Have you looked at the flag of Denmark? It has what is known as the Nordic Cross, a sideways cross that denotes Christianity. That is the whole flag, Nordic Cross on a red background. Look at all the other countries that have the same style of flag. Whatever gave you the idea that a 'culturally liberal country" must be a non-religious one?
When Denmark (or any other constitutional monarchy, really) decided to transfer the real political power to the elected government rather than the hereditary monarch, they decided not to kill them and take all their stuff as well. So really, it was a rich and politically powerful family that is now just a rich and culturally significant family.
So like the Kennedy family or the Kardashians, just with a longer pedigree.
Yeah the idea of republics as the gold standard of liberal democracies that uphold liberal ideals and protect minorities from abuse by populist elected leaders has taken a bit of a hit in recent years.
Constitutional monarchies tend to be pretty liberal. The theory (not sure I buy it, especially given recent events in the UK) is that the monarch would be the ultimate protector of the people’s liberties in the event of a populist demagogue getting elected.
On a side note the history of Denmark as a liberal nation is actually pretty interesting. Denmark was historically a very traditional, very conservative country until the 18th century. When one random dude Johann Struensee, with no royal or aristocratic background, managed to ingratiate himself with the king (and have an affair with the queen, siring the heir to the throne in the process) and single handily reformed Denmark into a liberal country (before being deposed and brutally executed, but the reforms were well established enough that they could not be reversed)
Well, having a powerless head of state hanging about at least does provide a reminder that even someone with complete control of a government can be reduced to a figurehead, should enough people want it.
I think it’s not so much the monarch as protector, as the fact that monarchical countries tend to have parliamentary systems. If you look at the list of countries in that social mobility ranking, the first purely presidential congressional country is the US, ranked at 27.
(Switzerland (ranked 7) and France (12) are not purely parliamentary, but neither are they president-congressional.)
Nope, the Commonwealth is most of the countries colonized by the UK, with notable exceptions like USA, Ireland, and Zimbabwe. Some are Republics and don’t acknowledge the queen: India, most African countries, and most recently Barbados.
One thing about a constitutional monarchy is that there are separate Head of Government and Head of State. Being an American where these are not separate, I’m curious if this is seen as a benefit in such countries.
Note that I specified Commonwealth realms, not “all the members of the Commonwealth.”
You forgot about one of the most famously liberal countries… that’s also a constitutional monarchy- the Netherlands.
Clearly having a monarch and royal family doesn’t have any effect on liberal policies.
This is a cultural thing, not a religious thing. In a 2019 survey of the same population only 37% answered positively to the question “Do you believe in God?” (which would include believers outside the Church of Denmark) and only 25% that they believe, or strongly believe, in life after death.
In Scandinavia in general belief in God is plummeting, but many non-believers think it’s perfectly fine to do baptisms, weddings and funerals in church. There are often non-religious options, but people stick with “how it’s always been”.
Yes, the state Churches in Scandinavia are still fundamentally problematic in at least some aspects, but people don’t like big changes and they compare the laws and the attitudes of today with those of early previous century and before and think the Church is “a nice thing”, now.
A couple of things I’ve gathered from having mixed with Danes a bit (the in-laws) so I may be wrong:
-
Denmark isn’t so liberal in all respects; a lot of the rural folk are pretty right-wing, and I believe some of their immigration policies have been pretty stringent.
-
The Royal Family there isn’t much like Britain’s with all the pomp and ceremony. I gather they mix with normal (though, I’d imagine, mainly rich) people, and don’t have the same level of security and so on.
So in a nutshell; countries can be quite idiosyncratic.
Got it.
-
People often assume Sweden and Norway and Denmark’s policies are similar (usually thinking of Sweden). Sweden’s immigration policy is much much more open than Denmark, Norway somewhere in the middle. Denmark and Norway maintain pretty active militaries. On the other hand, Denmark and Sweden have active far-right movements, but Norway’s rightmost party is mostly free of xenophobia, and arguably their left is more moderate I think?
-
A lot of the Scandinavian countries are big on patriotic monarch support. I’d think the continental countries are more on the ceremony. It’s pretty unthinkable that a UK or Scandinavian monarch abdicates, while in Belgium and the Netherlands they pass on the throne when they get up there in age. Denmark loooves their flag.
The King of Sweden is de jure the least powerful monarch in the world. Even the Emperor of Japan has more power on paper. This is because in the 1970s the Swedes rewrote their constitution to be as descriptive as possible and get rid of legal fictions like ministers “advising” the monarch. As a result there’s no such thing as royal assent, he doesn’t appoint any ministers, judges, officials (outside his household), isn’t nominally commander-in-chief, and has no reserve powers. He’s purely a ceremonial figurehead instead of simply being one in practice.
The urban/rural thing is true pretty much everywhere though. I’d be more curious about comparing a conservative rural Danish, Swiss, German, or French person with their American equivalent. Would that Danish farmer be more like the stereotypical Kansas corn farmer, an organic avocado farmer in California, a crunchy home garden type from Eugene Oregon, an urbanite in a small city like Tulsa or Des Moines, or even your stereotypical “urban coastal elite” types? America is so right-leaning it’s difficult to compare properly. Most Europeans consider the Democrats the conservative party, and the Republicans batshit insane.
Anyway, the interesting thing about Denmark is that while they are very liberal, and also among the happiest people in the world (though you wouldn’t know it watching them sulk on the train or generally being very shy and brooding in public), their culture is highly conformist. Showy displays of individuality, wealth, and brashness are very frowned upon, which is difficult to comprehend as an American. That’s also why they’re generally unaccommodating to foreigners who want to live there. It’s no melting pot, you must assimilate and behave properly and don’t show off. Even then you may still be shut out of social circles. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it overtly racist like you see in Japan, but it’s similar.
As for the state church, yeah that’s kind of uncool. I think in Sweden newborns are automatically registered as a church member or something like that. The thing is, despite having a state church, these are still highly secular societies. You could say few bother to formally de-convert, even though they effectively have. My understanding is that for a lot of Danes the church is mostly just a Christmas and Easter thing, and even then it’s more for the pomp and ceremony than the actual religious content.
So like the monarchy being declawed in favor of a liberal democracy instead of being seized and disbanded, I think the church is similar. With such a long cultural history it seems like they prefer to keep those historical institutions intact but to cede control to the people/government rather than the church or monarchy.
Another interesting thing is that the Danes are a highly modern and relatively unsentimental culture. Their modern architecture is second to none, and while they have a plethora of historic buildings and sites, they tend not to get too precious about it all, and when they build new they build modern. Yes they have some cultural museums and reenactment sites, but they don’t do the renaissance fairs or old timey dress up like you see in Bavaria, Holland, or even Sweden and Norway. So they still have all their history but they don’t kowtow to it.
As characterized as the Janteloven: the unspoken laws of conformity as depicted in the tale of a fictional Danish town called Jante.
Wow that’s harsh.
No. That was abolished a long time ago. There were some laws changed in the 90’s to finally separate church and state (though two vestiges remains*) and it was done on Jan 1st 2000.
Back before the mid 20th century, membership in the Swedish Lutheran Church was mandatory, and the church was tasked with doing census, being de facto record keeper of all citizens.
Freedom of religion is of course the law for everyone but the reigning monarch and their heir. For some reason our parliament hasn’t changed that they must belong to The Swedish Lutheran church.
Please note that as far as religious practices go, Sweden is the most atheist democratic country in the world. Only totalitarian communists countries have higher numbers. I believe, but am too lazy to check this, that every week more Muslims are going to Friday prayer, than Christians attending high mass on Sunday.
*The vestiges are
- Taking care of funerals, even non-religious. The church maintain cemeteries for non-believers, as well as believers of other christian churches, and (I think) some non christian. i think this is left in place since the church handled all burials for hundreds of years, they have the know-how and logistics in place to do this efficiently.
- The funerals are paid through taxes, and the state collects this on behalf of the church. Which may seem inappropriate until you realize that they provide these services for all residents, no matter church affiliation.
ETA
I’ll just leave this here for your perusal.
England has an establishment of religion, but in practice it doesn’t amount to much now, and nobody is all that bothered about it. At any rate they have more important things to prioritise.
Actually having established churches will further secularism in a liberal democracy: established churches have secure sources of income so they grow fat and complacent, and do not bother people. Contrast that with e.g. the US where churches have to be entrepreneurial (i.e. aggressive) to retain and grow market share.
I’m not sure what your criteria are here, but although Sweden has a comparatively smaller military and isn’t participating in NATO missions, it does have a substantial military industry, including its own military airplane production and spends more than 1% of GDP on it’s military.
Norway’s rightmost parties are definitely playing on xenophobia, though not enough for some, which has led to marginalized splinter parties that go even further on the xenophobia. Those are still a ways from getting any representatives on a national basis but are represented in several municipal councils. Case in point “The Democrats”, whose logo includes “Norway first”, who decry their former parties as “Right-globalists” and would toss Trump’s salad if they ever had the opportunity.