respectable showing only in the 1945 election (18 seats), when it profited from its outstanding role in the wartime resistance. The advent of the Cold War, however, and the threatening posture of the Soviet Union in Europe disillusioned many of the party's supporters, and by the mid-1950s the DKP had been reduced to a hard core of Moscow-line Communists. In 1958 the party was racked by internal dissension as an argument over the degree of the party's subservience to Moscow came to a head. Long term chairman Aksel Larsen was branded a "Titoist" and expelled. The following year he weaned away a portion of the party membership from the Moscow-oriented leadership and set up a nationalist-minded Communist party, the Socialist People's Party. In the 1960 election the SFP displaced the DKP in the Folketing as the representative of the radical left. While the orthodox DKP stagnated, Larsen's forces thrived. Following the 1966 election, in which the SFP won 20 parliamentary seats and 10.9% of the voter, it gained a status bordering on respectability, particularly after striking an agreement with Prime Minister Krag's minority Social Democratic Government to consult on domestic legislative proposals.

Late in 1967 a feud between Larsen and a group which objected to the SFP's close cooperation with the governing SDP came to a head. Six of the 20-man parliamentary delegation voted against a government-sponsored wage restraint bill, thereby bringing down the Krag regime. In a subsequent party convention, Larsen and his followers outvoted the dissidents, who quickly founded their own party, the Left Socialist Party (VS), dedicated to a pure leftist ideology and dominated by the former youth/intellectual wing of the SFP. In the 1968 national election the SFP won 11 seats, the Left Socialists won 4, and the Communists none. By 1971, however, Larsen's group had won over many of the dissidents and gained 17 seats. The VS and the Communists failed to win any seats. The gain is particularly significant as an indicator of continuing SFP viability. It has retained its leftists clientele, notwithstanding both the transfer of its leadership in 1970 from the vivid Larsen to the relatively pallid Sigurd Omann, and the leftward movement of the SDP in an attempt to co-opt SFP votes.

The three far-left factions, true to the tradition of schismatics, have been bitter enemies. Organizationally and ideologically, however, they have much in common. They draw support from industrial workers, farm laborers, and left-leaning intellectuals. They advocate total socialization, rail against NATO, were opposed to EC membership, vie in their anti-Americanism and anti-Germanism, and propose to return Denmark to complete neutrality. They are secretive about their basic strength.

The success of the Socialist People's Party in its early years was attributable chiefly to Aksel Larsen himself, a colorful and magnetic political with a sizable following. As the party grew, the Larsen personality cult was supplemented by a philosophical attraction the SFP began to have for the left element of the Social Democratic Party, particularly those who felt that Danish social democracy was losing its dynamism and was following the road to middle-class conservatism and respectability. The SFP has sought with some evident success to project the image of a reputable Danish political party, completely independent of Moscow's control and influence. It has mapped a program designed to eliminate some of the nation's remaining social ills and has insinuated into the Danish political consciousness the thought that it is no less dedicated to parliamentary processes than the openly democratic parties. Thus, it succeeded in 1971 again forming an informal alliance with the SDP, providing the pivotal strength to keep the Social Democrats in office. Notwithstanding the SDP role in leading Denmark into the EC, for which it had to rely on Liberal and Conservative support because of the strong opposition of the SFP, and the SDP's acceding to Liberal and Conservative pressures in the matter of some continued NATO commitment, still anathema to the SFP, the latter continues to support the government on other issues, acting as a quid pro quo the prior review of all SDP proposed domestic legislation.

The VS claims to have recaptured the leftist unity of the original SFP before the Larsen forces were "corrupted" by their cooperation with the Krag and then the Jorgensen government. It fosters an image more radical than that of either the DKP or the SFP, and yet assets that it is more democratically run than either rival. By proclaiming its disinterest in a governing role, it has drawn to its banner students and intellectuals dedicated to an "anti-establishment" creed.

The regular Communist Party of Denmark is imprisoned by the bonds of Marxist orthodoxy and is tainted by association with recent Communist history. It is clearly an appendage of the Kremlin, even to the point of parroting the official Soviet interpretation of events in the People's Republic of China. It ostensibly advocates the conversion of the people to communism through peaceful means, but its image remains that of a heavy-loaded authoritarian party. Evens such as the crushing of the Hungarian revolt in 1956, the erection of the Berlin Wall in 1961, the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968, and the Soviet rejection in 1970 of an integrated Nordic customs and economic unit (NORDEK) by refusing to permit the participation of tethered Finland have all redounded to the public discredit of the DKP. The Communist and far left press has a negligible influence, accounting for only 0.4% of total newspaper circulation. With little more than a hard core of followers, the DKP remains of some concern only for its slight potential as a subversive group.

3. Splinter Parties
In the Danish multi-party system parties which do not attract sufficient popular support to command parliamentary representation may continue to exist a long time. Only 16,300 signatures were needed for such a party to qualify for electoral purposes in 1971, so it is relatively easy for many of them to survive years of political failure.

Of the splinter parties that have come and gone, two that competed in the September 1971 election have displayed a certain longevity; although unable to win a single seat, they have in the past had Folketing representation. Two other more ephemeral group, the Independent Party and the Liberal Center, did not compete in 1971. A brief description of the history and goals of these four formations should suffice to illustrate the fringe area of the Danish multi-party parliamentary system.

a. Justice Party
The existence of the Justice Party is a tribute to Danish idealism and individualism. Basing its program on the teachings of the 19th century American reformer Henry George, the party has attempted to propagate the thesis that wealth derives from the unearned increment accruing to those who own land, and that the betterment of society should be promoted by a "single tax" on land. In addition to this generally discredited nostrum, the Justice Party has preached its patron saint's tenets of personal freedom for the individual, equality before the law, and minimal state interference in social and economic life. The party has advanced few specific remedies for foreign policy problems, but rather it has dispensed a generalized doctrine of international cooperation in economic, social, and cultural matters. It has spoken out against Danish membership in the EC, favoring instead a worldwide free trade area.

The promise of an uncluttered Utopian existence has brought the party votes from many who have been disillusioned with the efforts of the government parties. Among those embracing the party cause have been small farmers, intellectuals, and assorted middle class malcontents.

Officially established in 1919, the Justice Party was represented in the Folketing from 1926 until 1957. It reached its zenith in 1950, with 12 seats, only to drop out of parliament completely less than a decade later. It failed to make an impressive showing after joining the Social Democratic-Radical Liberal government in 1957. The party was further weakened by the inability of its members to agree on issues not directly explained by George. By the mid-1960s a leader rationalized the decline of the party by maintaining that its objectives had largely been met. He conceded that the party was becoming an anachronism. The Justice Party contested the 1964, 1966, 1968, and 1971 elections, but on each occasion fell far short of gaining parliamentary representation.

b. Schleswig Party
The Schleswig Party seeks to represent the German minority in southern Jutland, near the German border. From 1920 to 1943 and from 1953 to 1964 the party held a single seat in the Folketing. At its peak in 1939 the party polled slightly over 15,000 votes. It received fewer than 10,000 votes in 1964 and did not contest the 1966 election. Renewing its bid in 1968 and 1971, it garnered slightly less than 7,000 ballots on each occasion. During the Nazi occupation of Denmark, many ethnic Germans living on Danish soil played an openly collaborationist role. The Schleswig Party has sought to repair the resulting grave damage to its image in the country at large. It is pledged to loyalty to Denmark and aims at cultural contact with the people of West Germany and at peaceful relations between Danes and West Germans in the border region.

c. Independent Party
The Independent Party was founded in 1953 by disgruntled conservatives from the Moderate Liberal Party who opposed the basic constitutional amendments of that year. Taking their stand toward the far right of the political spectrum, the Independents were able to rally some ex-Conservatives to their cause. Pledging themselves to work for self-determination for the Danish minority in German Schleswig, the Independents established their main power base in neighboring Jutland. A scattering of large landowners and businessmen was attracted to the party, as were some persons convicted of collaboration with the Germans during World War II.

The Independent Party promotes a program opposed to strong, centralized government. The party has advocated the re-establishment of the two-house parliament and has called for constitutional revision which would restrict party power and increase the direct influence of the electorate. Additionally, it favors a more precise separation between the legislative and executive branches of government and a simplification of governmental administration. It would eliminate some ministries and reduce the size of others.

The Independents push a "sound" monetary policy, liberalized trade, restraint on taxation and expenditures, and a "Christian way of life." Although willing to abide an "economically sound" social welfare program, the Independents would prefer that primary emphasis be placed on insurance systems. The party supports NATO and recommends increased expenditures to meet the nation's military requirements. After being shut out in 1953 and 1957, its first two electoral ties, the party won six and five seats, respectively, in the 1960 and 1964 elections but fell considerably short of Folketing representation in 1966 and 1968.

d. Liberal Center Party
The number of liberal movements founded in Denmark during the last 100 years exemplifies liberalism's abiding faith in individualism. The latest, the Liberal Center Party, is the frail creation of two former members of parliament, Niels Westerby and Borge Diderichsen. They have proclaimed their party to be a modern, un-doctrinaire liberal party, capable of cooperating with either the political right or left.

In April 1965 Westerby and Diderichsen, two left-wing Moderate Liberals who had lately chosen to support the government in a test of confidence, announced their intention to form a party based on a "liberal renewal in Danish politics." Denouncing the "negative and barren opposition" of the Moderate Liberal and Conservative Parties, they indicated a readiness to support the government's program to curb inflation. The two rebels proceeded in October 1965 to found a party with a domestic policy similar to that of the Radical Liberals and a foreign policy in support of free trade and selective international commitments, including the Nordic Council and the United Nations, but inexplicit concerning the NATO involvement. Under the chairmanship of Prof. Bent Noack the party claimed a membership of 1,200 in 1966. The Liberal Center doubled its parliamentary representation to four seats in 1966, but failed to win a single seat in 1968, and did not present any candidate in 1971.

e. Nascent Progressive Party
In the spring of 1973 an as yet informed splinter party, identified only with its leader Mogens Gilstrup, eight other members, and a locked box allegedly containing some 17,000 signatures of support, caused some consternation among all five parliamentary parties. Analogous to the "Poujadists" in latter day Fourth Republic France, Gilstrup's "Progressives" would eliminate the income tax and reduce the size of the "vast, pervasive, nonproductive" bureaucracy by 90%. Appealing largely to small, independent businessmen and shopkeepers, the as-yet-to-be-organized Progressive Party was garnering a large "protest vote," recent public opinion surveys showing almost a quarter of the respondents supporting it. The phenomenon reflects the persisting doubts concerning the unlimited expansion of social welfare, the responsiveness of existing institutions to valid popular needs and desires, and where the balance lies between the needs of all society and the freedom and rights of the individual.

4. Pressure Groups
The multiplicity of established political parties and the ease of advancing a cause through one of them, or of founding a new party for that purpose, are factors which operate against the establishment of large, militant pressure groups. Grievances, both present and anticipated, are readily aired through normal political channels in a nation where the popular welfare is an established ideal. Remedial action is then pursued through compromise rather than confrontation policies. Tensions and ills in the largely homogenous Danish society are minimal in comparison to those of larger, more diverse nations and are not too difficult for the well-developed Danish social consciousness to grasp.

Virtually every major interest group in Danish society is assured of at least one political party of some size and influence to look after its welfare. The Social Democratic Party, while not strictly a labor party, is closely allied with the trade unions, which provide it with a solid base of support. Farmers' interests traditionally have been taken care of by the Moderate Liberal Party. Industrialists, businessmen, and the professional elite look to the Conservatives. Radical reformers of the far left have the Socialist People's Party and the Left Socialist Party; rightists have had the Independent Party.

Only a few groups prefer that their interests not be entrusted to a particular party. One outstanding example, the Danish Women Citizens' Society, was founded in 1871 to gain through its own pressure activity "social and legal equality for the Danish women." Having secured voting, employment, education, and marital rights over the years with relative ease, the society continues to function principally as a watchdog pressure group to see that the law is observed. In 1964 the society rejected a proposal that it transform itself into a political party.

5. Electoral Practices
The constitution and the Electoral Law of 1953, including all amendments through April 1970, establish the basis and procedure for the conduct of national and local elections.

The constitution grants the central government exclusive authority over the regulation and conduct of Folketing elections. It specifies that they be held at least every 4 years, or before that term has expired if the Monarch (at the Prime Minister's request) so decrees. These elections shall be "general, direct, and secret" and must insure "a proportional representation of the various views of the voters." The Folketing is delegated the responsibility of devising the electoral procedure, including the allotment of the prescribed 175 parliamentary seats in metropolitan Denmark. The constitution stipulates that the allotment must take into account the number of voters and the population density in the electoral subdivisions.

The Electoral Law of 1953 provides for a modified system of proportional representation which assures those political parties meeting minimum electoral requirements parliamentary strength corresponding to their total popular vote. Overrepresentation of rural areas, a sore point of long standing, has been significantly reduced in the postwar period, and then all but eliminated by the local administrative reforms of April 1970, which again redrew the boundaries of the constituencies. Leaving aside the Faroe Islands and Greenland, which form special electoral areas, Denmark is divided for electoral purposes into three zones: Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, the islands, and Jutland. In turn, the zones are divided, respectively, into three, seven, and seven electoral areas. The 17 areas are subdivided into 99 constituencies, so that in each area there are 2 to 10 constituencies. Overall, there are about 2,500 polling stations, thus assuring each voter easy access to the ballot. Nevertheless, absentee voting is permitted. The number of parliamentary seats allotted to the three regions is adjusted on the basis of census figures every 10 years by the Ministry of Interior, which has general jurisdiction over national and local elections. Direct supervision of the balloting is vested in special election committees in each of the 99 constituencies.

All Danish citizens 21 years of age or over who are permanent residents within the kingdom may vote in the Folketing elections. The only exceptions are the mentally incompetent and the morally disqualified, both numerically insignificant groups. A Danish voter need take no initiative to register before an election. The authorities in each municipality prepare an annual list of those eligible to vote.

Any person who is eligible to vote in Folketing elections and has never been convicted of an offense "that renders him unworthy of being a member of the Folketing" is eligible to run for election, provided that he file his candidacy 10 says before election and nominated by at least 25 of the eligible voters of the constituency. The candidate must indicate the party he supports or whether he is independent of parties. Sponsorship by a party is virtually a necessity for election. The Danish voter is party oriented, as is the electoral system, the basis of which is to divide the vote proportionally among the several parties. Political parties decide the constituency in which the candidate will run and the order in which his name is listed on the ballot, thus determining in large measure the candidate's chances of election. To qualify for an election, a party must either be represented in parliament at the time the election is called, or must have registered with the Minister of Interior not later than 14 days before the election, backed by at least as many valid signatures as 1/175 of the vote case in the preceding election. This formula, in theory assuring that the prospective competing splinter party would not be able to win at least one supplementary seat, yielded a total of 16,312 signatures to be necessary for it to run candidates in the September 1971 elections.

According to the electoral law, 135 of the 173 parliamentary seats allotted to Denmark proper are called area seats, and 40 are called supplementary seats. Copenhagen-Frederiksburg has 29 seats (22 area and 7 supplementary); the islands have 64 seats (50 area and 14 supplementary); Jutland has 82 seats (63 area and 19 supplementary). The area seats are decided on the basis of the showing of the parties in the individual constituencies. A party qualifies for supplementary seats if it wins at least one area seat, or if it receives a minimum of 2% of the vote, or if it receives in each of two areas at least as many votes as the average number of valid votes case in the area per area seat. Supplementary seats are apportioned by subtracting the number of seats a party has won in all three areas from the total number of seats to which the party is entitled by its national vote. The larger parties tend to win the greater percentage of area seats directly; the marginal parties normally gain their strength from the supplementary lists. The official vote count and the calculation of seats won is made by the Ministry of Interior, which also compiles a list of non-elected candidates entitled to take their seats as substitutes for members who die or resign.

Voting procedures in municipal elections (defined in a series of special laws) is almost identical to that used in national elections. Like Folketing elections, the local elections are decided through a proportional representation system and by secret ballot. Every fourth year in March (latest in 1970), the voters throughout the nation simultaneously choose the membership of the provincial councils, rural municipal councils, town councils, and Copenhagen city council - a total of nearly 12,000 officials in all. The right to vote is held by every person who is permanently domiciled in the district concerned and entitled to vote in the Folketing elections. Eligible for election are all those who hold the right to vote and have not been punished for a criminal offense. In order to accept a post in local government - which is regarded as a civic duty - an elected person must have paid his income taxes, both national and local, in full.

Danish voters may also be called upon at irregular intervals to pass final judgement on certain legislative acts of the Folketing. By provision of the constitutional revision of 1953, one-third of the members of parliament may demand a popular referendum on bills other than those relating to finance, government loans, taxation, most treaty obligations, naturalization, and a few other special categories. The bill is annulled if it is opposed by a majority of those voting and not less than 30% of all eligible voters.

Danes take their right to vote seriously and go to the polls in large number. There are no legal sanctions against those who do not vote. Voter participation tends to be higher in national than in municipal elections, which in turn usually draw more voters than do referendums. The 1968 national election witnessed a near record 89.3% turnout, the best since the 89.5% registered in the wartime election of 1943, when the Danes were eager to demonstrate their dedication to democracy to their German occupiers. The national election of 1971 saw an 87.2% participation. In the 1970 municipal election participation was 72.6%, compared with an exceptionally high 77.0% in 1966 and 74.4& in 1962.

1. Domestic
From the time of their defeat by Prussia and Austria-Hungary in 1864, which resulted in the loss of Schleswig and Holstein, until the German occupation in 1940, the Danes lived a largely introverted existence. By choice they remained aloof from international turmoil, and circumstances allowed them to do so. During this three-quarters of a century, they concentrated on building a well-run domestic society. The dominance of the Social Democratic Party from the mid-1920s to the mid-1960s provided direction and continuity for Danish efforts in the domestic realm, and the bourgeois parties during the short breaks in Socialist power largely abstained from attempting to reverse what had been accomplished. Despite philosophical and practical differences, Danes of all political persuasions tend to agree that the government has an important role in guiding the domestic life of the nation, and that it should seek in some fashion to promote national growth and the general welfare of the people. The means to attain such objectives, however, are argued sharply among the contending political parties.

The Danish experience during World War II, traumatic though it was, left the country largely free of the physical depredations suffered by much of western Europe. The economy, in 1945 still principally agricultural, was intact, though depleted by the lack of basic commodities, including fertilizer, and by the protracted stricture on Denmark's world trade. Transportation and industrial production were soon restored, however, and by the early 1960s, with a strong boost from the Marshall Plan, overall recovery had taken hold.

With the revival of the economy, the government turned its attention to the improvement of the quality of life. The modern social welfare era dates from 1933, when a series of four acts known as the Social Reform overhauled and rationalized the various programs which had been introduced almost haphazardly from the turn of the century to the mid-1920s. In the post-World War II era the government promoted considerable legislation to further modernize and broaden the already comprehensive system. Typical of these efforts were major legislative acts or amendments to already existing acts in several prime fields: unemployment benefits (1958, 1962), health insurance (1961), old-age pensions (1956), widows' pensions (1959), industrial injuries (1954, 1956, 1959, 1962), and housing (1946, 1955, 1958, 1961). In areas such as housing, where less than satisfactory pre-war conditions were worsened by the war, the government continue to expend its greatest energies, principally supporting through loans and loan guarantees, the efforts of private builders and cooperatives to provide more and better homes. By the mid-1960s the effort was substantially rewarded. Although the Dane was spending less than 15% of his income on housing, his accommodations in terms of number of persons per room, electricity, and bathing and toilet facilities were the best in Europe, with the possible exception of Switzerland. In the early 1970s, with the entire population adequately housed and city slums all but eliminated, official efforts were directed toward the enlargement of accommodation, the urbanizing Danes, just as the urbanizing Swedes, having grown restive in their modern, well-equipped, but small and confining apartments in the large housing developments. There is evidence, still uncorroborated by statistics, that many average Danes, just as their North American, West German, or French contemporaries, would prefer private detached dwellings, a preference revealed in the numerous villa developments going up outside cities and towns in the mid-1970s. Government attention by the mid-1960s was also directed toward broad town and regional planning, with emphasis on optimum land utilization. In 1963 a highway act introduced the concept of state highways, build, maintained, and administered by national rather than by local authorities.

The domestic side of life is serious business for any Danish national government. It is generally considered a fact of political life in Copenhagen that domestic issues, particularly social welfare and economic and commercial well-being, take precedence over purely political foreign policy concerns.

Even the bourgeois parties, when in power, have felt the need to maintain a forward thrust on all sections of the domestic front, tailoring their foreign concerns to the maintenance of economic progress at home. By the early 1970s, however, such continued momentum was becoming difficult to sustain. The essential long term balance between socialization and the continued stimulation of private economic initiative - a balance which most observers of the scene consider the cornerstone of the markedly successful Scandinavian development - seemed in mid-1973 to be in some jeopardy.

As in neighboring Sweden, the continually mounting taxes needed to expand further the welfare programs and to improve the government-sponsored facilities and services are inspiring a newfound resentment. Until recently there were only rare and muted criticisms of government voiced by the civic conscious, generally responsible Danes. In early 1973, however, a growing malaise was reflected in newspaper articles and political speeches complaining of the "too large bureaucracy," the excessive "paper pushing and official stamping," and notably the continuing high taxes needed to sustain the ever-expanding government agencies, notwithstanding the slowed economic growth. The ruling Social Democrats under Prime Minister Jorgensen, nonetheless, forged ahead for a while, programing a consolidation of welfare administration and a further expansion of its services, along with the inauguration of true "economic democracy," featuring the introduction of organized labor into the counsels of management and a gradual leveling of wages. The Social Democrats hoped by such initiatives to win back the loyalty of the party's left-wing, which had become severely strained over the leadership's support of EC accession. This element appeared ready to bolt to the Socialist People's Party. And in an effort to broaden the base of its support, the Social Democratic government also planned major reforms in the educational system and extensive construction projects in housing and school plants, as well as road and bridge building.

By the early spring of 1973, however, the government was obliged to reconsider. Recent large deficits in the balance of payments, deadlocked national wage negotiations, and a significant loss of support from the moderate center could not be ignored. Indeed, the loss of voters to the right promised to exceed any gains made through a reconciliation with the party's left-wing. In keeping with the national temper, which - reflecting a degree of satiation with socialization - has been moving rightward in the 1970s, the Social Democrats veered to the right in March 1973, with a 31-point austerity program holding in abeyance for 2 years much of its earlier platform. Over the period, in which government expenditures will hopefully be reduced by DKr3.6 billion ($600 million), gradual economic integration with the EC would help restore foreign earnings. Then by 1975 the forward momentum could be resumed.

But the Radical Liberal, Moderate Liberal, Conservative opposition coalition may well again have the reins of power in 1975. They represent a large and seemingly growing constituency that believes some limits should be placed on the continuing extension of costly welfare benefits and the ever-mounted taxes needed to sustain them. Recognizing that their taxes are the second highest in the free world, after those imposed on their Swedish cousins, the industrious Danes are prepared to go easy on further socialization and welfarism. The more dynamic entrepreneurs, whose imagination and skills produced Denmark's post-World War II economic miracle, not only opposed vigorously further taxation, but find the Social Democrats' "economic democracy" platform particularly unpalatable. Their influence on future policy, even that of a Social Democratic government, cannot be discounted. This influence is already seen in 1973 in the curtailment of government largesse through the widespread introduction of means tests, the reduction of rent subsidies, and the cutting of benefits in several pet Social Democratic welfare programs, viz., maternity benefits, family allowances, and national old-age pensions.

2. Defense
Prior to the middle of the 19th century Denmark sought to defend itself adequately and to maintain unchallenged control of its gatekeeper location between the Baltic and North Seas by building alliances and by supporting a strong defense force. Ultimately, the alliance strategy made Denmark a victim rather than a victor. In 1807 its suspected imminent association with Napoleon's continental system led the British to bombard Copenhagen and capture and make off with the entire Danish fleet, a blow to the small nation's proud status as a status power, from which it never recovered. In 1864 Denmark's defense "understandings" with the United Kingdom and Sweden were not honored, and the combined forces of Prussia and Austria-Hungary overwhelmed the Danish Army, stripped Denmark of Schleswig and Holstein, and thus reduced the kingdom to two-thirds of its former size. Disillusionment stemming from this final debacle led to the advocacy of a policy of lightly armed neutrality, particularly among the burgeoning political parties representing middle and working class sentiment. Parties of the right continued to stress a strong defense effort, but by 1900 the forces favoring neutrality were in the ascendency. Denmark's success in staying out of World War I, coupled with the founding of the League of Nations, which supposedly would secure the integrity of small countries, lent weight to the now entrenched rationale for neutrality. Only the threat of a resurgent Germany under Hitler caused a reversal of the anti-militarist trend of several decades. This change of sentiment brought some slight improvement in the physical defenses of Denmark by the outbreak of World War II in September 1939. Apparently, however, there was little, if any, improvement in the will to resist aggression. Danish military forces, still very inadequate, offered virtually no resistance when the German invasion force arrived on 9 April 1940, in violation of the German-Danish mutual nonaggression pact signed in May 1939.

Supporters of disarmament and nonalignment were generally discredited as a result of Danish experiences during World War II. The invasion and occupation created a widespread resolve that such a national disaster should never be repeated. In the early postwar period sentiment was sharply divided, nonetheless, as to what goal to pursue; the Western Alliance, a Scandinavian defense alliance, or some new form of neutrality. It was soon evident that military nonalignment and reliance on the nebulous security guarantees of the United Nations was an unrealistic choice in a world then dividing into two antagonistic blocs. A Scandinavian defense system appealed emotionally to the Danes but appeared unfeasible both in the face of growing Soviet power and in light of conflicting defense policies, interests, and traditions among the potential members of such an alliance. After considerable debate, Denmark rejected both a Swedish-style neutrality and a Scandinavian defense alliance and in April 1949 entered NATO along with Norway. The motion to join NATO carried by an overwhelming 119 to 23 votes, with the Social Democrats, Moderate Liberals, and Conservatives in support, the Justice Party split, and the Communists and Radical Liberals in opposition. Eventually the Radical Liberals softened their anti-NATO stand, but their immediate defection from the traditional governing alliance with the Social Democratic Party cost the latter control of the government from 1950 to 1953.

Even after their entry into NATO, the Danes continued to be strongly influenced by their earlier traditions, and they have remained less than fully committed to the alliance either in attitude or in terms of financial support and troop commitments. A series of political compromises over the years, particularly between the Social Democrats and their pacifist allies on the left, prevented the military establishment from reaching the status of an adequate national defense force. Not only did the military services fail to meet the NATO force goals, but they even fell short of the national goals set down in the Defense Act of 1960, which in turn had been reduced from the goals set forth in defense legislation of 1950-1951. Over the years the terms of military service were periodically reduced, so that in 1973 conscription time was set at only 9 months.

As indicated by the thinness of the military forces at hand, the Danes have lacked the political will to finance an adequate defense establishment. Expenditures for the military sector have traditionally been much less popular than outlays for the social sector, and as the threat of attack from the East has seemingly waned, so has the inclination of political leaders to risk public disfavor by bolstering the defense budget.

Nevertheless, the agreement reached in February 1973 among the four strongest political parties, the SDP, the Conservatives, the MLP, and the RLP - together controlling 90% of the Folketing seats, represents some braking of the downward slide in NATO commitment. It provides over a 4-year period for a 6% increase in real terms for the defense budget. Although conscription time was reduced, overall force levels were cut far less than had been feared. - falling just slightly short of Danish Defense Command proposals - in all three services. And the agreement contains, through the newly created Defense Review Committee, a guarantee against further cuts for the 4-year period. This committee, composed of two representatives each from the four political parties effecting the compromise, most give unanimous consent to any changes in the defense budget, enabling the strongly pro-NATO Conservatives and Moderate Liberals to exercise a veto.

Perhaps most significantly, the 1973 defense agreement, following as it does Danish accession to the EC, demonstrates a definitive West European orientation, including a total dependence on NATO for collective security. Denmark's overall NATO commitment may remain relatively weak, especially in view of treaty provisions preventing much meaningful outside bolstering: no foreign troops or nuclear weapons may be stationed in Denmark in peacetime. And the Danes themselves have been sensitive about statistics which show them expanding little more on defense, proportionally, than the other NATO laggards, Luxembourg and Iceland - particularly since the last-named nation has no armed forces. Danish officials maintain, however, that these shortcomings are offset to a considerable degree by their willingness to allow the United States to establish air bases and early-warning facilities in Greenland.

In one special area of defense preparedness, Denmark ranks very high within NATO. Only Norway has a comparable civil defense establishment, both countries, in the event of nuclear attack, having the capacity to protect in appropriately supplied shelters over 40% of their respective populations. Armed neutral Sweden, with the most developed civil defense system in the world, has apparently set the pace for its two Nordic NATO members. All three countries possess early warning systems and a network of shelters and support facilities exceeding by far anything attempted outside the Scandinavian area. In 1971, when Denmark had a total population of 4.9 million persons, there were over 2 million shelter spaces. Virtually all Danes, of whatever political persuasion, appear to support the civil defense effort.

3. Foreign
Since the end of World War II the Danish attitude toward world affairs has undergone a radical change. No longer confining their attention to those small problems which affect their national interests directly, the Danes have expanded their participation in international affairs to a marked degree. In common with their Scandinavian colleagues, to be sure, the Danes are sometimes motivated by simplistic moral impulses in their evaluation of complicated world problems. Thus, they tend to display an indiscriminate enthusiasm for "liberation" movements in the underdeveloped world. The concentration of leftist intellectuals in the information media has on a number of occasions given an air of "radical chic" to extreme political views - particularly where there is a suspected bullying of small nations by larger ones.

Danish leaders, however, consider their nation alert to the realities of international politics, and foreign policy since World War II has indeed evidenced a basic coherence and viability. The broad outlines of postwar foreign policy are best summarized in the membership of Denmark in four international organizations: the United Nations, NATO, the European Communities, and the Nordic Council. Any viable Danish Government of the mid-1970s is bound to accept these associations with few reservations, although it may distribute the emphasis among them, the resources allocated to each of them, and the vigor with which individual policies based on them are pursued. Government leaders evidence a sense of mission in their support of international peacekeeping and East-West "bridge-building" efforts.

a. The United Nations
Denmark was an original member of the United Nations, has taken a positive role in UN inner councils and outside activities, and has justified its own activity in other international organizations on the basis of the principles of the UN Charter. Denmark's role in the United Nations is based on a strong idealistic attraction to the concept of international cooperation and is generally supported by Danes of all political hues. To the extent that the United Nations failed to live up to its original promise as the guarantor of international security, the Danes have been disappointed, but they have shown a readiness to work for a strengthening of its practical programs and for an enhancement of its prestige. Within the UN framework, Denmark seeks the role of a conciliator, though not at the expense of principle. Denmark supported the Security Council action against the military aggression of North Korea in 1950 and backed UN efforts to restrain the USSR during its suppression of both the Hungarian Revolt in the fall of 1956 and the Czechoslovak bid for "Socialism with a human face" in the late summer of 1968. Denmark has continued to play an active part in seeking a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Danish troops have served as a part of peacekeeping forces in the Congo, Cyprus, and the Gaza Strip. Copenhagen has occasionally expressed unhappiness over the lateness and paucity of UN financing of such operations. Together with Norway, Sweden, and Finland, Denmark has moved to establish a permanent standby force of about 5,000 men, which can be placed at the disposal of the United Nations at short notice if needed to meet an emergency.

Denmark, through its membership on the UN Committee on Decolonization, has assisted at the birth of several new nations and has sought to mediate in areas of friction between Afro-Asian members and the European powers. A Danish tendency to sympathize with emergent nations has led to friction between Copenhagen and other European capitals, particularly Lisbon. Danish contributions to the UN technical assistance program are among the world's largest when considered in terms of size of the country. The Danes have followed closely the UN-sponsored efforts to reach agreement on disarmament and have regretted the lack of progress in this area. In line with disarmament under international control, Denmark has hailed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963 and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1969. It has continued to support the efforts of the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament at Geneva. The Danes, however, have taken the NATO line that disarmament accords must be backed by effective inspection provisions.

b. Europe
In the post-World War II period the Danes have shown some ambivalence in their relationship to their fellow Europeans. A politically and economically unified Europe is an enticing prospect, and yet for small, proud, prosperous Denmark the practical consequences of being part of such a Goliath are a cause for some doubt. For the Danes European economic integration is more attractive than political union, for Denmark must trade to live. Denmark is almost bereft of raw materials and must, in order to finance its imports and maintain its high economic standing, export one-third of its gross national product. In the latter 1960s nearly half of Danish exports went to the UK-led European Free Trade Association (EFTA), which Denmark joined in 1960; 25% went to the European Economic Community (EEC).

Although comfortable and at home with the United Kingdom and the other Scandinavian countries in EFTA; economic necessity dictated that Denmark seek a close relationship with the EEC. Thus, in 1961 Denmark followed the UK example in applying for Common Market membership. The breakdown of negotiations on the UK application in 1963 was a hard blow to Denmark, for the Danes had foreseen the acceptance of the United Kingdom as leading to the entry of Denmark. At one juncture, former Prime Minister Krag, reflecting Danish anxiety, suggested that the Scandinavian countries not await another UK try, but make a joint application by themselves, a move vetoed by Norway and Sweden. The reapplication by the United Kingdom in 1967 was swiftly followed by Denmark's reapplication. In the second round it was clearly understood in Copenhagen that Danish entry into the EEC was no longer contingent on British entry, and that Denmark might choose to proceed on its own. By mid-1971 the Danish bid to enter the EEC, now called the European Communities, had not only the strong backing of the Liberal-Conservative governing coalition, but of the large majority of the Social Democrats as well. Only the far left, including the Social Democrats' SFP ally, remained clearly opposed - an opposition apparently reflecting the wishes of slightly more than one-third of the population. It was a Social Democratic government that ultimately led Denmark into the EC on 1 January 1973, following the national referendum of October 1972, in which 63.5% of those participating (almost 90% of the electorate) voted "yes" and 36.5% voted "no."

Denmark has been an active member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), formerly OEEC, since its inception and belongs to other regional economic organizations and international trade conventions as the European Monetary Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

Growing Danish enthusiasm for integration in the economic area has not extended to the political sphere. This reserve has stemmed in large measure from the prospect that a West European Union would be dominated by West Germany, still an object of Danish distrust, and by Gaullist France, with its fondness for a continentalist approach separate from US influence. The reserve stems also from a disinclination to emerge from the insular Nordic regionalism, where for two decades the ethnically similar Nordic countries coordinated their social policies with marked success, unfettered by any complicating outside commitments.

The Nordic Council was founded in 1952 to bring together annually the government ministers and legislators of Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, and Denmark with its Faroese self-governing dependency. The Prime Ministers and foreign ministers of the member countries usually meet twice a year, and experts in various fields are in frequent contact throughout the year. But the Council itself has no power other than to recommend that member countries act pursuant to its approved resolutions. Nevertheless, the Council has achieved considerable progress in non-political matters, such as the establishment of a common labor market, the elimination of passports for travel within the Nordic area, passage of joint or reciprocal laws relating to social welfare, taxation and the regulations of private business, and cooperation in the communications and transport fields. By provision of the Helsinki Agreement of 1959, the Nordic countries "ought" to hold consultations before they take a stand on power-political questions in international organizations. The reasoning was that by reaching prior agreement in their attitudes on major questions in world politics which do not affect their own security interests, the Nordic states would be able to win far greater understanding for their views as a united group than they would be able to do individually. Such pre-consultation has become customary, although Copenhagen was embarrassed in 1965 when it introduced without prior consultation a resolution in the UN General Assembly concerning possible sanctions against South Africa. Nevertheless, a proposal made at a Nordic Council session in 1965 to make pre-consultation mandatory was rejected as superfluous.

With EC accession in January 1973, Denmark will inevitably be drawn into the West European orbit with as yet indeterminate effect on Nordic cooperation. The common Nordic labor market, for example, must now make allowances for Danish commitments and responsibilities within the EC labor market. As Denmark's economic inevitably integrates more closely with that of West Germany, old political antagonisms toward its large southern neighbor may more rapidly be put to rest.

The Danes never quite shared the Germanophile outlook of their Scandinavian cousins prior to World War I. As the only Nordic nation having a common border with the Teutonic heartland, Denmark was the most vulnerable to political interference and territorial incursion. As noted above, it lost nearly a third of its total territory and 200,000 ethnic Danes when obliged to cede Schleswig, Holstein, and Lauenburg to Prussia in 1864. The diffusion of persons of Danish and German ethnic origin within the large area had been the underlying cause of the 1864 war between Denmark and Prussia allied with Austria-Hungary.

Notwithstanding the huge initial transfer of territory in 1864 and the subsequent return to Denmark of north Schleswig, following an internationally supervised plebiscite in 1930, sizable ethnic minorities still remain on either side of the border. In 1971 the bloc of Danish voters in Germany was over 25,000, of German voters in Denmark, some 7,000. Although enjoying minimal representation in their respective parliaments through the 1950s, neither group is politically that strong today. The Schleswig splinter party in Denmark last won a seat in the 1960 general election. Its constituency has declined from a peak of 10,000 in 1953, partly as a result of considerate and fair treatment under Danish rule once the anti-German passions engendered by Nazi occupation in World War II subsided. The Danish Government now guarantees civic and cultural rights, including the optional teaching of primary classes in German. Membership in and support for the German minority Schleswig Party will probably continue to decline as broader national issues assume an increasing importance to the ethnic Germans themselves. Such issues may only be effectively addressed through casting one's ballot for a major Danish party.

The Danish Government restricts itself to asking for similar cultural guarantees for the minority Danes living on the West German side of the border; self-determination through a plebiscite is no longer being pressed. Such guarantees, on the whole, have been forthcoming from Bonn. Nonetheless, until Denmark's accession to the EC in January 1973, which could have a bearing on the relationship, the status and the future of the Danish minority in West Germany have sporadically have been an issue in Danish politics. Funds were still voted by the Folketing in 1971 to strengthen cultural "Danishness" among this expatriate minority.

Further easing tensions had been the effort by West Germany, while Denmark was still on the outside, to obtain privileged treatment for Danish goods entering the Common Market area. In 1972, before Denmark's EC accession, West Germany was already on par with the United Kingdom and Sweden as a principal trading partner. By the latter 1960s the flow of people across the common boundary had become phenomenal. In 1968 it was estimated that the West Germans were making some 8 million visits to Denmark each year, and Danes were making some 5 million visits to West Germany, a number larger than the total population of Denmark. Another measure of the reconciliation that has already taken place is the periodic introduction of West German NATO troops to hold exercises on Danish soil. When first attempted in 1965, small leftist elements caused some disturbances, but even these dissipated in the ensuing years.

In official statements Danish leaders have termed German reunification the greatest and most serious of the unsolved questions splitting East and West. The Danes support a reunited Germany on the basis of self-determination but have taken the position that it may only come to pass after a marked reduction over a period of years in East-West tensions. In the meantime, a divided Germany not being a wholly unwelcome sight to the Danes, they took advantage of the Bonn-initiated Ostpolitik to mend their own fences eastwards. After several preliminary steps, Copenhagen recognized the East German regime in January 1973 with the apparent approbation of Bonn.

Relations with the British traditionally have been close, resulting from a rather long history of common political and commercial interests, as well as from cultural affinities. Historically aware Danes may take cognizance of the ethnic ties, stemming from the migration of large numbers of Danes to the British Isles during the Viking period. The Dane, Knut the Great, ruled England as part of his Northern Empire from 1016 to 1035. After the Viking tide subsided, cultural and commercial relations continued to the modern era - more often amicable than hostile. One traumatic intrusion was the British bombardment of Copenhagen in 1807 and "preventive" capture of the entire Danish fleet, lest it fall into Napoleon's hands. And then in 1864, the United Kingdom permitted Denmark to go to war alone against Prussia and Austria-Hungary over Schleswig-Holstein. But by the turn of the century and thereafter the affinities then prevailed. A large number of Danes speak English, admits British character traits, and deeply respect the monarchical tradition that the two peoples share. There is a tendency among some Danes to regard the UK role in world politics as more stable, mature, and reliable than that of the United States. The United Kingdom was for a protracted period in the 20th century Denmark's principal trading partner, but now shares the first rank with West Germany and Sweden.

Danish relations with France are characterized by a long-term regard for French cultural and political contributions to the mainstream of European civilization. When forced into an alliance with Napoleon in 1807 because of the UK preemptive seizure of the Danish fleet, Denmark was simply carried along by events largely beyond its control and suffered further when forced to abandon Norway to Sweden, by the Treaties of Vienna (1815). Again in 1864, the expected French aid against Prussia and Austria-Hungary was not forthcoming. But the evolution of cultural and political life in Denmark, as elsewhere in Europe, continued to be markedly influenced by currents from France. Indeed, the Danish parliamentary system derives in part from French political theory and experience. Post-World War II relations have been marred by an annoyance with the "anachronistic" nationalism exhibited by the Gaullist Fifth Republic. Professed Danish idealism to the contrary notwithstanding, such annoyance becomes most pronounced when parochial economic interests are affected, as in the 1963 French veto of the UK bid for Common Market accession, and subsequent French opposition to favored treatment for Danish goods within the old EEC. Persistent efforts by France to reduce US influence in Europe were at first resented, but with the deteriorating Danish-US relations resulting from the prolonged US involvement in Vietnam, came ultimately to be regarded with ambivalence.

Elsewhere in Western Europe the Danish Government regards with disfavor those countries dominated by authoritarian regimes - Spain, Portugal, and most recently, Greece. In Danish eyes, Spain would not be a worthy member of NATO, an antipathy dating back to the Spanish Civil War and the Fascist orientation of Francisco Franco, Spain's Chief of State. Portugal has been denounced for practicing a despotic colonialism in Africa. Following the Greek military coup in early 1967, Denmark felt constrained to make a statement in the North Atlantic Council highly critical of its NATO ally. The Danes have taken a special interest in Greek developments because of the marriage of their royal Princess Anne-Marie to deposed King Constantine.

c. Communist Nations
Denmark's relations with Communist nations have been characterized since the mid-1960s by a growing belief in the possibility of rapprochement. The détentiste advances, in the wake of West Germany's Ostpolitik, yielded first cultural exchanges and very limited trade, and then reciprocal political visits at the highest level between Copenhagen and Moscow and most of the East European capitals. The warm official pronouncements accompanying some of these visits, notably the exchanges with the Soviet Union in the 1970s, stood in sharp contrast with the seemingly deteriorating relations with the United States. Thoughtful Danish and US observers noted that the USSR had become relatively exempt from the acerbic criticism directed at "powerful nations that impose their will on smaller states." The United States has been excoriated because of the Vietnamese involvement. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, was censured only sporadically, despite its oppressed minorities and the "dependent" nations within its orbit. Two recent instances of short-lived official and media hostility were the condemnation accompanying the blatant Soviet suppression in Czechoslovakia in 1968, and, closer to home, Moscow's high-handed veto in 1970 of an integrated Nordic customs and economic union (NORDEK) through pressure on tethered Finland. In the latter instance the Soviets were obviously fearful that Finland with its ingrained pro-Western leanings, would be unable to withstand the increased exposure to the Nordic and Western democracies. The Danes rationalize their seeming double standards with judging the two superpowers by insisting that an exemplary standard of behavior should be expected of the most influential democracy in the world. In the early 1970s, notwithstanding Denmark's near total identity of interests with the West - the USSR and Eastern Europe account for less than 5% of Danish trade - Danish observers and politicians, including Social Democratic Prime Minister Jorgensen, seemed inclined to pursue every little sign indicating USSR interest in detente. The People's Republic of China has become even less critically viewed than the USSR. Notwithstanding the total control over the populace exerted by Peking and the known suppressions of freedoms - presumably anathema to the spiritually free Danes - no official and little popular censure is directed toward the Mao dictatorship. It has rather become somewhat romanticized, along with the ancient Chinese civilization in the train of the US-initiated Sino-American rapprochement.

The Danes maintain that a solution of the major international issues - peace in Southeast Asia, disarmament, and the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons - requires the cooperation of Communist China. It is Copenhagen's policy to deal with the government in effective control of a country, and thus Denmark, having recognized Communist China in 1950, has official relations with the Peking government on the embassy level. Danish Governments also have asserted that only Peking can properly represent the nearly 900 million mainland Chinese in the United Nations. Denmark consistently voted for admission of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations. In July 1973 Copenhagen established reciprocal de jury recognition with Pyongyang.

d. The United States
Until the latter 1960s relations with the United States were extremely cordial. As a consequence of the post-World War II weakening of the military position of the United Kingdom, Denmark looked to the United States as the principal guarantor of its national integrity. Emerging from their own isolation, the Danes came to appreciate the world outlook of the United States and to regard the North American giant as the leader of the democratic world. American and Danish interests have subsequently coincided on a broad range of international issues. The United States has become one of the largest trading partners of Denmark, although this growing economic relationship has brought with it charges from Copenhagen that US trade and shipping policies are overly restrictive. Intellectual and cultural ties have been close and official and unofficial exchanges numerous. Historically, Danish goodwill stems from the success of nearly a half million Danish immigrants in the United States, from the US role in World War II, and from the timely application of Marshall Plan assistance to help resuscitate the postwar Danish economy.

The protracted US military involvement in Vietnam markedly dampened this goodwill. High ranking Danes in 1972 and 1973, including the two Prime Ministers and the Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs, have forcibly denounced US "genocide" in Southeast Asia. Prime Minister Jorgensen further welcomed in October 1972 the Myrdal War Crimes Tribunal to Christiansborg Palace, seat of the Folketing. This "tribunal," organized by the renowned Swedish sociologist, denounced in the sense indicated by its title US "military imperialism." Although a bizarre manifestation arranged more for dramatic impact, the focus of the "tribunal" found broad support.

Many Danes, sharing in measure their Swedish cousins' sense of national virtue, regard "militarism" and "democracy" as contradictory states of being. Indebted to US military preparedness for their freedom and security, they nonetheless believe that the pervasive military mindedness of US officials is beginning to undermine American democratic institutions and traditions. Otherwise, how could the United States support authoritarian regimes in Portugal, Spain, and Greece and give tacit support to the Portuguese "colonial wars" in Africa? The long US involvement in Vietnam was but the most visible and reprehensible reflection of the new "US fascism." The comparatively few differences in domestic outlook between most Social Democrats and non-Socialists obliges the former to look to foreign policy to find an issue and a focus for its reforming urge. Not that the United States has withdrawn from Vietnam, a serious irritant in Danish-US relations has been removed, but an audience may still be found when presumed US "intervention" in other areas is condemned, viz. Chile.

The question of race relations in the United States also continues to pique the interest of the moralistic but remarkably homogenous Danish society. Like their Swedish neighbors, they are prone to compare their own limited, but honorable and compassionate historic treatment of negroes with the continuing problems in US race relations. The black population of Denmark is so infinitesimal that it defies measurement as a proportion, but every Danish schoolchild learns with pride that Denmark, in 1792, was "the first country in the world to forbid slave trading." The Myrdal War Crimes Tribunal represented by association a confluence of hostile emotional currents.

The ongoing US rapprochement with the USSR and the People's Republic of China, on the other hand, has been widely applauded, while strident anti-US criticism across the board has all but ceased since the January 1973 Vietnam ceasefire agreement. It should be noted that the Danes have adhered to or sympathized with virtually all multilateral arrangements that have been backed by the United States, even during the period of the most vocal anti-Americanism. The recent EC accession and renewed, albeit modest, NATO commitment promise more of the same.

1. Discontent and Dissidence
Denmark is a well-knit democracy with an advanced system of social welfare. In ethnic origin and culture the Danes are extraordinarily homogenous. The country has one of the highest per capita gross national products in the world, little unemployment, and virtually no poverty. Neither the nation nor its citizens appear to have any significant grievances. This does not mean, however, that discontent or at least the conditions that promote it are totally lacking.

The Danes by and large are a reasonable and practical people, but like their even wealthier Swedish neighbors, they seem to suffer from an excess of idealism, a circumstances that on occasion leaves them resistant to logic and susceptible to special appeals. Down through the years there has existed in Denmark a strong strain of pacifist-neutralist sentiment. Though espoused today by a minority, this creed remains strong, especially among the young, and provides a convenient launching platform for left radical crusades. In addition, it would appear that such general Danish traits as openness and tolerance make the nation in times of crisis, vulnerable to the plots of its foes.

In largely contented Denmark, activists must tailor their approach carefully. Political repression is virtually unknown, and thus the cloak of martyrdom is denied the provocateur. Moreover, radical proposals must stand the test of reason in a free marketplace of ideas. As a consequence, protest demonstrations tend to be disciplined, small, and peaceful. Such violence as occurs is usually manifested in the form of isolated, individual acts.

Dissidence is largely confined to isolated pockets of workers and intellectuals. Occasionally professors, students, and media specialists of leftist inclinations help stir the Scandinavian tendency to make moralistic judgements, particularly against the rich and powerful. The Seaman's Union is Communist controlled, and the General and Special Workers' Union, the nation's largest, has led a turbulent existence in recent years because of strong far leftist factionalism. As other Western European countries, Denmark is also at times beset by repercussions of the Arab-Israeli situation, as partisans of both sides continue their feuds on foreign soil.

2. Subversion
Extremist movements have not prospered in Denmark. Such groups as exist are far left in the political spectrum. They constitute little danger to the state, though they presumable could act as a sabotage arm for an outside political force in the event of an international crisis. Even then, Danish security forces would have under close surveillance those organizations capable of mounting a subversive effort. Chief among the groups currently under scrutiny - now that the Socialist People's Party has become respectable and the Left Socialist Party has been eclipsed - is the small Communist Party of Denmark. In addition, certain leftist splinter groups, "peace" societies, and front organizations attract official attention by reason of their preachments and ties.

a. Communist Party of Denmark
The Communist Party of Denmark is an orthodox Moscow-oriented organization, presumably prepared in an emergency to act on orders of the Soviet Communist Party. It is subsidized by the USSR, and party chairmen Knud Jespersen is generally regarded as a stooge of the Kremlin. The party membership of 5,000 by and large constitutes a hard-core cadre of "true believers." At present it is deemed unlikely that any large number serves the Soviet intelligence apparatus. The capacity of the party to wreak mischief in other ways is always there, however, and on the basis of claimed gains in strength in 1972-1973 may be growing.

The DKP has had occasional good fortune in recent years harnessing and riding issues of some popular appeal. Its propaganda organs, for example, have struck a sympathetic chord by arguing that membership in the EC tends of subvert both Danish national independence and traditional Scandinavian ties. The Communists have also capitalized on broad Danish opposition to US policy in Vietnam through a front group "Vietnam 69," which at one time including Anker Jorgensen, subsequently Prime Minister, among its members.

Overall the DKP appears to have had only indifferent success in penetrating Danish official circles. Two Communists held minor ministries in the all-party coalition of May-November 1945, but this was the first and last government participation enjoyed by the DKP. In 1970 the party acquired its first parliamentary deputy in a decade, when Hanne Reintoft, floating from one leftist group to another, finally came to rest in the Communist camp.

Efforts in the post-World War II to infiltrate the police and military establishments foundered on the rock of official vigilance. Working from the sidelines, individual Communists doubtless have engaged in acts of espionage and sabotage, though only on a limited scale. Instances of labor unrest also have been traced to the DKP, but strenuous party efforts to capture a sizable segment of the trade union movement have on the whole had only limited success in the face of the far greater "working class" strength of the Social Democratic Party. One instance of successful DKP "common front" strategy was the marshaling of labor opposition to EC membership. In the Copenhagen area a limited integration with SFP and left-wing Social Democratic Labor elements produced a body of 100 to 200 union officials, self-styled as the "Chairman's Initiative," which, even after the accession to Denmark to the EC, continues to pursue anti-Social Democratic and anti-LO policies. In Aarhus and Odense similar far-left groups have acquired some influence in local trade union councils.

b. Communist Splinter Organization
To the left of the DKP are a number of small splinter groups, all formed since the Sino-Soviet schism and none of which has participated in national elections. They include the Communist League (Marxist-Leninist) and its apparent youth affiliate, Communist Youth (Marxist-Leninst); the Communist Working Circle and its sponsored Communist Youth League; the Socialist Youth League - expelled by the Left Socialists in 1969; and the Revolutionary Socialists. All but the Socialist Youth League and the Revolutionary Socialists, which are Trotskyist and together affiliated with the Fourth International, are believed to be aligned with Peking. Communist China recognizes the Communist League as the local representative of its brand of Marxist-Leninist "truth."

These splinter groups - highly volatile by nature - collectively command the support of only a very insignificant segment of the population, and remain isolated but vociferous sects with negligible power. Conspiring for the most part more youthful elements than the established parties, they are unanimous in their rejection of the policies of both the Social Democrats and the Communists, as well as in their efforts to create a revolutionary counterforce to the political status quo. They vary, however, in their platforms for the overthrow of the present power structure and creation of a socialist state. Within each are ideological and tactical differences, many of an extreme and seemingly irreconcilable nature. This factor, coupled with their paucity of numbers, and exacerbated in turn by an increasing tendency to purge the ranks of "anarchist" elements, has generally rendered them unable to effect any significant political mischief.

1. Police
The maintenance of public order and safety poses no special problems. Although criminal activity in Copenhagen from 1970 through 1972 increased markedly, offenses of all kinds in the latter year averaging some 25% higher than in 1969, anti-social actions - and serious crimes in particular - are still relatively few by North American norms. The city fathers in 1970 were gravely concerned about the 9 homicides (only 6 solved) and 10 additional attempted homicides. In most US cities of similar size the number of homicides would exceed those in Copenhagen at least tenfold. The Danish society tends to be stable; the populace, law-abiding. The small police force is efficient, impartial, and generally adequate in numbers. The courts dispense equal justice. Both the courts and the police enjoy broad public respect and support. Over the years the police system has been modernized in structure and operating procedure.

Although Denmark enjoys considerable local self-government, the Danish police are organized as a state force, with control from the national rather than the local level. Until 1911 the police operated strictly at the local level. During that year a small state police force was activated, but for a protracted period thereafter efforts to create a truly nationwide police system were frustrated by the opposition of many Danes who feared that local prerogatives would be compromised. In 1919 the criminal police were nationalized, and finally in 1938 the process was virtually completed with the induction of the uniformed police into the national organization. A generally, though not completely centralized, police force of impressive utility emerged. Such autonomous features of the local units as the appointment of parish sheriffs and village fire wardens were preserved. For a time Copenhagen was permitted a large measure of freedom in the management of its own police affairs, but ultimately its police force was amalgamated into the national system.

The Minister of Justice is the highest police authority in the country. Top professional control of the police is vested in a single Chief of State Police appointed by the Monarch upon the recommendation of the Minister of Justice. The Chief of State Police, who is actually the national chief of police, has five staff assistants who head the uniformed police branch, the criminal police branch, the administrative branch, the State Police college, and the special security section. Such operations as a fingerprint department, a police laboratory, and relations with INTERPOL (the international police) come within the chief's purview. With the help of his staff, the chief undertakes an annual examination of police operations throughout the country.

Denmark is divided into 72 police districts, ranging from the Copenhagen metropolis to small municipalities with populations of no more than 12,000. Each is headed by a chief constable who has one or more assistant chief constables, depending on the size of the district. Appointed by the Monarch on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, the chief constable has direct responsibility for police operations within a district. The chief constable exercises only limited disciplinary authority over people under his control, however. Disciplinary action, except in minor matters, is administered by the Chief of State Police, who also supervises police training, prescribes equipment, and assigns and promotes personnel. Only lawyers are appointed as chief constables or assistant chief constables, since they act as public prosecutors in criminal and lesser cases. In addition, the constables and their assistants act for the state in such matters as domestic relations, adoption, marriages, and public health.

The Danish State Police are civil servants, whose pay is commensurate with that of other civil service positions of similar responsibility. The force in 1971 totaled 3,037 men. The Highway Traffic Patrol has responsibility for monitoring traffic throughout the country without regard to police district boundaries. A Mobile Division provides additional policemen for special occasions, such as royal visits, festivals, and political demonstrations. Policemen in regular service throughout Denmark are earmarked for such emergency use. The Criminal Investigation Division renders assistance to local authorities in cases involving serious crimes, particularly murder - normally on request of the district chief constable. In addition, a central police laboratory and four district laboratories provide technicians to aid in the examination of the scene of a crime. The Aliens Section controls entry into and exit from the country, including within its functions passport control in the port and airport facilities of the greater Copenhagen area.

2. Correctional Prisons
The Scandinavian countries have pioneered the concept that prison should serve fundamentally to rehabilitate. Their success is attested to by the relatively low incidence of recidivism throughout the area. The burdens of the State Police in Denmark are eased by a prison system which adapts with considerable success modern penal theory to local circumstances. The convict is regarded as an individual who is to be detained long enough to be rehabilitated and then is returned to society, convinced of the wisdom of a lawful way of life. Prisons are generally modern and clean and are designed to provide a measure of privacy and even homelike conditions. Security measures, particularly at institutions for minor offenders, are unobtrusive. There are extensive probation programs, and a prisoner can earn the right to leave prison from time to time for family visits. Two institutions are reserved for the chronic or mentally defective criminal. Usually committed for an indefinite term, this offender receives treatment from a staff of psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers, who seek to prepare him for an existence divorced from his antisocial past. He may be permitted to pursue his hobby.

-

Portal:Central Intelligence Agency