 |
 |
 |
|
Torbjörn Nilsson: |
||
The union as a nationalistic watershed |
||
|
1. The origins of the union The union between Norway and Sweden, which lasted from 1814 to 1905, was largely the result of the general turmoil in Europe in the wake of the Napoleonic wars. After the war with Russia in 1808–1809, Sweden lost its Finnish territories, which had been part of the kingdom since the thirteenth century. As a result of the defeat, King Gustav IV Adolf was dethroned and a new constitution was drafted. A new heir to the throne was recruited from victorious France: one of Napoleon’s closest advisors, Marshal Jean Baptiste Bernadotte. The idea was that Bernadotte – who was renamed Karl XIV Johan – would win back Finland, which was now under the rule of the Russian tsar. Instead, he joined forces with the arch-enemy Russia, turned against his former emperor Napoleon, and sent Swedish forces to the battle where latter was defeated at Leipzig 1813 by a powerful alliance consisting of Russia, Great Britain, Prussia, Austria and Sweden. Norway had been in a union with Denmark since 1380; since 1536 it had been as a vassal state and in 1660 it was subsumed as part of a single nation. Throughout the entire period, all the important decisions were made in Copenhagen. The Danish–Norwegian capital had been bombarded by British naval forces in 1807, and for this reason, the country joined forces with Napoleon, Great Britain’s archenemy. Denmark was therefore on the losing side in Europe when the emperor was defeated. One consequence of this was that in the Peace of Kiel of 1814 Denmark was forced to give Norway to Sweden as compensation for losing Finland. However, influential groups in Norway were opposed to their home country being used as a pawn by the Great Powers. Many people wanted to establish Norway as an independent state, while others wanted to continue as part of Denmark. A constitution for an independent Norway that was quite radical for the age was approved at a meeting in Eidsvoll on 17 May 1814. Sweden did not accept this decision, and after a brief war the Norwegians were forced to give up. The result was a compromise: the union that existed until almost one hundred years ago. After a certain amount of revision, Norway was allowed to keep its constitution, and Sweden shelved its more extreme colonial plans. For 91 years, Norway and Sweden were joined together by the union. It had come about as a result of the political power games of the Great Powers, and the Act of Union from 1815 regulated the rights and duties of the two countries in relation to one another. But the union would have completely different consequences for the two peoples and the political development of the two countries. 2. What the union was not Especially on the Swedish side, there is uncertainty about what the union entailed. A common misconception is that Norway belonged to Sweden in the same way as the Finnish territories had until 1809. On a jocular note, Sweden might have had a more successful skiing team if the union still existed. However, the truth is that even within the union, Norway would have had its own national team. Norway was a separate state with its own constitution, its own government (with one department in Kristiania (Oslo) and one department in Stockholm), its own parliament (the Storting), its own administration, its own army and its own borders to the outside world. In some ways, Norway even had its own king: when Oscar II crossed the border to Norway, he became the King of Norway. However, the two nations shared the same foreign policy administration, and this was based in Stockholm and was run by the Swedish foreign minister, which was generally interpreted as a sign of Swedish supremacy. The other common tie within the government administration was the consular service: the diplomats that looked after the union’s trade and maritime interests overseas. Here, both countries were in an equal position. It was the Norwegian demands for a separate consular service that caused the union to fall apart in 1905. The union was not marked by constant struggles or demands for full Norwegian independence. Indeed, relations were so good between the fraternal nations that the period 1835–1875 could be described as the honeymoon period of the union. A piece of legislation called the Union Trade Act had been introduced in 1825. This Act’s duty-free clauses were particularly favourable for Norwegian trade and shipping. Historian Sten Carlsson calls the annulment of this law in 1895 by the Swedish parliament “a nail in the union’s coffin”. Up until the 1890s, there was no question of dissolving the union. Not even the Norwegian Liberal Party Venstre – the party that united farmers and radical city-dwellers on issues such as demands for the introduction of parliamentarianism, the right to vote, cultural nationalism (to counteract the old Danish influence) and more autonomy (against the new Swedish rulers) – conceived of suggesting breaking free from the union. The most radical demands from the Norwegian side were for equality within the union, primarily with regard to foreign policy administration. Thus, until the very end of the union, the conflicts and crises that arose were largely all about the right to use national symbols and the distribution of power within the union, not about getting rid of it. Norwegian demands to be allowed to celebrate 17 May as their day of independence were accompanied by civil unrest in the 1820s, until celebrations were allowed. Another source of agitation was the governorship, whereby a Swedish official exercised the King’s power in Kristiania when the King was in Sweden. In Norway, the governorship was regarded as a symbol of Norway’s subordination within the union. This position was finally abolished in 1873 by the newly crowned Oscar II. The imminent centenary anniversary of the end of the union has resulted in several projects being initiated to investigate various aspects of the union, the largest of which is the Swedish–Norwegian Project 1905. However, it is not at all clear when or what should be celebrated, or perhaps rather commemorated or mourned. The very fact of focusing on the year 1905 makes it easier for the conflicts to loom large in the foreground and make the union appear an unfortunate venture that was doomed to fail. However, it is important that reviews of the era that ended one hundred years ago also point out that the union achieved many excellent results in terms of both economics and security policy. 3. The union as a source of discord For most of the period 1814–1905, the union was not an important or controversial issue in Sweden. It stepped up into the limelight from time to time when there was a crisis, only to creep back into the shadow of other more pressing issues, such as industrial freedom, the abolition of the parliament of the nobility, railways, defence and tax issues, customs, parliamentarianism and universal suffrage. One example is the governor crisis of 1859. The newly crowned Karl XV was forced to retract a promise to the Norwegian people about abolishing this unpopular post. Even the Minister of Finance Johan August Gripenstedt, who was normally a moderate Liberal, was violently opposed to the King’s careless promise: “The Norwegians cannot be appeased one minute and steered by strong reins and whips the next.” However, this controversy had its roots in domestic political issues. The government was trying to gain a stronger influence over foreign policy than the King. In one important respect, the union issue was of great significance to Swedish politics. When Oscar II finally accepted the government formed by the leader of the Norwegian Liberal Party Venstre Johan Sverdrup in 1884, and thus gave the go-ahead to parliamentarianism in Norway, an aggressive Conservative nationalism flared up in Sweden. This was a combination of a hostile attitude towards the Liberal movement in Norway on the one hand and protectionism and a certain resistance to democratisation on the other. At the same time, there was also a bitter criticism of the king. Many Conservatives realised that Bernadotte put the interests of the dynasty before those of Sweden. Two of the leaders of this anti-Norwegian uprising were the professor of political science Oscar Alin and the newspaper man Oscar Norén. Mr Alin formulated a “vassal state theory”, which was based on the fact that the Peace of Kiel of 1814 gave Norway to the Kingdom of Sweden, not to the King. Norway was therefore subordinate to Sweden in strictly constitutional terms. The provisions regulating the union were to be revised, but to Norway’s disadvantage. In practice, the Norwegians were regarded as being favoured in the union by having equal rights but not as many duties, especially with regard to military commitments. This imperial Swedish line wanted to exert economic and military pressure on Norway. This movement found its greatest supporters among the members of the first chamber’s protectionist majority party. In certain periods, the conflict with Norway strengthened the more Conservative tendencies in the Swedish right wing. An example of this is the appointment during the 1895 union crisis of Ludvig Douglas – who was famously supportive of Germany and anti-Norwegian, a protectionist, and a defence activist – as Foreign Minister. It was during this period that the Union Trade Act was repealed. Douglas resigned in 1899 when Oscar II yielded in the conflict over the union flag, known as the “flag affair”. A lasting result was that parts of the Conservative camp distanced themselves from the ageing King Oscar. In Norway, union-related issues were of a different, much greater significance. Throughout Europe, the nineteenth century was a period of burgeoning nationalism. National groups that had been incorporated into large states, were organised in small kingdoms and people like the Norwegians that lacked independence developed a strong sense of nationalism in issues related to culture, political self-governance and gradually also demands for full independence. As a well established national state, Sweden lacked this form of liberating nationalism. The uprising of farmers and rural people that took place in Norway from the 1830s grew to become a serious opponent to the ruling class of senior public officials with their strong anchoring in the government administration, academia, parliament and government. The shift in the political system in 1884 when the Liberal Party Venstre came to power entailed a defeat for the royal power, which was the strongest link tying the two nations together. The struggle for parliamentarianism had major consequences for the future of the union. These conflicts gave rise to the Norwegian party system with Venstre (Liberals) and Høyre (Conservatives) as the main parties. The latter party had its roots among the senior government officials and defended the union until a short time before its dissolution. Power alternated between Venstre and Høyre for the last twenty years of the union. Venstre’s radical union policy as opposed to Høyre’s policy of collaboration was one of the most important distinctions in Norwegian politics. In times of crisis, such as in 1895 when Norway unilaterally decided to set up its own separate consular service, almost causing a war between the union partners, and in 1905 when it severed the union, the two parties joined forces to form a coalition government to resolve the crises. The union issue illustrated that Norwegian society and Swedish society were moving in increasingly opposite directions. Politically, Norway was more democratic with its early party system and parliamentarianism as well as far more extensive voting rights than Sweden, where politically Conservative groups wanted to preserve the King’s powers and the bureaucratic system, as opposed to Liberal and radical calls for the introduction of parliamentarianism. The radicals looked up to Norway and the Liberal Party Venstre for the same reason that the Conservatives feared the Norwegians – politicisation of society, parliamentarianism and anti-bureaucratic sentiments. 4. The union and nationalism 
These days, Swedes that visit Norway on 17
May and Norwegians that visit Sweden on 6 June are probably equally confused.
While Swedes are overwhelmed by all the processions of children, poetry,
flag-waving and national costumes, Norwegians probably wonder what the
celebration is about – if they happen to even come across any major
national-day events. Almost everyone in Norway associates the national day with
the Constitution, the union and the national uprising of the 1800s, while many
people in Sweden are fairly unsure about the historical origins of the
celebration (the coronation of Gustav Vasas on 6 June 1523 and the approval of
a new form of government on the same date in 1809). It is not difficult to
connect the two different traditions to events that took place during the
union. The national mobilisation in various different areas led to two very
different types of nationalism. The Norwegian variety has clearly leftist
traits, since the Conservatives generally supported the conservation of the
union. The Liberal Party Venstre argued national and democratic points
together. It was a popular form of nationalism with cultural characteristics
from both the urban intelligentsia and the rural farming communities.
5. The union in everyday life The Swedish–Norwegian union was fairly loose knit. Apart from a handful of foreign-affairs officials and consuls, there were no common governmental bodies or institutions. The civil administration and the military were separate. There were Swedes living in Norway and Norwegians living in Sweden, mostly as a result of migration to find work, business activities or border connections. These sorts of contacts did not depend on the union and continued after 1905. The difference between being Swedish in 1904 and in 1906 was minimal and was only slightly due to the dissolution of the union. In Norway, naturally, the differences were greater. Nevertheless, it was mostly a matter of feelings and symbols. However, the national issue had been resolved, and they could now set about dealing with the kinds of problems facing industrialised societies everywhere at the time, such as universal suffrage, social problems and the development of industrialisation. The Swedish historian Göran B. Nilsson has described the significance of 1905 in the following, undramatic way: “What happened in 1905 was that Norway chose a King and got its own Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It was nothing more remarkable than that.” On a different level, the union – and particularly its dissolution – were of major significance. It helped develop the Norwegian sense of nationalism and ensured that it was of a grass-roots nature, while in Sweden the budding nationalism adopted a more Conservative guise. The events of 1814 and 1905 have left deep marks in the Norwegian psyche; less so in the Swedish. However, as an example that proves that national conflicts do not necessarily need to be resolved by means of force, the union comprised both countries. Torbjörn Nilsson |
||
