Search
Since its adoption on June 5, 1849, Denmark’s first constitution has been revised several times. All constitutional amendments reflected steps in the development of Danish society, but they did not necessarily reflect the highest political ideals prevailing at the time of writing.
By Henning Grelle | 13.03.2009
Denmark’s first constitution has been revised several times since its adoption on June 5, 1849. The first time was in 1866 – a constitutional revision that was described as a step backwards for equal and universal suffrage. The second time in 1915 – a constitutional revision that was both a step forward and a step backwards. Women and servants were given the right to vote for the Reichstag, but its first chamber, the Landsting, became more difficult to dissolve. The third time in 1920, necessitated solely by the reunification of Southern Jutland with Denmark. The fourth time in 1953 – the country’s current constitution, which at the time was described as “a good social democratic constitution”. The county parliament was abolished, the Election Act was removed from the constitution and the referendum principle was introduced.
The constitutional amendments
All constitutional amendments reflected steps in the development of Danish society, but they did not necessarily reflect the highest political ideals that prevailed at the time of writing. All constitutional amendments contain both tradition and innovation, implemented after a difficult political process ending with the necessary political compromise. Politically, it has been extremely difficult to make changes to the constitutional principles. It almost required a ‘national compromise’ between the dominant political parties.
The procedure for a constitutional amendment was as follows: Agreement on a constitutional proposal between a majority of the parliamentary parties – election to the Reichstag – referendum, and if the proposal was adopted, a new parliamentary election. In the referendum, 45% of eligible voters had to vote yes to a constitutional amendment. An amendment to the constitution required both a large number of yes votes and a high turnout. An amendment to the 1953 constitution requires at least 40% of eligible voters to cast a yes vote.
The driving force behind the last two constitutional amendments has been the need to democratize political rights. Since the Electoral Act was removed from the Constitution in 1953, there has been less need for constitutional amendments regarding equal and universal suffrage. It has been reduced by referendum from 23 years to 18 years in the past period.
the “Spirit of ’48” – The background of the June Constitution
Denmark’s first constitution was created under the influence of the great and bloody bourgeois revolutions in Europe in February 1848. From the Paris Revolution in February, national and democratic uprisings spread across Europe and led to a change of political system. Only in Russia and Britain did the existing regimes survive.
The bourgeois-liberal wave also reached Denmark. Here, the days of royal absolutism were already numbered. Therefore, on March 21st, a deputation followed by a large crowd went to King Frederik the 7th with a so-called address demanding a change of system. The address ended with the admonishing words: “We appeal to Your Majesty not to drive the nation to the self-help of despair”. Faced with this threat of revolution, the king gave in and from one day to the next, the absolute monarchy that had been introduced in 1660 was over. Denmark was still a kingdom, but the king declared that he now considered himself a constitutional monarch.
A newly appointed national-liberal government was given the clear task of ensuring that the Kingdom and Schleswig had a democratic constitution based on equal and universal suffrage. But the region of Schleswig quickly set the kingdom on fire.
Schleswig and Holstein were also influenced by the idea of a democratic constitution and not least by the new unity of Germany. The Schleswig-Holstein movement not only worked for the unification of the two duchies, but also for a demand for Schleswig to join the German Confederation. This was nothing less than secession from Denmark and aroused strong opposition from the rest of the population and the government, who were willing to sacrifice Holstein, but under no circumstances Schleswig. Instead, the government wanted to strengthen Schleswig’s indissoluble connection with Denmark through a common free constitution. A few days after the fall of the absolute monarchy, a provisional government for the duchies was elected in Kiel and immediately afterwards the Kingdom of Denmark was plunged into a bloody civil war that lasted for three years.
Denmark thus received its first constitution on June 5, 1849 during a civil war. It did not affect the content of the constitution itself, but the background was bloody and tragic. The June Constitution was therefore adopted with reservations regarding the position of Schleswig. A peace settlement would create normal conditions, but the intention was that the constitution would apply to Schleswig.
The June Constitution of 1849
The constitution replaced the Royal Act of 1665. According to the constitution, power was divided into three parts. The executive power was held jointly by the King and the ministers. The legislative power was held by the Parliament and the judicial power by the courts. The division of power between the king and ministers was unclear. The king could appoint and dismiss ministers on his own initiative. The government did not need to have a majority behind it in the Riksdag. The government thus came to dominate the tripartite system. Ministers were often members of the Riksdag and therefore also legislators and appointed judges. The government could therefore influence both legislation and how legislation was interpreted.
The principle of the Constitution was equal and universal suffrage for a two-chamber parliament. A first chamber, the Landsting, and a second chamber, the Folketing. Everyone over the age of 30, with the exception of women and servants, could vote. The age of eligibility for the Landstinget was high, 40 years. The method of election was indirect and the king had the right to elect a small number of members of the parliament.
Even though only 15 percent of the population could actually vote, the constitution was a victory for democratic ideas. The royal autocracy was a closed chapter and the people’s government could begin a new one. If a large part of the population did not have the right to vote, they were granted a set of freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. The police could no longer make arbitrary arrests without bringing an arrestee before a judge within 24 hours (constitutional hearing).
Among the constitutional freedoms were so-called promise clauses that would later become law. The most important promise was that “all restrictions on free and equal access to occupation shall be abolished by law”. This declaration of intent resulted in the Freedom of Trade Act, which came into force in 1862. The Act took aim at the guild system, which, with its restrictions on the free movement of labor and its exclusive right of guild members to their trade, stood in the way of the nascent industrial development. The guild system meant economic and social security for the skilled journeymen, but without a guild, the individual journeyman stood alone before his master. The abolition of the guild system paved the way for socialist trade unions, but it also meant that journeymen could become less independent. A life as an industrial worker in the new factories and workshops that capital-intensive forces could now establish became commonplace for the majority of journeymen.
The Freedom of Trade Act really kick-started the capitalist development of Danish society.
Between chaos and wars
The first decades of democracy were chaotic. Relations with the duchies remained more or less unresolved due to the intervention of the great powers in the conflict. A commitment from Denmark to resolve the conflict resulted in 1855 in a common constitution for the common affairs of the Danish monarchy (the Common Constitution), which led to a restriction in the June Constitution, which would now only apply to the special affairs. Common matters for the entire kingdom and the duchies were to be handled by a Kingdom Council consisting of members from all parts of the kingdom. The members were to be elected solely from among people with either an annual income of 1200 rigsdaler or an annual tax of 200 rigsdaler. This meant that only around 6,000 landowners and businessmen from the upper middle classes had the right to vote.
However, the Common Constitution was a failure from the start. Schleswig and Holstein refused to approve it and in 1858 it was declared invalid by the German Bundestag for Holstein. The Danish government responded with the well-known Eider policy, which involved the separation of Holstein, but linked Schleswig to Denmark. The Constitution of November 18, 1863 (the November Constitution) therefore covered the common affairs of Denmark and Schleswig. It was in violation of the Great Power agreements and the result was a new war where Denmark faced not only a rebel army from the duchies, but also the Emperor of Austria and the King of Prussia. Denmark lost that war. Schleswig, Holstein and Lauenborg were ceded and the border moved to Kongeåen.
The Constitution of 1866
The constitutional problems had been simplified geographically. Now they became more complicated politically.
As early as 1850, the “spirit of ’48” had been curbed. The democratic ideals and the joy of freedom that the liberal bourgeoisie embraced and the landowners accepted were replaced by a more conservative wave. The rich, the educated and the wise may have opposed absolute monarchy, but now resistance was spreading against the cloaked, peasant power that threatened to gain power over the intellectual and economically powerful upper class.
This fear of a popular majority in the Reichstag had not diminished with the defeat in the war of 1864. The November Constitution had to lapse as Schleswig was lost. This required the Left’s groups. The Right, which had a massive majority in the powerful Reichstag, was not about to give up its privileged power. The National Liberals supported the Right’s landowners out of fear of the peasant majority. Faced with this massive conservative movement, the Liberal Party groups chose a compromise partly to get a new revised constitution and partly to save the equal and universal suffrage to the Danish Parliament. The revised constitution of 28 July 1866 was therefore built on different principles than the June Constitution.
The new constitution was a defeat for democratic principles. The constitution introduced privileged suffrage for the Land Parliament, which gave the landowners power, as taxes were mainly based on land. This placed the Landstinget in stark contrast to the democratically elected Folketing: of the 66 members of the Landsting, 12 were to be appointed by the king (the government), 27 elected by the largest taxpayers (the landowners) and 27 elected by universal suffrage. In addition, there were complicated rules according to which elections had to be held by two groups of voters. One group included all parliamentary voters, while the other only included the privileged. The latter group could thus vote twice.
From now on, the county parliament became a conservative element in the constitution, whose purpose was clearly to prevent the parliament from passing laws that went against the interests of landowners and the bourgeoisie. The thoroughness and thoughtfulness in lawmaking originally intended for the Parliament was now replaced by a Parliament that would act as a brake on the democratization of society. This was the beginning of a long-lasting conflict between the more popular Folketing and a conservative-dominated Landsting.
Workers and the Constitution
Even though few workers had the right to vote, the constitution was both a foundation and a starting point for the labor movement in 1871. However, when people spoke positively about the constitution, it was not the 1866 constitution, but the first constitution that came to mind. The government and its police cracked down on the young labor movement, which was met with imprisonment of leaders, bans on assemblies and associations, and a ban on the red flag. The police ban on the large public meeting at Nørre Fælled in Copenhagen on May 5, 1872 and the subsequent imprisonment of the leaders of the International Association showed that the authorities also interpreted freedom of association and assembly in a different spirit than the original constitution.
The Supreme Court’s conviction of the socialist leaders in 1873 highlighted that the courts acted as an extension of the government. The leaders were not sentenced to severe punishments for committing a crime, but rather for preparing to commit one. Political activity was not forbidden, but it was punishable when it addressed the working class with socialist messages. The ban on the Association Internationale that came with the Supreme Court ruling stimulated the creation of trade unions.
Despite bitterness over the imprisonment of its leaders, the board of the Internationale still wanted to hold its own constitutional celebration on June 5, 1872 at the Silesian Stone, near the Erimitage Castle. However, here too, the workers were met with a new ban, namely a ban on unfurling the International’s red banner at the rostrum. This ban was upheld the following year at the International’s constitutional celebration at the same location. The ban was justified by the police authority on the grounds that the flag, according to its history, “has a significance that threatens the constitutional and social conditions of the Kingdom as established by law”. The ban on the red flag was later relaxed, but it wasn’t until 1901 that workers could freely demonstrate in the streets with red flags.
Despite the ban and persecution, the labor movement continued to hold constitutional celebrations, which it has done ever since. It did so to celebrate the democratic freedoms of the first constitution, and it did so to highlight that the government and its police were violating the spirit and letter of the original constitution. Last but not least, it was done to demand a further democratization of the June Constitution.
The constitutional struggle
In 1872, the United Left won a majority in the Danish Parliament, but the Right, which had a majority in the Parliament, prevented the Left from forming a government. The Right could thus claim that the Liberals’ majority in the Danish Parliament was outweighed by the Right’s majority in the Landsting.
For the next thirty years, political life was dominated by a constitutional struggle between the landowner-dominated Right and the Left. The constitution had not resolved the question of how a government’s position should be in relation to a majority in the two houses of parliament. The Right used the constitution’s provision that the government and ministers were the King’s and that the King had the right to appoint his ministers independently of the existing majority in the two houses. Governments could thus remain in office as long as they wished regardless of election results and the strength of the opposition.
In 1875, the king appointed J.B.S. Estrup as prime minister. He led a series of parliamentary governments until 1894. The constitutional struggle culminated in the mid-1880s when Estrup’s government developed into a dictatorship. The Left’s opposition to the government consisted of refusing to pass the Finance Act, but the government responded by sending Parliament home and issuing provisional finance laws.
In 1884/85, the conflict between government and opposition intensified further when the government issued a provisional finance act with a costly fortress construction project around Copenhagen. The Liberal Party was strongly opposed, but widespread protest movements were cracked down with arbitrary imprisonment of opposition leaders and severe restrictions on freedom of speech and the press. A mounted gendarmerie corps kept a tight control on citizens.
In 1894, a settlement was reached between the Right and parts of the Left. The Left now had influence over financial laws, but not the power to govern. This was not achieved until the change of system in 1901. The Right only had 8 out of the 114 seats in the Danish Parliament and in this situation, the King had to appoint a Left ministry.
At the change of system, parliamentarism was recognized by the parties. A government could not remain in power with a majority against it in the Folketing. Parliamentarism as a principle was first enshrined in the Constitution of 1953.
The Social Democratic Party, which was first represented in the Danish Parliament in 1884, supported the Liberal Party in the fight against the Right. This was done through electoral alliances whose purpose was to prevent the Right’s candidates from being elected. After the settlement in 1894, the tone between the Social Democratic Party and parts of the Liberal Party intensified. Many left-wingers wanted to join forces with the Right to take the wind out of the sails of Social Democratic progress. In 1901, the Social Democrats only had 14 seats, but there was no doubt who would now be the future opposition to the Liberal Party.
The road to the 1915 constitution
In the Gimle program adopted in 1876, the Social Democrats had already demanded the right to vote for women and servants from the age of 21. With the strong growth of the labour movement after the turn of the century, it became clear that the now outdated 1866 constitution needed to be democratized. The Social Democratic Party, together with the Radical Left, founded in 1905, became the united force in the attempt to get a new constitution, which also included a change in the electoral system from majority voting in single districts to proportional representation with additional mandates.
In 1908, women and servants were granted municipal suffrage. At the same time, the Radical Party and the Social Democrats proposed that women and servants from the age of 21 should have the right to vote for the Danish Parliament. The Liberal government was not directly opposed to the proposal and agreed to a constitutional amendment as long as it was not too far-reaching.
In 1912, the Liberal government led by Klaus Berntsen came up with an interesting proposal. Women and servants would have the right to vote from the age of 25 and the privileged right to vote for the Parliament would be abolished. To get the Conservatives on board, the government promised to look into the introduction of proportional representation.
The Social Democrats, the Radicals and the Right wanted proportional representation because the existing electoral system favored the Liberals in the many small rural districts. In the large urban districts, a parliamentary seat cost a far greater number of votes than in the countryside. This had a negative effect on the Social Democrats’ number of seats, but a positive effect on the Liberal Party, which gained more seats for fewer votes. As a result, there was strong opposition in the Liberal Party to changing the system. However, Klaus Berntsen was prepared to introduce proportional representation, but he did the math without a host, as the Liberal Party’s actual leader I.C. Christensen was both against the content of the constitutional proposal and against proportional representation. The election weakened the Liberal Party and the Social Democrats and the Radicals gained a majority in the Danish Parliament. The Social Democrats also became the largest party and received the most votes, but the Liberal Party continued to win more seats on fewer votes. Klaus Berntsen’s government could have continued as a minority government. The Social Democrats and the Radical Party wanted this in order to get the constitutional bill passed. But I.C. Christensen was against it. He did not want the constitutional proposal to be implemented as it was, but demanded new conservative guarantees in favor of the Liberal Party. He also thwarted a “constitutional ministry” consisting of the Liberals, Social Democrats and the Radicals.
The Social Democrats, led by Stauning and Borgbjerg, were willing to accept such a solution, even though it was associated with major problems for the Social Democratic labor movement. A government consisting of the Radicals and the Social Democrats was not the solution either. Even if such a government had a majority in the Danish Parliament, a constitutional proposal would hardly stand a chance with the Left and Right in opposition. The result was a radical minority government that had to try to squeeze concessions out of the other parties on the constitutional issue.
Klaus Berntsen’s constitutional proposal was not ideal for the Social Democrats, but the following period showed that they were willing to go to great lengths to ensure that women and servants had the right to vote.
The Constitution of 1915
The outbreak of World War I in 1914 slowed things down and the Liberal Party became increasingly reluctant to go far. The radical government had to turn to the Right (from 1915 the Conservative People’s Party) to reach a compromise. The Conservatives were very interested in introducing proportional representation, as this party also suffered from majority voting in single constituencies. On this and other issues, the Radical government was able to agree with the Conservatives. I.C. Christensen was unable to resist the Conservatives’ wishes in the long run, but he still had a major influence on the final constitutional proposal. On June 5, 1915, a new constitution was signed, but due to the war, it did not come into force until April 1918.
Women and servants were given the right to vote for the Reichstag. This was the main issue for the Social Democrats and the Radicals. The voting age was set at 25 years. The Social Democrats had wanted 21 years.
The County Parliament was neither abolished nor reformed. The Liberals, led by I.C. Christensen, and the Conservatives stubbornly insisted that the Parliament should be a conservative element that could work independently of public opinion and, in particular, prevent the Social Democrats from dominating society.
The royally elected members and the privileged right to vote for the Parliament were abolished, but a high voting age of 35 years was retained along with an indirect election method conducted by so-called electors. The Landsting had 72 members, 18 of whom were elected by the outgoing Landsting. The other members were elected every 8 years. This meant that the Social Democrats and Radicals had to expect that it would be a number of years before the two parties together could achieve a majority in the Parliament.
Strict rules were also set for future constitutional amendments. Parliament had to pass an amendment twice, and the intervening referendum had to muster at least 45% yes votes from the electorate. This conservative clause was the work of the Liberal Party’s I.C. Christensen.
from the outset, the 1915 Constitution contained the seeds of a continuing conflict between the Folketing and Landsting. The ink was hardly dry on the new constitution before the Social Democrats and the Radicals had to work for a revision that would include a new showdown over the role of the Landsting.
The constitutional amendment of 1920
The events surrounding the constitutional amendment in 1920 were far more dramatic than the constitutional amendment itself. The reunification of Southern Jutland with Denmark necessitated a constitutional amendment, but the Social Democrats wanted improvements to be made to the 1915 constitution at the same time. In late 1919, the Radical government presented a new constitutional proposal that met a number of Social Democratic demands. The proposal included a 21-year right to vote for the Danish Parliament and a 25-year right to vote for the County Parliament. In addition, the Electoral Act of 1915, which still favored the Liberal Party, was to be amended so that proportional representation was definitively introduced throughout the country.
The Liberal Party and the Conservatives were against the proposal and succeeded in stopping the constitutional proposal in the Parliament on March 24, 1920. However, the Conservatives later agreed to the proposed amendment to the Electoral Act. Shortly before this, the referendums in Southern Jutland had caused unrest.
After Germany’s defeat in the First World War, the so-called Treaty of Versailles stipulated that the border between Denmark and Germany would be determined by a referendum. North Schleswig was to be divided into two zones, where the population would decide whether they wanted to be Danish or German. In zone 1 (present-day Southern Jutland), a majority voted to belong to Denmark. But in zone 2, including Flensburg, there was a majority in favor of belonging to Germany. Nevertheless, nationalist bourgeois circles demanded the border be moved further south than the vote supported. Flensburg was to become a Danish city and to that end, the “treasonous” radical government was to be overthrown.
The mood against the radical government supported by the Social Democrats was whipped up to such an extent that King Christian X believed that the government had lost its majority. It was quickly confirmed that the government retained its majority, but nevertheless, on March 29, the King deposed the radical government and shortly afterwards appointed a caretaker ministry.
“The king commits coup d’état” proclaimed a huge headline in the newspaper Social-Demokraten on 29 March. The king’s motives were unclear. He had consulted circles in the court and among legal experts, but also held talks with Liberal Party leaders I.C. Christensen and Neergaard. Neergaard was also expected to form a government, but he wisely declined. Regardless of whether several circles in the business world and in the Liberal Party and the Conservative People’s Party wanted a new government, the king’s action was contrary to the parliamentary principles agreed upon in 1901.
It was the Social Democratic labor movement that gave the king an ultimatum. They did so by declaring a general strike from April 6. The open class struggle was at the door and for the first time there were demonstrations on Amalienborg Palace Square. Before the general strike took effect, the king resigned, but the radical government was not reinstated. Instead, elections were called and the new election law was implemented.
The king’s action created deep distrust of the monarchy in the Social Democratic Party. During the crisis, the Social Democratic Party demanded a republic with a Council of State removed from the Reichstag and with proportional representation of the parties. In June 1920, the Social Democrats therefore proposed a new constitution with a unicameral system, 21-year suffrage, referendum and a reform of the relationship between state and church. Last but not least, Denmark was to become a republic.
This proposal failed to garner a majority and the Social Democrats received only minor concessions from the new Liberal government. The voting age of 25 was to be implemented immediately and not over a number of years as envisaged in the 1915 Constitution. In addition, the method of election was to be proportional representation with additional mandates, leaving only the referendum on the constitutional amendment that incorporated Southern Jutland into Denmark. It took place in September 1920 and was passed with 47.5% of all voters. It was only 2.5% away from rejection and could have ended in scandal if the Danes hadn’t bothered to vote Southern Jutland back to Denmark.
Stauning’s constitutional proposal 1939
A new, more democratic constitution now had a long way to go. Attempts to put forward proposals would simply be shot down by the bourgeois-dominated Landsting and be reduced to parade proposals. The Social Democrats therefore launched a veritable campaign against the Landsting and the “Landsting dictatorship” in the many subsequent Landsting elections. The first Social Democratic government of 1924-26 also experienced how difficult it was to translate key issues into legislation. The Social Democratic-radical government that took office in 1929 therefore made the abolition of the Landsting part of the government platform.
In September 1936, the Social Democrats and the Radicals won the majority in the Landsting. The possibility of a constitutional amendment in a more democratic direction had moved closer. However, several forces in the Social Democratic Party urged caution. The conquest of the majority almost made the parliament redundant for the government and therefore there was no rush to abolish it. There could also be a future where a conservative government came to power, and in such a situation, the Parliament could be in favor of the Social Democrats.
Speculation in that direction was something Prime Minister Th. Stauning did not want to hear about it. Even though the County Parliament was redundant, the Social Democrats and the government were bound by long-standing demands for its abolition. In November 1936, a constitutional commission was set up and work began in the spring of 1937. The Liberal Party was against a constitutional commission and was far from willing to make a deal with the government. The Liberal Party had been part of the Chancellor Street Agreement in 1933, but the party had not made any progress and in the 1935 election the party had been weakened. The Liberal Party also had enough problems in the countryside, where the Farmers’ Association threatened the party’s position of power.
The situation was different with the Conservatives, led by Christmas Møller. The party moved towards the center of Danish politics and approached the Liberal Party in size. Instead of being on the outside, the party’s chance was to gain influence through agreements with the government. The constitutional work could be used here, even if the conservative ideas did not immediately win the government’s enthusiasm.
The government’s proposal in the Constitutional Commission was the abolition of the Parliament and a voting age of 21 years. However, the government was willing to make some kind of compromise and later proposed that the Parliament could be replaced by a legislative council, which would review all bills with the exception of the Finance Act. At the same time, the government wanted future constitutional changes to be implemented through a referendum with a simple majority of votes.
During 1938, it turned out that the government could not achieve a majority for its proposal. The question of whether the whole project should be dropped was raised, but Stauning surprisingly suggested that they should take their own proposal off the table and instead use the Conservative People’s Party’s proposal as a starting point. And so it was.
Unlike the government’s simple proposal to abolish the Landsting and lower the voting age, it was a more complicated proposal that was adopted twice in the Riksdag and subsequently sent to a referendum in 1939.
The Riksdag was to have a total of 205 members, all of whom were to be elected in one vote. The 170 would be elected by proportional representation and the other 35 on so-called national lists drawn up by the parties. The Riksdag was to have three chambers: a Rigsting, a Folketing and a unified Riksdag. The unified Riksdag would consider the Finance Act and could mediate in the event of disagreements between the Riksdag and the Folketing. The voting age was set at 23 years. The county parliament was removed in the proposal, but it was somewhat confusing and uncertain how a Riksdag with three bodies would work.
Perhaps this was also what voters felt on voting day, May 23, 1939. In order to reach 45% yes votes, 978,000 had to vote for the proposal. However, the result was only 966,00 or 44.5%. 12,000 yes votes were missing. Only 86,000 voted no to the proposal. Too many voters stayed at home. The Liberal Party recommended voters to stay on the couch on voting day. Conservative leader Christmas Møller made his position clear by announcing that he would resign if the proposal fell. He was not equally popular in all conservative circles, where many still believed that the Parliament was worth preserving. Many conservatives had therefore followed the Liberal Party’s call to stay at home, as it could defeat both the constitutional proposal and the conservative leader. Christmas Møller drew the consequences of his decision and resigned.
However, the crucial lesson of the rejected constitutional proposal was first and foremost that the proposal did not have the necessary political breadth that was so necessary to reach over 45%. All leading parties had to reach a compromise. Only the extreme wings could be ignored.
Thorvald Stauning was deeply disappointed with the result. He had held hundreds of meetings and tried to convince the voters to vote yes in a letter distributed to households. His first reaction was that the government should resign. His ministers convinced him that this was not a referendum on the parliamentary position and that a new government could not be formed by a different parliamentary majority. The Liberal Party, on the other hand, demanded a general election, to which Stauning replied that it was “in and of itself an appealing idea, but not a necessary consequence of the victory of indifference”.
The creation of the current constitution.
After the liberation in May 1945, the debate about a revision of the 1915 Constitution was revived. This was primarily due to a desire to lower the voting age, which at 25 was one of the highest in the world. Many Danes under the age of 25 had risked their lives during the occupation, and the cross-political youth organization, Dansk Ungdoms Samvirke, had a justified demand for a reduction in the voting age. The mood in the population during the liberation summer was undoubtedly positive. The left-wing government of Knud Kristensen picked up the thread by proposing the establishment of a new constitutional commission, which happened in February 1946. This was the first phase on the road to a new constitution.
The first phase from 1946 to 1949 was not very fruitful. It soon became clear that Knud Kristensen’s government was not in favor of lowering the voting age. The work of the Constitutional Commission was therefore extremely slow. The Social Democrats immediately supported their original proposal for the abolition of the Landsting and the right to vote from the age of 21. However, the party’s leader Hans Hedtoft was strongly influenced by the defeat in 1939.
The Social Democrats were in no hurry. If the constitution was to be changed, a compromise would have to be found between the four major parties and that would be difficult. A constitutional revision may have been urgently needed, but so was a solution to the many economic and social problems of the post-war period. The Social Democratic Party could not regain its former strength after its election defeat in 1945 on a constitutional issue, but rather on a rebuilding of the country. “A constitutional revision did not appeal to Hans Hedtoft’s imagination,” Jens Otto Krag later wrote. But it was primarily the 45% of the votes clause that Hedtoft had in mind when he prioritized other issues over a constitutional revision.
Nevertheless, the Hedtoft government promised in its opening speech in November 1947 to speed up the work of the Constitutional Commission. Together with the Social Democrats’ two representatives, Julius Bomholt and Holger Eriksen, Hedtoft did a great deal of work, but the bourgeois parties found it difficult to find common ground.
It wasn’t until 1949 that progress was made in the negotiations. In the spring, the Hedtoft government managed to reach a compromise on the voting age, which was set at 23 years. This caused some criticism internally in the Social Democratic Party, which wanted 21 years, but it set in motion the Constitutional Commission, which set up a number of subcommittees. Just when many hoped that the work could now be taken into a more decisive phase, the work was stopped again, partly because the Liberal Party still wanted a Landsting.
When the right-wing government with the left-wing leader Erik Eriksen as Prime Minister took office in October 1950, it was therefore not surprising that a revision of the constitution was not mentioned. However, things soon changed. Erik Eriksen became more positive towards a constitutional amendment when the government was stuck during the summer of 1951 and needed a major issue to keep it in power.
In July 1951, Erik Eriksen had the Constitutional Commission reconstructed and the negotiations now entered a phase that would probably end with a result, but not too quickly. The Social Democrats were skeptical and therefore chose to go back to the old position: the abolition of the parliament and the right to vote from the age of 21.
During the fall, the government announced that it was willing to move to a unicameral system with a voting age of 23. The Social Democrats hesitated, but in December 1951 they chose to reach an agreement. The parliament was to be abolished and the referendum on the new constitution would decide whether the voting age should be 23 or 21 and whether the voting percentage for future changes should be 45 or 40.
A very important element of the constitutional proposal was put in place in January 1953 on the initiative of Holger Eriksen. He reached agreement first with the Conservatives and later with the Liberals that the electoral law should be removed from the constitution, so that in future the voting age could be changed by a referendum without changing the constitution. This innovation is probably one of the most important reasons why the Constitution of 1953 still exists.
In other areas, but not all, the Social Democrats in the subcommittees succeeded in leaving their strong mark on the draft constitution. Access to a referendum, ensuring parliamentarism, the right to work and the right of all children to free education in primary school were among the Social Democratic key issues. The introduction of an ombudsman institution was a radical key issue.
Social Democratic key issues that were rejected included gender equality in terms of succession to the throne and a wish that the ‘no’ percentage for rejection of bills by referendum be set at 40%. The result was 30% of eligible voters. The Social Democrats were not opposed to referendums but feared that major and far-reaching reforms could too easily be rejected by a minority.
In the referendum on a new constitution on May 28, 1953, 1,183,292 voted yes to the proposal, while 319,135 voted no. The turnout was only 59.1%, which was just enough to pass the proposal by a narrow margin. 45.76% of the votes were in favor, even though all dominant parties had reached a compromise this time. No wonder the politicians had to wipe the sweat off their brow in the hours until the result was announced. The conservatives triumphed, but not least the Social Democrats could rejoice in the result. The county parliament was abolished – that was the most important thing. The voting age was 23, but it could be lowered in the future without years of wrangling to change the constitution.
