Socialdemokraternes udenrigsordfører har begået en artikel i den kenyanske avis “Daily Nation” om Danmarks demokratiske system, og hvad Kenya og andre lande kan lære af Danmark.
Artiklen er del af en større serie om en revision af Kenyas grundlov, og hvorfra Kenya kan hente inspiration hertil. Kofod slår bl.a. på vort forholdstalsvalgsystem, der sikrer retfærdig fordeling af stemmerne
Denmark, where media audits the entire system
As debate on constitutional change in Kenya builds up yet again, the Association of European Parliamentarians for Africa and the Nation discuss different parliamentary systems in Europe, and weigh proportional representation against the “first past the winning post”. In this series, parliamentarians from Sweden, Ireland, Germany, Denmark and Austria give their views.
By Jeppe Kofod, MP
Compared with Kenya, Denmark is a small North European country with a population of a little over five million.
However, despite its size, it has historically been a powerful European influence – a seafaring nation ruling, in times past, over England, most of Scandinavia, large parts of Germany and the Baltic coastline.
Its rule extended to the Faroe Islands and Greenland, as indivisible parts of Denmark, and became self-governing entities within the nation in the 20th Century.
Like Kenya, Denmark has a unicameral – or one-chamber of parliament – system since the Constitutional Act of 1953 was passed. But unlike Kenya, there has been a strong commitment to a proportional representation system.
Royal absolutism
Danish democracy was founded on beliefs that were developed in Europe during the 18th century as a reaction against royal absolutism, which infringed the freedom of citizens. Power should not be imposed on the people from above. It must be driven by the people themselves.
The overriding principle of universal suffrage as the main foundation of democracy was laid down through the Danish Constitutional Act of 1849 – with principles from that time still enshrined in the 1953 Act.
Today, Denmark is a constitutional monarchy, which guarantees freedom of speech and assembly, private property, equal employment opportunities and the right to benefit from social services.
Denmarks citizens, in their turn, acknowledge the principle that the majority in parliament must make decisions and that there is a duty for citizens to observe the laws of the land, pay taxes – and do military service, if necessary.
Denmarks constitution is also underpinned by the Parliamentary Election Act. Proportional representation, in Denmarks case, guarantees that representatives from all parts of the country obtain seats in parliament.
For example, the minimum percentage of votes necessary for a party to be represented in parliament – the Folketing – is only two per cent, offering more opportunities to be elected to parliament than in many other countries.
Thus there are eight political parties in parliament representing many different points of view – and the usual process is to form, from these, minority government coalitions.
The organisation of the electoral system in this way provides for political parties obtaining a number of seats in parliament according to the number of votes they receive nationally – as long as they pass the two per cent threshold. The system therefore ensures that no votes are wasted.
Indeed, such is the commitment of Danes to this proportional representation system that “first past the winning post” would be seen as undemocratic – simply because of the large numbers of wasted votes.
Finally, the remuneration, which the popularly elected receive, makes it financially possible for anyone to run for election, irrespective of income.
Private wealth is not a factor. Kenyans might note, too, that political parties receive public financial support, based on the number of votes they receive in an election. The risk of political corruption is therefore substantially reduced.
In order to ensure a stable democracy and prevent misuse of power, supreme power in Denmark – as in most Western democracies – is divided into three independent branches which scrutinise each other: the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary.
Legislative and executive powers are balanced against each other in the sense that a majority among the 179 members of the Folketing, the sole organ empowered to legislate, can overthrow a cabinet or a minister by introducing a vote of no confidence.
However, the Prime Minister can dissolve the Folketing at any time in the hope of obtaining a more stable majority after a general election.
Ministers have extensive competencies, but are still under the control of the Folketing and its standing committees. In special cases, ministers can be impeached if they fail to tell the truth or deliberately hide information from parliament.
Of special interest to Kenyans might be the use of the Ombudsman, who is appointed directly by the Danish parliament. Over the last 50 years, the Ombudsman has represented the interests and legal rights of the ordinary citizen in disputes with the public administration.
Members of the public can call on the Ombudsman for a wide variety of reasons -from disputes over tax or for social and humanitarian issues. But the Ombudsman’s role is not limited to investigating individual cases.
The Ombudsman can give opinions and establish guidelines, which the public administration must follow. Or it can initiate investigations within the public administration and notify the Folketing of deficiencies in existing laws, which need to be rectified.
As a defender of the rights of the individual, the institution of Ombudsman has a respected role in Danish society.
One of the main characteristics of Danish democracy is that it is open and transparent to the general public. All citizens have the right of access to documents and information in the public administration. This is seen as important as a means of controlling the government.
Apart from the Ombudsman, citizens can take their complaints to the courts of justice, or the European Union courts, if necessary.
The entire political system, from top to bottom, is subject to control and criticism by voters through an independent and watchful news media.
The culture of participation is also seen as a vital part of Danish democracy – and while, in recent years, there has been a falling off in members of party organisations, seen by some people as a danger to democracy, the last elections saw a turnout of 85 per cent.
Indeed, there seems to be no indication of a declining interest in politics. Democracy has deep and strong roots in Denmark – but it should never be taken for granted.
In Denmark, we are fully aware that to maintain a true democratic country and culture, we must defend our democracy every day – and continuously review it in the light of an ever-changing world.
Kenyans, I am sure, hold similar views.
Jeppe Kofod, Danish Member of Parliament, is Foreign Policy Spokesperson for the Social Democrats and Vice-Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. He is a Vice-President of AWEPA.
Artiklen er stillet til rådighed for u-landsnyt af Jeppe Kofods kontor
