With the tense international situation as an ominous background, the regular quadrennial parliamentary elections for the lower house were held in Sweden in September, 1940. Four years ago, the autumn of 1936 witnessed spirited and warmly contested parliamentary elections in both Sweden and Norway. Because Norway's constitution was amended in 1937 to provide for quadrennial rather than triennial elections, the autumn of 1940 would—save for the German invasion of the Norwegian democracy—have seen nation-wide parliamentary elections in both countries of the Scandinavian peninsula. With Sweden as the only Scandinavian nation remaining free and independent, it has been interesting to note what effect, if any, the tremendous pressures from the surrounding totalitarian states has had on democratic processes in the Swedish state.

Over a year ago, the Swedish cabinet was reorganised into a National Cabinet with all leading political parties represented. As the time for the elections approached, some of the minority parties expressed willingness to postpone the contest, even to the extent of ignoring the constitutional provision for quadrennial elections. The remarkable expression of confidence by the smaller parties in the largest party—the Social Democrats—was countered by an equally remarkable stand taken by the leader of the Social Democrats, Prime Minister Per Albin Hansson, who insisted that the democratic processes of a popular election should be continued. The prime minister's view was accepted by all parties, since it was felt by all leaders that in such a time of stress it would be an indication of democratic strength for the parliament to go to the people. All were agreed also that the parties which would, in normal times, be in opposition should continue as vital going concerns.

Every twelve years, the parliamentary elections in Sweden, which take place quadrennially, and those in Norway, which occur triennially, fall within a few weeks of each other. In 1936, spirited contests in these two Scandinavian countries (September 21 in Sweden and October 19 in Norway) culminated in gains in each case for the workers' parties. The workers' parties of these two contiguous democracies have much in common. Both are moderately socialistic, and both are believers in the democratic parliamentary system of government. The official title of the Norwegian party is Labor, while that of the Swedish is Social Democrat.

In no part of the world is there greater devotion to the principle of representative government than in the Scandinavian countries. Nowhere, too, are there more homogeneous, intelligent, and literate electorates. And in none of the three are party lines more sharply drawn or issues more clearly defined and presented than in Norway, where, as in all Scandinavia, there is complete freedom of discussion. Probably there is no better example in recent years of a bitterly fought election over clear-cut issues, yet conducted in a most orderly fashion, than the triennial election of October 16,1933, in which were chosen 150 members of the Norwegian Storthing.

Losses by the Labor party—looked upon as one of the most radical of Western European labor parties—and gains by the non-socialist groups at the Storting elections on October 20, 1930, resulted in a notable, though not a decisive, move toward the right in Norwegian parliamentary politics. The move was a remarkable one in that the Labor party lost 12 of its 59 seats in the Storting; the Conservative party added 13 to the 31 seats it already held; and the Communists, who had held three seats, were unable to elect a single representative. The move lacked decisiveness, however, because the Laborites, in spite of their losses, still constitute the largest parliamentary party. At the same time, the popular vote registered for the party was the largest ever given to any Labor or Socialist group in the history of Norway. The Conservatives did not take over the government, and the Radical government under the premiership of Mowinckel continued. While the Radicals joined with the other non-socialist parties in the fight against Labor, it advocates, nevertheless, a progressive social program. Furthermore, the present move to the right is not nearly so marked as was the move to the left in the last triennial election in 1927. The new Storting remains farther to the left than was the Storting before the 1927 elections.

The chief reason why this election deserves attention is that in it there were placed before a literate, alert, and intelligent electorate—representing a homogeneous people with a democratic background—vital issues involving the acceptance or rejection of an advanced socialistic program.

When a central authority orders a local subordinate government to take a certain course of action under penalty, it is more than likely that the enforcement of the order will lead to difficulties, and it may even result in open defiance on the part of the local government. The effect is very different, however, when the central authority merely establishes a standard and promises to turn over cold cash to the local units which meet the standard. With governmental units as with individuals, rewards for work properly done are more likely to produce desirable results than punishment for failure to obey orders.

Constitutional objections to many of the provisions of the civil service laws have been raised in several of the jurisdictions in which such legislation has been enacted. In addition to the national government there are today ten states which have provided for the application of the merit system to the appointment of all or a portion of the administrative officers and employees. These ten states with the dates of the adoption of the law are as follows: New York, 1883; Massachusetts, 1884; Wisconsin, 1905; New Jersey, 1908; Illinois, 1911; Colorado, 1912; Ohio, California and Connecticut, 1913; and Kansas, 1915. In Illinois and Colorado the employees in the state institutions had been under the merit system for several years prior to the adoption of the general civil service laws.

In four of these jurisdictions—California, Colorado, Connecticut and Kansas—there have been no cases involving the constitutionality of civil service legislation. In Colorado there have been at least two bitter controversies in the courts as to the interpretation of the law but in neither case did the parties who fought the law contend that it was unconstitutional. The question of the legality of the adoption of the Colorado law has also been before the courts; but the constitutionality of the provisions of the law has not been attacked. In New Jersey the only case of importance touching the matter of constitutionality is that of the Attorney-General v. McGuinness, but here the decision dealt entirely with the constitutionality of one of the methods prescribed for extending the operation of the law to municipalities.