What have been the main factors for the success of Social Democratic parties in Scandinavia until the 1980's?

Résumé du document

The Social Democratic parties in Scandinavia have been set as examples in many countries since their success over years, and their ability to promote democracy and effective ways of government have been admired. They inspired the socialist movement born in Europe, principally from the thoughts of Karl Marx, Friedriech Engels, Robert Owen, Joseph Proudhon (utopist) and Ferdinand Lasalle, and has underlined the need for equality between individuals, more freedom and social justice. Their domination in Scandinavian politics has been the symbol of the success of socialist ideas applied to the reality for years. Their implementation of Social Democracy has turned them into prosperous democracies. The first Democratic Party was born in Denmark in 1879, and then has spread in Scandinavia, Norway in 1887 and in Sweden in 1889. I will scrutinize these three country, as I specified studying such parties in Scandinavia, because they have had a less striking influence in Finland (mainly due to the USSR) and in Iceland. As the success of Social Democratic parties in Denmark, Norway and Sweden may not be contested, the question that may be raised is why this kind of parties has succeeded in Scandinavia and not in others, how far did they do so (difference between countries), and which structural explanations may account for this domination.

Extraits

[...] Social Democratic parties have had issue-ownership of the welfare state issue. Since they have been able to create welfare systems in the very interest of both the working class and the middle class, they insured high rates of votes from both these social classes. The Supplementary Pensions Scheme introduced in Sweden in 1960 gained the support of most of the workers and employees since it ensured them to get a pension that amounts to two-thirds of the average earnings in the best 15 years of his service. [...]

[...] The co-operative movement is widespread in Scandinavia, it is an influent sector in the economy and the society. Their support has helped in a considerable way to establish social democracy and for the SPDs to develop in the three countries. (Vivekanandan, 1991:201) The policy implementation The Social Democratic compromise is based on the fact that the Social Democrats have accepted and incited the unions to do so the capitalism, and only pledge that they may have a role in managing and controling the system. [...]

[...] In the 1950's whereas the Norwegian and Danish party have began to decline, in the same time the Swedish Social Democrats got more and more members (about one milion). (Elvander, 1979:15). Then the level of party organization is different in the three countries: it is uncomparably high in Sweden whereas Norway and especially Denmark lag behind. These latter are converging on the model of organisationally under-mobilised socialism whereas they used to be mobilised”. But the three of them used to be until the 1970's higly organized and bureaucratic. [...]

[...] Because of the electoral system which awards the winning party with strong majority in the Parliament (and may be compared in a certain extent to the logic of the british and french majoritarian system) the Danish Social Democrats didn't need support from the centre-party. But the situation has changed in the 1960's in Denmark and in the 1970's in Sweden since the Radical Liberal Party turned to the Bourgeois bloc. Swedish and Danish Social Democrats have agreed for electoral agreements with Left parties and Green parties.(Mattila & Raunio, 2002:265). But as far as the Social Democratic parties have been dominant parties both in Sweden and Denmark they have also been able to form minority government, i.e. [...]

[...] This compromise have relied on a mode of regulation of social conflicts based on consultation, negotiation and arrangements between unions, employers and the state (Moschonas, 2002:63). The economic policy-making and the public policies were highly influenced by the working-class. On this point Norway and Sweden differentiate from Denmark. The former were characterized by powerful working-class movements. Their strength and their resources exerced a great influence in the making of economic policies in order to turn them in the interests of workers. [...]