CBS study maps Green­land’s power elite: A small elite marked by big in­tern­al con­flicts

With its strategic geopolitical position and rich natural resources, Greenland has always been a significant asset.  Yet American approaches, purchase offers and influence campaigns in Greenland add a further dimension of relevance to the triangular power play currently unfolding between Denmark, Greenland and the United States. 

The question of who sets the course for Greenland’s future is more urgent than ever. New research from CBS highlights the composition of Greenland’s power elite and the internal divisions that characterise it.  

“This study is relevant for the population as well as for policymakers, because it can inform a discussion about whether the right people are in positions of power,” says Morten Fischer Sivertsen, Postdoc at the Department of Business Humanities and Law at CBS.  

Sivertsen has conducted the study together with Christoph Ellersgaard, Associate Professor at the Department of Organization at CBS, and Anton Grau Larsen, Associate Professor at Roskilde University.

Colonial shadows divide the elite

The study identifies a power elite of 123 individuals connected through central boards, political parties, councils and commissions. Within this group a clear cultural and linguistic dividing line emerges: on one side a Greenlandic-speaking elite with roots in politics and on the other side a Danish-oriented elite linked to the private sector. 

According to Morten Fischer Sivertsen, there is a Danish-Greenlandic conflict of interest within Greenland’s power elite that complicates cooperation:

“These are two very different cultural perceptions of things, two different languages, two different approaches. One side may feel that the other side does not belong at all, and the other side may feel that the first is unrealistic and opportunistic.” 

He continues: “This undermines their ability to work together and the trust between them – especially at a time when the colonial past is the subject of much attention and criticism, and when the explicit American desire to acquire Greenland has given the independence movement a powerful boost.” 

A strong state outweighs the business elite

The researchers also find that Greenland’s power elite is primarily tied to the public sector as close to two thirds are politicians, civil servants and leaders of public enterprises. This differs from the Danish power elite, which is more strongly connected to large business organisations and companies.

The state’s dominant role in Greenland’s power elite can be traced back to the colonial relationship with Denmark. For decades, Greenland was administered through close ties to the Danish state. As a result, the public sector gained a dominant position, which is still evident today in how power is distributed:

“In Greenland’s more recent history, it has mainly been the Danish state that has set the direction for social development,” explains Morten Fischer Sivertsen. 

Historically, people have therefore become accustomed to the state taking the initiative, which according to the researcher has created a self-reinforcing dynamic: 

“When it is typically the state that gets things going, people come to expect it will continue, and it may even be necessary if private actors do not step in.”

At the same time, the block grant, which covers about half of the Self-Government’s budget, reduces the incentive to develop a strong private sector. All in all, this means that much power is concentrated in the hands of the state.

In addition, the nature of Greenland’s large companies makes them less able to act as a counterbalance to the state. In Denmark, the business community can pressure the state by threatening to relocate jobs abroad. This is not possible to the same extent in Greenland, where two of the three largest companies are fishing companies. While some aspects of production – such as filleting – can be moved abroad, the sector is inherently tied to domestic waters.  

Fishing and fishing quotas form the basis of another internal dividing line within the power elite: between Nuuk and the rest of the country. 

“There are tensions between the power elite in Nuuk and the elite in the rest of the country,” explains Morten Fischer Sivertsen. 

“I think the rest of the country looks at Nuuk and says that it is very Danish and not the real Greenland. This also ties into the tension between tradition and modernity, which is central to Greenlandic society.” Here, the challenge is to find a balance between development on the one hand and preserving the Greenlandic spirit on the other. 

Power concentrated in few hands

While Greenland is built on the Danish welfare state model, it is still a very different country. The island’s vast size and small population create logistical challenges for running a welfare state. 

The power elite handles the complex task of governing Greenlandic society. Those few who build up the necessary expertise and qualifications become very difficult to replace, and when individuals are hard to replace, they may take liberties they should not. This can undermine the principle of arm’s length: 

“Personal can trump professional, and nepotism can thrive,” says Morten Fischer Sivertsen. 

At the same time, it becomes harder to criticise those in power because in a small society people are more likely to know each other. Criticism can therefore come with a high social cost, also for journalists: 

“The Fourth Estate does not have particularly strong conditions in Greenland as there are only two media outlets with relatively limited resources,” explains Morten Fischer Sivertsen. 

And as a recent PhD dissertation on the subject has shown (only in Danish), journalism in small societies is subject to special conditions: if you are too critical in your coverage, you may never get another interview. This creates a very different dynamic between the people in power and the media in Greenland.” 

More pieces to play with

The tension between the former colonial power and the formerly colonised has intensified in recent years. This became evident in the support for independence in the last election, where Naleraq – the party most strongly committed to independence – doubled its share of the vote. Demokraatit also achieved a significant victory, which the researcher links to their focus on domestic issues during the campaign: 

“They engaged less with the Trump discussion and spoke more about down-to-earth issues such as education and elderly care. Their strong election result likely reflects that the population feels they have their eyes on the ball,” says Morten Fischer Sivertsen.

That said, the question of independence seems unavoidable in the long run. And when the world’s largest military and economic power explicitly states that it wants to acquire the country, the world’s eyes turn to Greenland. 

“If the drive for independence continues, the winds may change, but for now, it seems that the power elite and the population at large are critical of American approaches. And frankly, the idea of trying to buy a country with such a strong desire for self-determination is outrageous.”

At the same time, American interest has given Greenland more leverage in negotiating a more equal relationship within the Kingdom of Denmark:

”A cautious prediction would be that it may lead to greater equality within the Realm rather than its dissolution,” Morten Fischer Sivertsen concludes.

If you want to know more, you can read the full study here

Contact: 

Researcher, Morten Fischer Sivertsen: mf.bhl@cbs.dk 
Communications Consultant, Anders Nørland: an.slk@cbs.dk