Politics, sovereignty, and state development.

Greenlandic independence is shaped by political, financial and societal dynamics, with a specific focus on the interplay between political ideology, discourse across society, and the traumas of being a post colony to the national self-image and self-understanding.

Classical left-right and more modern political spectrums can both help to place the political and ideological power forces of the Greenlandic government. But the current classical and modern charting spectrums are not tailored very well to the context of the discourse and strategies of Greenlandic independence, so a new multidimensional spectrum gives better visualization of the political goal.

The Greenland Political Sphere on Independence [GPS-I] answers the need for a political analysis tool that can carry the specific conditions of Greenlandic independence.

The standards of the political left-right scale alone cannot map Greenland’s political parties with regards to independence.

What is independence? Why is it important? To whom is it for? No, these questions are not the primary focus, for independence is a universally recognized human right for our people. The real question we face is: how does it come about?

The final, probably most concealed yet profoundly damaging facet of Greenland's post-colonial traumas is an acute denial of fiscal responsibility. Only a complete acceptance of fiscal responsibility can pave the way to independence.

Under the existing legal frameworks, Greenland is without any legally enforceable arrangement or claim that assures any ongoing receipt of financial subsidies from Denmark, such as the current block grant, when we opt for independence.

Following the enactment of the Self-Government Act, there has since been an observable increase in populist parties, especially of what can be classified with tendencies within the spectrum of right-wing populism mixed with left-leaning politics, most notably Naleraq, Partii Inuit [PI], and Nunatta Qitornai [NQ].

Contrary to Western political categorizations where conservatism typically is linked to right-wing politics, in Greenland, it has in newer times been the left-wing socialist parties that have taken on the role of preserving traditional cultural and nativist values.

A pressing problem emerges when this strong drive for independence is not accompanied by viable strategically crafted fiscal policies backed by economic growth strategies, that support financial autonomy without reliance on continual substantial transferred grants from Denmark or any other external entity.

The core conundrum is the claimed top prioritization of independence, all the while either completely disregarding or downplaying the importance of self-financing it.

Besides the current issues regarding the financial tasks of independence, there are several traumas that the indigenous population of Greenland are carrying when it comes to the rule of Denmark.

The traumatic events of the technocratic style governance may have catalyzed an environment ripe for indigenous national populist sentiments, giving till this day a perceivable detestation of indigenous Greenlanders towards Danes and experts of Danish descent.

This includes the evolution of the representation of the various expression of what is considered conservatism in Greenland and how it must be understood, to really find up and down, left and right in classical left-right scale in Greenlandic context.

The politics in Greenland have been shaped by the Nordic political ideologies of Denmark and of the global political ideologies.

These first political influences can be said to have arrived with the Danish commerce and colonial administrative governance. The Danish colony was both a mission of religion and a commercial enterprise. This establishment introduced Greenland to the concept of monopoly trade through the political ideology of colonial mercantilism.

The monopoly trade in Greenland developed a social and economic structure that is still visible today in much of the infrastructure and administration that we have today.

The decolonization and modernization period manifested in the UN charter following end of WWII would show to break up some of the restraints of the monopolistic ties from Denmark and slowly introducing Greenland to more global trade networks and the dynamics of the free market system.

During the modernization and danization period of the 1950s to 1970s, several attempts were made to establish political parties in Greenland.

In 1964 the Inuit Party was created. Their advocacy concentrated on promoting equality in pay and opposing the “birthplace criterion” established by the G60 policies, by the demand for equal pay, meant as; that the same education or the same work must be paid the same in Denmark and Greenland, regardless of where you were born.

Siumut was founded in 1977, Atassut, Inuit Ataqatigiit, and Sulisartut Partiiat [SP] (the workers party) all in 1978.

Populism primarily gained organizational footing in Greenland within the post-2009 self-government era, during the most hopeful and seemingly inevitable years of independence realization.

The rhetoric of right-wing populists underscores an antagonism against 'foreign' elements. The variation of right-wing populists in Greenland most often will takes stance against the Danes “qallunaat” but also other foreigners, such as Asian workers.

Examining the variances of the parties within our own politics, in relation to the conventional left-right political spectrum, causes discrepancies between its operationalization and a more modern Greenlandic context founded established political understanding, which must require a clearer way to define the parties’ stances and approaches to the important issue regarding financing independence.

Applying this binary framework to Greenlandic politics could be misleading. Greenland currently lacks a distinct conservative party. Traditionally, left-wing parties have been left to champion the cultural self-preservation and societal equality and homogeneity, while the right-wing led by the Atassut party, has favored closer ties with Denmark and the integration of Danish culture into Greenland.

Political parties are often situated on a conventional left-right scale, as is the customary way to understand the composition of any nation’s political composition.

This quickly creates problems when trying to situate Naleraq's simultaneous positioning on the left in economic terms, far-right in cultural and identity terms, and at the center to left in traditional left-right economic scaling.

Therefore, the political spectrum might be reframed as a multi-dimensional space, accounting not just for traditional left-right politics, but also for distinct cultural, historical, populistic, and environmental factors.

The understanding of Greenlandic politics on independence, cannot be expressed only by simplified dichotomies, and even a nuanced, multifaceted approach that accounts for the complex interplay of ideological stances, socio-economic circumstances, and deeply entrenched cultural anxieties, will not be able to fully chart the movement of our country.

Resolution 1514 (XV) of the United Nations General Assembly, titled ‘Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples’ adopted in 1960, explicitly states the imperative for all nations to acknowledge the right of all colonial countries and peoples to self-determination, independence, and freedom.

First, all people have the right to self-determination. Second, this right should not compromise the territorial integrity of a sovereign state, a principle iterated in Resolution 2625 (XXV) of November 4th, 1970. Third, indigenous people possess an unequivocal right to self-determination.

Finally, the UN's ‘Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ form 2007 specifically notes in Article 3 that “indigenous people have the right to self-determination”. This can be said to finally settle the dispute, that led to section 21 in the Self-Government Act “The decision on Greenland's independence is made by the Greenlandic people.”

Hence, we have the right to become independent and sovereign whenever we choose so, by a Greenlandic vote. No one else can claim independence for us, and no one else can deny us independence.

The origins of Greenlandic post-colonial trauma and distain against Danish expertise can be traced through the political development from 1940 until 1979.

In 1940 when Denmark was invaded by nazi Germany, Greenland stood alone without an external administrating body.

The American military presence was resolidified with the cold war accelerating in the 1950’s, and because they needed the space around the northernmost settlement for expanding their base, Denmark agreed to forcefully evict the local Inughuit, which had to resettle even more to the north in the present-day Qaanaaq.

As the war ended the needs for a new league of nations, and an end to imperialist wars was commenced. Denmark became on of the founding members of the UN and committed to follow the UN charter. This included the ending of colonies, and the rights of former colonies to gain equal opportunities for autonomy.

Assessing political forces that play into the realizability of independence has to be context based.

On one hand there is a clear consensus on the goal of independence, and on the other, there is very little discussion of the complete fiscal reality of the situation.

In the populist discourse surrounding Greenlandic independence, a nuanced discussion on achieving fiscal self-sufficiency is notably absent.

Contrarianism against scientific advice, especially when such advice comes from Danish experts, thwarts the discourse for solutions, as the contrarian stance rejects external input such as from the economic council, the National Bank of Denmark, fishery commission, and others, on how we can navigate towards greater fiscal self-reliance and thus closer to independence.

This analysis examines the discourse on Greenlandic independence using quantitative data from discussions captured over three sample weeks in 2023 and 2024. The study analyzes the frequency and distribution of topics within a political discussion Facebook group to identify underlying narratives and sentiments related to populist sentiments that reflect on proclivity against topics of either economic or scientific benevolent interests with regards to independence.

The political discourse indicates that discussions rarely address practical strategies for establishing a viable fiscal approach to Greenlandic independence. Instead, the discourse predominantly revolves around blaming, negative unfounded or just plain false accusations, and a notable aversion to science or facts.

To address the challenges of self-financing effectively, Greenland must work beyond the current cycle of post-colonial discontent.

The discourse around Greenlandic independence is hindered by post-colonial historic grievances, economic misconceptions, and a deep-seated resistance to expert’s influence, all of which destroys the conversation, and makes it impossible to practically address the need for a national fiscal strategy.

The issue of reaching independence is not of who proclaims to want it more. It is not who shouts the loudest or demands it the earliest. The real issue is fiscal, and the real gauge on how close we are, is how aggressive an economic expansion policy we realize.

The GPS-I is meant to illustrate the true nature of the power of scientific application to politic. Political parties are plotted based on three dual opposing factors.

First, there is the traditional left-right scale. The score on this (x-) axis is based on party policies and accepted political placement.

The second, scale is the y-axis, which plots the parties based on how much they incorporate either public populist opinion, or expert advice into their policy making.

The third, z-axis is the axis that defines the parties on their fiscal approach. The more aggressive of a policy on economic expansion a party has the closer it is situated to independence.

If we are serious about independence and the goal of a sovereign state, then we have to talk about our fiscal responsibility, just as much as we talk about our hope, our dream, our desire, our utmost biggest yearn, Kaalaallit Nunaat, free at last.