Greenlandic Inatsisartut election, 2018

[Deleted]

On the 24th of April the Greenlanders will elect 31 members to their parliament  Inatsisartut.

The Nationalist and Socialist Partii Inuit have closed and merged into Naleraq (led by former Siumut Premier Hans Enoksen) which will have several PI candidates on their lists. Their joint platform is the establishment of an independent Greenland by 2021.

[Deleted]

The 31 members of the Inatsisartut are elected in one national constituency using PR with D'Hondt.

Seven parties are running, two of them newly founded. 

The old parties: 

Siumut (Forward) is the nominally SocDem party of power (has led Greenland since home rule was introduced in 1979 apart from 2009-13. Has a populist appeal, significant corruption problems and dominates "the Coast" (i.e. the populated West Coast) outside of the 5th largest town Aasiaat and a few smaller places. 

Atassut (official English name Solidarity, but The Link would be more accurate) is the old unionist centre-right party, which has decayed for a long time and is now mostly a pensioners' party with policies that are hard to differentiate from Siumut. 

Inuit Ataqatigiit (Inuit Community), the former Inuit nationalist left wing party founded by 70s student activists, that have become quite pragmatic and attracts most of the educated elite. Had the Premier 2009-13 in coalition with the Democrats. 

Demokraatit (the Democrats) is a Social Liberal party that used to be fairly unionist and preferred by Danish speakers (which is a significantly larger group than Danes, 45% of the population in Nuuk have Danish as their native language), but has turned more pro-independence, though gradually, planned and with a proper economic foundation etc.

Naleraq (Guidepost) is a Siumut breakaway founded by former Premier and settlement shopkeeper Hans Enoksen, its a fishing interests populist party and more nationalist than Siumut, with the former Partii Inuit people in it that will be even more so.

The new parties:

Nunatta Qitornai (Children of Our Country, literally Descendants of Our Country) is a new part founded by former Siumut Minister of Foreign Affairs Vittus Qujaukitsoq from Qaanaaq (Danish name Thule). Vittus Q. is an "independence now regardless of the costs" advocate and want the Thule Air Base closed. 

Samarbejdspartiet/Suleqatigiissitsisut (the Cooperation Party) new pro-unionist and rights of Danish speakers party founded by ex-Democrats Michael Rosing and Tillie Martnussen running on "better use of the Community of the Realm" with Denmark and the Faroes, improved international contacts and more focus on abused children and social problems. The Democrats Classic, so to speak. 

The new parties needed to collect 942 signatures, equivalent to 1/31 of the 29, 201 eligible voters at the previous election. A high threshold.

[Deleted]

Speaking of Vittus Q., this post of mine from another forum is also still relevant. 

Greenlandic "foregn minister" Vitus Qujaukitsoq from Qaanaaq ("Thule") has caused a conflict within his own Siumut party after criticizing both Danish and US arrogance in relationship to both "the inevitable independence process" and giving back hunting grounds and cleaning up pollution around the Thule Air Base. PM Kim Kielsen has distanced himself from Vitus Q., and said Greenland belong in the "community of the Realm". But Vitus Q. has been backed by Aleqa Hammond and Speaker and former PM Lars Emil Johansen, and Siumut is clearly split. As former PM Hans Enoksen has already split with his "coastal interests" Naleraq party Kim Kielsen can not afford a split of the nationalist, pro-mining/drilling wing.

Now Vitus Qujaukitsoq has embraced the Trump administration and its pro-drilling agenda hoping it will help reinvigorate oil exploration in Greenland and secure the revenue needed for independence.

"In a blunt speech given at the Arctic Circle Quebec Forum Dec. 12, Vittus Qujaukitsoq, Greenland’s minister of economic development, said his government welcomes the election of Donald Trump’s pro-oil and gas administration.

And as for Trump’s appointment of oil industry titan Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon Mobil, as United States Secretary of State? Well, that’s good for Greenland too, Qujaukitsoq said."

(...)

"He also took swipes at some other circumpolar players. The Inuit Circumpolar Council, Qujaukitsoq said, has an “old-fashioned” view of oil and gas development and has failed to deal with Greenland’s interests."

(ICC was in many years dominated by IA co-founder Aqqaluk Lynge - and the pro-environmentalist IA top has close ties to ICC)

Drill baby, drill...

[Sibboleth]

Criminal conspiracy vs. pro-business Communists vs. assorted losers and loons.

[Deleted]

Mar 17, 2018 15:45:01 GMT Sibboleth said:

Criminal conspiracy vs. pro-business Communists vs. assorted losers and loons.

Cheap shot and not really accurate. 

Siumut under Kim Kielsen is a lot cleaner than it used to be and the Democrats and Cooperation Party are fairly normal Western style Liberals with a Greenlandic twist in priorities. IA were never Communists, Democratic Socialist and idealist certainly, but never pro-Soviet or anything like that.  

Atassut are losers, although a few young people want to reinvigorate the party, and Enoksen and Vittus Q. are losers of internal power struggles in Siumut. Vittus Q. may be a bit loony (as is former wife beater and Partii Inuit founder Nikku Olsen). 

[Sibboleth]

It's true that Siumut are a lot cleaner than they used to be, but that's a little like observing this about the canals...

[Deleted]

According to Premier Kim Kielsen the election is called to avoid wasting the spring term on "political posturing" - it should have been held ultimo November at the latest.

After the 2014 election Kielsen (who is a former sailor and police officer) formed a government with the centre-right (Atassut and the Democrats), but switched partners in 2016 when he formed a grand coalition with the main opposition party IA and Naleraq. 

...

If you based on my description wonder why Vittus Q. didn't just join Naleraq its partly a matter of ego and partly because Naleraq are fairly green (against uranium mining and very skeptical about oil drilling due to being a fishing interests party). 

[Deleted]

The outgoing parliament with the result of the 2014 election in brackets.

Siumut 13 (11)
IA 11 (11)
Democrats 3 (4)
Naleraq 3 (3)
Atassut 0 (2)
Cooperation Party 1 (0)

Atassut are basically collapsing, and this could be the election where the party drop out of parliament. Party chairman Knud Kristiansen left them in January 2017 and their second MP, the East Coast politician Mala Høy Kuko later followed suit, both have ended up in Siumut. They have also lost a former chairman, a former deuputy chairman, and two ex-MPs and some councillors. Most have gone to Siumut, but one ex-MP to IA.

Apart from career prospects and influence Siumut under Kim Kielsen is also de facto far less focused on a fast track to independence than under Hammond, despite creating a Constitutional Commission, which has made it easier for the ex-Atassut members to join them. Only the chairman of the Constitutional Commission, Vivian Motzfeldt,  and ex-party chairman Lars-Emil Johansen have really pushed the independence agenda.

The Speaker of the Inatsisartut and former Premier Lars-Emil Johansen (71) isn't running. He is the last of the so-called "Three Polar Bears” in Greenlandic politics, the young men who founded Siumut in the 70s and became the architechts of Home Rule Greenland.

Former Minister of Natural Resources and Business Jens-Erik Kirkegaard (42) also leaves politics, which is a pretty big loss for Siumut.

Unionism and immigration
It will be interesting to see how the Cooperation Party fare. No one has argued unionism on principle in Greenlandic politics for a decade (the Democrats solely use economic and practical arguments). A poll last year showed 27% of Greenlanders were pro union vs. 23% that wanted a fast track to independence, so there is potentially a substantial unionist vote, but the party is also in favour of increased immigration of e.g. Asians to the fishing industry and service jobs, which is another controversial issue. The party wants better inclusion of immigrants and a national integration plan, but since its so hard to learn Greenlandic many Asians opt for Danish as their means of communication (or stick to English if they aren't planning to stay). I doubt they can really change that.

Only 10% of the voters are ethnic Danes and a quarter of them will likely vote IA (the Danish vote is not monolithically unionist since many left leaning Danish academics, teachers, journalists etc. are pro-independence and mostly vote IA. So the 27% includes more than 20% of ethnic Greenlanders (though a lot of them would have more Danish ancestry than the average Greenlander and be more likely to be Danish speakers).

The 2009 Self-Government Law made Greenlandic the sole national language, which is problematic in a de facto bilingual country despite Danish still being widely used. There are no reliable statistics on preferred language and identity, only place of birth is registered.

[Deleted]

While the independence theme dominates what little outside covergage there is of this election the new fishing law is just as important. Naleraq want to break up the concentration of fishing quotas on a few hands, whereas the Democrats and Siumut (at least the bulk of it..) fear that bigger quotas to small boats will lead to unstable catches and jeopardize the only viable export sector Greenland has.

IA have placed themselves a bit between two chairs by both wanting a more democratic distribution of quotas and guarantees for stability and enough capital for investments, without explain how they will bridge those two concerns (cooperative ownership?). They also want a faculty of fishery economics at the University of Greenland.

[Deleted]

I was asked on another forum whether an independent Greenland "would seek to have a military, join NATO etc?". I am reposting my answer here as it may be of interest to some.

"It wouldn't have a military, but would more or less have to be in NATO; they are de facto stuck with the Thule Air Base for the foreseeable future and Russian submarines already violate Greenlandic territory, that problem would become much worse if they weren't as would oil spillage and illegal fishing. Its a very thinly populated country with an enormous territory (both land and marine) and air space that needs to be monitored and patrolled somehow. So the Icelandic solution with NATO-membership, no military, but a Coast Guard and allied air patrols would be one option, that would allow the Danish military to retain a presence of some sorts; another would be an arrangement similar to the one the Kingdom of Iceland had 1918-44 with sovereignty, but shared military, security policy and head of state (the KoI had a common diplomatic service with Denmark as well, the Greenlanders wouldn't like that but some embassies and functions could be shared). Denmark and Greenland already coordinate Arctic policy to a significant degree.

But nobody knows what "independence" actually means, which is what frustrates Danish politicians about the Greenlandic independence debate. Independence is used as a rallying cry with a strong emotional appeal, but rarely specified, especially not by Siumut and parties descended from that tradition (e.g. they often assume Denmark would continue to subsidize Greenland past independence, which is completely unrealistic). The ones who have been most specific, like former Premier Kuupik Kleist from IA, envision some kind of cooperation agreement that is close to the 1964 free association agreement between the Cook Islands and NZ; which is also the solution the moderate (i.e. non-Republic) part of the Faroese independence side advocates. A Siumut moderate like Kim Kielsen would probably go for something similar, although he wouldn't say it out loud.

Most of the "fast track to independence" types do not seem to have any concrete plans for what they would actually do after sewering all ties to Denmark, i.e. how to handle the pressure from great powers like China, the US and Russia. So it depends who would be responsible for independence, most Danes hope it will be IA and the Democrats, but Greenlanders on the coast are bound to Siumut and their ilk by clientelistic networks and IA botched the last election (which should have been a slam dunk for them), so it would probably be "the Siumut Family". Though if the unionist vote is mobilized this time (big if..) that could move the debate towards a compromise of sorts (or polarize it - and its hard to say what is most likely).

[Deleted]

IA chairman Sara Olsvig says the election will be a "fight over values", she wants an equal treatment clause inserted in the new constitution (which would mean Danish speakers get the right to use their mother tongue in all public contexts and cannot be discriminated against in employment) and promises to fight xenophobia and discrimination.

Since Greenlandic nationalism is de facto ethnically based this challenges the prevailing definition of the independence project on the "Siumut family" side; while the party has Inuit in its name IA have de facto switched to civic nationalism long time ago and have even had monolingual Danish speakers as MPs.

- "We only have each other and our common goal of building a strong and viable society, to create diversion solves no problems and creates no ties. We cannot create positive things out of discrimination and marginalization."

- "Its time to actively fight xenophobia, even if there are elements in our history that hurts. We need to move on, and we need to move on together."

While this is mainly about the relationship to Danes and Danish speaking Greenlanders it also includes the treatment of Asians and other smaller immigrant groups.

[Deleted]

Naleraq have announced their plan for independence by 2021 (the 300th year anniversary of the arrival of the Rev. Hans Egede and thereby Dano-Norwegian colonization). It includes the establishment of a Greenlandic republic with its own currency (whose volatility would make the Icelandic króna look like a modern day Deutschmark in  comparison). 

They expect continued subsidies from Denmark after independence in a transitional period (something the Danish government has said is simply not on) and claim the cost of running the remaining 32 areas still run the KoD can be done a lot cheaper than today, the latter is no doubt true as lots of administrative practices have just been downsized rather than adapted to Greenlandic conditions, but they provide no plan for how they are going to do it or the consequences wrt quality and accessibility. 

Nearly 30% of ethnic Greenlanders already live in Denmark and if the plan was implemented that level would quickly rise to 50%, which would create a Puerto Rico situation with half the nation living overseas. 

[yellowperil]

I notice the forum poll contains one Inuit vote. I wasn't aware we had an Inuit resident on the forum?

[Deleted]

Mar 21, 2018 8:27:30 GMT yellowperil said:

I notice the forum poll contains one Inuit vote. I wasn't aware we had an Inuit resident on the forum?

Not sure what you are referring to? The Nunatta Qitornai vote? I guess that is a principled vote for "decolonzation now!".

Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA) is fairly popular with lefty non-Inuit immigrants and would be a natural choice if you were a European left winger or liberal Green who for some reason settled in Greenland. 

[Deleted]

This is a bit silly, bit if I should translate the Greenlandic party system to a British context it would have to be set in an altenative reality Scotland where 70% of the population were pro-independence, but a lot of people worried about the economic and practical consequences.

IA would then be an alliance of Labour (turned pro-independence) and the Greens in favour of a gradualist approach to independence. 

Siumut would be mainstream SNP and the established "party of power".

Naleraq are an alliance of Tartan Tories that have split from the SNP and recently coopted a leftist SNP splinter group in order to boost their numbers.

Nunatta Qitornai would be a radical SNP splinter group led by a guy from some remote part of the Highlands who was mad because he lost a leadership election to Nicola Sturgeon.

Atassut are Tories that have lost all principles and de facto allied with their former enemies in the SNP to secure their own careers and personal business interests. 

The Democrats are LibDems and moderate Tories that have come to the conclusion that independence is inevitable and hope to implement it in a gradualist way that doesn't tank the economy and with continued close cooperation with England post-independence, as such they are natural allies of the Labour/Greens alliance. 

The Cooperation Party are LibDems that remain stubbornly unionist despite all odds, popular with the English minority in Scotland incl. people who would vote Tory in England.
 

[matureleft]

Mar 21, 2018 9:39:20 GMT @vintris said:

This is a bit silly, bit if I should translate the Greenlandic party system to a British context it would have to be set in an altenative reality Scotland where 70% of the population were pro-independence, but a lot of people worried about the economic and practical consequences.

IA would then be an alliance of Labour (turned pro-independence) and the Greens in favour of a gradualist approach to independence. 

Siumut would be mainstream SNP and the established "party of power".

Naleraq are an alliance of Tartan Tories that have split from the SNP and recently coopted a leftist SNP splinter group in order to boost their numbers.

Nunatta Qitornai would be a radical SNP splinter group led by a guy from some remote part of the Highlands who was mad because he lost a leadership election to Nicola Sturgeon.

Atassut are Tories that have lost all principles and de facto allied with their former enemies in the SNP to secure their own careers and personal business interests. 

The Democrats are LibDems and moderate Tories that have come to the conclusion that independence is inevitable and hope to implement it in a gradualist way that doesn't tank the economy and with continued close cooperation with England post-independence, as such they are natural allies of the Labour/Greens alliance. 

The Cooperation Party are LibDems that remain stubbornly unionist despite all odds, popular with the English minority in Scotland incl. people who would vote Tory in England.
 

Love it! All this within a population comfortably smaller than a typical UK constituency with a turnout of only about 40,000.

[yellowperil]

Mar 21, 2018 11:51:47 GMT matureleft said:

Mar 21, 2018 9:39:20 GMT @vintris said:

This is a bit silly, bit if I should translate the Greenlandic party system to a British context it would have to be set in an altenative reality Scotland where 70% of the population were pro-independence, but a lot of people worried about the economic and practical consequences.

IA would then be an alliance of Labour (turned pro-independence) and the Greens in favour of a gradualist approach to independence. 

Siumut would be mainstream SNP and the established "party of power".

Naleraq are an alliance of Tartan Tories that have split from the SNP and recently coopted a leftist SNP splinter group in order to boost their numbers.

Nunatta Qitornai would be a radical SNP splinter group led by a guy from some remote part of the Highlands who was mad because he lost a leadership election to Nicola Sturgeon.

Atassut are Tories that have lost all principles and de facto allied with their former enemies in the SNP to secure their own careers and personal business interests. 

The Democrats are LibDems and moderate Tories that have come to the conclusion that independence is inevitable and hope to implement it in a gradualist way that doesn't tank the economy and with continued close cooperation with England post-independence, as such they are natural allies of the Labour/Greens alliance. 

The Cooperation Party are LibDems that remain stubbornly unionist despite all odds, popular with the English minority in Scotland incl. people who would vote Tory in England.
 

Love it! All this within a population comfortably smaller than a typical UK constituency with a turnout of only about 40,000.

Yes but before you dismiss it as tiny, remember there's over 2 millon square km  of it a strategically important location. I do think we should take it seriously especially in an era where US/Russian relations are open to question. Any signs of serious Russian influence here?

[Deleted]

Hans Enoksen now admits independence by 2021 is unrealistic. He basically caved after the first critical question in a tv-interview. What a joke. 

[Deleted]

Mar 21, 2018 13:54:24 GMT yellowperil said:

Mar 21, 2018 11:51:47 GMT matureleft said:

Love it! All this within a population comfortably smaller than a typical UK constituency with a turnout of only about 40,000.

Yes but before you dismiss it as tiny, remember there's over 2 millon square km  of it a strategically important location. I do think we should take it seriously especially in an era where US/Russian relations are open to question. Any signs of serious Russian influence here?

No, Russia is basically irrelevant in Greenland other than as a violator of sovereignty, mainly through submarines. China is a potentially important player with Chinese companies having interests in various mining projects, though none of them currently running (only one mine is, the often trumpeted Greenlandic mining bonanza is mostly still something they hope for). There is no interest in working with Russian companies among Greenlandic politicians (they have little to offer and it would be even more problematic for both Denmark and the US than Chinese influence). In addition having top notch Western environmental standards wrt mining practices is considered a must in Greenland and the Russians aren't exactly known for that. 

If they ended up cutting all ties to Denmark the most likely scenario is a Chinese-American rivalry where the Greenlanders try to balance the two giants against each other. Danes with an interest in Greenland generally have no faith in their ability to actually do this and assume they would become a mere pawn. But some Greenlandic politicians would no doubt get very rich during the process, even if there aren't that many minerals or oil that could actually be extracted (if there are they would of  course become even richer). In general the Americans would prefer Denmark staying in control of foreign policy and defence as Greenland is too strategically important for them to let other great powers in for real and the current set-up works for them.

At the end of the day the vastness of its territory combined with its strategic importance is a more important reason why Greenland cannot become fully independent than the economy, which may at some point become viable.

Though they could no doubt become a "sovereign state" in the Cook Islands definition of this (own diplomatic representations and membership of UN agencies, and "free association" with NZ which is in charge of "general foreign policy" and defence).

Seen from a Danish POV Greenland has a pretty good deal right now as an important part of a weak state, which still has the capacity to run a military and a fully fledged diplomatic service with a range of specialists and offers them privileged access to educational placements (above better qualified Danish students) and a generous subsidy, but the various mistakes made during the turbo modernisation in the 50s and 60s makes that situation sensitive and potentially untenable. Any other realistic "protector" of Greenland would be less responsive to Greenlandic interests as they would be far more marginal, even Canada (and Nunavut is far worse off than Greenland on basically all parameters). The Greenlandic elite recognizes the need for partners, but most of them would like to balance several partners against each other. The question is how realistic that is for a "giant micro state" in the ever more important Arctic region. I still see a reformed Community of the Realm with adaptation to the free association model (= formal sovereignty to Greenland and the Faroes which then let Denmark run certain functions) as the most realistic end result. The young generation is less keen on the "independence project" than the middle aged (not sovereignty, but the whole independence discourse as practiced in Greenland) and have a more pragmatic "no country is fully independent in a globalized world" approach - and are more focused on improving the economy and reducing social ills. 

[yellowperil]

Thank you for a characteristically thorough and informative reply to a fairly ignorant question - shows why we've missed you!