• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Norway - Politics

Until the 1981 election, Norway had been governed by majority Labor Party governments since 1935, except for three periods (1963, 1965-71, and 1972-73). The Labor Party lost its majority in the Storting in the 1981 elections. From 1981 to 2005, governments alternated between Labor minority governments and Conservative-led coalition governments.

The Norwegian Progress Party formally emerged in 1976, but existed as only a ‘small and noisy outlier" that emulated the anti-tax Progress Party in Denmark for the nest deeade. Under the leadership of Carl Hagen, the Progress Party in the late 1980s seized upon an anti-immigrant line with unprecedented success. At the 1997 Storting election the Progress Party earned 15 parliamentary seats, tying it with the Christian People's Party as the country‘s second strongest political party. The Progress Party is in many ways analogous to the American Tea Party, though in Europe they are drivenby opposition to recent mass immigration of foreigners, especially Muslims.

Jens Stoltenberg's Second Government was appointed by King Harald V on 17 October 2005. It was a majority government representing the Labor Party, the Socialist Left Party and the Centre Party. In the run-up to the 2005 election, Labor Party leader Jens Stoltenberg reached out to the Socialist Left (SV) party and agrarian Center party to form a "Red-Green" coalition government that commanded a majority of seats in parliament. Stoltenberg's government was the first majority government in Norway in over 20 years, but the governing coalition has had to bridge substantial policy differences to build this majority. The 2005 election was historic because it was the first time the Labor Party was in a coalition government since the 1940s, the first time SV was ever in a government, and the first time the Center Party joined with the socialist parties as opposed to the right-of-center parties.

Norway's center-right alliance, led by Conservative Erna Solberg - nicknamed "Iron Erna" for her tough image, claimed victory in the national election 09 September 2013. Incumbent Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg conceded defeat after eight years in office. With three quarters of votes counted, a bloc of four center-right parties had won 96 of 169 seats in parliament. Prime Minister Stoltenberg's three-party coalition won 72, compared to the 86 they had in the outgoing parliament.

Conservative Party teamed up with the Progress Party in a minority coalition. The Progress Party's popularity had to a large extent hinged on its promises to be different from all the other - slightly boring - middle-of-the-road Norwegian political parties. For decades, Norway's Conservative Party considered the Progress Party to be too radical to bring into a coalition government. Their anti-immigration and sometimes anti-Islamic rhetoric often alienated them from the rest of Norway's largely moderate and centrist political establishment. So too did their populist promises of spending more of the country's oil wealth on everything from tax cuts to road construction.

Two smaller center-right parties promised their support in parliament. Minority governments are not uncommon in Norway, and usually govern without too much trouble.

The parliamentary election saw issues like rising living costs at home and chaos in international politics taking center stage. The campaigns by the political parties centered around domestic issues like inflation, abolition of wealth taxes and the quality of public services. Apart from these topics, the tumultuous state of international politics because of the war in Ukraine, US President Donald Trump's tariffs and Israeli policy in Gaza, were also heavily discussed. Observers had predicted that the uncertainty in global politics would also give the ruling Labour Party an edge due to voters' perceived desire for the stability of an incumbent government. The Labour party alongside four, smaller left-leaning parties, secured 87 seats, with 99% of the votes counted. That's two more than the minimum needed to secure a majority, but down from a combined 100 seats in 2021. The red-green side won a majority. With 99 percent of the votes counted, they were on track for 87 seats. Jonas Gahr Støre's Labor Party had 28.2 percent. The FRP maked its best election ever. The preliminary figures showed 23.9 percent – which was more than double from the previous general election. But FrP's landslide election was not enough for the bourgeois side as a whole. Erna Solberg and the Conservative Party had disastrous numbers : Only 14.6 percent. KrF is above the threshold , while Venstre was well below. Støre needed a number of small parties. The Reds, SV, SP and MDG all received less than six percent, but are above the threshold. Støre and the Labour Party needed support from a majority in the Storting to get things through – and not least the state budget. With these result, it would be more demanding than it was in the previous four years. He will not only be dependent on the Center Party and the Socialist Party, as he has been during this period. Now he will also have to bring in the Red Party and the MDG – unless he was going to seek a majority with one of the bourgeois parties. Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg both confirm that the Labour Party will continue in a minority government after the red-green election victory. Støre said that in a few days he will meet with the other four red-green parties, Sp, SV, Rødt and MDG, for talks. "The government must find a majority in the Storting and you must always respect that. I will meet them one by one to hear how they envision the years to come", said Støre. "There is a lot that ties us together and we will find good solutions", he added. https://ndla.no/r/tverrfaglige-temaer/hva-star-de-politiske-partiene-for/c476f7ce09 https://www.stortinget.no/no/Representanter-og-komiteer/ Compared to many other countries, Norway actually has quite a few parties. One way to explain this party diversity is to look at what other political conflict lines exist. The various political parties differ from each other in that they have different opinions about how society should be. Many of the parties base their policies on ideologies. An ideology is an idea or a mindset about how society should be governed, and what values are important. Examples of such ideologies are anarchism, socialism , liberalism , conservatism and fascism. Although the ideologies have changed a lot since their inception, there are certain features that create the main differences between the parties. The Left (V) is a social liberal party, the Conservative (H) is a conservative party, the Socialist Left Party (SV) is a socialist party and the Labour Party (AP) is a social democratic party. The Progress Party (FrP) bases its economic policy on economic liberalism. In addition, we have parties such as the Christian Democratic Party (KrF) and the Centre Party (SP) that place high value on family, Christianity, traditional morality and rural values. Distinguishing the different political parties from each other is not always easy. Ideologies do not play such a big role anymore. But there is a left and a right in Norwegian politics. On the right are the parties that are conservative and economically liberal parties, on the left are socialist parties, and in the middle the centrist parties. The right wing consists of the parties Conservative (H) and the Progress Party (FrP), while the left wing consists of the parties Red, Socialist Left Party (SV) and the Labour Party (AP). As a separate grouping between the right and left wing, are the centrist parties Centre Party (SP), Liberal Party (V) and Christian People's Party (KrF). In recent years, the Centre Party has collaborated with the left when it comes to forming governments, while the Liberal Party and the Christian Democratic Party have collaborated with the right. These two government alternatives are often called the red-green and the bourgeois or non-socialist government alternative, respectively. In local politics, these dividing lines are not as clear, and here we often find parties that collaborate across the traditional left-right dimension. The members elected from the same political party constitute themselves into parliamentary party groups. At group meetings the parties define their political positions and formulate their views on issues currently being dealt with in the Storting. Each group elects a steering committee and a chairman, who is also called the parliamentary leader. Among the responsibilities of the chairman are to make certain political decisions, coordinate group activities, suggest the allocation of members among the committees and assign speaking time in parliamentary debates. Clemens Saers noted the right–left dimension was the most comprehensive dividing line, because it encompasses several divisions. We usually place parties like the Progress Party and the Conservative Party on the right and the Labour Party and the Socialist Left Party on the left. Here are roughly the three most important points that distinguish the parties on the left from the parties on the right. The division into right and left in politics dates back to the Estates General of 1789, which was the beginning of the French Revolution. King Louis XVI placed his conservative supporters on his right, while the liberals and revolutionaries sat on his left. Public – private. What should the state and municipalities be responsible for, and what is the job of private companies? The health care system is a classic example. The parties on the far left tend to believe that it is irresponsible to let companies make money on health services, and that the public sector should be responsible for these services alone. The right-wing believes that when private companies compete with each other and with the public sector, health services become better and cheaper. The parties on the right believe that there should be as much private operation of health services as possible. This is also about how much the public sector should care about the privacy of the individual. When you were an infant, your mother and father were called to the health nurse for check-ups and vaccinations. Doesn't the public sector trust that all parents take good care of their children? Why should the public sector care about such things? High – low taxes. What should the tax money be used for? The left wing, which believes that the public sector should have a lot of responsibility for welfare services, also believes that the state needs a lot of tax revenue to make it happen. Those who have the most should also pay the most tax on what they earn. The right wing believes that the individual must take greater responsibility for how he or she manages his or her life, but that in return, one should not pay as much tax. Employee – employer. Who should decide what in working life? Adults spend large parts of their lives at work, and this is about the distribution of power between employees and employers. The parties on the left tend to take the side of the employees and want to limit how much employers can decide over their employees. It is no coincidence that many trade unions in practice support the left in politics. The parties on the right tend to believe that employers should be allowed to decide more, because they believe that it is more efficient, gives better results and allows employers to create more jobs. The center–periphery dimension is about the relationship between city and country. Is it important that people live in sparsely populated areas? Norway is a long country, and a lot of business activity takes place where natural resources are. Agriculture and food production are an example, and farmers have to live where agriculture is to be conducted. At the same time, around 80 percent of all Norwegians live in cities or in the areas around cities. Central areas have more jobs and easier access to theaters, cinemas and other cultural activities. Some parties are more concerned with residents in the districts than others and will use tax breaks and other measures to get them to stay. This is called district politics. The Center Party is an example of a party that is particularly concerned with the living conditions of residents living in the districts. Until 1959, the Center Party was actually called the Farmers' Party. The growth–protection dimension is about the fact that conflicts often arise between those who want to extract and develop a resource, and those who want to preserve nature as it is. An example is the construction of high-voltage pylons in Western Norway. Many tourists visit Norway because of the nature, and the pylons interfere with the landscape and change the image we present of Norway. But the alternative, laying a land cable or a submarine cable, is many times as expensive. Western Norway is dependent on power cables in one form or another anyway, so what should be prioritized? The global–national dimension is about how we relate to the globalized market. Globalization has given us access to goods produced far away, and cheap travel. However, it also means that jobs disappear to other countries, where labor is cheaper. The parties that are strongly nationally oriented want to protect Norwegian production and Norwegian jobs. This can be done by increasing taxes on air travel, imposing tariffs on foreign goods and pointing out that there are large environmental costs to globalization. On the other hand, it is argued that a free market provides the best products at the lowest price. And is it really wise for Norway to close its markets if the rest of the world opens its? The solidarity dimension is about what we believe are moral obligations towards people elsewhere in the world. To what extent should Norway provide aid, emergency aid and other financial support to other countries? How many refugees should we accept, and what must we do to ensure that they are integrated? Here there are major differences between the parties. The large flow of refugees in the autumn of 2015 and 2016 has shown that opinions in the political parties differ – from demands for a complete closure of the borders to granting everyone who seeks asylum a residence permit in Norway. Those who are most restrictive point out that it is too expensive to accept many refugees and provide a lot of aid, and that it is not sustainable for the Norwegian welfare state in the long term. Those who want to be most open point out that Norway is partly responsible for many of the conflicts that drive people to flee, such as the war in Afghanistan. They believe that we are morally obligated to both provide long-term assistance and to welcome those who flee. The religious–secular dimension can be difficult to see in everyday life. In Norwegian society, the place of religion has shrunk to become a private matter – Norway has become very secular. 50 years ago it was unthinkable that a sporting event would start before 12:00 on a Sunday, since many people were going to church services, and the services began at 11:00. Now it has become common to visit the church only for marking transitional phases in life – baptism, confirmation, wedding and funeral. The Christian Democratic Party was formed in 1933, at a time when secular forms of life outside the church were becoming more common. For the Christian Democratic Party, protection of religious practice, family and children's rights is more important than for many other parties. From the 1970s, increasing immigration meant that other religions became more common in Norway. Muslims are the largest group. For many Muslim immigrants from, for example, the Middle East, Somalia or Pakistan, religious practice means much more than for Norwegian-born people. This is evident, among other things, in the fact that mosques have gradually been established for the various branches of Islam.