Michael Bregnsbo
 |
Despite defeat and cessations, the Danish absolutist government survived. Yet, recent research has shown that discontent was more widespread than hitherto assumed. Consequently contemporary fears of revolution of the regime and its repressive reactions were not unfounded after all. It seems to have been a beleaguered political system without positive visions. How did the regime seek to legitimate itself in its communication with the public after 1814?
Besides popular discontent in general, a number of specific potential challenges might have been facing the regime. Firstly, the heritage from the latter half of the 18th century where the government had been seen as ‘enlightened’, or like in the Dano-Norwegian context as ‘absolutism guided by public opinion’. Under the impression of the French Revolution it had been emphasized that the political goals in Denmark and France had been similar, only the means had differed: The Danish absolute king was taking care of the common good whereas an elected legislature would only lead to discord and dominance of vested interests. This was propaganda but still, the Danish state had enjoyed peace during most of the 18th century, social improvements (e.g. agricultural and educational reforms) had been implemented, and the regime had through freedom of the press been open towards impulses from without.
By 1814, this reformist absolutism with its political culture highly based on trust and openness was gone. Yet, critics of the regime were keen on referring appreciatively to its former reform record implying that this ought to be followed up and thereby indirectly criticizing the system. Secondly, the regime was challenged by the liberal constitutions of Norway (1814) and Sweden (1809). For the same reason, the liberals looked to those two countries for inspiration (Scandinavism). Thirdly, the state was also consisting of the duchies of Schleswig, Holstein and Lauenburg of which the last two were members of the German Federation and thus entitled to an assembly of estates. In line with the growing endeavours of Pan-Germanism from the 1830s on, the duchies began to cause increasing problems for the integrity of the state.
The analysis will highlight the argumentation for absolutism in theory and practice with emphasis on the often implicit ideological and political premises of value behind the arguments. This should be examined on the basis of a sample of acts of communication to the public by the regime such as laws, public executive announcements and public speeches and cantatas e.g. on the king’s birthday. Thus it will be based on material produced by the decision-makers, administrators and spokesmen of the regime, thereby complementing LM’s project on intellectuals and their opinions on the Danish absolutist regime, expressed through fiction.
To examine how the argumentation for absolutism after 1814 differed from the preceding period the project will offer a comparative view on how absolutism was legitimised from the 1780s onwards based on existing research where, among other works, I draw on my own publications. Was the argumentation after 1814 when communicating to the public offensive or defensive? Did the form of argumentation change towards 1848, e.g. was the introduction of consultative assemblies of estates in 1831/1834 argued as a rupture on or as continuation of the form of government up to then and did the accession of a new king in 1839 (Christian VIII who had shortly been king of Norway in 1814) change the form of argumentation and if so: how? Furthermore, attention will be given to the three aforementioned main challenges and how they were spoken of and argued against, including including how other forms of government, e.g. in Sweden and Norway, but also in Europe in general, were referred to, thus opening interfaces to the projects by RG and MO, and the extent to which marked differences between Denmark proper and the duchies can be identified.