From J. A. Lauwerys (ed) Scandinavian Democracy: Development of Democratic Thought and Institutions in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Copenhagen: Schultz (1958), pp. 69-77.

Early Democratic Traditions in Scandinavia

Introduction 

If by democracy we mean a system of opinions and a constitutional form which extol and seek to realize popular government in the form and with the ideals that were established in the 19^th century, it would be very difficult to point to those features of early Scandinavian history which foreshadow modern democracy as practiced today in the Nordic countries. The reason for this is easy to understand. The problem itself invites an anachronistic view, as always when one tries to find in early history presages of later opinions and institutions. Furthermore, we are particularly liable to employ concepts which are not clearly defined when we attempt to build up a tradition for such phenomena as, according to modern views, are worth-wile and desirable.

The principles from which modern democracy has directly descended were first formulated by radical Puritan groups in seventeenth century England. The continued development of the English constitution, the Constitutional Government of the United States as influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment, and the clarification of basic political principles by the French Revolution, have all had a share in laying the foundations of modern democracy. Scandinavian contribution to the formulation of new ideas or constitutions of historical significance has however been barely perceptible. The Scandinavian countries developed in isolation and appear to have had no political influence on other western European countries.

Nevertheless the Scandinavian peasant democracies have had their counterparts in the history of central Europe, in Switzerland and Friesland, for example. Moreover, the "parliamentarism"of Sweden's "Era of Liberty" (1719-1772) represents a remarkable parallel to contemporary constitutional developments in England. But in international studies of such questions scant attention has been given to early social and constitutional developments in Scandinavia. Nevertheless, a survey of what may be called the "Pre-democratic" aspects of Scandinavian history might throw light on modern democracy in Scandinavia.

This account will concentrate on tracing two different trends in Scandinavian history: the degree of popular participation and representation in constitutional institutions, and the degree of judicial and economic liberty of the individual. Both are closely associated with what we have called the pre-democratic tradition in Scandinavian history and with institutions and values to which modern democracy can in certain cases be linked.

Prehistoric Social Conditions. Village Organization

Anyone wanting to find out about social conditions in prehistoric Scandinavia has three major sources of reference: archeological findings and the inferences that can be drawn from them; place names; and such literary evidence as may be found in classical and Anglo-Saxon literature. The observations of Tacitus about the Swedes (Suiones) and their unique form of government should be mentioned here: "There is but one ruler who holds unlimited authority and the right of absolute obedience. Arms are not, as among the rest of the Germanic tribes, allowed to all and sundry, but are kept under custody and the custodian is a slave". However, this statement does not allow for a reliable assessment of early constitutional practice in Sweden.

Not until the beginning of the Iron Age are we able to get a firmer grip on these problems. Research, especially in Denmark, suggests that the peasant society as revealed by medieval law had its roots in the early Iron Age; it might thus - to use an anachronistic formulation - be referred to as the first emergence of the democratic spirit in Scandinavian history. The basic unit of this society was the village, but it should be noted that this form of settlement was not common to the whole of Scandinavia, there were many districts where isolated farms predominated.

To what extent the villagers had learned to cooperate, or had communalized their village society, is impossible to say. Abandoned Danish settlements of this period seem to suggest that fields were owned by individual farmers, though even then these were helping each other with their work. We do not know the factors which fostered this form of farming settlement, but it is most likely that, having proved an effective means of satisfying working and living requirements, the village system prevailed and spread to new areas.

Nor do we know what customs or traditions governed the relations among farmers and villages; how legal differences were settled; whether there was any kind of superior organization which linked separate villages into larger units or whether actual state organizations of any size existed in Scandinavia during the early Iron Age. Tacitus describes the constitutional forms of the Teutons about 100 A. D.: "Minor matters are settled by the chief, major affairs by the whole community ... They assemble fully armed at certain fixed times ... The most honorable way of expressing approval is to applaud by clashing weapons ... Such assemblies also deal with capital charges." To what extent this description can be applied to the whole of Scandinavia at that time we do not know. According to Tacitus himself different and still more remarkable conditions prevailed among the Swedes (Suiones).


The "Democracy" of the Viking Period

With the beginning of the Viking period (about 7oo-8oo A.D.) it becomes possible to get some idea of the governmental and social conditions prevailing in the Northern countries. We can trace the gradual development of the monarchy in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, although it is difficult to establish the original territorial extent of these kingdoms. This much, however, is certain: the kingdom of Norway covered roughly its present area by the end of the ninth century, as did Denmark by about the middle of the tenth century and Sweden probably as early as the ninth century - certainly by the end of the tenth century. At this stage it is possible also to gain more direct insight into the functioning of the "popular assemblies" or ting, which probably go back to a much earlier date and constitute the most notable of the predemocratic aspects of Scandinavian history.

The first literary evidence of a Swedish ting is to be found in Rimbert's Legend of Ansgar, written in the middle of the ninth century by a close contemporary of the events described. Reference is made to an advisory assembly or body invested with the right of corporate decision. Something similar is known to have existed in Denmark at an even earlier date, for in 811 a treaty with the Franks was endorsed at a ting by leading men from various parts of the country. At this early stage, then, there is no question of absolute monarchy; one finds either a King with his council or leading men. (In Norway, however, during the second half of the ninth century King Harald Fairhair seems to have attained greater monarchical power by his attempt to set up a centralized administration). A good part of this Scandinavian constitutional tradition survived in the "republic" set up by a number of farmers who had emigrated to Iceland with their leaders. Their rather aristocratic constitution vested supreme power in the Althing, "the world's oldest parliament", organized in the year 930.

Despite the limitations of the source material, it has been possible to distinguish certain basic characteristics in Viking society. The leading men generally large landowners, played a dominant role. They amassed their wealth on trading voyages and raids and accumulated vast fortunes in land, cattle, gold and serfs. Runic inscriptions testify to the prowess of such Viking yeomen. But there can be no doubt that the ordinary farmers formed the real core of this society. They were men of property - settled men owning their own dwellings - who assembled at the ting to elect their leaders, later their own clergy, and even wielded influence in the election of new kings.

All were entitled to speak at the ting though influence and respect might vary considerably from man to man, depending not only on wealth and intellectual attainments but also on the standing of a man's family or his place of origin. There was a well-developed sense of law and justice, particularly in their more formal aspects. But insofar as a Scandinavian peasant democracy existed at all, it was practiced - as in the classical democracies - by a section of the population only. Completely excluded from it was the large class of serfs who enjoyed no personal freedom at all and were regarded legally as part of their masters' property. Free men without property commanded neither respect nor influence. Constitutionalism, of course, as practiced in Scandinavia during the Viking period, lacked any consciously "democratic" motivation. It is well to stress this point in order to offset recent and often highly idealized versions of the ancient political liberties in Scandinavia. It is obvious that democratic principles in the modern sense were never thought of - far less expressed - in an agricultural community where crassly realistic land and family interests formed the basis of all values. Yet it would be anachronistic to censure the formation of this society in the light of ideals developed at a later stage and under completely different social institutions.

Medieval Government and Judicial System

The Ting

The closer we come to the time of the first written Scandinavian laws the easier it becomes to get a clear idea of the conditions with which we are dealing. The two cornerstones of early Scandinavian government, the peasant community (villages) and the ting, had become apparent as early as the Viking period. By the time the statutes began to be recorded in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries techniques of cooperation were well developed in the villages. Life and work were regulated in detail by law and undoubtedly matters of community importance had for some time already been decided by the assembly or ting of every village. The most important of the ting's functions was the dispensation of justice. Any free man was ordinarily entitled to speak at such an assembly. Several tings were grouped together into larger administrative units such as parishes, landsting, and so forth. The ting took on certain constitutional functions at an early age. In Denmark new Kings were elected and approved by the landsting.

Much the same procedure took place in Sweden, though under a more detailed process first involving an election by the svear (suiones) at the Mora ting outside Uppsala ("The suiones have the right to choose and depose the King"), and then a journey by the King through the land on his Eriksgata (tour of recognition) to receive homage from each of the landskapstingen (Provincial Assemblies). In ancient Norway, the King was elected from among the qualified sons of previous Kings at several tings representing the various localities; at a later stage he would be chosen by an electoral assembly composed of the bishops and leading men of the land. Through these tings, the popular representatives managed for a time to retain a measure of influence over the Kings, a fact which, in Sweden at least, was to become of the greatest importance.

There can be no doubt that a recognized popular "right of protest", of the type which is known to have existed among other Germanic peoples, also prevailed in Scandinavia. The judicial functions of the ting were carried out in accordance with the uniquely formal proof system typical of older Germanic law: there were no witnesses, but each of the contesting parties was supported by oathsmen who vouched, under oath, for their client's claims.

The King and the Nobility

The influence which the yeoman community thus managed to exert upon the administration of justice and - through the part it played in electing the King - upon the government of the kingdom, developed differently in each of the Scandinavian countries. The large landowners, of course, were in a privileged position as regards the utilization of existing resources as well as their access to the mainsprings of political power. They formed a baronial class which, by opposing monarchic power, helped to maintain freedom.

In Norway the monarchic system was organized afresh by St. Olav (1015-30); but the early part of the twelfth century saw the outbreak of civil warfare between opposing power groups, each headed by a claimant to the throne. During the reign of Magnus Erlingson (1161-84) an alliance was formed between the monarchy and the nobility, i. e. the large landowners referred to above. The result was that popular representation in the ting - that is, the voice of the small independent farmer - lost much of its influence, the election of the King being taken over by an aristocratic electoral assembly. With the establishment of a hereditary monarchy by King Sverre the landed nobility were transformed into a class of royal officials, thereby losing whatever chance they might originally have had of preserving the constitutional liberties. Representation was embodied in various conferences of notables and in the Council of the Realm, but here the King's authority prevailed to such an extent that the nobles were reduced to little more than tools of the royal policy.

Thus from about 1200 to about I35o A.D. the country was ruled n his jointly by the King and a well-organized aristocracy acting on his behalf. Through dynastic alliances in the fourteenth century, the Norwegian crown was inherited, first by the Swedish royal line and then by the Danish. Neither the popular ting nor the nobility had succeeded in upholding constitutional liberties in opposition to the King. During the late twelfth and early thirteenth century Denmark was ruled by a succession of powerful Kings of the Valdemar line who gained control over civilian and military administration, foreign policy, legislation and the administration of justice.

The role of the landsting (administrative units consisting of a number of ting and often covering large areas) in electing the King became little more than a formality and the counterbalance to Danish royal power thus became centered in the nobility who had their origins in the old families, the military and administrative classes, and the royal officials. The course of development differed from that in Norway in that the aristocracy succeeded in making considerable headway against the King through its assembly known as the Danehof. A decisive event in this struggle for constitutional control in Denmark was King Erik Glipping's haandfæstning (charter) of 1282, which assured the nobility in the Danehof of a deciding voice in the government. In time the Danehof developed into a Royal Council chiefly representing the nobility and limiting the power of the monarchy. Thus, the foundations of Denmark's aristocratic regime had been laid and the trend toward absolutism checked.

In the late thirteenth century the Swedish Kings of the Folkung line tried to secure a hold on administrative, legislative and judicial functions similar to that enjoyed by the Valdemars in Denmark. They also made systematic - though unsuccessful - attempts to institute a hereditary monarchy. Following a period of bitter civil war between contending branches of the royal family in the early fourteenth century, the nobility - which had constituted itself an assembly - seized power and secured guarantees against absolutism. The year 1319 saw the election of a new King by an electoral body representing the kingdom as a whole and composed of all the men (popularly elected legislators) plus twelve "wise men and true"- i. e., learned men, from various districts.

These men proceeded to draft a document defining the rights of the people (particularly the nobility) in their relations with the King. In the middle of the fourteenth century the Swedish constitution was codified in the Landslag (literally: law of the land), adopted during the reign of Magnus Erikson, which clearly defined the reciprocal obligations of King, council and people. Swedish constitutional freedom was thus established on a firm foundation, the King's power being counterbalanced not only by a council, as in Denmark, but by the whole people as represented in the electoral assembly by the most highly respected and best informed farmers. As a result the people succeeded in securing the following important liberties:

1. Laws were to be enforced and the personal and economic freedom of each citizen was to be safeguarded against arbitrary action by the central authorities;
   
2. Taxes were to be limited and could not be increased except under certain conditions, the amounts being determined by the bishops, the lagmenn, six noblemen and six of the common people assembled in each district.
   
3. The new King's "homage ceremonies" in various parts of Sweden were to be retained.

Swedish constitutionalism may thus be said to have developed in a direction different from that followed by the other Scandinavian countries. One prerequisite for the maintenance of traditional liberties which some extent corresponded to those of a modern democracy, was the adoption of certain constitutional safeguards against absolutism. These were developed most successfully in Sweden where, as we have seen, the common people had a voice in their formulation. In Denmark the haandfæstning of 1282 granted the common people similar rights in principle. In practice however, the nobility, through their representative bodies, the Danehof and the Council, were the only ones to take a direct part in the struggle for power and in time this social group became the only force capable of counterbalancing the authority of the central government. With the introduction of hereditary monarchy the situation in Norway underwent a fundamental - and, from the constitutional point of view, retrogressive - change. As a result of this it is hardly possible to speak of any constitutional development in that country's history between the fourteenths and nineteenth centuries.

Another reason may be that the Viking raids having come to an end, it became increasingly difficult to capture new serfs. Probably the most important factor, however, was the introduction of new methods of cultivation which made it more profitable to employ tenants and farm laborers. The system of serfdom declined steadily over at least a century, the number of serfs decreased and measures taken by the central authorities ultimately put an end to their existence as a social class. With the decay of serfdom there emerged another trend which drastically reduced the number of freeholders and even threatened to eliminate them as a class. As the Scandinavian landed classes, supported by the crown, succeeded in gaining important privileges, estates grew in size and the number of freeholders declined, though at a different rate in each of the three countries.