Dag Seierstad, member of the National Council of SV (The Socialist Left party):
"The Centre-left government in Norway: Challenges
and prospects in a European perspective."
1. The globalised framework
We live in an era of deep social transformation. The so-called globalisation of the economy represents
a redistribution of wealth never seen in modern history.
Privatisation and competitive tendering of public services have gained ground in most countries over
the last 20 years. Through privatisation, the public sector is turned into an attractive area for the
expansion of powerful multinational companies. A massive transfer of assets has taken place from the
public to the private sector.
In the last resort, democratically managed public services, as opposed to profit-driven private service
markets, is a question of power. What made the welfare state possible in Europe, was an enormous
shift in the balance of power in society. Public health, national insurance schemes, social security and
other public services were in most countries introduced and improved as a result of the increasing
power of organised labour.
It is important to notice that the strength of labour was not only reflected in labour laws and
regulations. Competition was dampened through political interventions in the market. Capital control
was introduced and financial capital became strictly regulated. Through a strong expansion of the
public sector and the welfare state, a great part of the economy was taken out of the market altogether
and made subject to political decisions.
What we have been facing over the last twenty years, is therefore the abolition of capital control and
fixed exchange rates, the deregulation and liberalisation of markets, the redistribution of wealth, the
privatisation of public services, the increased use of competitive tendering and outsourcing, the
downsizing of the workforce to the absolute minimum, and the consequent increasing labour intensity
and the flexibilisation of labour.
A considerable shift in the balance of power can only be achieved through a broad interest-based
mobilisation of trade unions, social movements and other popular organisations and NGOs which is
strong enough to confront the corporate interests and push them on the defensive. We do have to build
alliances with the new, global movement against neo-liberalism.
This global movement of movements is currently more politically radical and system-critical than
most trade unions and the labour movement, even though its knowledge of class relations is rather
poor. If this alliance is developed constructively and correctly, the two movements could reinforce
each other and bring the struggle to a higher level.
This is not easy – but it is probably necessary.
Norway has been no exception to the neo-liberal transformation of European societies. The starting
point came with the rightwing government in 1981. But when the Labour party came to power in
1986, there was no change in policies. In fact, we had Labour party governments for almost the whole
period fram 1986 to 1997 – with the exception for one year.
During these years two things happened. Extensive deregulation and privatization took place – with
the support of all parties in parliament except for the Socialist Left party and to a certain extent the
Centre party. In addition the same majority in parliament approved of Norwegian membership of The
European Economic Area – the EEA treaty – which made Norway a 100 hundred percent partner in
the internal market of the European Union. This membership locks in most of the examples of
deregulation and privatization that already had taken place – and forces us to additional reforms in
neo-liberal direction.
For the present government the EEA membership puts definite barriers to its freedom of action.
Examples:
Hjemfall
2. Dimensions of conflict in the party spectrum of Norway
The main dimensions of conflict within the Norwegian party structure divides the parties in ways that
confuse foreign observers - and many Norwegian voters.
-
In social questions, for instance questions concerning taxes, social and health services, labour law
etc., the usual right-wing dimension is dominating. But the centre parties are often close to the
parties of the left, and the Progress Party may also support "left" points of view from time to time.
-
In questions concerning structural changes of the economy (privatisation, favouring market
solutions in sector policies and regional policies, membership in the EU) the neo-liberal pole in
Norwegian politics has comprised the dominating structures of The Labour Party in addition to the
two parties of the right. The Labour Party has tried to hide its sliding towards neo-liberal solutions
as well as it can. Its leaders are in this respect more similar to Jospin than to Schröder and Blair.
The Centre Party has in the last decade developed positions very close to the positions of The
Socialist Left Party in most of these fields of politics - and has located itself definitely to the left of
The Labour Party. The other two parties of the political centre have been sliding towards neoliberal positions in the same way as The Labour Party.
-
In environmental questions and questions of international solidarity (development aid, refugee
policies) one will fins the three centre parties and the Socialist Left Party on one side, fighting for
greener policies and more solidarity with peoples outside Norway. The four parties are also the
parties opposing Norwegian membership in the European Union.
3. The change of strategic perspective in the trade union movement
In the 1990s the long-term strategic goal of The Socialist Left Party was to build political alliances
with the parties of the centre in specific questions affecting structural policies in addition to
environmental and solidarity questions. The idea was to put pressure on the Labour Party in order to
make it difficult for the party to go on sliding further towards neo-liberal positions - and also in order
to isolate the two parties of the right.
This strategy was only partly successful, and mainly in relation to the political development of the
Centre party, traditionally the farmers’ party of Norway. The Centre party became gradually a reliable
supporter of the public sector, opposing privatisation and market options in the municipalities.
More important was, however, the political reorientation within the trade union movement.
Traditionally, the main trade union movement (LO) has been working very closely with the Labour
Party, so closely that they have been considered to be "Siamese twins".
During the 1990s, many branch unions and the central trade union leadership as well, have been forced
to recognise that The Labour Party could no longer be trusted in several questions of great importance
to trade unionists, among them market orientation and privatisation of telecommunications, post,
railways and other public services. Several times branch unions had to work through parliamentarians
of The Socialist Left Party in order to achieve that the Labour Party group in parliament would listen
to trade unions’ complaints and proposals.
This change in relations between the trade unions and The Socialist Left Party became very visible
during the last months before the election in 2001. At the Trade Union Congress in May 2001, for the
first time in history, the leader of The Socialist Party was invited as a guest to the Congress. The same
Congress voted, against the advice of the leading bodies, to give The Socialist Left part of the money
planned as a contribution to the election campaign of the Labour Party. This increased the campaign
budget of the Socialist Left party by 25%. And most important, the Central Trade Union and many
branch unions stated publicly that voters must defend their interests by voting either for The Labour
Party or for The Socialist Left Party.
4. The development of the alliance strategy of the Socialist Left party
Until 1993 there was no real discussion inside the Socialist Left party on the question of mutually
binding cooperation with the Labour party in parliament or in government. The differences of size
(above 40 % against 5-6 %) and the differences in political views were considered too big.
Good election results in 1989 (10%) and at local elections in 1991 (12 %) changed the climate of
discussion. After heated debates, the party congress in 1993 adopted a resolution advocating closer
cooperation with the Labour party and the Centre party – on certain conditions. The Labour party did
not give any answer to this initiative – and many left voters decided to vote Labour since SV wanted
to cooperate with the Labour party anyway.
This disappointing experience prevented any new initiative from the Socialist Left party for the
election campaign in 1997. On the other hand, other frustrating facts of more crucial importance
accumulated. In parliament several minority governments by the Labour party sought during the 1980s
and 1990s the support of the Socialist Left party in social questions – and support from the right when
they turned to neo-liberal policies (deregulation, privatization etc.). That meant we were completely
powerless in all questions of decisive importance for the development of our socialty.
The party leadership – and gradually the rank-of-file of the members – came to the conclusion that this
situation could only be broken by drawing the Labour party into an alliance where forces outside the
parties could help preventing the neo-liberal tendencies of the Labour party.
The Congress of 2001 decided that the Socialist Left party would work for firmer cooperation with the
Labour party – either as part of a coalition government – or by supporting a minority government of
the Labour party based on a binding agreement with a satisfactory political content. The Labour party
did not answer, but came down from 35 % in 1997 to 24 % in 2001 – because part of their core
electorate had become thoroughly disillusioned by the party’s policies.
The congress of 2005 decided that the Socialist Left party now had only one option for cooperation
with the Labour party, a coalition government including the Centre party provided the three parties
had a majority in parliament after the election in September 2005. At last the Labour party leadership
was willing to listen.
5. The election of 2005
The disastrous results of the 2001 election and the pressure from different parts of the trade union
movement forced the leadership of the Labour Party to change its election strategy. The central trade
union (LO) started already in the autumn of 2004 what was called “The long election campaign” with
the aim of establishing a left majority government after the election of September 2005.
As leader of the Labour Party, Jens Stoltenberg, declared publicly that the Labour Party was prepared,
for the first time in its history, to enter a coalition government with other parties, if possible with the
Socialist Left Party and the Centre Party. Party congresses of the three parties approved of this aim
during the spring of 2005, and the parties fought the election campaign with the same main message to
the voters: If we get a majority in the Parliament, our aim is to establish a common government. The
three parties of the center-left alliance fought the campaign on separate political platforms but with a
common, well publicised intention to establish a common government if they managed to get a
majority in the parliament.
The centre-left alliance of The Labour Party (the social democrats), the Socialist Left Party (SV) and
the Center Party (the previous farmers’ party), calling themselves “The red-green alliance”, came out
victorious in the parliamentary election in September 2005. The victory was very narrow (87 against
82 in the present Parliament). A few thousand voters voting differently in a couple of election districts
might have changed the majority into a minority. In the table the parties have been grouped according
to the two government alternatives at the election in 2005:
2001
2005
The Center-Left alliance
42,4
48,0
87
The Labour party
24,3
32,7
61
The Socialist Left party (SV)
12,5
8,8
15
5,6
6,5
11
The parties of the previous government
37,5
26,8
44
The Right (comparable to EPP parties)
21,2
14,1
23
The Christian People’s party
12,4
6,8
11
3,9
5,9
10
The Progressive party (populist right)
14,7
22,1
38
The Red Election Alliance (left of SV)
1,2
1,2
0
The Center party
The Left (a liberal party)
mandates
The Socialist Left party (SV) lost heavily compared to the election in 2001 – and even more compared
to the polls. Most opinions polls between the election of 2001 and august 2005 showed results for the
Socialist Left Party between 14 and 18 percent. The main government parties lost even more, as many
of their voters went to the populist right.
There are several reasons for the loss of voters for the Socialist Left Party. Here are four of them:
1. Together with the trade unions the Socialist Left Party have during the last couple of years been
able to force the Labour party to adopt more radical policies: for instance proclaiming a break with
their previous policy of privatisation and their policy of introducing market competition in the health
and social services. This made the Labour party leaders sound like left socialists in the election
campaign. This situation was worsened by the fact that our most prominent campaigners did not come
out clearly on the strategically important and persistent political differences between The Socialist Left
Party and the Labour both in questions of foreign policy and in questions of structural economic
policy.
2. Our opponents to the right attacked the Labour party mainly by attacking the Socialist Left Party.
They tried to scare the voters through a fierce campaign against “the red danger” using all kinds of
true and untrue accusations which put us too much in the defensive. The scare campaign did not
achieve its goal: to prevent a centre-left victory at the election, but part of our voters voted labour.
3. Many voters wanted first of all to get rid of the present government, and voted for the Labour Party
to achieve that goal.
4. Certain parts of the election campaign of the party contributed to the setback by concentrating
attention on issues of minor importance both for the voters and for the party and thus attracting attacks
by our political opponents and by media involving us in backtracking and unsuccessful attempts of
self defence.
6. The negotiations and the establishment of a centre-left government
The negotiations between the three parties lasted three weeks, and were as tough as they ought to be.
The election gave the Labour Party more than twice as many voters as the two smaller parties
combined (32,7 % against 15,3 %) – and therefore a strong negotiating position.
The result of the negotiations were in many respects astonishing.
1. The government platform is a long (74 pages), detailed and, on many issues surprisingly
concrete document – far away from the brief, general platform that would have served the
interests of the dominating partner in the government.
2. The 19 ministers are distributed with 10 for the Labour Party, 5 for the Socialist Left party and
4 for the Centre Party – giving the Labour Party the smallest possible majority in the
government.
3. The Socialist Left Party got the minister of finance, the minister of education, the minister for
environment, the minister for renewal of public services and the minister for development aid
and conflict prevention.
4. The platform is on many issues definitely to the left of the election program of the Labour
Party. This applies to the international policies as well as economic, regional and social
policies.
5. The most important change in policies is the commitment to stop deregulating public services
in the state sector and the different commitments to work for the same aim in relations to
developing countries within international institutions as the World Bank and the United
Nations.
7. The platform of the centre-left government (The Soria Moria platform)
A. Foreign policy
Some of the main differences between the three parties have been – and still are – on questions of
foreign policy, on the relation to the EU, on global liberalization, on NATO and the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
The foreign policy compromise is based on three elements, expressed like this in the platform: “The
main lines of Norwegian foreign policy are firmly fixed, including strong support of the UN and
international law, Norway´s membership of NATO, the EEA Agreement and Norway´s nonmembership of the EU.”.
This means that The Labour party accepts that Norway stays outside of the European Union (as long
as the government lasts), the Socialist Left party accepts that the government is based on Norway’s
membership of NATO and EEA, and the Centre Party, being a staunch supporter of NATO
membership, accepts that the government is based on membership in the EEA (See below.)
The toughest part of the negotiations between the three parties was on questions of international
military operations. The Labour Party leadership wanted greater freedom of action than the Socialist
Left Party was willing to accept.
The crucial point was whether a clear UN mandate should be a precondition for Norwegian
participation in international military operations. The Labour Party negotiators argued until the very
last night for weaker preconditions like “in accordance with International Law” or “in accordance
with the UN Pact”, but accepted at the end proposals from the Socialist Left Party demanding “a clear
UN mandate”.
The general principle of a UN mandate is given this formulation: “Participation in international
operations must be rooted in the UN Charter and have a clear UN mandate.
On Iraq and Afghanistan there was also a breakthrough for demands from the Socialist Left Party, as
the only party in the Norwegian parliament to warn against a war retaliation from the U.S. after
9.11.2001, the only party to deny that our NATO membership demanded an automatic acceptation of
the U.S war against Afghanistan – and as the only party in the parliament representing the peace
movement and the broad majority of the Norwegian public who were against the U.S. attack on Iraq in
2003.
It was therefore a breakthrough for the Socialist Left Party when it was agreed in the Government
platform that:
-
Norwegian staff officers and training officers was to be withdrawn from Iraq,
- Norwegian special forces as part of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan were to be
withdrawn when the mandate period expired in January 2006.
B. A more critical attitude to global liberalization
As part of the globalization-critical movement the Socialist Left together with ATTAC Norway and
the broad NGO-front in Norway Social Forum has strongly criticised Norwegian policies in WTO, the
World Bank and IMF. The Centre Party has shared part of this criticism, while the Labour Party has
accepted and – in its own periods in government – led policies which have been undistinguishable
from the policies of other European countries and of USA.
Although some leading members of the Labour Party from time to time have paid lip service to a
critique of global liberalization, some of the points in the Government platform - came as a big
surprise to activists in the globalization-critical movement.
- Norwegian aid should not go to programmes that contain requirements for liberalisation and
privatisation.
- No requirements must be made for privatisation as a condition for the cancellation of debt.”
Part of our multilateral development aid (200 millions ) was in the budget for 2006 switched from the
World Bank to development programmes under UN agencies.
Norwegian development aid has been increased and will in 2007 be 0.97 percent of GDP. By 2009 it
will be raised to above one percent.
Norwegian requests in the GATS negotiations made by the previous government that developing
countries open their borders for international competition in educational services, supply of electricity
and water have been withdrawn.
All Norwegian requests in the GATS negotiations to LDC countries have been withdrawn.
C. Structural policies: Ownership, privatization, competition
In several ways the new government has reversed policies pursued by all Norwegian governments, by
social democratic governments as well as by any other government, since the first rightwing
government came to power in 1981:
Ex:
The Government will

will not privatize or sell shares in important companies like Telenor, Norsk Hydro, Statoil
which the previous government had planned

has stopped privatization of public services within education, health and social services.
D. Labour relations
The red-green government has reversed all changes made in the labour law by the previous centreright majority in the parliament in May 2005. Here are some of the most important reversals:

Increased right for employers to offer temporary employment is taken away,

weaker rules for employment security is reversed,

the upper limit of lawful overtime is reduced to the level of 2003.
Employee rights and trade unions rights has been improved:

Local trade unions officials will be given right of insight into wages and working conditions
offered by subcontractors.

At all public tenders Norwegian wages and working conditions will be a condition.

Employees will be given the same rights when tender rights are transferred to another
company as when undertakings are transferred to new owners.

The rights of employees who report on unacceptable conditions on the workplace will be
strengthened.

When a company recruits new employees, the rights of part time workers to be transferred to
full time work will be strengthened.
D. Social justice
The Government has

kept taxation at the same level as in 2004 reversing the tax cuts planned by the previous
government,

Tax on stock dividends has been reintroduced and capital income is being taxed at the same
level as the maximum level of tax on wage income.

offered access to high speed internet connection (ADSL) to the whole country within 2009,

The transfer of money to regional and local authorities has been increased by almost 6 billion
N. crowns for the year 2006 followed by a new increase of 5 billion N. crowns in 2007.

has reintroduced a geographically differentiated company tax on labour with no tax or low tax
in districts threatened by depopulation,

has increased the level of social security benefits,

has reversed the reduction in unemployment benefits,
The Socialist Left Party had – as part of the negotiated compromise - to accept the decision on pension
reform made by a broad majority in parliament in May 2005. The reform will lead to certain cuts in
pensions from 2020 onwards.
8. The media coverage
Media has nevertheless criticized the government parties for not keeping their promises. Most of the
criticism is not based on promises in the Government platform, but on the party programmes of the
three parties. Overwhelmingly, the criticism is directed against the Socialist Left Party, by media and
by the centre-right parties defined as “the vulnerable part” of the present government.
There is no inherent logic in the criticism. The ministers from the Socialist Left Party are attacked for
not keeping “promises” from the party programme of the Socialist Party, although the reason is either
that our negotiators were not able to get those promises into the government platform or because our
ministers are voted down inside the Government. Our minister are at the same time attacked because
party activists outside the Government publicly demand more radical solutions than those contained in
the government platform or those pursued by the Government, and they are attacked for not being able
already in 2006 to keep those promises in the government platform which are meant to be fulfilled
stepwise during the period of four years up to 2009.
The most aggressive attacks on the Socialist Left Party are directed against those parts of the party
programme which point out some long term goals for more fundamental, but in fact quite cautious,
changes in Norwegian society, for instance:

The shortening of working time towards a 6 hours working day or a 30 hours working week,

The right of employees on workplaces with more than 200 employees to elect representatives
commanding 40 percent of the votes of the general assembly of the joint-stocks company
owning the workplace,
9. The discussions inside the party
The range and the intensity of the attacks on the Socialist Left Party after the election raises the
question: Will the party members – and the voters – accept the participation in this government if the
five ministers in many fields have to accept policies party members can not defend?
At the party congress in April 2005 the decision to work for a coalition government with the Labour
Party and the Centre Party was taken unanimously. There were in fact no doubts within the party that
this was the right strategy before the election. The decision to enter the government was taken by the
National council (a 40-member body) on the basis of the negotiated government platform (the Soria
Moria declaration) – and once more unanimously.
The crucial question was: What kind of discussions will come to the surface inside the Socialist Left
Party when the hundreds of small and bigger compromises - and losses - from the everyday work of
the Government appear?
That depends to a great extent on whether the party’s own views will be articulated clearly by the
party’s representatives in government and parliament, whether compromises are explained as lost
battles and not as compromises worth being defended – and whether party members at all levels can
fight openly, not only inside the party, for policies that the ministers are not able to get through in
government.
On the other hand there has developed a peculiar process of self-discipline inside the party and among
parts of our voters. The logic can be presented like this:
The government proposes and pursues policies in contradiction to the programmes and policies of the
Socialist party. Then some members of the party protest publicly against the policies proposed or
pursued by the government. Those people are then criticised for attacking “their own government”.
They are criticised by media, by members of other parties – and also by members of the Socialist Left
party who argue like this: We have accepted to take part in a coalition government. We are in a
minority within this government. Therefore we must accept to get more losses than victories when
there are disagreements within the government. But we cannot attack the government every time we
lose.
The counterargument is obvious: How can the voters see the difference between us and the Labour
party if our members and their representatives keep quiet when they disagree with government
policies.
The Socialist left party has a tradition of openness and transparency. We discuss even complicated
issues in openness, and our members take part in discussions in media.
Now we are increasingly attacked for discussing in public issues that “should be discussed and
decided inside the government”.
Example: The proposed campaign for a consumer boycott of Israeli products.
10. The new centre-left Government and the prospects for opposing neo-liberal challenges inside
Norway and from the outside world.
The centre-left Government has created hopes among traditional leftwing voters and in the trade union
movement that the ongoing, and seemingly irresistible, wave of neo-liberal reforms can be halted and
even partly reversed. Are there reasons for such hopes?
Two conditions give reasons for hope:
1. The oil economy of Norway and the steady growth even of what is called the “mainland
economy” (e.g. the Norwegian economy minus the oil and gas sector) gives any Norwegian
government more freedom of action than other European governments.
Our export income is many years almost 50 % greater than our imports. In 2006 we had a
surplus on the state budget of 17 % of GDP – which means that we cannot – and do not –
spend the huge oil income inside Norway. That would immediately overheat our economy.
2. The trade unions are firmly behind the demands for policies aiming at halting and reversing
the neo-liberal policies of the last quarter of a century.
But there are also realities that may prevent the centre-left Government in achieving its proclaimed
aims as stated in the Government platform. Some of them are of an internal Norwegian origin:
1. The electorate in September 2005 was divided close to the middle even at an election where
many factors were favourable for a centre-left victory. Some few thousand voters moving to
rightwing parties in marginal election districts may result in a centre-right or even a rightwing
government in 2009.
2. Parts of the election rhetoric of the three victorious parties has created expectations that may
be difficult to satisfy.
3. The three government parties disagree on issues that can make the work of a common
government difficult: (1) on foreign policy issues (Norwegian participation in international
operations dividing the parties), (2) on the weighting of environmental concerns vs. economic
advantages of oil drilling in northern/arctic waters, and (3) whether to use the right of
reservation in the EEA agreement against EU laws that threaten Norwegian interests. There
are other disagreements between the three parties as well, some of them of fundamental
character, but the three mentioned are in the short run (the next four years) the ones that in
critical situations may lead to a break-up of the government.
4. In this coalition government the Labour Party finds itself leading policies that in important
fields many of the party leaders do not believe in. Many of them do not really believe it is
possible to go against the policies prevailing everywhere else in Europe of adapting to forceful
liberalizing forces nationally and internationally. In the 1990s the easy way out for the Labour
Party leadership was to look for cooperation to the right. After the dramatic defeat at the
election of 2001, the easy way out was to look for cooperation to the left, based on the
recognition that the trade unions – and the voters – had moved so definitely to the left.
5. The new government bases its industrial policies on the idea that the competitiveness of the
Norwegian economy basically is a result of the cooperative tradition in our factories and firms,
in contrast to a more confrontational tradition in many other countries. This tradition of
cooperation has given trade unions considerable influence on the way technological and
organisational changes at the workplace are introduced. This cooperative tradition has for
some time been undermined by new “go-it-alone” strategies from parts of our employers. If
this tendency prevails, this basis of Norwegian competitiveness may be part of our past – and
not of our future – and will in the industrial field, and concerning questions of economic
democracy, limit the freedom of action for the new Government.
Other realities are of a more general nature and present difficult challenges for any leftwing
government in Europe:
1. The public sector must continually be reformed and made more efficient in order to offer the
population the services they deserve and increasingly demand. The new Government has
promised to make the public sector more efficient by inviting the employees and their trade
unions to a close cooperation in changing their workplace so that it satisfies changing and
more challenging demands – instead of using outsourcing for market competition and
privatization as the methods for “modernizing” the public sector which has been the main
strategy in the last decade. If this project of close cooperation with the trade unions in the
public sector does not succeed in reforming the public sector, rightwing parties will be the
winners in 2009.
2. The fundamental principles of the European Union, the free movement of products, services,
capital and labour combined with the right of establishment on a non-discriminatory basis,
limits the freedom of action of any government wanting to “correct market failures” in an
efficient way. Norway is in this respect in no different situation than the EU countries because
of its membership in EEA and therefore bound by all the regulations of the internal market.
3. The option of moving firms and outsourcing production to other countries and continents
under conditions of free movement of capital puts definite limits to how far a government can
regulate the freedom of action of the owners of capital. Capital flight is a potential reality –
even if the threat of capital flight is often overestimated.
4. The general weakening of the trade union movement creates strategic disadvantages for any
leftwing project in Europe. This weakening has many causes: the long term mass
unemployment, the changes in economic structure from industry to services, new forms of
work organization, decentralisation of industrial relations towards workplace bargaining with
the development of what might be called “wildcat cooperation” at the company level where
the employees accept reduced wages and longer working hours in return for a few years
additional employment. At the European level there are still few signs of an efficient common
trade union strategy confronting the neo-liberal forces.
A tentative conclusion:
The centre-left government in Norway will be fighting against great odds. The government may not
last until the next election in 2009. It may not be able to fulfil the promises given in the government
platform (the Soria Moria declaration) or the expectations of leftwing voters. It may lose the election
in 2009 even if it realizes the main parts of the government platform.
If the government really succeeds, e.g. realizes its political promises, stops the neo-liberal offensive in
important fields, and keeps its popularity in the electorate, then the likelihood is great that the Labour
Party gets most of the electoral profit in 2009. If the Socialist Left party comes out as the loser in the
election of 2009, there is no guarantee that the new government will follow up in the same direction as
pointed out in the Soria Moria platform. That depends also on developments outside Norway and on
the experiences in other European countries.
On the other hand: If the government really succeeds in preventing the neo-liberal wave, its very
success may change the perspectives inside the Labour party. Even social democrats may be changed
by Praxis.
The two main factors behind the electoral success in 2005 are nevertheless of importance also in other
countries: a trade union movement attacking the policies of the social democratic party from the left –
and the existence of a sufficiently strong party to the left of the social democrats identifying to a great
extent with the demands of the trade union movement.
The most important trade unions gradually came to the conclusion that the big Labour party is no
longer a left party they could trust. They realised that the only way to get left policies from the Labour
party would be to force the party into a coalition with the Left Socialist party – and at the same time
make the demands of trade unionists so visible and so well understood that the coalition government
has to listen.
The same strategy was followed by the social movements, by the environmental movement, by the
anti-war movement and by the globalization-critical movement
They all analyzed the situation and came to the same conclusion as the trade unions:
1. The Labour party will never give us the policies we want.
2. A coalition between the Labour party and the Socialist Left party will – by itself - never give
us the policies we want because the Labour party is the bigger partner.
3. Such a coalition will not give us the policies we want – unless it is obvious for all to see that
we created this coalition – and that we won the election because our demands had the support
of a majority of the voters.
- Trade unions demanded: no more privatization of state public services. That is now a main obligation
in the government platform.
- Environmental NGOs put forward their demands. Some of them, but not all, are now part of the
governmental platform.
- The war protesters expressed in February 2003 that they did not want Norway to support the
American way of wars. Only one party in parliament agreed with the protesters – but now the new
government withdraws our troops from Iraq and from the US-led Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.
- The globalization-critical movement demanded fair trade for developing countries – and the new
government has decided to withdraw a number of Norwegian demands to developing countries in the
GATS negotiations.