Today Norway celebrates the 200th anniversary of its constitution of May 17, 1814. Of the world’s constitutions in force today, only the US constitution of 1787 is older than the Norwegian constitution. So what kind of constitution is the Norwegian constitution, in 1814 and today? How has it endured for so long?
In Norway, the adoption of the constitution is celebrated widely every year on May 17. The date for the constitution’s adoption is also Norway’s National Day. The annual celebrations are evidence of the constitution’s great historical significance for Norway as it symbolises the birth of the independent Norwegian state after centuries in a union with Denmark. Similar to the United States, Norwegian independence, statehood and the constitution go hand in hand. The events in 1814 that lead to the constitution are commonly told as a story of the nation’s genesis, ever entrenching the constitution in the Norwegian historical consciousness.
A revolutionary constitution at a time of restoration
In 1814 and during the 19th century, the Norwegian constitution was one of the most liberal constitutions in Europe. The Norwegian framers were inspired by the preceding revolutionary constitutions in the United States and in Europe, in particular the French constitution of 1791. Key political principles of the time, like the sovereignty of the people, the separation of powers and the equality of man, were adopted by the framers, even though these principles were not declared in the constitution’s text like in other constitutions at the time.
According to the 1814 constitution the king was given the executive power, but importantly, following the French model of 1791, his role in legislation was limited to a suspensive veto only. Thus unlike most of the European monarchical constitutions of the 19th century, the all-important legislative power was placed firmly in the hands of the representatives of the Norwegian people. Like the French and other revolutionary constitutions of the 1790s, the Norwegian constitution also abolished nobility. The suffrage was wide by 19th century standards, even though the constitution did impose income and property requirements. In 1814 around 45% of Norwegian men above the age of 25 qualified for the right to vote, which was liberal compared to later European constitutions.
The liberal character of the Norwegian constitution was emphasised by later constitutional developments in Europe. Following the Napoleonic wars and the settlement at the Congress of Vienna in 1814-15, European 19th century constitutionalism rejected many of the constitutional principles from the revolutionary era, including the sovereignty of the people. Due to this development, the Norwegian constitution with its strong parliament and wide suffrage remained a uniquely liberal constitution in Europe for much of the 19th century. In many ways, the Norwegian 1814 constitution was the last and the only lasting revolutionary constitution in Europe following the French revolution.
From the ban of Jesuits to the age of secularism
At the same time, the Norwegian constitution was notoriously illiberal concerning religion. Its article 2 established Lutheranism as the state religion, and banned Jews, Jesuits and clerical orders from the kingdom. The ban on Jews was abolished in 1851, the ban on clerical orders in 1897 and the ban on Jesuits was abolished only in 1956. Since 1964 the constitution has explicitly proclaimed the freedom of religion, and the state religion was abolished in 2012. At the same time article 2 of the constitution was transformed into a declaration of the current constitution’s object and purpose:
Our values will remain our Christian and humanist heritage. This Constitution shall ensure democracy, a state based on the rule of law and human rights.
The transformation of article 2, from imposing a state religion in 1814, to today’s wide and secular declaration of modern constitutional values, symbolises the transformation of the Norwegian constitution during these 200 years. Even though Norway this year celebrates the 200 years anniversary of the constitution, today’s constitution is very different from the 1814 constitution.
Amendments kept the constitution young
Over the years, the constitution has been formally amended more than 300 times. In comparison, the US constitution of 1787 has only been amended 27 times. In the Norwegian constitution, only 23 articles have remained unchanged since 1814. This means that about 4/5 of the constitution’s articles have been amended at least once. During every four year term of the parliament, numerous amendment proposals are presented, though most are not adopted. Still, since 1905, the parliament has on average adopted 7-8 amendments in each four year term.
Amendments range from technical or even linguistic adjustments to important political changes like the 1911 amendment to curb the king’s personal powers by making his decisions subject to approval by the government, the introduction of universal suffrage in 1913 and the introduction of a procedure for the transfer of sovereignty to international organisations in 1963.
Behind the text, an informal constitution
In addition to the many formal amendments, the Norwegian constitution has also been subject to important informal changes in the political system. These informal changes have probably been vital for the constitution’s longevity as they allowed for a smoother transition from the 19th century separation of powers system to today’s parliamentary system where the king no longer plays a part in politics.
Following a dramatic and highly controversial impeachment judgement in 1884, the parliamentary system was introduced in Norway without constitutional amendment. Article 12 of the constitution says that the king is free to appoint a government of his own choosing. Yet since the 1890s, the king has never appointed a government without the support of a majority in the parliament. Moreover, the government’s legal obligation to resign following a vote of no confidence in the parliament was only written into the constitution in 2007. For about 100 years this key principle of the Norwegian parliamentary system was described by constitutional lawyers as customary constitutional law having the same rank and force as the written constitution. The existence of a separate body of customary constitutional law is a peculiar and somewhat controversial feature of Norwegian constitutional law.
Another key feature of Norwegian constitutional law, judicial review, isn’t stated in the constitution either. Yet since the 1820s, the Norwegian Supreme Court has exercised judicial review in individual cases by setting aside legislation contrary to the constitution. This long lasting practice probably makes the Norwegian system of judicial review the oldest in Europe, again second only to the United States (which, by the way, doesn’t state judicial review in the constitution either).
In addition to informal changes, the Norwegian constitution has also been interpreted flexibly in order to adapt it to changes in society and international relations. One example is article 1, which is Norway’s declaration of independence and which states that Norway “is a free, independent, indivisible and inalienable Realm”. During the personal union with Sweden between 1814 and 1905, this provision was interpreted strictly as to prevent any Swedish influence in Norwegian affairs. Following the development of more comprehensive international co-operation after 1945, the independence clause in article 1 has been interpreted in light of these developments. In particular the constitution’s traditional notion of sovereignty has been challenged by Norway’s association with the EU through the 1992 EEA Agreement.
Bicentennial amendments: language reform and human rights provisions
During the last ten years though, the Norwegian constitution has been subject to several reforms with the aim to bring the constitution’s text up to date with changes in the political system and contemporary requirements. On the occasion of the constitution’s bicentenary, two important amendments have just recently been adopted. On May 6 this year the constitution’s language, which until then was 19th century Danish and hardly comprehensible for modern Norwegian readers, was modernised. Then, on May 13, the Norwegian parliament adopted a whole new chapter of human rights in the constitution.
All in all, then, today’s Norwegian constitution is very different from the constitution that was adopted in 1814. Yet the constitution’s basic framework and its institutions remains pretty much the same. This framework of continuity allows for the constitution’s historical magic to shine even on the constitution’s new provisions and arrangements. That is why we still speak of the 1814 constitution in Norway despite its numerous amendments.
The Norwegian constitution is a remarkable story of both stability and change, mirroring the evolution of the modern Norwegian state and democracy. That, I suppose, is what we are really celebrating in Norway this year.