The Norwegian Method
On alliance policies and experiences in the fight against neo-liberalism

Asbjørn Wahl

In spite of the neo-liberal offensive which still ravages our countries, the movements and the left in Norway have experienced some successes over the last years. New and untraditional alliances have been built. New working methods have been developed. Some important victories have been achieved. We have even been able to push the social democratic party to the left in some important areas.

In 2005 we got rid of our most neo-liberal, right wing government ever, and replace it with a centre-left government, involving the Labour Party, the Centre Party[1] and the Socialist Left Party. The political platform of this coalition government is probably the most progressive in Europe today[2].

Under the current unfavourable balance of power in society, this represents important achievements, and colleagues from other countries have expressed great interest in the Norwegian experiences on these areas. It can therefore be useful to take a closer look at what has taken place, what has been achieved, and what we can learn from the concrete experiences – be they good or bad.

The political context
When new tendencies started to develop on the political left during the 1990s, also in Norway the political situation was characterised by the ongoing neo-liberal offensive. Privatisation and competitive tendering were high on the agenda. Public services were under attack. The trade union movement was on the defensive. Deregulation and widespread attacks on trade union and labour rights were met by retreats, among other things by bargaining concessions and by giving up positions at the negotiating table. A relatively de-politicised, de-radicalised and bureaucratised labour movement was taken by surprise by the neo-liberal offensive, and the ideology of the social pact was not able to explain the new confrontational policies from the capitalist forces. The result was great ideological confusion and backlashes.

The “reality oriented” social democratic leadership followed the dominant political trends and adopted many of the neo-liberal ideas. In Norway, the peak was reached when a Labour government in 2000-1 carried through some of the most extensive market reforms in modern time, when the state telecom (Telenor) as well as the state oil company (Statoil) were partly privatised – and the entire hospital sector was restructured into a new market oriented model. At the same time the Party gave way to competitive tendering of public services at municipal level.

Re-orientation of the trade union movement
In this situation some people in the trade union movement started to reassess their policies. The Norwegian Union of Municipal and General Employees and its President, Jan Davidsen, have played a decisive role in this development – in addition to a number of local trade union councils and branches. They acknowledged that the trade union movement was facing a new, and defensive, situation, and discussions started around new ways to meet and to stem the neo-liberal offensive.

More or less clearly expressed, new goals were identified, which can be summarised in the following points:

·        To stop the policy of privatisation.

·        To change public opinion.

·        To shift the political hegemony to the left.

·        To push the social democratic party to the left.

·        To create a centre-left majority alliance in Parliament.

·        To change power relations in society.

In other words, it was no longer only a question of a narrowly focused trade union struggle, but a more comprehensive project of changing society. Not least the move to the right of the social democratic party made it necessary for the trade union movement to take on a broader political responsibility. The situation required renewal – organisationally as well as politically.

Different currents and initiatives on the left in the Norwegian trade union movement, as well as in allied movements, have in many ways followed this path, and, assessed retrospectively, we can identify four main pillars which have contributed to the positive results:

1.      Focus on our own analyses – our comprehension of current developments.

2.      The building of new, broad and untraditional alliances.

3.      The development of concrete alternatives to privatisation and marketisation.

4.      The development of trade unions as independent political actors.

In the following, I will describe each of these four pillars and examine what has been achieved as a result of this reorientation of parts (still a minority) of the trade union movement – as well as among allied forces and movements.

Our own analyses
A thorough analysis of current economic and social relations is important, since it is decisive for the development of strategies and alternatives. Therefore we have developed analytical documents, organised widespread general education projects to spread knowledge of what the global, neo-liberal offensive really is about. The question of social power has been focused, and it has been stressed that behind the apparently neutral notion of globalisation, an enormous interest-based struggle is going on. In the current situation this struggle, through deregulation, privatisation and market orientation, is undermining democracy and leading to an enormous shift in the balance of power in society.

Of course, there have also been internal political and ideological struggles on this – inside the trade union movement as well as on the political left. The neo-liberal account of globalisation as a necessary and unchangeable process, most strongly expressed through Madam Thatcher’s “there is no alternative” (TINA), gained a foothold also in great parts of the trade union movement as well as in traditional political parties of the left. Globalisation has come to stay became an often expressed statement, and the trade union movement would have to accept this fact and adapt to it. Increased competitiveness thus became the most important way to secure jobs. Policies of privatisation in the same way were interpreted as a necessary modernisation of an old-fashioned and bureaucratised public sector.

This apprehension was rejected by the municipal workers’ union and many of the other alliances and initiatives which developed. Through the production of small booklets, the organisation of our own conferences, participation at countless meetings and arrangements in other organisations, as well as in the general public debate, we in the Campaign for the Welfare State alliance (see below) painted another picture, focusing on the question of social power, resistance and alternatives.

Broad social alliances
The comprehensive change of power relations in society also led to the realisation that it was necessary to build new, broad and strong alliances – inside the trade union movement as well as between trade unions and other organisations and movements. The Campaign for the Welfare State[3] was one of the results of this reorientation, when six national trade unions in the public sector, inside and outside the dominant Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions, in 1999 joined forces to fight the on-going attacks on public services[4]. The Norwegian Union of Municipal and General Employees was the initiator, and the six unions were later on followed by another nine – most of them from the private sector – as well as a farmers’ union, a national association of retired persons, women, student and user organisations. At its height this alliance united 29 national organisations which together represented more than one million members (and that is not bad in a country with about 4.5 million inhabitants).

Alliances were built in other areas as well. As the financial situation of the municipalities became more and more constrained as an effect of a comprehensive redistribution of wealth from the public to the private sector during the 1990s[5], widespread discontent developed among local politicians. Petitions from an increasing number of mayors and protest meetings were repeatedly organised against the annual state budgets. In the Campaign for the Welfare State we considered the situation to be ripe for a more extensive organisation of the opposition. In 2002 we, together with a number of mayors and local popular movements[6], therefore took the initiative to organise the Popular Movement for Public Services. A co-ordinating committee was set up, including representatives from all the groups involved. Within one year 90 of the about 430 municipalities in Norway had joined the action. This was the first time that municipalities had organised in an action outside the formal structures (The Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities is their professional body), and it contributed strongly to increasing the pressure on the national government and parliament.

Before the fifth Ministerial of the World Trade Organisation in Hong Kong in December 2005, a new initiative was taken by the Campaign for the Welfare State to establish a broad alliance of organisations with more than 800,000 members, in support of a statement which demanded a break with neo-liberal trade policies. Trade unions and farmers’ organisations bore the brunt. This was later on followed up through the establishment of the Norwegian Trade Campaign network. Many of the same driving forces were some few years earlier involved in the setting up of Norway Social Forum – as the Norwegian part of the new global justice and solidarity movement against neo-liberalism and war. Through these alliances processes were developed which further radicalised participants.

The initiative to create a parliamentary alliance between the Labour Party, the Centre Party and the Socialist Left Party was also taken in these surroundings. Until as late as one year before the parliamentary elections in 2005, the Labour leadership rejected the entire possibility of forming a coalition government together with the Socialist Left Party. It was the trade union movement which pushed this through, not least because, as time went by, also the national confederation of trade unions threw its strength into the project. In 2001 a majority at the trade union congress decided to support financially not only the Labour Party, but also for the first time in history the Socialist Left Party – against the recommendation of the Executive Board. At the next congress, four years later, even the leadership had changed its political position on this question, and the leader of the Socialist Left Party was invited to speak to the congress. The municipal workers’ union started to hold contact meetings both with the Socialist Left Party and the Centre Party, in addition to the Labour Party. Together with increasing scores for the Socialist Left Party in opinion polls at that time, this created strong pressure on the Labour Party leadership.

In Oslo another alliance was created before the 2005 parliamentary elections – focusing on the need for a new political course[7]. A wide variety of organisations took part: the local trade union council, Attac Norway, the Campaign for the Welfare State, the Norwegian Council for Africa, the Committee for Solidarity with Latin-America, the youth organisation of Save the Children and another couple of local trade unions. Under the umbrella of Oslo2005 these organisations joined forces in demanding a break with the neo-liberal policies which had been pursued by all governments, irrespective of right or left, over the last 20-25 years. No particular political party was focused, but the necessity of a new political course.

Our alternatives
When the attacks on public services started in the 1980s, neo-liberal politicians exploited the discontent which already was prevalent with existing public services, linked to bureaucratisation, low quality or limited accessibility. For those of us who wanted to defend the many gains which were won through the welfare state, it was important to admit these weaknesses, to fight for improved services, but without giving way to the neo-liberal reforms.

This was solved by a principle stand against privatisation and competitive tendering, while at the same time we said yes to reorganisation and development of public services on our own premises – and within the public sector. In the political climate which existed at that time, this was not an easy position to carry forward. Market solutions were in, and competitive tendering had come to stay, we were told. As a trade union we should rather focus on securing wages and working conditions, as well as trade union rights, within the tendering system, we were advised, including from strong currents inside the trade union leadership and the Labour Party. We rejected this position. Our view was that it was deregulation and privatisation itself that posed the threat; which undermined working conditions. This clear principal stand led to the situation that our union as well as its president, over a long period of time, were systematically abused in editorials in dominant newspapers.

However, the union did not limit itself to this defensive struggle. It also took the initiative to a more offensive effort – through the so-called Model Municipality Project. The union entered into three-yearly agreements with a number of municipalities with sympathetic, political majorities. The aim was to mobilise the employees to further develop and improve the quality of the public services – under the following three preconditions: no privatisation, no competitive tendering or no dismissals should take place.

The project was based on a bottom-up process, where the experiences, the competence and the qualifications of the employees should form the basis, together with the experiences and needs of the users of the services. Two independent research institutions followed the first model municipality (Sørum) and concluded as follows: the project had led to higher user satisfaction, better working conditions for the employees and better financial situation for the municipality – a win-win-win situation[8]. More than anything else, this proved that the policy of privatisation not primarily was about improving public services, it was a political-ideological struggle to change society in the interest of market forces.

The new centre-left government, which won power in 2005, has now adopted the Model Municipality Project as government policy, by launching in the autumn of 2006 the so-called Quality Municipality Project. Indeed, it represents a modified version of the Model Municipality Project, but the aim is to increase the quality of local public services and strengthen local democracy – without privatisation and competitive tendering. This was an important victory for the fight against privatisation.

A more politically independent trade union movement
Finally we have the example of Trondheim, which inspired us greatly in the struggle against neo-liberalism in Norway. Before the local elections in 2003, the trade union council of Trondheim, together with its allied partners, broke with an old trade union tradition. Usually trade unions’ role during election campaigns have been to support political parties on the left (most often the Labour Party), and the political programmes on which they campaigned.

Before the 2003 elections the local trade union council turned into an important political actor itself. Through a comprehensive, democratic process, 19 concrete demands were developed on how Trondheim should be governed the coming four years. The demands were sent to all political parties – with the following message: we will support those parties which support our demands. This had a strong educational effect on a number of the political parties – not least the Labour Party, which hardly could stand to loose the support from the trade union movement.

The new initiative in Trondheim received positive answers from the Labour Party, the Socialist Left Party, The Red Electoral Alliance, The Greens, the Pensioners’ Party and a local list. The Centre Party supported about half of the demands, and it was kindly included as a supportive party. Subsequently, the trade union alliance urged its members and the voters to vote for one of these parties, at the same time as it continued to campaign for its own political platform (the 19 demands). The traditional financial support from the trade union council to the Labour Party was cancelled this year, since the resources rather were used for its own campaign.

Thus, a more politicised trade union movement was decisive in revealing the real political contradictions in society, as well as pushing the Labour Party and other, smaller parties, to the left. The Conservative Party, which had dominated this third biggest city in Norway the last 14 years, became the main looser in the election. The trade union initiated political alliance won a clear victory, with mot than 60% of the votes. The three parties linked to the labour movement, the Labour Party, the Socialist Left Party and the Red Electoral Alliance alone achieved a majority of the votes (51%). Those three, together with The Greens, and with solid representation from the trade union movement, worked together to develop a joint political platform for the new majority. They were later also joined by the Centre Party, on a platform which included most of the 19 demands from the trade union alliance.

The political platform of the new majority was not only about abolishing the policy of privatisation, but also about taking back into public sector services which had already been privatised. So far, the result of this has been that two nursing homes and half of the refuse collection services in Trondheim, which had been privatised through tendering under the previous, conservative majority, now have been taken back to the public sector. The same has happened with the maintenance of public buildings. Social benefits have been increased, the public transport fares have been reduced and an extensive maintenance and new construction programme of public schools has been introduced. Through an agreement with the municipal workers’ trade unions, Trondheim has moreover joined the growing number of model municipalities.

Before the parliamentary election in 2005, the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO is the Norwegian abbreviation) partly followed up this model. A comprehensive project, “You decide – LO on your side”, was developed in order to collect the demands and priorities of the members. 155,000 proposals from 44,000 members were received. 54 concrete demands were identified and sent to all political parties. Their answers were collected and sent to all 800,000 members at the same time as LO, through the long electoral campaign[9], mobilised for a new political course, including majority for a coalition government consisting of the three parties; The Labour Party, the Socialist Left Party and the Centre Party – which also won majority.

So what have we achieved?
Alliance building, new social movements and more politicised trade unions represent the new developments which have contributed most to the important changes on the left in Norway over the last few years, and which has given us some important political victories. We have been able to change public opinion, from a situation in which about half the population was in favour of privatisation in the middle of the 1990s, till almost 70% were against in opinion polls before the elections in 2005. This contributed strongly to moving also the Labour Party from a pro- to an anti-privatisation platform in the same period.

We have increasingly been able to expose the real contradictions in society and to sharpen the political/ideological debate – even to the degree that, when the Conservative Party were to proclaim its main opponent in the local elections in 2003, it pointed to the Norwegian Union of Municipal and General Employees, which obviously did not stand for election, but which the party anyway saw as the main barrier against its neo-liberal offensive, and correctly so. It was a brilliant situation for the trade union, of course, which by this even to a greater extend than before could define the premises for the political debate.

Both in the Trondheim example and in the parliamentary elections in 2005 we experienced stronger than usual political polarisation between the right and the left. These experiences have in practice confirmed that it is when the political alternatives stand clearly against each other, when the real contradictions in society are exposed, that the left can most successfully mobilise. The simplistic comprehension that if the voters move to the right, the left parties have to go to the right as well in order to catch the middle-voters, has once again proved wrong. Political movements are not linear – it is rather a question of conflicting interests, as well as political-ideological confusion or clarity.

Over the last few years, by means of our alliances, our politisation of trade unions and our alternatives, we have been able to slow down, and partly stop, the policy of privatisation and to get rid of the most right wing, neo-liberal government we have ever had in Norway. It was replaced by a centre-left government after the elections in 2005, where all the three political parties had to campaign on an anti-privatisation platform, not least because we had succeeded in changing public opinion, heavily supported by the fact that privatisation was no longer only theoretical promises, but concrete experiences, which did anything but meet the rosy expectations which were created by the neo-liberal pundits.

It was important also, of cause, that the Labour Party experienced a formidable electoral defeat in 2001, when it was punished by the voters for its neo-liberal excesses in the previous period. The party’s score was reduced from 36 (in 1997) to 24 per cent, the lowest ever since the beginning of the 1920s. The demand for a new political course therefore also received strong support from great parts of the party’s own rank and file. By moving politically to the left in the 2005 elections, the party recovered many of its voters.

The political platform of the three-party coalition government was in many areas surprisingly radical in its contents[10]. The government’s morning gift to its people consisted in the redemption of a number of the most important demands which were raised by the trade union and other movements. The privatisation of the railways was stopped. The full opening for private primary and secondary schools was stopped[11]. The destruction of the labour laws, which was carried through by the previous government, was reversed. Billions of fresh money has been put into the municipalities, which carry out most of the public services. Demands on a number of developing countries to liberalise their services sectors through the WTO GATS agreement were withdrawn. And Norwegian soldiers were withdrawn from Iraq.

New political course?
After this morning gift, however, it has, with some few exceptions, been difficult to catch sight of the new progressive political course in Norway. It seems as if the Labour Party’s right wing has taken the offensive, while the Socialist Left Party shows all its weaknesses – among them a lack of insight into basic power structures in society. Even if they pretend to be a left socialist party, they obviously do not have any well developed strategy for their participation in government. The matters in which the party has chosen to take internal conflicts in the coalition government so far have turned on foreign policy and environmental questions, while the social struggle is more or less absent as a subject, in spite of the fact that the poverty gap is still growing – and social dumping and anti-trade union policies are on the increase. This lack of roots in the social movements and in the social struggle is the main weakness of this political party. The building of alliances with social movements outside the parliament is therefore also non-existent. They rather encourage people to stay calm, “so that we can carry out our policies”.

Even if the centre-left government is still able to carry through progressive decisions, like the cancelling of debt to some developing countries, or the recognition of the new Palestinian government, it seems as if the limit is where it will have to confront strong economic interests. Structural reforms, which can contribute to shifting the balance of power in society, are therefore completely missing. On the contrary, the government is currently pushing through a pension reform which will weaken the existing, redistributive pension scheme. It has also proposed a regional reform, in which it fails to take the opportunity to structurally strengthen and consolidate local democracy.

For quite many of us, it was clear from the outset that the new centre-left government would only represent an opportunity, but real developments would depend on a strong and continuous pressure from outside the parliament. There are many reasons for this. Firstly, a lot of power has been transferred from democratic bodies to the market in the neo-liberal era. Secondly, the political space has also been reduced through a number of international agreements over the last 10-15 years, where the EEA[12] and the WTO agreements are the most important ones. Thirdly, the pressure from the political right and capitalist interests is strong, and the government gives way. Fourthly, the right wing still hold the most important positions in the Labour Party, while the Socialist Left Party neither has the strategic perspective, nor the social roots which are necessary to pose an alternative stronghold on the left.

The party political misery on the left has in other words not been overcome. Neither have the radical parts of the trade union movement nor other social movements proved to be strong enough to maintain sufficient pressure on a government which many consider to be their own, and where, although weakened, loyalties still dampen the ability as well as the willingness to take actions from below. The implementation of a new more left-oriented political course will, however, completely depend on such a pressure in the current political situation.

So far it is therefore the right wing populist party (The Progress Party) which has been the big winner in the opinion polls since the centre-left government took office in Norway. Neo-liberalism creates a real basis for anxiety, discontent and contradictions in society. The right wing populists have specialised in exploiting all such discontents – and in channelling it in perverted political directions (against immigrants, against single mothers, against people on social benefits, against ‘politicians’, etc.). The only way to challenge this situation is through policies from the left parties which take people’s discontent seriously, politicises it and channels it into a social struggle for collective solutions.

The struggle continues!
The next parliamentary election in Norway will be in 2009. The following could be the most extreme alternative developments up to these elections:

Worst case scenario
The centre-left government has not delivered or lived up to its expectations. The enthusiasm in the movements which brought the coalition government to power, is dead. The Campaign for the Welfare State and the other alliances have been demobilised. The conservative party together with the right wing populist party win power.

Best case scenario
The government has delivered. It has introduced a real new progressive political course and created enthusiasm in those movements which brought it to power. The Campaign for the Welfare State and the other alliances have been strengthened, and the centre-left government wins a new mandate period for a new political course.

It is too early too conclude which of these main tendencies we will end up with. What is clear, however, is that the present government has problems with delivering according to the expectations it created. It looks as if most of the government defines a new political course, not as a comprehensive new approach to politics, but as a list of single issues which will be implemented (if possible?), while politics at large will continue as before – along a soft, neo-liberal path.

Irrespective of these developments, the most important experiences from the last few years’ political fighting in Norway are the new alliances which have been created and the political independence which has developed in important parts of the trade union movement as well as in allied movements[13]. It is these developments which have led to the victories we have won. It is here we can find the most important and positive parts of the Norwegian Method. It is here the potential can be found to further change power relations in society. The struggle continues!

(Article published on the web site of the Global Labour Institute, May 2007.)
(The article is also available in Norwegian and Swedish.)