Lecture in Stavanger, June 1937: NS' Municipal Policy

Lecture in Stavanger, June 1937.

By Dr. Gulbrand Lunde.

Today we are facing a new municipal election, and the question then arises as to whether NS will again participate and submit lists in this election. In order to assess this, it would be correct to gather our experiences from our municipal policy in the past 3 years. It will then be this national assembly which, on the basis of our experience, will decide how the movement will position itself in municipal politics in the future.

For the sake of overview, I will first mention the purpose of our participation in municipal politics, then our municipal programs from 1934, and finally give an assessment of what significance municipal politics has had for the movement.

The purpose of NS's participation in municipal politics.

NS wants, according to our programme, a restructuring of our system of government, characterized essentially by the fact that the current form of democracy: parliamentarism and party government, will be replaced by a professional board and that cultural and business matters will be organised. Furthermore, that our board takes primarily national considerations based on the view that our people are a national unit. Our program cannot be implemented in a single municipality. The purpose of participating in municipal politics was therefore:

1. To seek to make our fundamental view applicable also in the municipal councils,

a) to seek to win supporters for our view,

b) to get debate in the city council and the press about our ideas.

2. Also seek in the municipal councils to stop Marxism and draw the other bourgeois parties into a sharper front against Marxism.

3. To create tasks for our comrades in arms, an election campaign always activates a political movement and prevents stagnation.

4. To train our members for political work.

It was these four points that were decisive when NS decided to take part in the local elections in 1934.  However, numerous difficulties immediately arose. Initially, it seemed feasible for our movement to participate in municipal elections with a uniform program across all municipalities. This was also from the beginning of the idea, but it proved impracticable in practice. A program that could be suitable for all municipalities had to stick to certain major issues which in and of themselves were not even feasible in municipal policy. Nor could such a program touch on the special points that interest the ordinary municipal voter. It would seem abstract and not collect votes.

This plan therefore had to be given up and instead it was sought to set up programs suitable for the individual municipalities, although in such a way that the programs were in accordance with NS's general program and largely had the same basic idea in all municipalities. The basic ideas around which the municipal programs gathered were:

1. A factual and responsible board, including eradication of corruption and work to ensure that municipal positions of trust are unpaid.

2. Honest budgets and sound management.

3. Worker-friendly policy.

4. Promises to start work for the unemployed and young people.

In addition, there were various points that were taken up in the individual municipalities, partly current issues that were supported, partly other things such as school issues, old-age benefits etc. 1.

What immediately catches the eye is that this program does not directly touch on any of NS' programme's main ideas. It is also clear that it had to be this way, as NS's goals cannot be implemented municipally either. But at the same time, it means a strong weakening of the movement, that one goes to the polls on a program that does not primarily aim at implementing NS's idea.

The election results largely showed progress for NS compared to

general election 1933. In Stavanger the progress was very great. The reason for this must be sought in the fact that the municipal program that was presented in Stavanger largely hit the nail on the head with what many disaffected voters wanted.

The points that particularly struck were:

Post 1, — the fight against the so-called "communal bones".

Post 2, — real budgets.

Post 4, — that the unemployed should be able to support themselves, as well

Post 6, — development of vocational schools and reduction of free places in secondary schools.

Although our movement gathered villains from all political camps in Stavanger, we perhaps received a particularly large influx from disaffected right-wing voters.

To the best of its ability, the city council group has sought to implement the points on which it was elected. I will give a brief overview of the cases that have been completed.

Ad post 1: Our group has presented in all budget proceedings

proposal that municipal positions of trust should be unpaid. Our proposal has each time been voted down against the Marxist and bourgeois votes.

Ad post 2: We have succeeded in getting our proposal for drawing up real budgets for Stavanger municipality implemented, as the Labor Party and the Conservative Party supported us on this point. From last year, Stavanger municipality has drawn up real budgets against the votes of the Liberal Party.

Ad post 4: NS has had a representative in the poor board who has sat on a committee for restructuring the welfare system in Stavanger and has here strongly supported NS's ideas. His proposal for work instead of welfare contributions has been voted down by the representatives of the other parties.

Regarding the reorganization of the welfare system, the committee divided itself into 4, namely: the Labor Party, the NS, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, all of whom had their own proposals. It is interesting to note that it is NS's proposal that has later been adopted by the chairmanship and city council, as none of the four proposals received a majority and they therefore voted on paragraph by paragraph in the new rules, and NS's proposal for some paragraphs was supported by the Labor Party and others from the bourgeois.

Ad post 5: Proposals have been put forward by our representatives about employment services, agricultural courses, etc., but it has not been successful in getting a majority for these proposals.

Ad item 6: The school. Our representatives have voted in favor of expanding the vocational school, which has also been approved. In contrast, we only received support from the Conservative Party for our proposal to reduce free places in secondary schools.

Regarding other cases, it can be mentioned that NS has prevented funding for political sports in Stavanger.

Furthermore, a proposal from NS in Stavanger to repeal the invalidity law was adopted, with the Labor Party voting alongside NS. NS’s representatives also proposed changes to the government regarding the law on home staff rules, which were likewise adopted.

During this period, our representatives have held positions in chairmanships and important municipal committees. They have gained in-depth knowledge of municipal administration.

Looking back at the results of municipal politics in Stavanger, where the movement gained the most momentum, we observe that several of our program items have been successfully implemented. However, this success is not always apparent to the average voter. Other parties have portrayed these changes as their own proposals, suggesting that they played a significant role in their implementation. The opponents’ press has been able to do this primarily because our own press has failed to adequately communicate our achievements. Our fellow members have not shown sufficient willingness to maintain our press. Local ambition within NS regarding press matters has hindered cooperation in sustaining larger media bodies. Despite significant financial sacrifices from a few members, Vestlandet’s Avis had to step in. Additionally, Norges Vei, a local newspaper that we sought to maintain, also had to be discontinued due to financial constraints faced by some members of the movement.

The result of this newspaper policy is that we are currently in a worse position with respect to the press than ever before. The collapse of the press in Stavanger is, of course, not only due to a lack of interest and willingness to sacrifice on the part of the members but also planned persecution by other parties, advertising boycotts, and similar factors. However, these challenges should have encouraged our members to sustain the newspaper.

As a result, in our municipal politics, we have achieved several victories. We can fully defend what we have accomplished to the voters. Unfortunately, we have failed to communicate these achievements to the voters consistently whenever we carried out some of our program items. Moreover, we currently lack the necessary funds to carry out this important information work.