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 replaced 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:
– stop the policy of privatisation.
– change public opinion.
– shift the political hegemony to the left.
– push the social democratic party to the left.
– create a centre-left majority alliance in Parliament.
– 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 Margaret
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 movements6, 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 course7. 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 (S?rum) 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 situation8. 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 EEA12 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 movements13. 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!

NOTES:

1. The Centre Party is a peasants´ or a rural party, which has been
radicalised by being one of the leading forces in the successful
campaigns against Norwegian membership of the European Union (in
1972 and 1994).

2. The real experiences with this government, however, are rather
mixed. Since this is not the subject of this article, those who are
interested in our experiences with the centre-left government, can see
an early analysis of this in my article "Left Parties in Government:
The Norwegian Case":

http://www.rosalux.de/cms/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/Themen/Sozia
lforen/ESF_2006/Wahl_left-parties.pdf

3. See www.velferdsstaten.no. The author of this article has been the
national co-ordinator of this alliance ever since the beginning.

4. In addition to the Norwegian Union of Municipal and General
Employees, the following unions took part: Norwegian Civil Service
Union, Norwegian Union of Social Educators and Social Workers,
Norwegian Union of Teachers, Norwegian Nurses Association and
Norwegian Association of Health and Social Care Personnel. The
three first mentioned were affiliates of the Norwegian Confederation
of Trade Unions. The nurses´ union was affiliated to the
Confederation of Academic and Professional Unions, while the
teachers´ union was not affiliated to any confederation. The last
mentioned union was affiliated to the Confederation of Vocational
Unions, but it has later on merged with the municipal workers´ union.

5. The public sector share of the Gross National Product was reduced
from 52 to 43 per cent from 1992 to 1998 in Norway.

6. In 2000-1 local movements developed both in Finnmark and in
Nordland (two counties in the North of Norway) fighting the effects
of neo-liberal policies.

7. The term “a new political course” has been used a lot by the left in
Norway over the last few years to demand a change of politics - away
from neo-liberalism with deregulation and privatisation, towards
progressive policies with increased democratic control of the
economy. It includes a criticism of social democratic as well as right
wing government policies, which in reality did not differ that much
during the 1980s and 1990s. It is with this meaning the term is being
used in this article.

8. Information on the Model Municipality Project can be found here:
http://www.fagforbundet.no/omstilling/. Choose the key world
“Modellkommunemetodikken” in the left margin and on the new page
you will also find some documents in English.

9. It started a year before the elections and was named "the long
electoral campaign" by LO itself.

10. Only the Foreign Policy part of the platform is available in
English: http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/smk/Documents/Reports-
and-action-plans/Rapporter/2005/The-Soria-Moria-Declaration-on-
Internati.html?id=438515

11. Most schools in Norway are publicly owned and managed. Only
schools linked to alternative faiths or alternative pedagogics are
allowed. The previous government, however, carried through a new
law which gave free way to the establishment of private schools based
on the same curriculum as publicly managed schools.

12. The EEA (European Economic Area) is an agreement between the
EU and Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein which makes these
countries part of the Single Market - with some limitations regarding
agriculture, fisheries and foreign policy. The agreement was carried
into effect as from 1 January 1994.

13. As this is being written, the President of the Norwegian
Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) is being forced to step down
after a dramatic process which was triggered off by an internal
personnel conflict. She had, in a couple of important cases, pursued a
more independent political position in relation to the Labour Party,
also by forcing the party and the centre-left government on retreat on
a couple of occasions. Her resignation can, therefore, have important
political implications, as more moderate currents are now on the
offensive.