an obvious feature of all of the parliamentary debates on Christiania is that the Freetown is an issue that divides the left and the right. There is however much more to say regarding how the issue of Christiania has been framed in the context of Danish parliamentary politics.
The confusion in the Danish parliament at the time of the birth of Christiania in september 1971 was only the beginning of a turbulent pe- riod in Danish politics. in 1972, the populist the Progress Party (the fore- runner to today’s Danish People’s Party/Dansk Folkeparti), was formed, its major issue being the lowering of income taxes. Opinion polls soon showed that one out of five Danes supported the party. in the same year, Denmark decided to become a member of the EEC (today EU) af- ter a referendum on the issue. The following election, occurring in De- cember 1973, has been called the Earthquake Election (‘Jordskredsval-
get’), because its results turned the world of Danish party politics up- side down.44 For decades, the parliament’s seats had been proportion- ally divided between five or six parties, which formed a left and a right block. after the 1973 election there were suddenly ten parties in the par- liament, five of them newcomers; and the Liberal Party formed a mi- nority government. although the change in Danish politics did not be- come as dramatic as first expected, it threw the parliament into a state of slight disorder that lasted until the end of the decade. The Earthquake Election was also the first strong indication of a deep-going structural shift, bringing new conflict and voting patterns to Danish party politics. This shift perhaps made its final breakthrough only in the 2001 ‘second Earthquake Election’, when a right-wing coalition won its greatest vic- tory ever in Denmark.45 The Liberal and Conservative Parties formed a government under the leadership of anders Fogh rasmussen, with the support of the Danish People’s Party, who had built their support base through aggressive xenophobic rhetoric.
in certain respects, the birth of Christiania and the results of the 1973 election could be seen as particular and different responses to the same global process: the transformation (and emerging crisis) of the capitalist economy, which in the nordic countries came out as a crisis of the scandinavian welfare state. at this particular time, sociologists launched the term ‘post-industrial’ to conceptualise a shift in the or- ganisation of production and the patterns of consumption in the Glo- bal north. in connection with this, political scientists started to argue that a ‘new politics’ was on its way, as ‘class voting’ was gradually being replaced by ‘issue voting’.46 importantly, this political shift was not on- ly, or perhaps primarily, occurring in the context of the party system. The emergence of ‘new politics’ in the parliamentary context could ac- tually be seen as an effect of the pressure of the extra-parliamentary wave of new social movements, which manifested themselves globally in the 1960s, in Europe initially led by the new Left, which gave birth to Christiania.
‘new politics’, referring to ‘issue voting’ or ‘single issue movements’, is often mistakenly associated with a new emphasis on narrow individual self-interest in political life, gradually replacing the role of (class-based) ideology in political debates, protest action and voting behaviour. On the contrary, research on both new social movements and changing voting patterns shows that new politics is highly valuebased; it is often publicly articulated as a principled protest politics in which both mor- als and ideological commitments play a significant role.47 in Europe, this shift not only includes the so-called new social movements, but also new populist movements, which had an early debut in Denmark, compared to other European countries.
it is further sometimes argued that ‘new politics’ means a declining importance of the left-right conflict. it is however more accurate to say that while the political map has been supplemented with new co-or- dinates, the line of conflict between left and right remains, although it has been redrawn. in the Danish case, it may even be argued that new politics at several moments has meant an increasing polarisation be- tween left and right. in 1968, the socialist Party, a political party close to the new Left, and the Conservatives, both had their best election for decades.48 in addition, two of the new parties entering parliament in 1973, the Progress Party and the Centre Democrats, had an anti-com- munist profile. Furthermore, Danish political scientist Ole Borre argues that the period between 1975 and 1984 actually was defined by increas- ing left/right ‘ideologisation’ of Danish election politics, linked to the new tendency of ‘issue voting’.49 and, in the absence of a Green Party, in Denmark it was primarily the already established parties to the left of the social Democrats that linked up with the new social movements, while established parties to the right had to face negotiations with new coalition partners — populist parties, who had built their support base mainly on an anti-tax and anti-immigrant rhetoric.
it is in this context we should understand the main logic of the con- flict lines and rhetorical figures of the Christiania debates. The leading
roles in the fiercest verbal battles over Christiania in parliament be- tween 1974 and 2004 were played by parties who were closely associated with the new value politics and who, for radically different ideological reasons, regarded Christiania as an important symbolic issue, through which they could project their ideologies and utopias, their stereotypes and stigmas. With the exception of the Danish Communist Party, the strongest voices in defence of the Freetown came from the left — the socialist Party, the Left socialists (Venstresocialisterna) and the red- Green alliance (Enhedslisten, a left wing coalition entering parliament in 1994).50 These were parties with links to the new social movements, for whom Christiania was of great significance as a space for counter- culture. Leading the attacks on Christiania from the side of the right was the Progress Party and (from 1998) Danish People’s Party, who were the driving forces in the territorial stigmatisation of the Freetown. For the populists, Christiania presented a perfect opportunity to illustrate what was profoundly wrong with the social Democratic welfare state, as they painted an image of the Freetown as an embodiment of urban decay, populated by scroungers, parasitising on decent working peo- ple’s tax money. in the 1987 debate, the small left-wing party Common Course (Fælles Kurs), quite accurately pointed out that the Progress Party had two ‘whipping boys’ — Christiania and the refugees.51
in spite of the numerous attacks from the parliament’s right-wing, it might actually be argued that the political opportunity structures were in favour of the Freetown during its early decades because, in addition to the turbulent situation in the parliament in the 1970s, ‘the issue’ or ‘problem’ of Christiania was framed in a manner that made it fit into the increasing emphasis on ‘value politics’. it is also important to underline that Christiania’s existence has been more or less parallel with the emer- gence of a ‘media society’, which has further supported an emphasis on ‘symbol politics’. Christiania’s own cultural politics is a good example of how this practice has been articulated by the new social movements (see Cathrin Wasshede’s chapter in this book).52 in parliamentary pol-
itics, mediatisation means that public debates to a larger extent than before are turned into theatre, into spectacle, where political conflicts are staged as drama. in such a context, ideologically dense and highly charged symbolic issues such as Christiania are often paid significant attention. in several Christiania debates, parliamentarians have inter- rupted the debate about the Freetown simply to point out that they re- gard the attention paid to the issue heavily disproportionate in relation to more important political issues and decisions, affecting far more people. For example, in the 1974 Christiania debate the Liberal Party Minister of Defence, Erling Brøndum, commented on the fact that five ministers in the social Democrat government had been involved in Christiania, stating that it ‘would almost make you believe that Chris- tiania was a whole country to govern and not just a military area’.53 such an observation was not inaccurate. in 1976, the parliament engaged in three long Christiania debates in less than three months. The last one was actually not announced as a Christiania debate. it spontaneous- ly broke out in the midst of, and took over, the debate on the govern- ment’s proposition for the yearly state budget. The 1975 debate makes the issue of Christiania as a political ‘happening’ explicit. referring to the fact that the state’s art Fund had given money to solvognen (the sun Chariot), a theatre group based in Christiania who staged a series of public happenings, the Progress Party ironically states:
4 1/2 years ago a happening started which has not come to an end, and which is of such overwhelming format, that it is completely unbelievable that the art Fund has remained blind to its qualities.54
By the end of the debate, the socialist Party turns the table around, by suggesting that the Progress Party actually had organised a happen- ing in the parliament by initiating another debate on Christiania: ‘how much will the art Fund give the parliament, or perhaps the Progress Party, for the happening we have had today?’55
pared to the turbulent 1970s, came with a turn to the right, as Denmark ‘followed the international conjunctures that brought reagan, Thatch- er and Kohl to power’.56 as in these countries, the first clear steps to- wards a liberalisation of the Danish economy were taken in 1982 by a right-wing government under the influence of the neoliberal free-mar- ket ideology.
The 1980s is often described as a decade completely defined by a heavy right-wing political dominance, but this is not the case in scandi- navia (and perhaps neither in other parts of the world). What is often forgotten is that in parallel with the rise of neoliberalism, the early 1980s brought a new wave of new social movements — including the new women’s movement, the peace movement, the environmental move- ment, the squatter movement and the solidarity movement. after a cou- ple of difficult years in the late 1970s, this also charged Christiania with new energy, and the Freetown reassumed its status as a space for urban alternative culture in Denmark. in the Danish parliament, the 1980s is perhaps best described as a period defined by deepened polarisation in Danish voting patterns. The left-right division also became increasing- ly gendered as the turn to the right to a large extent reflected a male- dominated voting pattern.57 From the mid 1980s a strong opposition emerged against the cuts in public spending introduced by the govern- ment, something which made the socialist Party the third largest party in the 1987 election. nevertheless, the centre-right wing coalition man- aged to stay in power.58 it was in this context that a broad parliamen- tary majority voted for the 1989 Christiania law, which was regarded as highly favourable for the Christianites, as it gave them the right to col- lective use of the property; and the Freetown legal status. The Liberal Party Minister of Defence Knud Enggard called the 1989 Christiania law a ‘parliamentary innovation’, referring to the fact that it was sup- ported by a broad left-right parliamentary majority.59 The parliamen- tary debates in 1989 and 1991 do however make clear that the legislation allowed for different interpretations. to the social Democrats and the
socialist Party the law secured Christiania’s existence, something which they had supported since 1972. Legalisation also satisfied some of those to the right who had always framed Christiania as a problem of law and order. Thus, to the left, the law meant making Christiania legal, while for the right it meant enforcing the law on a territory that for almost two decades had remained outside of sovereign control.
so far, Christiania had, both in expected and clearly unexpected ways, been favoured by the shifting political opportunity structures provided by Danish parliamentary politics. Even when an elite con- sensus on market liberalism was established in the late 1980s, its em- phasis on (a regulated) selfregulation could be used to promote Chris- tiania’s self-government.60
it was only after the second Earthquake Election in 2001 that the tide would finally turn with force against Christiania. as the impor- tance of the value-political dimension of the left-right division has in- creased, it could be argued that the dominance of the right-wing in the 2000s has been due to its successful cultural strategy, with its empha- sis on anti-immigrant and anti-expert rhetoric. in the ‘cultural war’ launched by anders Fogh rasmussen in his first new Year’s speech, Christiania was an obvious target. Positioned in Copenhagen’s inner- city, it is a powerful cultural symbol: of the continuing influence of the 1968 generation and of the following countercultural currents, such as punk and hip-hop; and of the cultural politics of the ‘social state’ that once, and under the strong influence of leading Danish social scientists, architects and public intellectuals, baptised the Freetown as a ‘social ex- periment’.61 Consequently, as the new government declared that they now once and for all would solve the issue of Christiania, attention to Christiania intensified in the parliament, with four big debates between 2002 and 2004. as pointed out by the Christian Democrats, the first of these debates presented the parliament with rather surprising news. The Danish People’s Party, whose mandates in parliament the Liberal- Conservative government was dependent on, had changed their posi-
tion on the Freetown. While the Danish People’s Party (and their fore- runner the Progress Party) had always demanded immediate eviction of the Christianites, it now recognised the 1989 Christiania law.62 soon it became clear that this was hardly good news for Christiania, as the government proposed changes in the Christiania law that in practice meant a reversal of its content.
While assuring that the Christianites would not be evicted, the last debates are imprinted by the right-wing parties’ ideologically driven determination to put an end to everything that makes Christiania a symbol of (leftist) alternative culture. in the debates, the Liberal Party, leading the government, not only declared that it was time to put an end to Christiania’s collective use of property, but also to its consensus democracy, which had been an obstacle to the government’s attempt at governing Christiania through the years (see amy starecheski’s chap- ter in this book).63
Of the last debates, the one held in 2003 was the most intense and ideologically driven. The two following debates, held in spring 2004, were much less heated as the parties in parliament were approaching the agreement to adopt significant changes in the 1989 Christiana law. Just like in 1989, there was a broad parliamentary majority, as all of the parties except the red-Green alliance, voted for the new law in May 2004.