Nicholas Martin Nielsen

Due February 16, 1999

Danish Society – 1st paper

Danish Differences

Denmark is an interesting country that is rich with culture and personality. To a visiting American, it is a scenically diverse country with both peaceful rural areas and exciting European cities. While Denmark may seem quite normal to the Danes, to an American the culture is quite different and the political system may even seem absurd. The United States is an avidly capitalistic country, and ever since the cold war, the word “socialism” sparks fear and hatred in many of its citizens. However, this negative stereotyping is unfair, particularly because of the compelling evidence existing with the Danes that such ideas are not senseless. The Danish style of life and method of government may be quite different from those of the United States, but by examining differences between the two cultures one may gain insights into the underlying ideologies of each country.

The most immediately obvious difference between the American and Danish methods of government is Denmark’s Queen Margrethe II. To an American, the phrase “constitutional monarchy” might seem to be an oxymoron. However, this confusing phrase has come to represent a “mixture of monarchy and representational government” (Hastrup, 120). The Danes love their Queen, yet at the same time are fiercely proud of their democratic society and their freedom. The Monarch represents Denmark, and is in theory the constitutional base of power. However, the Constitution “ensures that the power is exercised through a parliament, a government and its civil servants, and a judiciary,” (Hastrup, 120). The Monarch is also theoretically the head of the military, but he or she makes no strategic decisions and must sign any orders that the Folketing (the parliamentary branch of government) decides upon.

From an American point of view, the Monarch is just a puppet and unnecessary in the grand scheme of things. But the beauty of the Danish monarchy is that she is utterly neutral; she can unite the country in time of need when no one else can, she can represent Denmark without partisan scheming, and she is a reminder to the people that government only exists to serve them. The United States could stand to have such an unbiased figurehead, even if she or he had no real power. In recent years, scandal has plagued the U.S. White House and has embarrassed the nation several times. Having an unbiased figurehead might avoid such trouble and give the people fewer reasons to criticize the U.S. government (Hastrup, 120-122).

Another difference between Danish and American government is the political party system. In the United States, there are only two mammoth parties: the Republicans and the Democrats. Both parties stand for rather vague ideals that most citizens do not stand wholly behind. The U.S. partisan system has evolved into a grand power struggle between these groups and smaller parties are made insignificant. The partisan system in Denmark is for all intents and purposes exactly the opposite. Eight political parties currently hold seats in the Folketing, and they stand for more visible (and specific) ideals than the U. S. parties. They are divided essentially into three different groups: the Left Wing, the Right Wing, and the Centre Parties. The eight different parties form alliances with each other on different issues, and as a result they have many shades of grey in governmental debates rather than the purely black and white colors that mark the Democrats and the Republicans (Hastrup, 120 – 130). The Danish party system allows for a more diverse form of representation than the American system, because the smaller subdivided groups might encourage the political leaders to side with the people they represent, while in America politicians are sometimes pressured to vote purely along party lines.

The government in Denmark has socialistic aspects, which many Americans would be uncomfortable with. This fear of socialism is ridiculous, because while the world has demonstrated (through the former Soviet Union, North Vietnam, and many other countries) that pure communism simply doesn’t work, many socialistic ideas make sense. The Danes’ high standard of living, democratic government, and industries are proof of this.

The Danes believe in the idea of welfare. “Welfare is concerned with creating the greatest possible wealth for the population as a whole and with spreading this wealth to more and more people by distributing the welfare more equally,” (Hastrup, 41). Since the “public sector share of the national budget comes to almost 70%,” Denmark accomplished much in regard to this goal (Hastrup, 42). The government achieves this by creating a high, progressive income tax. This means that if one makes more money, then one has to pay a higher percentage of their income to the government. In 1994, these figures were 45% at the lowest and 65% at the highest (Hastrup, 59). Americans are generally aghast that Danish taxes are so high, but they do not realize the advantages of the welfare system. Danes receive pensions, unemployment benefits, maternity benefits, free medical treatment from hospitals, free education, and other public services (Hastrup, 41-45).

Most middle and upper class Americans would still probably be against such high taxation because they can afford health care and other services. However, many lower class citizens can not pay for services and can not live in comfort after retirement. The Danish model encourages equality among the population, while the American system encourages competition and greed. The welfare system seems to work for Denmark, although there are problems. For example, the health care may be free, but some hospitals have long waiting lists and the quality of specialized health care is sometimes not adequate.

Denmark’s government is quite decentralized in comparison to the United States. “The responsibility for decisions, to a large degree, devolved to the middle tier of government, i.e. the counties and to the local councils,” (Hastrup, 49). The local district councils spend about 40% of the public finances. The national government has control, of course, but as a rule the “most distant democratic structures should have the least influence” upon the Danes (Hastrup, 119). Americans also care about local government, but not in the same manner. They tend to think a little more nationally, while “it is local democracy in the local community that most concerns Danes today,” (Hastrup, 119).

In conclusion, the Danish lifestyle and method of government are different from those of the United States. We have examined aspects of Danish culture and learned about its underlying ideologies. The Danes are concerned with local government, but they love their Queen. They have an effective party system built around cooperation and compromising. Their “constitutional monarchy” works well for them, and they are concerned about economic equality for all. The people of the United States could learn much from the Danish way of life; at the very least they could recognize that there is more than one effective way to govern a country.

Works Cited.

Hastrup, Bjarne. Contemporary Danish Society. Copenhagen: Academic Press, 1995.

Discover Denmark. Ed. Per Himmelstrup. Aarhus: Systime Publishers, 1992.

1