Mr. Chalupský! Considering an appropriate topic for this essay, somehow related to our discussions, up to date and possibly interesting for you, I hope I found one: it is Denmark. Denmark as the member state of the European Union. Denmark compared with the Czech Republic in terms of its position among other EU members. And last but not least, Denmark and its presidency of the EU from July to December 2002. Thus, this essay should neither provide all important facts nor all possible solutions of the problems considered, but only my humble opinions and thoughts.
I chose Denmark for comparison with the Czech Republic, because I see several similarities between these two countries and the reasons for that I will offer immediately. Of course, I should mention the outstanding differences as well.
The source of information I used were materials on different topics called “Factsheet Denmark.” and “One Europe. Programme of the Danish Presidency of the EU. July to December 2002.” published by the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2001 and 2002.
Contrary to the Czech Republic, Denmark is a constitutional monarchy and with its 43,094 square kilometres and 5.37m inhabitants (excluding the Faeroe Islands and Greenland) is smaller than our country. On the other hand, other important statistic facts can be compared daringly: The population is almost constant these days. The population density is high – 124 inhabitants per sq. km. The mean life expectancy is 74.3 years for men and 79.0 years for women. The capital, Copenhagen, has 1.08m inhabitants in the metropolitan area. The only official language is Danish, the currency remains still the Danish crone (not the euro!). However, I found two important differences in this statistic overview: 84.7% of the Danes belong to the Danish National Evangelical Lutheran Church and the gross domestic product per citizen was $30,143 in 2001 – the second highest in the EU, exceeded only by Luxembourg.
Denmark has never been ruled by other country (except during the Second World War, when it was occupied by Germany and, in fact, at the beginning chose to collaborate with the occupying power), as Czech lands once were part of the Austrian monarchy. And Denmark has never experienced an authoritarian regime, as we had between 1948 and 1989. There have been no substantial religious clashes and oppression until now and thus, the Lutheran National Church represents an important part of the association life of the Danish society today. Since 1945 the Danes have freely run their home and foreign politics, choosing the way of political and economic life in the country. They preserved the monarchy, they opted for what is nowadays called the “Welfare State Denmark” or the “Danish Model” and they became members of several international organisations, such as the UN (since 1945), NATO (since 1949), the Nordic Council (since 1952) and the EEC/EU (since 1973). Thus, Denmark has developed into a stable, highly organised and well-functioning parliamentary democracy and has a flourishing social-oriented market economy.
From the political point of view, Denmark is a constitutional hereditary monarchy, as I have already mentioned. Denmark´s present sovereign is Queen Margrethe II (b. 1940). As the Factsheet says “… the royal family has, with great loyalty and subtlety, fulfilled the role of neutral mediating link between changing governments and as a dignified and popular, but entirely apolitical uppermost superstructure on the Danish machinery of power.” In the light of the coming presidential elections and the debate of the role of the president in our country, I think, it should be similar to the role of the Danish Queen, which is mostly symbolic and representative, but highly important as well. Until 1953, Denmark had a bicameral system. After the abolition of the Landsting, the Folketing (The Danish Parliament) remains. However, it still continues under the public control: When a bill has been passed but not yet ratified, a third of the Folketing´s members may demand a referendum. Changes to the Constitution or the voting age must be ratified by a referendum. This also applies to issues involving renunciation of sovereignty unless the bill is passed by a 5/6 majority in the Folketing. Most of the Czech politicians seem to be heading a totally different direction these days: They put great emphasis on the role of the Senate, but never try to ask the public for its opinion.
The last general election in 2001 was historic, because the Liberal Party became the largest party for the first time since 1924, and because the right-of-centre parties together gained a majority for the first time since 1929. The main political issues include the balance between public and market control, the degree of tax funding of welfare measures as opposed to the insurance principle, the extent and nature of privatisation and contracting-out, support for or opposition to further political integration in the EU, law and order, and the attitudes to refugees and immigrants. It appears Denmark has to cope with several similar issues as the Czech Republic and therefore, I believe, the Danish tradition of compromise, collaboration across the centre and consensus – “the cooperative democracy” – could possibly serve as an example for the Czech political scene.
From the mid 1960s, Denmark, a thousand-year farming and fishing country was rapidly changing into a fully developed industrial nation. A similar process was interrupted in the former Czechoslovakia by the Second World War and the forty-year long communist regime. At the same time, Denmark developed into a welfare state, which is often called the “Danish Model”. It is characterised by the emphasis on free trade (As the Czech Republic, Denmark has a small open economy highly dependent on foreign trade.), industry with high productivity and full employment. The proceeds from economic activity are heavily taxed – Denmark has one of the heaviest tax loads in the world, amounting in 2000 to 48.2% of GDP. Thus, the revenues from taxes and duties enable the Danish Government to provide for instance free education, medical treatment, hospitalisation, early retirement pension, national pension (from the age of 65), unemployment benefits, dental costs and nursing home accommodation for its citizens. Of course, the Danish welfare state is facing several serious problems: The public sector is large. The public sector workforce now accounts for 30% of all employees, public expenditure amounts to almost 25% of GDP. The heavy tax load tempts some of the most gifted people to find work abroad and the guaranteed access to social benefits may invite abuse. On the other hand, Denmark meets the so-called convergence requirements of the Maastricht Treaty. In the last years public finances showed a considerable surplus and the public sector debt ratio is one of the lowest in the EU. The real GDP grows at an annual level of 3%, the inflation rate is around 3% and the unemployment rate 5% approximately.
In fact, in the Czech Republic most of us are not yet prepared to shake the invisible hand of market, are not yet prepared to take on more responsibility for our own life. I am convinced the “Danish Model” could serve as a good example here. It offers reasonable and efficient solutions, a compromise for the young and not really mature Czech economy. And it really works.
In one of the Factsheets Denmark describes itself as a miniature state which momentarily assumes superpower status. It is true that during its history, the image of the Danes has changed completely. Denmark has traditionally been a reticent and militarily cautious small country, however, today in its foreign politics it is usually characterised by active participation at the front shows. The war against terrorism, peace-making, peace-keeping, dissemination of democracy and support of the developing countries are among the objectives given the highest priority in Danish foreign policy. Measured by population, Denmark has send out more soldiers and policemen that any other country in the world to undertake peace-making, peace-keeping and humanitarian tasks for the UN, NATO, OSCE and as EU monitors. Denmark contributes large amounts to help developing countries imposing certain political conditions on its assistance. For many years now it has complied with the UN request that a developed country should give at least 0.7% of its GDP as development assistance. It shows that even a small and apparently weak country as Denmark or the Czech Republic could participate actively and efficiently in world politics and thus contribute to international peace and security. Of course, with respect to its real political and economic power it cannot cover a wide range of activities. In my opinion, the future of small countries on the international stage lies in specialising in certain activities, according to their history, tradition, location or territorial peculiarities etc. In this way, they can often try to address serious problems that will never be seen by the super-powers.
Denmark is the Member of the EU. It entered in 1973 together with Great Britain and Ireland. Denmark sees the future of the EU in an intergovernmental co-operation between independent states rather than a supranational co-operation heading for a political union. It supports the increasingly close economic co-operation, but not the extensive political integration. I would mark the Danish tradition of holding a referendum about new treaty provisions, which means that public opinion affects Denmark´s EU policy more directly than in most other EU countries. The most visible example of this referendum tradition was the rejection of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 by 50.7% of the population. Consequently, four so-called “Danish opt-outs” from the Treaty had to be adopted by the Danish Government together with the EU, subsequently ratified at a referendum in May 1993 by a majority of 56.7%. And although the actual Danish Government declared that the opt-outs were contrary to Denmark´s interests, at the same time it emphasised that EU policy must have a necessary popular basis. The most remarkable is perhaps the outside position of the Economic and Monetary Union, which resulted in the rejection of a new common currency, the euro.
As the EU Member State, Denmark is strongly interested in the fields of the common agricultural policy, free trade, economic co-ordination, social, labour market and employment policy as well as environment and consumer policy. It supports a stronger but slimmer EU with a clearer division of tasks between the EU and the member states. It further supports reforms protecting citizens´ rights in relation to the EU and involving national parliaments more extensively in the co-operation, as well as providing greater openness and subsidiarity in the Union.
From 1 July to 31 December 2002, Denmark chaired the EU. The main priority of the Danish Presidency was to conclude the enlargement negotiations with up to 10 new member countries. Thus, the artificial division imposed on the continent by more than forty years of communist rule in Central and Eastern Europe should be overcome and one whole and undivided Europe created. Another important issue of the Danish Presidency was promoting freedom, security and justice in the EU area as well as the global responsibility, addressing especially problems as terrorism, illegal immigration, trafficking in women, narcotics crime and child pornography. A strong and competitive European economy, continued growth, prosperity and welfare together with good environment, resulting in sustainable development, as well as a reconsidered common agricultural policy and new fisheries policy developed in a more market-oriented and green direction, healthy and safe food, were among other crucial issues brought to debate by Denmark last year.
This year, the Czech Republic will be invited to the “club” by signing the Accession Treaty. In June, in the membership referendum we should decide whether to enter or not. The example of Denmark, a small country, cautious, undecided at first, but now satisfied and using all the benefits offered by its membership in the EU in full, has convinced me to say yes. Thinking of future, there are no good or bad decisions. Therefore, we always have to believe some of them are better.