Critics say that Greenland’s two mandatory seats in Denmark’s Folketing create confusion and undermine the Greenland government. Polar Journal asked the two MPs who are split on the question.
“Greenland’s MP’s are just for show.”
With the statement above Pele Broberg, member of Inatsisartut, Greenland’s parliament, and head of the centrist opposition party Naleraq, made headlines in local newspaper Sermitsiaq last week.
He argued that Greenland has never been asked in a referendum if they want members in the Danish parliament, and that “…[the members] are just there to support Denmark’s actions as if it had never been a colonizer.”
He claims that with the current constitutional setup it is unclear who really represents Greenland in Denmark: Greenland’s two members of parliament or its government, Naalakkersuisut.
The North Atlantic Mandates
The parliamentary setup can, indeed, be confusing, so first some background.
In 1953, as part of a change to its constitution, Denmark instituted the so-called North Atlantic Mandates. This meant that out of the 179 seats in the Folketing, the Danish parliament, two seats will always be from the Faroe Islands and two will always be from Greenland, regardless of population sizes.
As a consequence, these elections are held separately from the Danish elections, meaning that the North Atlantic members represent their own parties and their own agendas. But sometimes, when elections are tight, these members can be vital in the formation of Denmark’s government.
This is the case not least because both of Greenland’s members historically have tended to support left-wing governments, swaying Danish politics slightly left. In the most recent parliamentary election in 2022, for instance, the Greenlandic MP Aaja Chemnitz became part of a power game in which she finally chose to support Mette Frederiksen, Denmark’s current social democratic prime minister.
The areas ‘taken home’
So why then would Greenland want to give up these seemingly influential seats?
Well, since the North Atlantic Mandates were invented, the country has become increasingly more independent. After the constitutional change in 1953, Greenland’s status changed from a colony to a mere region in Denmark.
But then, in 1979 Greenland formed its own so-called ‘home rule government’ before gaining even more independence and a ‘self-rule government’ in 2009. Along the way, more and more policy areas were ‘taken home’, and are now controlled by the Greenland government, Naalakkersuisut, in Nuuk.
These areas include the school system, the healthcare system, the control of natural resources, and many others. Some areas, like the police, could potentially be ‘taken home’ in the future but have not been yet. The Danish constitution does not, however, allow areas such as foreign policy, citizenship, and the supreme court to be controlled from Nuuk.
And it is in the negotiation of all these different policy areas that confusion arises. Why does Greenland need representation in Denmark when most policies are controlled from Nuuk anyway, some ask. Others argue that the only way that Greenland can influence its own foreign policy, for instance, is through the Danish parliament.
‘Power should be exercised from Greenland’
The two MP’s were widely discussed in Greenland last week, but what do they themselves think about the question: are they just for show? Polar Journal asked them.
Unlike Pele Broberg, who made the controversial statement, both members of the Danish parliament represent parties that currently form Greenland’s center-left government: Siumut and Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA). But while their parties form a government together in Greenland, the two MP’s do not entirely agree on the question.
Aki-Matilda Høegh-Dam from Siumut, who made headlines last year when she spoke Greenlandic in the Danish parliament, is not opposed to the idea of pulling the Greenlandic members out of the Folketing.
“I have always held the viewpoint that political power should be exercised from Greenland and believe that cooperation between the Inatsisartut and the Folketing can continue without necessarily doing so through Greenlandic members of the Folketing,” she wrote to Polar Journal in an email.
She also pointed out, like Broberg, that the two Greenlandic members of parliament, of which she is one, could potentially undermine the official policies of Greenland’s government. Read her full comment under her photo below.
“I have always held the viewpoint that political power should be exercised from Greenland and believe that cooperation between the Inatsisartut and the Folketing can continue without necessarily doing so through Greenlandic members of the Folketing.
“As I have previously mentioned in other media, I consider it appropriate for the Naalakkersuisut, with a mandate from the Inatsisartut, to outline the country’s policies. Therefore, I do not see it as expedient to have two members of the Folketing who potentially have the opportunity to undermine the overall Greenlandic policy being pursued.”
“Regarding sensational headlines like the one you referred to [Pele Broberg’s Sermitsiaq article], I will not entertain or comment on leading questions like that. I do not wish to contribute to a debate that may incite lateral violence. I prefer to focus on political issues and structures, with openness to nuances, as these types of journalism can strengthen Greenland’s democracy and interests.”
Photo: Marie Hald, Folketinget
Secure daily focus on Greenland
The other member of Parliament, Aaja Chemnitz of IA, on the other hand, believes that her presence in Denmark is necessary. Without it, she argues, Greenland would have little day-to-day influence on questions that concern it.
The two Greenlandic MP’s role is to assert “parliamentary control” on the government, just as the rest of Denmark’s MP’s do. This can be done by calling for consultations, asking questions to ministers, making proposals for decisions, and generally informing about current issues in Greenland.
“I find it hard to see how the daily focus on Greenland would be maintained in the Folketing if Greenland did not have direct influence, and I would be concerned that Greenlandic issues in the government would be reduced to being brought up a few times a year during negotiations rather than there being a continuous focus and pressure on the government,” she wrote to Polar Journali in an email.
Her full comment can also be read under her photo below.
“The Folketing oversees 32 significant areas on behalf of Greenland, including foreign affairs and justice. These are significant areas that Greenland could eventually take over, but has not yet done so.”
“As a member of the Folketing, it is our task to carry out parliamentary control on an equal footing with other members of the Folketing. The Naalakkersuisut sets out the overall direction for the work. Thereafter, it is the task of the Greenlandic members of the Folketing to ensure that Greenland is not forgotten among the many Danish issues.”
“This requires perseverance and a parliamentary toolkit with direct access to decision-makers. Greenlandic members of the Folketing can, among other things, call for consultations, ask questions to ministers, make proposals for decisions, and generally inform about current issues in Greenland. In this way, daily pressure is created on the Danish government to prioritize Greenland, and I have observed that presence ensures influence.”
“Therefore, I find it hard to see how the daily focus on Greenland would be maintained in the Folketing if Greenland did not have direct influence, and I would be concerned that Greenlandic issues in the government would be reduced to being brought up a few times a year during negotiations rather than there being a continuous focus and pressure on the government.”
Photo: Marie Hald, Folketinget
Who represents Greenland?
Back in December, in the Inatsisartut, Greenland’s parliament, Pele Broberg of Naleraq asked a so-called “Paragraph 42-question”, a question that has to be answered by the government’s administrative body.
He asked four questions, all concerning Greenland’s two members of the Folketing. The first one cut to the heart of the matter:
“Are Naalakkersuisut and Inatsisartut or the members of the Folketing Greenland’s representatives?” he asked.
He also asked whether the Greenland government would be ready to inform Denmark that elections for the Folketing should no longer be held in Greenland, and if the Naalakkersuisut would be ready to inform the Danish government of this willingly or needed the Inatsisartut to vote on the question.
Now, two months later, his questions have still not been answered. In the spring, he revealed in the Sermitsiaq article, his party plans to bring the questions up for a vote in the Inatsisartut.
The Naalakkersuisut, Greenland’s government, did not respond to Polar Journal’s request for comments on the matter.
Ole Ellekrog, PolarJournal
