Denmark and the Donald: what happened in Greenland’s election?
Greenland’s surprise election result is a rejection of Donald Trump and a move towards a slow-paced separation from Denmark. Now, Prime Minister Nielsen must form a government and begin his agenda to make his island a self-sufficient success story.
On Tuesday, the people of Greenland headed to the polls to elect a new government.
Just shy of 30,000 people voted in the election, but the ripples cast by a population smaller than Scarborough could surge into enormous waves.
The agenda was dominated by two issues: independence from Denmark, and Donald Trump’s threats to get his hands on the island “one way or another”.
So what happened, and why will the results from one icy corner of the world be so influential to global politics?
Greenland’s electoral system
Greenland is a self-governing territory, but part of the Kingdom of Denmark. That might seem odd given it is geographically a part of North America and because it is over 50 times the size of its parent state, but it is the product of a historic colonial rule going back to 1721.
In 2009, Greenland was granted self-rule, handing it control over most of its own affairs. For example, it runs its own welfare, healthcare, police and education systems, and can pass the laws it wants in these fields. Notably, it also controls its own environmental policy, which is important because Greenland is rich in oil and rare earth minerals.
But it must still abide by Danish laws on foreign affairs and defence. While Greenland can regulate its own taxes, it also remains bound to Denmark’s currency and central bank, so it can’t set interest rates, decide its own inflation policies or negotiate its own trade deals.
During elections, Greenlandic people vote for parties to represent them in the Inatsisartut (parliament). There are 31 seats up for grabs, and they are distributed based on proportional representation - for roughly every 3% of the total vote share a party gets, they are awarded one seat.
The whole of Greenland votes as one: there are no constituencies like there are in the UK. Each eligible voter ticks the party they want to win, and the party then chooses which candidates it puts into the seats it has gained.
The leader of the party with the most seats becomes Prime Minister. Their first task is often to form a coalition: it is very rare for any party to get 50% of the vote and therefore control parliament, so they must make alliances with other parties to form a government.
Who won and what are they promising?
The Democrats, a centre-right party, won the most seats for the first time in Greenlandic history, securing 30% of the vote and ten seats. This will triple their number of MPs.
Their leader, Jens Frederik Nielsen, now needs to form a pact with at least one other party to take him to the 16 seats required for a stable government - and to become Prime Minister.
Until he does, the outgoing Múte Bourup Egede will remain as a caretaker PM. His party, the Inuit Ataqatigiit, and their coalition partner Siumut, crumbled in the election and came a respective third and fourth place.
Both defeated parties had been giants of Greenlandic politics, but a controversial fishing quota they introduced attracted widespread criticism of being too harsh on local fishermen. Fish is Greenland’s largest export and the economy leans heavily on this industry.
There was also a general sense that Greenland’s politicians were too focused on independence from Denmark rather than solutions to everyday concerns. Their abstract goal was seen to come at the expense of economic growth and job creation.
The Democrats do advocate for independence from Denmark, but their position is one of patience. They want to sort out the island’s other issues before pursuing statehood.
This is an attractive stance for voters. There is overwhelming support for independence, and since Greenland can trigger a referendum on the matter whenever it likes it seems to be a question of when and not if the territory becomes the world’s newest (and twelfth largest) state. Only one party, Atassut, campaigned to remain a part of Denmark, and they took just two seats (7% of the vote).
But Greenland relies on an annual grant of $550 million from Denmark, concerning voters that a rapid divorce - as second-place party Naleraq also favours - would see them struggle to sustain themselves. This bursary is 20-25% of the Arctic island’s entire GDP.
The Democrats firstly want to reassess fishing laws, strengthen tourism and attract foreign investment to boost the economy. They have voiced opposition to the ban on uranium and rare earth mining imposed by the previous pro-green government, believing it hampers potential growth. They would rather address these problems and become a successful, financially secure entity before transforming into a country.
Why? Because an unstable new country unable to properly support itself could be ripe for the plucking - and that was another issue that topped the list of concerns for those at the ballot box.
Will Donald Trump buy Greenland?
A key topic of debate during the election was the man with his eyes on the prize: Donald Trump.
The US President has been vocal in his intentions to acquire Greenland. In a statement to Congress, he said he would get his hands on it “one way or another”, refusing to rule out military intervention.
Trump’s justification is the US needs Greenland for ‘national security’ purposes. Its strategic location, spreading toward the North Pole and halfway across the Atlantic, makes it the perfect place for military bases capable of monitoring Arctic activity.
One US node, Thule Air Base, already operates on the island and is considered vital for NATO and NORAD’s early warning systems and missile defence capabilities. Expanding the US presence deeper into the Arctic will boost America’s might and counter Russia’s militarisation of the region.
On top of this, China has expressed interest in investing in Greenland’s infrastructure - an attractive offer which will likely come with strings attached. This is concerning for America: any Chinese influence on its doorstep would be a major threat.
Trump could also be after the goldmine that sits beneath the ice. His coveting of Ukraine’s rare earth minerals has worried Greenland’s population that he intends on exploiting their resources and recharging his oil reserves. The melting ice sheets offer new extraction possibilities and open up trading routes into Europe.
The Greenlandic people see Trump’s comments as an affront to their self-determination, particularly their large Inuit community who have deep spiritual connections with nature and the land. As a result, not a single party campaigned for US annexation or a buyout - even with Trump offering to make every citizen a millionaire.
The President, commenting that the result was “good”, seemed to believe the Democrats’ open position to business has been an invitation for his expansionist project.
But incoming PM Nielsen says their electoral victory is a resounding rejection of Trump. He told Sky News: “We don't want to be Americans. No, we don't want to be Danes. We want to be Greenlanders.”
In direct opposition to what Trump believes, the Democrats’ gradual approach to independence might have won over more voters because it offers them certain safeguards in the near future. If the US follows through on threats to occupy Greenland, the island will be grateful for the military protection of its Danish parents and European allies.
What happens now?
The priority for Nielsen and his party is to form a government, and that will require partnerships. The future PM says he will not rule anyone out of this process.
However, negotiations may be tough. Environmental policy is a key concern for their most likely ally, Inuit Ataqatigiit, and so it may be hard finding support for their reversals to mining bans. This could be a major stumbling block in the Democrats’ mission to become financially independent.
The obvious alternative is second-place Naleraq, but the sticking point here could be the timetable for independence. The party wants an aggressive, rapid split in contrast to the tempered Democrat approach.
Whatever settlement is reached, one agreement will be in bold and underlined: Greenland is not for sale.
That means it’s just a question of whether Trump values their voice more than he values their land.