The term list dictatorship is used by some public commentators to criticize electoral systems in which voters do not have direct influence over which individuals are elected, but only over which party receives seats.
Oagal has used the term list dictate as a less charged alternative that points to the mechanism itself: that party lists are predetermined by the parties and, in practice, also dictate the outcome of personal representation in the Storting.
Neither term is legal in nature, but both are used to describe a perceived concentration of power in the nomination process.
Norway uses proportional representation with closed party lists in parliamentary elections. Voters cast their ballot for a party, not for individual candidates, and cannot alter the order of the lists as determined by the parties.
This means that parties’ internal nomination processes largely determine which individuals are elected, regardless of voters’ preferences for specific candidates.
Nominations take place within party organizations in which only a very small share of the population participates. People may join and take part, but as long as democratic processes in many parties remain immature, with power brokers making decisions behind closed doors, this path will be long and arduous.
A central point of criticism is that the Norwegian electoral system lacks genuine personal elements at the national level. Independent candidates cannot, in practice, stand for election to the Storting, and voters cannot cast personal votes that affect the allocation of seats.
This distinguishes Norway from systems such as New Zealand’s MMP model (Mixed-Member Proportional), where voters cast both a party vote and a vote for individual candidates in geographical constituencies, and where independent candidates can in fact be elected.
In such systems, party power is balanced by direct personal elections, giving voters greater influence over who represents them.
Strictly speaking, Norway is a constitutional democracy with free elections, freedom of expression, separation of powers, and rule-of-law guarantees. Describing the system as a dictatorship is therefore not correct in a constitutional or legal sense.
At the same time, the term can be understood metaphorically, as a critique of how the selection of individuals is concentrated in the hands of a small number of actors, without a direct corrective from voters.
Oagal has estimated that in practice it may be as few as a few hundred – or around 2,500 people – who, through parties’ nomination processes, determine the final composition of the Storting.
This contrasts with the common perception that voters themselves choose their representatives, even though they formally decide the balance of power between parties.
Wikipedia defines dictatorship as follows: “A dictatorship is a form of government in which power rests with a single individual or a small group of people.” The question then becomes how small this group actually is in Norway, or whether we should seek other descriptive concepts for the system of governance. Oagal uses organizationally representative governance, while party rule is also frequently invoked.
De fleste av artiklene på Oagal er utarbeidet av redaksjonen. Innholdet fra redaksjonen er det fortløpende redaksjonelle arbeidet i Oagal. Redaksjonen driver undersøkende journalistikk, utvikler ideer til saker og utarbeider artikler ved hjelp av ulike tilgjengelige kilder og verktøy. Meningsbærende innhold og også reportasjer bærer skribentens navn.
0 Comments