Jacob Christensen

Prompted by recent posts (don’t…mention…the…NATO…!) Ola Nordebo asked me if it was possible to put together a top-ten of the cleverest, most successful and best-timed political resignations in history.

Oh dear: History is a long time and then there is also the question of what constitutes a clever and successful resignation (and to whom?). But let’s try and find some. To make things a bit easier for myself, I’ll concentrate on heads of government. Feel free to add names.

Denmark

A difficult case. As I noted in an earlier post, Danish politicians like annoying relatives tend to overstay their welcome and the only cases of voluntary resignations I could come up with were M.P. Friis in 1920 and Jens Otto Krag in 1972. Friis’ resignation was negotiated in advance as he led an interim government, so we will leave him out of consideration.

Krag’s resignation, on the other hand, merits attention. There were personal motives behind his resignation (basically, after being a top-level politician for 25 years, he was fed up) but his life ended in a personal tragedy. Politically, resigning and handing over to Anker Jørgensen may have been a smart move: Jørgensen had the connection with the party base which Krag lacked and this was useful in the chaotic 1970s, especially after the divisive EC referendum campaign. On the other hand, Jørgensen proved to be weak strategically and had a problem getting a grip on economic policy. Still, the question is: Was the 1973 earthquake avoidable and did Jørgensen perform any worse in that election that Krag would have done, or was 1973 bound to happen while Jørgensen managed to make the most of the situation. If so, the Krag-Jørgensen transition should be on the list.

Sweden

Sweden is different. After holding office for an amazing 23 consecutive years, Swedish prime minister Tage Erlander stepped down in 1969 in favour of Olof Palme. The relay was well-prepared and even if Palme became a controversial figure in Sweden and he failed to win in the 1976 and 1979 elections, his terms in office could still be counted as more than acceptable. The judgement of Palme’s political performance will of course depend on you political point of view, but all things considered the transition must count as a success and well-timed in the run-up to the 1970 election.

The resignation of Ingvar Carlsson in 1995-6 in favour favour of Göran Persson is more difficult to gauge, if only because Persson wasn’t Carlsson’s choice. On the other hand, Carlsson gave his successor enough time to position himself before the 1998 election. Again, the question is: Did the Social Democrats perform worse in the 1998 election and in economic policy because of Persson or was the loss, all things considered, bound to happen. The Carlsson-Persson transition merits attention, but in my opinion isn’t top-of-the-list of successful resignations.

Norway

Norway – and the Norwegian Labour Party in particular – has a long story of relatively smooth transitions. From Gerhardsen to Torp, from Torp to Gerhardsen (yes!), from Gerhardsen to Bratteli, from Bratteli to Nordli, from Nordli to Brundtland and from Brundtland to Jagland.

In terms of success, we can count out the Gerhardsen-Torp and Brundtland-Jagland transitions and indications are that the second resignation of Gerhardsen in favour of Tryggve Bratteli wasn’t completely voluntary. On the other hand, the Bratteli-Nordli and especially the Nordli-Brundtland transitions look well-timed and successful. It is true that Gro Harlem Brundtland lost the 1981 election, but she still managed to stay in the centre of Norwegian politics for fifteen years.

United Kingdom

In the UK, a strong candidate must be Harold Wilson who resigned in 1976 in favour of James Callaghan. Wilson’s resignation may not have been completely voluntary as he could have been in the early stages of Alzheimer’s. Callaghan’s term in office was also complicated and after the Winter of Discontent ended in defeat in a vote of no confidence in March 1979, eventually leading to seventeen years of Conservative government. But as the counterfactualists point out: If Callaghan had called an election in the autumn of 1979, Mrs. Thatcher might have been a historical accident. And that leads to the question: Where does the Blair-Brown transition fit into the model? If Brown had called the Conservatives’ bluff by calling an election in the early autumn of 2007, the answer would have been easier.

To Sum Up

So here are, in no particular order, my initial cases:

• Harold Wilson – James Callaghan
• Oddvar Nordli – Gro Harlem Brundtland
• Tryggve Brattely – Oddvar Nordli
• Tage Erlander – Olof Palme
• Jens Otto Krag – Anker Jørgensen

And no: I haven’t forgotten about Germany, but I really can’t see any smooth transititions on the federal level. Perhaps if we widen the field to party leaders and state prime ministers. But feel free to add cases.

Update: That’s Nordebo, not Nordbo. All those Norwegian prime ministers got the better of me.

The Never-Ending Story, part 817.

No, you don’t need an excuse to resign as prime minister. All you have to say is: “I’ve held this position for nearly eight years and I think I’ve done my part now. I don’t know what I’ll be doing in the future, but if an interesting offer turns up, then I may consider it. Now, be kind to Lars, he’s a good lad at heart.”

PS: I my world, the premiership is not a “job” but a “political position”.

Let us for the sake of argument assume that Anders Fogh leaves for NATO (or somewhere else) and Lars Løkke takes over as prime minister. In a Danish context, he will be unusual in two ways:

First, he has a background in local politics as deputy mayor of Græsted-Gilleleje¹ and later Frederiksborg County. The only previous Prime Minister to have been a mayor was C. Th. Zahle (Prime Minister 1909-1910 and 1913-1920 and mayor of Stege 1911-1913) – and that was back when mayors where appointed by the government, not locally elected. Poul Schlüter (PM 1982-1993) served as deputy mayor in my hometown Gladsaxe in the early 1970s after making an unsuccessful attempt at defeating Erhard Jakobsen.

Second, he will be taking over has heir presumptive. Believe it or not, this is highly unusual in Danish politics – between 1953 and 1968, the Social Democrats had no fewer than four Prime Ministers but as it was, there was no ordered succession. If Hans Hedtoft had lived and had had his way, it is not impossible to imagine that Jens Otto Krag had been Hedtoft’s chosen successor sometime during the 1960s. Hedtoft could have been another case as he was Th. Stauning’s chosen successor as party chairman, but due to the German occupation, Hedtoft could not become PM until 1947.² As it was, Stauning bypassed a couple of generations in promoting Hedtoft who was 30 years his junior.

Update: Factual correction about Løkke Rasmussen’s position in Græsted-Gilleleje.

1. Apologies for making LLR mayor of Græsted-Gilleleje, but he was a profiled deputy back in the early 1990s [↩]
2. For non-Danes: Stauning died in 1942 and was succeeded by Vilhelm Buhl after the Germans had forced Hedtoft to resign from his post. [↩]

I’m like totally with Rune Engelbreth here: The opposition wants an election because polls show that the opposition will win an election and the government doesn’t want an election because polls show that the government will lose an election. A Categorical Imperative Fail, in other words.

But: Why can’t government and opposition say what they really want to say?

Well, because arguing from benefits to actors is illetigimate, arguing from benefits to the society is legitimate – and the only way to appeal to other actors. But by arguing from benefits to society, the arguments become insincere. A problem which troubles a lot of politics, but I can’t see it being solved.

Edo Reents of the Frankfurter Allgemeine drives an old (as in: 1974) Opel Rekord. Pure nostalgia – my Dad used to drive a 1973 Rekord back in those days.

Later, in the 1990s, he switched loyalties to Peugeot. Times change.

In ye olde days, being the mayor of Copenhagen was something special. Basically, you had to make your way up through the Byzantine system of committees, departments and whatnot in an elaborate career. Oh, and you had to be a Social Democrat: Since the introduction of elected mayors and one man-one vote, the SocDems always dominated Copenhagen politics with one or two frustrated Conservatives standing by.

But times change and the Social Democratic share of the vote in the capital has been on a downward slide since the 1970s as has the local party organisation. So when Jens Kramer Mikkelsen in 2004 declared that he would be standing down, there was no obvious old-skool successor. The local Social Democrats needed a rabbit and they needed one fast and the result was the surprising move of former minister, former European commissioner and former chairman of the Social Democratic parliamentary group Ritt Bjerregaard from national to local politics.

The trick paid off: The SocDems enjoyed a massive win in the 2005 elections, ending Søren Pind’s career in Copenhagen politics, and Ritt Bjerregaard cruised into office. And that was the end of the cruise. I’m not sure that Bjerregaard has performed any worse than most other politicians would have, but faced with the prospect of a nasty loss in this autumn’s election, she decided to throw in the towel at the age of 67.

And the local SocDems faced the same problems. Yes, there are local politicians available like whatshisname, the young one and the likely outsider. How about repeating the success, then?

Social Democratic high-flying MP Christine Antorini wasn’t keen on the idea, but now we are told that the loser of the 2005 campaign for the chairmanship of the Social Democratic party, Frank Jensen has been dragged out of the stable.

We shall see, but it is interesting that a) the traditional methods for selecting a mayor of Copenhagen can no longer be applied and b) that becoming mayor of Copenhagen looks like an office for politicians who are seen as spent forces in national politics. In a way, it looks like Copenhagen is a worse alternative to being mayor of any other local authority in Denmark.

Lars Dencik sums up Swedish culture and addresses the question: Why do Swedes always feel so bad, when comparisons otherwise show the country to be top-of-the-league.

Now, if I try to compare Sweden and Denmark Dencik’s points 1 and 3 make sense to me, but in all other respects, I would say that Denmark and Sweden are pretty close, so points 2 and 4-7 wouldn’t work as an explanation. Or?

Okay – on multiple requests … well: A request …, here is some of the story of the 1997 self-defeating self-defeating scheme where the Danish government failed to bring down itself.

First, to appreciate the story, you should know that the Danish prime minister has almost unlimited powers to call elections¹, but it is not always feasible to be seen as the part drawing the gun first. So, demonstrating the opposition’s lack of will of cooperation is an important part of the staging of elections.

In October 1997, polls looked favourable for the government (or to be more precise: The Social Democrats, the major partner in the government) so calling an early election was definitively tempting.

But there was a catch: The government was a minority coalition with the Social Liberals, and they generally dislike early elections. So leading Social Democrats (my guess: Mogens Lykketoft – a master of cunning plans) devised a cunning plan: Present an economic “package” so ambitious that there was no way the Conservatives and Liberals would engage in serious negotiations, the government would not command a majority, and voilà: The Social Liberals would have to accept a snap election.

Needless to say, the Conservatives and Liberals weren’t that stupid and responded to the government’s initiative by saying “oh, that’s very interesting. Of course, we have some points of criticism, but sure nothing we couldn’t negotiate about.”

All of this was done live, during a debate in the chamber, and the prime minister’s only response was to ask for an adjournment of the debate, so the government could sort out its own position. One hour. (Intense discussions between Social Democrats and Social Liberals). The chamber reassembles.

The speaker of the Folketing: The Prime Minister has asked for an extra adjournment of one hour.

(Intense discussions between Social Democrats and Social Liberals). Reassembly.

The speaker of the Folketing: The Prime Minister has asked for an extra adjournment of one hour.

(Renewed intense discussions between Social Democrats and Social Liberals). Reassembly.

The speaker of the Folketing: Prime Minister has asked for an extra adjournment of…(drum roll)…thirty minutes!

Everybody in the chamber with the exception of the Social Democratic front bench laughs heartily. (In the Danish parliament utterances of approval or disapproval are strictly forbidden!)

Eventually, Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen and Finance Minister Mogens Lykketoft had to bow to the pressure from their Social Liberal partner and enter into serious negotiations with the Liberals and the Conservatives. Needless to say, everybody agreed that Messrs Nyrup and Lykketoft were left with not only eggs but an entire omelette on their faces after the botched execution of their most cunning of plans.

And the election? Oh, it was called in March 1998 and the government won by the tiniest of margins. 160 votes. On the Faeroes, no less. That caused a slight embarrassment for the Social Democrats when the Folketing elected a new speaker as Erling Olsen did not run in the 1998 election, but that is another story. Or perhaps not.

1. (S)He cannot call an election before having presented the government’s programme for the Folketing – otherwise it’s only a practical question of getting the process started, so elections can be called at 21 days’ notice. [↩]

The order of words is important in Danish. According to the headline the Danish People’s Party wants Lars Løkke Rasmussen replaced as finance minister. According to the story, DF wants Anders Fogh Rasmussen replaced as prime minister.

Is London Police run by agents of the Danish People’s Party?

Probably.

Can we make fun of it?

Definitively.