Artikkelen kartlegg Nasjonal Samlings planar for nyordning i det lokale og regionale styringsverket, med vekt på planar som aldri vart realiserte og som har fått lite forskarmerksemd. Fylket og kommunen skulle framleis vere dei grunnleggjande einingane. Men båe nivåa skulle formast om til organisatoriske monolittar, der all forvaltning vart samla under høvesvis fylkesmannens og ordførarens førarskap. Skiljet mellom statleg og sjølvstyrt vart i praksis oppheva. Ei kommuneinndelingsreform vart førebudd. Føremålet var å «temje» eigenrådige sektorar og å leggje til rette for storstilt administrativ desentralisering. Distriktsapparatet skulle gjere teneste for ein autoritær, eineveldig stat der aksepten for meiningsvariasjon og avvik var liten.
The reshaping of local government was of vital interest for the Nasjonal Samling (NS), the Norwegian national socialist party (1933–45) and the NS dominated puppet government established by the German occupants in September 1940. The purges started soon after the assumption of power. ‘Disloyal’ civil servants and local politicians were gradually removed and replaced – preferably by NS party members. Through a municipality act of December 1940, the Führer Principle was introduced in local and regional self-governing bodies. The NS party organisation was to shadow and control public administration at all levels. The focus of this article, however, is long-term reform ambitions, the plans for a post-war national socialist Norway. A number of reforms were prepared, one of them being territorial division. Local government was still based on the established system of regions (fylke) and municipalities, but NS wanted to ‘clean up’ a highly differentiated system of local political bodies and arms of central sectoral agencies. These were to be unified within one body on both regional and municipality levels. Two established functions – the governor (fylkesmannen) and the mayor – were transformed to Führers, responsible only to authorities on a higher level. The local and regional political institutions previously based on local elections were to be transformed to consultative bodies, based on the principles of corporativism. Thus, the – under the ‘old regime’ – fundamental difference between state power and local self-government was abolished (or made irrelevant). A main goal was to create organisations with strengthened capacity and a system with a minimum of sectoral autonomy. The plans for administrative decentralisation – especially to the regional level – were highly ambitious. NS regarded municipalities primarily as instruments of the central state. Local and regional government should serve an authoritarian, autocratic and strongly hierarchic state. The acceptance of divergences – in attitudes, politics and in practice – was low.
Mange bygninger i det kulturelle landskapet minner oss om religiøs dissentervirksomhet i perioden da 96 % eller mer av befolkninga tilhørte statskirken, men etter at dissenterloven fra 1845 tillot konkurrerende kristne trosretninger. Våre folketellinger gir en av verdens lengste oversikter over spredningen av alternative livssyn, fra 1865 til 1980. Den langsomme veksten forklares av Norge som et antipluralistisk og homogent samfunn, hvor den frivillige aktiviteten i frimenighetene vanskelig kunne konkurrere med statskirkens profesjonelle organisasjon. Lokalt kunne allikevel dissenterne stå sterkt med opptil en tredjedel av befolkninga som tilhengere, slik som i Vegårdshei. De hadde solide bastioner især i deler av Troms, Nordland og et område fra Østfold langs kysten til Rogaland, blant annet noe overraskende en sterk stilling for lutherske frimenigheter i deler av Vestfold. Relativt sett sto dissenterne sterkere i byer enn på landet, noe som blant annet ses i sammenheng med overvekt av kvinner både blant de mange innflytterne til urbane strøk og blant dissenterne.
Given today's extensive religious pluralism it is hardly surprising to find many buildings with ties outside the Norwegian Church, especially in the urban religious landscape. Many of these originate from religious non-conformism during the period when 96% or more of the population belonged to the State Church and after the ordinance ban on competing faiths was abolished in the 1840s. Our population censuses provide one of the world’s longest source series about the distribution of alternative beliefs from 1865 to 1980. The slow growth is attributable to Norway as an anti-pluralistic society, where the largely voluntary activity among dissenters had difficulty competing with the professional organization of the State Church. Locally, however, groups of dissenters could still be strong, with up to one-third of the population as followers, for instance in Vegårdshei parish, half way between Oslo and Kristiansand. Dissenters had solid bastions, especially in parts of the northern Troms and Nordland provinces, an area in Østfold province and along the coast of Rogaland province, including a surprisingly strong position for Lutheran congregations in parts of Vestfold, a province associated more with capitalist than with religious values. Relatively speaking, dissenters were stronger in cities than in the countryside, which among other things was related to the predominance of women among the many migrants to urban areas, and that in-migrants were easier to influence. A link between rural–urban migration and not belonging to any religious society was even easier to prove for the many men in this group – analogous to theories of radicalization of the labour movement.
I 1918 vedtok Stortinget den statlige revisjonsordningen som fortsatt i hovedsak gjelder. Den overførte regjeringens revisjonsvirksomhet til Stortingets kontrollorgan Statsrevisjonen, som fra 1938 het Riksrevisjonen. Den er et viktig element i den norske parlamentarismen. Stortingsvedtakene i 1918 gjorde slutt på nesten 50 års dragkamp om organiseringen av revisjonsordningen. Det er tidligere hevdet at 1918-ordningen var en realisering av Søren Jaabæks og Johan Sverdrups ideer fra 1874–75. Her argumenteres det for at 1918-ordningen primært var statsminister Gunnar Knudsens verk og at konstitusjonelle forhold spilte en langt viktigere rolle for konfliktens langvarige karakter og til dels utfall enn det tidligere forskning har vist. En viktig konsekvens av den langvarige og fastlåste dragkampen var at erkjente svakheter i regnskaps- og revisjonssystemet ikke ble løst eller forbedret. Det bidro til den ukontrollerte veksten i statsgjelden under og rett etter 1. verdenskrig som fikk store økonomiske og politiske konsekvenser.
In 1918 the Norwegian parliament (Stortinget) enacted a new way of organizing the audit of governmental accounts, which, between 1814 and 1918, was split between the Board of Auditors General elected by the Storting according the Constitution’s §75k and the Government. The five members of the Board were responsible for auditing the central government accounts. One of the law branches of the Storting, the Odelsting, decided whether or not to support the proposals and criticisms in the Board’s report. The numerous accounts of the individual administrative units of the government were audited by ministerial audit offices, most of them organized in the Ministry of Auditing (Revisjonsdepartementet). The parliamentary decisions of 1918 meant that authority to audit the accounts of all the individual administrative units of the government was transferred to the Office of the Auditor General led by the Board of Auditors General. This is an important element in the Norwegian form of parliamentary governance. The article analyses the prolonged political and constitutional struggle, originally between the Storting and the Government, behind the parliamentary decisions of 1918. The constitutional aspects of the struggle are emphasized compared to previous research, because along with the strict procedures connected with constitutional changes these made it much more difficult to find a solution. The prolonged stalemate on the issue from the 1870s was eventually ended in 1917 by the Liberal Prime minister, Gunnar Knudsen, forcing his solution on the Storting, which had been in favour of a completely different organizational set-up in 1915. In previous research, the ideas behind the parliamentary audit organization of 1918 have been linked to other Liberal politicians, principally Johan Sverdrup and Søren Jaabæk. The article argues that this was not the case.
Först nästan tvåhundra år efter slaget vid Svolder möter vi den person som ska ha underblåst fiendskapen mellan Sven Tveskägg och Olav Tryggvason och orsakat den senares död. Denna nyckelperson är drottning Sigrid, änka efter Erik Segersäll, sannolikt allra först introducerad av Gunnlaugr Leifsson. Därefter möter vi Sigrid i Fagrskinna och, framför allt, hos Snorre Sturlason, som ger en utförlig beskrivning av henne och förklarar tillnamnet «Storråda». Redan Lauritz Weibull förpassade Sigrid till sagornas värld, men frågan är varifrån motivets förlaga hämtades och varför. Här föreslås att islänningar känt behov av att rentvå Olav Tryggvason från all skuld i striden mot Sven Tveskägg, och som en «dea ex machina» uppfann Gunnlaugr Sigrid och modellerade henne efter den ryska furstinnan Olga.
Ever since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Scandinavian contacts across the Baltic have increased, and meant a lot academically. Several conferences have dealt with medieval contacts between Scandinavia and our eastern neighbours, and we can hope for a wider knowledge of this topic. Here, I show how a totally fictitious person was imported from the East in order to explain a purely Scandinavian conflict. This was Sigrid «the Strongminded», said to have been the wife/widow of the Swedish king Erik the Victorious, who died c. 995. In preserved Old Norse literature, she first appears towards the end of the 12th century, i.e. almost 200 years after she is said to have existed. Traditionally, her first appearance is attributed to the Icelandic monk Oddr Snorrason, but Sveinbjörn Rafnsson has convincingly argued that it was Oddr’s contemporary, Gunnlaugr Leifsson, who introduced her to Icelandic history. Later, we meet Sigrid in Fagrskinna and, above all, in Heimskringla, where Snorre Sturlason gives a very detailed description of her inciting her second husband, Sven Tveskägg, to attack Olav Tryggvason, thereby causing Olav’s death. Lauritz Weibull had already dispatched Sigrid into the realm of myths, but the question is why this motif was used and where it came from. Here, it is suggested that the Icelandic monk Gunnlaugr felt it necessary to exonerate Olav Tryggvason from all guilt in disputes with Sven Tveskägg and as a «dea ex machina» he invented Sigrid, modelling her on the Russian Princess Olga.