Liberal Party split of 1940: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
(24 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 10: Line 10:
}}
}}


The '''Liberal Party split of 1940''', also known as the '''Westergaard split''', was a political schism within the [[List of political parties in Delkora|Delkoran Liberal Party]] in 1940. It was caused by severe divisions between the party's {{wpl|social democracy|social democratic}} and {{wpl|classical liberalism|classical liberal}} factions, and engineered by [[Chancellor of Delkora|Chancellor]] [[Sofia Westergaard]]. It ended with the expulsion of the classical liberal faction from the party, which instead formed the [[List of political parties in Delkora|Reform Party]].
The '''Liberal Party split of 1940''', also known as the '''Westergaard split''', was a political schism within [[Delkora]]'s [[Liberal Party (Delkora)|Liberal Party]] in 1940. It was caused by severe divisions between the party's [[Liberal Party (Delkora)#The left–right struggle|left and right factions]], and engineered by [[Chancellor of Delkora|Chancellor]] [[Sofia Westergaard]]. It ended with the expulsion of the classical liberal faction from the party, which instead formed the [[List of political parties in Delkora|Reform Party]].


After the 1940 Federal Election returned a {{wpl|hung parliament}}, Westergaard announced her intention to continue her [[List of political parties in Delkora|Liberal]]–[[List of political parties in Delkora|National Labour]] coalition, seeking additional support from the [[List of political parties in Delkora|Left Republicans]]. The classical liberal faction, led by Mathiesen, revolted, preferring to support a [[List of political parties in Delkora|Conservative]]–[[List of political parties in Delkora|Agrarian]] government. Westergaard escalated the dispute into an outright split, provoking the classical liberals' defection to Reform, an [[Mathiesen v. Westergaard|intervention by the Federal Constitutional Court]], and a snap election which brought [[Veidnar Albendor]]'s Conservative–Agrarian–Reform government to power.
After the 1940 federal election returned a {{wpl|hung parliament}}, Westergaard announced her intention to continue her [[Liberal Party (Delkora)|Liberal]]–[[National Labor]]–[[List of political parties in Delkora|Progressive]] coalition, seeking additional support from the [[List of political parties in Delkora|Left Republicans]]. The classical liberal faction, led by [[Julius Mathiesen]], revolted, preferring to support a [[Conservative Party (Delkora)|Conservative]]–[[List of political parties in Delkora|Agrarian]] government. Westergaard escalated the dispute into an outright split, provoking the classical liberals' defection to Reform, an [[Decision no. 257 of 1940|intervention by the Federal Constitutional Court]], and a snap election which brought [[Veidnar Albendor]]'s Conservative–Agrarian–Reform government to power.


The split was a pivotal event in Delkoran politics and the ultimate collapse of the [[List of political parties in Delkora#Second party system (1880-1959)|second party system]]. Although initially disastrous for the Liberal Party, Westergaard succeeded in transforming it into a social democratic party, repositioning it as an ally of National Labour. It experienced a subsequent resurgence, returning to office in coalition with National Labour in 1975 and regaining its plurality in 2014. By contrast, Reform faded away quickly, dropping out of parliament in 1952 and later merging with the [[List of political parties in Delkora|Centre Party]] to form the [[List of political parties in Delkora|Union of Technocrats and Reformists]] in 1985.
The split was a pivotal event in Delkoran politics and ended the [[List of political parties in Delkora#Second party system (1880-1940)|second party system]]. Although initially disastrous for the Liberal Party, it succeeded in permanently repositioning it as a social democratic party and ally of National Labor. It subsequently experienced a resurgence, returning to office in coalition with National Labor in 1975 and regaining its plurality in 2014. By contrast, Reform faded away quickly, dropping out of parliament in 1952 and merging with the [[List of political parties in Delkora|Free Republicans]] in 1960.


==Terminology==
==Terminology==
Line 20: Line 20:


==Background==
==Background==
The Liberal Party's role as centrist kingmaker during the [[List of political parties in Delkora#Second party system (1880-1959)|second party system]] had seen it gradually decline in influence, {{wpl|sinistrisme|pressured from the left}} by the emergence of National Labour. By the 1920s, two main factions had emerged within the party:
A [[Liberal Party (Delkora)#The left–right struggle|conflict between the ''Venstre'' and ''Højre'' factions]] had grown in the Liberal Party since its {{wpl|sinistrisme|displacement as the left opposition}} by [[National Labor]]. The party's drift and reputation as unprincipled junior coalition partners was challenged by ''Venstre'' leader [[Sofia Westergaard]], who led the party to victory in 1932 and 1936 on a {{wpl|social democracy|social democratic}} platform that included expansion of the {{wpl|welfare state}} and nationwide {{wpl|public works}} programs.


* ''Venstre'' (left) — the social democratic faction, favouring government intervention to address economic and social issues.
Westergaard's chancellorship was spent fighting the ''Højre'' Liberals just as much as the Conservative opposition; much of her success relied on her coalition with [[National Labor]] and the [[List of political parties in Delkora|Progressive Party]]. ''Højre'' organised under [[Julius Mathiesen]]. They feared the loss of the party's {{wpl|classical liberalism|classical liberal}} character, and were alarmed by Westergaard's forceful actions like the [[Blockade of Banderhus]].
* ''Højre'' (right) — the classical liberal faction, favouring traditional priorities of {{wpl|limited government}} and low taxation.
 
A tradition of alternating leaders from both factions for balance saw the Liberals participate in both left and right coalition governments under [[Niels Frederiksen]], [[Olav Brøndum]], [[Ingeborg Hansen]], and [[Valdemar Kjeldsen]].
 
[[Sofia Westergaard]], a leading social democrat and minister of trade in the [[Ingeborg Hansen]] government, became party leader in early 1932. Assailing the Liberals' status as "eternal junior coalition partners", she advanced a leftist platform calling for expansion of the {{wpl|welfare state}} and {{wpl|public works}} programs. The Liberals won the 1932 and 1936 Federal Elections, and Westergaard became [[Chancellor of Delkora|Chancellor]], heading a coalition with National Labour.
 
As Chancellor, Westergaard pursued a leftist agenda that included large-scale infrastructure programs and the introduction of a {{wp|single-payer healthcare|single-payer}} healthcare system. Although she had significant success in implementing these programs, they often faced opposition from Højre MPs and relied on support from National Labour and other leftist parties to pass. 
 
Although Westergaard was popular and successful in carrying out her policies, the coalition deepened the party's left–right division. The classical liberals, uneasy with the new direction, began to organise under Mathiesen. They feared the loss of the party's traditional centrist role, and resolved to challenge Westergaard at the earliest opportunity.


In a campaign speech in Izenhoth in 1940, Mathiesen decried what he called the "corruption" of the Liberal Party by "an alliance of communists, syndicalists, and trade unionists", saying: "Our party is, in its origins, a party that supports the right of individuals to pursue, without government interference, such course in their lives as they deem fit. This is fundamentally at odds with the socialist vision espoused by the radicals now infiltrating our ranks."   
In a campaign speech in Izenhoth in 1940, Mathiesen decried what he called the "corruption" of the Liberal Party by "an alliance of communists, syndicalists, and trade unionists", saying: "Our party is, in its origins, a party that supports the right of individuals to pursue, without government interference, such course in their lives as they deem fit. This is fundamentally at odds with the socialist vision espoused by the radicals now infiltrating our ranks."   


==Parliamentary prelude==
==Parliamentary prelude==
The 1940 Federal Election returned a {{wpl|hung parliament}}. The Liberals lost ground and finished second, behind the Conservatives and ahead of National Labour. However, the Conservative–Agrarian bloc could not muster a majority alone, even with outside support from the Moderates. The position of the Liberals was thus crucial to determining the next government.
The 1940 federal election returned a {{wpl|hung parliament}}. The Liberals lost ground and finished second, behind the Conservatives and ahead of National Labor. However, the Conservative–Agrarian bloc could not muster a majority alone, even with outside support from the Moderates. The position of the Liberals was thus crucial to determining the next government.


Westergaard announced she intended to continue the Liberal–NL coalition and seek outside support from the {{wp|anti-monarchism|anti-monarchist}} and {{wp|socialism|socialist}} [[List of political parties in Delkora|Left Republicans]]. This proved to be the last straw for the Højre faction: Mathiesen announced in response the right-liberals would oppose the coalition with a "radical" party.
Westergaard announced she intended to continue the existing coalition and seek outside support from the {{wp|anti-monarchism|anti-monarchist}} and {{wp|socialism|socialist}} [[List of political parties in Delkora|Left Republicans]]. This proved to be the last straw for ''Højre'': Mathiesen announced in response they would oppose the coalition with a "radical" party.


In the first investiture vote on 12 August, the right liberals carried through their threat: they voted against the party line, causing Westergaard's government to be rejected. Conservative leader [[Veidnar Albendor]] was given an exploratory mandate to form a government.
In the first investiture vote on 12 August, ''Højre'' carried through their threat: they voted against the party line, causing Westergaard's government to be rejected. Conservative leader [[Veidnar Albendor]] was given an exploratory mandate to form a government.


==Showdown==
==Showdown==
Incensed by the rebellion, Westergaard decided to use the dispute to rid herself of the right faction. She expelled the classical liberal representatives from the party for voting against the party line, and reaffirmed her intention to continue as Chancellor. Chaos erupted within the Liberal Party: the leftists on the central committee began expelling rightists, while Mathiesen [[Mathiesen v. Westergaard|filed suit]] in the Federal Constitutional Court, arguing that the expulsions were unconstitutional, and simultaneously announced a leadership challenge.
Incensed by the rebellion, Westergaard decided to use the dispute to rid herself of ''Højre''. She expelled their representatives from the party for voting against the party line, and reaffirmed her intention to continue as Chancellor. Chaos erupted within the Liberal Party: the ''Venstre'' members on the National Executive Committee began expelling ''Højre'' members, while Mathiesen filed suit in the [[Federal Constitutional Court of Delkora|Federal Constitutional Court]], arguing that the expulsions were unconstitutional, and simultaneously announced a leadership challenge.


Although Albendor moved to form a cabinet, King [[Gunnar II of Delkora|Gunnar II]] feared a constitutional crisis. He chose to suspend parliament until the constitutionality of the expulsions could be ascertained and asked the Federal Constitutional Court to expedite consideration of Mathiesen's lawsuit. Albendor was privately critical of the suspension, but made no comment in public.
Although Albendor moved to form a cabinet, King [[Gunnar II of Delkora|Gunnar II]] feared a constitutional crisis. He chose to suspend parliament until the constitutionality of the expulsions could be ascertained and asked the Federal Constitutional Court to expedite consideration of Mathiesen's lawsuit. Albendor was privately critical of the suspension, but made no comment in public. He remarked to an aide: "What can I possibly add to the Liberals tearing themselves to shreds?".


After weeks of deliberation in ''[[Mathiesen v. Westergaard]]'', the Court upheld Westergaard's expulsions on 3 September. It ruled that the representatives had defied the platform voters had voted on in the election, therefore their expulsion was justified by the principle of {{wpl|proportional representation}}. It criticised the expulsion of rightists from {{wpl|electoral list}}s to ensure leftists would replace them in parliament, but found it lawful.
After weeks of deliberation in ''[[Decision no. 257 of 1940]]'', the Court upheld Westergaard's expulsions. It ruled that the representatives had defied the platform voters had voted on in the election, therefore their expulsion was justified by the principle of {{wpl|proportional representation}}. It found the expulsion of ''Højre'' members from {{wpl|electoral list}}s lawful since it was done in accordance with party rules, citing [[Bjørn Olsen]]'s takeover of National Labor in [[Cybria]] as precedent.


Outraged by the ruling, Mathiesen led the right faction to break away from the Liberal Party and form the Reform Party. Westergaard easily fended off the leadership challenge, and additional expulsions and departures took place as classical liberals continued to defect to Reform.
Outraged by the ruling, Mathiesen led the ''Højre'' faction to break away and set up the Reform Party. Westergaard easily fended off the leadership challenge, and additional expulsions and departures took place as ''Højre'' members continued to defect to Reform.


Parliament reconvened on 4 September, with the classical liberal representatives now replaced with social democratic ones. Albendor's proposed coalition was rejected, the Liberals voting with National Labour against it. Westergaard prepared to put forward her coalition proposal again, while Reform protested against the expulsions.
Parliament reconvened on 4 September, ''Højre'' representatives now replaced with ''Venstre'' ones. Albendor's proposed coalition was rejected, the Liberals voting with National Labor against it. Westergaard prepared to put forward her coalition proposal again, while Reform protested against the expulsions.


==Election dénouement==
==Election dénouement==
The impasse ended when 10 days passed without a new government, and Parliament was automatically dissolved for a snap election on 15 September.
The impasse ended when 30 days passed without a new government, and Parliament was automatically dissolved for a snap election that was scheduled for 14 October.


The election was overshadowed by the split and came to be heavily polarised. Albendor attacked Westergaard's "authoritarianism" and used {{wpl|red-baiting}} tactics against the Liberal–NL bloc. Westergaard condemned the attempted "sabotage" of Reform and led a vocal campaign to rally the Liberal faithful.
The election was overshadowed by the split and came to be heavily polarised. Albendor attacked Westergaard's "authoritarianism" and used {{wpl|red-baiting}} tactics against the Liberal–National Labour–Progressive coalition. Westergaard condemned the attempted "sabotage" of Reform and led a vocal campaign to rally the Liberal faithful.


The election ended with a swing to the right. Reform initially captured a greater share of the Liberals' previous support, from supporters alarmed by Westergaard's actions. The Liberals were mauled, dropping to 10% of the vote. Additionally, the split tore through the party in the [[States of Delkora|states]], causing most delegates to the Chamber of Nobles to defect to Reform.
The election ended with a swing to the right. Reform initially captured a greater share of the Liberals' previous support, from supporters alarmed by Westergaard's actions. The Liberals were mauled, dropping to 10% of the vote. Additionally, the split tore through the party in the [[States of Delkora|states]], causing most members of the Chamber of Nobles to defect to Reform.
 
In their last meeting before Albendor was sworn in, Gunnar joked to Westergaard, "Sofia, you've already caused two constitutional crises as Chancellor. Please don't try for any more in opposition."


==Legacy==
==Legacy==
The split initially appeared to be a disaster for the Liberals. Most Delkoran commentators assumed they had destroyed their chances of being in government again; a few even predicted the extinction of the party.
The split initially appeared to be a disaster for the Liberals. Most Delkoran commentators assumed they had destroyed their chances of being in government again; a few even predicted the extinction of the party.


Westergaard was now firmly in control of the Liberals. She rallied supporters with defiant speeches, and threw the party fully into its new identity as a centre-left party. The party's revised constitution and subsequent election platforms embraced the radical turn, harnessing its traditional preoccupation with individual liberty to advocate greater regulation and {{wpl|economic interventionism}}. Westergaard denounced Albendor's tax cuts, deregulation, and cuts to welfare, and during the 1950s depression called for aggressive action to combat poverty and unemployment.
Now firmly in control of the party, Westergaard rallied supporters and succeeded in reconstructing the Liberals as a social democratic party. Their traditional preoccupation with individual liberty was now harnessed to advocate greater regulation, {{wpl|economic interventionism}}, and later {{wpl|geolibertarianism}}. Shortly after the election, the Progressives voted to merge with the Liberals. The Liberal and Reform parties spent the next decades fighting claims to be the rightful continuation of the party; they would often compete in elections with the dueling labels "Progressive Liberals" and "Reform Liberals".
 
The Liberals were now firmly aligned with National Labour. Buoyed by the rallying figure of Westergaard and a new generation of members, the party steadily rebuilt and increased its support at the federal and state levels. By contrast, Reform quickly entered a downward spiral: they lacked a distinctive identity once in coalition with the Conservatives, and were mired in leadership struggles after Mathiesen's resignation. Their association with Albendor's government in the run-up to the depression made them a target for voters' ire.


The Liberals surpassed Reform in 1948, and at the 1952 Federal Election Reform lost all its seats, falling short of the {{wpl|electoral threshold}}. Their support continued to shrink to a small core, and they later merged with the [[List of political parties in Delkora|Centre Party]] to form the [[List of political parties in Delkora|Union of Technocrats and Reformists]] in 1985, which has remained outside federal or state legislatures since.
Buoyed by the rallying figure of Westergaard, the Progressive merger, and the alignment with National Labor, the Liberals steadily rebuilt and increased support in federal and state elections. By contrast, Reform quickly entered a downward spiral: entering coalition with the Conservatives deprived them of a distinctive identity and made them a target for voters' ire as the Delkoran economy crashed in the 1950s. Mathiesen's resignation and subsequent leadership struggles added to their woes.


Westergaard remained unrepentant and sharp-witted about her role in the split, describing it as a matter of "clearing out some deadwood." Having become the longest-serving party leader in Delkoran politics, she retired in 1959, appointed by [[Mette Elvensar]] to head the Federal Public Works Commission. The Liberal revival continued under her successor [[Osvald Bjerg]], who entered a coalition with National Labour in 1975, and culminated in the Liberals regaining their plurality within [[Adric Azengaard]]'s {{wpl|traffic light coalition}}.
The Liberals surpassed Reform in 1948, and at the 1952 federal election Reform lost all its seats, falling short of the {{wpl|electoral threshold}}. They merged with the [[List of political parties in Delkora|Free Republicans]] in 1960. The Liberal revival continued under Westergaard's successor [[Osvald Bjerg]], who entered a coalition with National Labor in 1975, and culminated in the Liberals regaining their plurality within [[Adric Azengaard]]'s {{wpl|traffic light coalition}}.


The split was a defining moment in Delkoran politics. It was the first crack in the edifice of the [[List of political parties in Delkora#Second party system (1880-1959)|second party system]]: the purging and later eclipse of the classical liberal faction allowed the social democrats to reshape the Liberal Party in their image, turning them from centrist kingmakers to reliable partners for National Labour. The split made it easier for middle class voters torn between loyalty to Liberal or Reform to later join the "Elvensar Coalition".
The split was a defining moment in Delkoran politics. It ended the [[List of political parties in Delkora#Second party system (1880-1940)|second party system]]: the purging and later eclipse of the classical liberal faction allowed the social democrats to reshape the Liberal Party in their image, turning them from centrist kingmakers to reliable partners for National Labor. The split made it easier for middle class voters torn between loyalty to Liberal or Reform to later join the "Elvensar Coalition".


It had mixed consequences regarding the independence of parliamentarians. Although the Court's ruling ostensibly strengthened party discipline, the extreme nature of Westergaard's actions and the lengthy "desert crossing" endured to rebuild the Liberal Party deterred other party leaders from a similar course. Fear of causing a similarly devastating split has shaped the tensions of the modern Conservative Party between the moderate New Conservatives and the traditionalist right.
It had mixed consequences regarding the independence of parliamentarians. Although the Court's ruling ostensibly strengthened party discipline, the extreme nature of Westergaard's actions and the lengthy "desert crossing" endured to rebuild the Liberal Party deterred other party leaders from a similar course. Similar splits befell the other major parties in the 1990s: [[National Labor]] expelled its rightist wing after the 1991 federal election while the moderate New Conservatives left the Conservative Party in disgust at the [[neoliberal conspiracy]]; both factions combined into the [[List of political parties in Delkora|Centre Democrats]].


The memory of the split played a role in [[Adric Azengaard]]'s challenges against Rengar Thomassen for the Liberal leadership in 2006 and 2010. Azengaard stated, "How can the party that cleaved itself with the ''Westergøkse'' on the principle of working with the Free Republicans suddenly draw a line at working with the Green Party?".
The memory of the split played a role in [[Adric Azengaard]]'s challenges against Rengar Thomassen for the Liberal leadership in 2006 and 2010. Azengaard stated, "How can the party that cleaved itself with the ''Westergøkse'' on the principle of working with the Left Republicans suddenly draw a line at working with the Green Party?".


The split remains well-known in Delkoran society and culture. It inspired the expression "Westergaard's chance" (''Westergaards chance''), referring to battle against all odds that ultimately ends in success after great sacrifice. When [[Akashi]] was affected by the [[neoliberal conspiracy]], Delkoran commentators likened the conflict between the moderate [[Ran Tsukuda]] and neoliberal [[Ichirō Kondō]] to the Liberal split. Similar comparisons were made for the Gylian {{G-NB/meta/shortname}}–{{G-UFP/meta/shortname}} split of 1989.
The split remains well-known in Delkoran society and culture. It inspired the expression "Westergaard's chance" (''Westergaards chance''), referring to battle against all odds that ultimately ends in success after great sacrifice. When [[Akashi]] was affected by the [[neoliberal conspiracy]], Delkoran commentators likened the conflict between the moderate [[Ran Tsukuda]] and neoliberal [[Ichirō Kondō]] to the Liberal split. Similar comparisons were made for the Gylian {{G-NB/meta/shortname}}–{{G-UFP/meta/shortname}} split of 1989.

Latest revision as of 08:13, 6 February 2021

Sofia Westergaard, leader of the social democratic faction
Julius Mathiesen, leader of the classical liberal faction

The Liberal Party split of 1940, also known as the Westergaard split, was a political schism within Delkora's Liberal Party in 1940. It was caused by severe divisions between the party's left and right factions, and engineered by Chancellor Sofia Westergaard. It ended with the expulsion of the classical liberal faction from the party, which instead formed the Reform Party.

After the 1940 federal election returned a hung parliament, Westergaard announced her intention to continue her Liberal–National Labor–Progressive coalition, seeking additional support from the Left Republicans. The classical liberal faction, led by Julius Mathiesen, revolted, preferring to support a Conservative–Agrarian government. Westergaard escalated the dispute into an outright split, provoking the classical liberals' defection to Reform, an intervention by the Federal Constitutional Court, and a snap election which brought Veidnar Albendor's Conservative–Agrarian–Reform government to power.

The split was a pivotal event in Delkoran politics and ended the second party system. Although initially disastrous for the Liberal Party, it succeeded in permanently repositioning it as a social democratic party and ally of National Labor. It subsequently experienced a resurgence, returning to office in coalition with National Labor in 1975 and regaining its plurality in 2014. By contrast, Reform faded away quickly, dropping out of parliament in 1952 and merging with the Free Republicans in 1960.

Terminology

Conventionally known as the "Liberal Party split of 1940" (Delkoran: Liberale Partisplit i 1940), the event is also referred by several nicknames: the "20 days' chaos" (20 dages kaos), "Westergaard Axe" (Westergøkse), "Westergaard Sword" (Sværdstergaard), and the "Westergaard Blow" (Westerslag).

Background

A conflict between the Venstre and Højre factions had grown in the Liberal Party since its displacement as the left opposition by National Labor. The party's drift and reputation as unprincipled junior coalition partners was challenged by Venstre leader Sofia Westergaard, who led the party to victory in 1932 and 1936 on a social democratic platform that included expansion of the welfare state and nationwide public works programs.

Westergaard's chancellorship was spent fighting the Højre Liberals just as much as the Conservative opposition; much of her success relied on her coalition with National Labor and the Progressive Party. Højre organised under Julius Mathiesen. They feared the loss of the party's classical liberal character, and were alarmed by Westergaard's forceful actions like the Blockade of Banderhus.

In a campaign speech in Izenhoth in 1940, Mathiesen decried what he called the "corruption" of the Liberal Party by "an alliance of communists, syndicalists, and trade unionists", saying: "Our party is, in its origins, a party that supports the right of individuals to pursue, without government interference, such course in their lives as they deem fit. This is fundamentally at odds with the socialist vision espoused by the radicals now infiltrating our ranks."

Parliamentary prelude

The 1940 federal election returned a hung parliament. The Liberals lost ground and finished second, behind the Conservatives and ahead of National Labor. However, the Conservative–Agrarian bloc could not muster a majority alone, even with outside support from the Moderates. The position of the Liberals was thus crucial to determining the next government.

Westergaard announced she intended to continue the existing coalition and seek outside support from the anti-monarchist and socialist Left Republicans. This proved to be the last straw for Højre: Mathiesen announced in response they would oppose the coalition with a "radical" party.

In the first investiture vote on 12 August, Højre carried through their threat: they voted against the party line, causing Westergaard's government to be rejected. Conservative leader Veidnar Albendor was given an exploratory mandate to form a government.

Showdown

Incensed by the rebellion, Westergaard decided to use the dispute to rid herself of Højre. She expelled their representatives from the party for voting against the party line, and reaffirmed her intention to continue as Chancellor. Chaos erupted within the Liberal Party: the Venstre members on the National Executive Committee began expelling Højre members, while Mathiesen filed suit in the Federal Constitutional Court, arguing that the expulsions were unconstitutional, and simultaneously announced a leadership challenge.

Although Albendor moved to form a cabinet, King Gunnar II feared a constitutional crisis. He chose to suspend parliament until the constitutionality of the expulsions could be ascertained and asked the Federal Constitutional Court to expedite consideration of Mathiesen's lawsuit. Albendor was privately critical of the suspension, but made no comment in public. He remarked to an aide: "What can I possibly add to the Liberals tearing themselves to shreds?".

After weeks of deliberation in Decision no. 257 of 1940, the Court upheld Westergaard's expulsions. It ruled that the representatives had defied the platform voters had voted on in the election, therefore their expulsion was justified by the principle of proportional representation. It found the expulsion of Højre members from electoral lists lawful since it was done in accordance with party rules, citing Bjørn Olsen's takeover of National Labor in Cybria as precedent.

Outraged by the ruling, Mathiesen led the Højre faction to break away and set up the Reform Party. Westergaard easily fended off the leadership challenge, and additional expulsions and departures took place as Højre members continued to defect to Reform.

Parliament reconvened on 4 September, Højre representatives now replaced with Venstre ones. Albendor's proposed coalition was rejected, the Liberals voting with National Labor against it. Westergaard prepared to put forward her coalition proposal again, while Reform protested against the expulsions.

Election dénouement

The impasse ended when 30 days passed without a new government, and Parliament was automatically dissolved for a snap election that was scheduled for 14 October.

The election was overshadowed by the split and came to be heavily polarised. Albendor attacked Westergaard's "authoritarianism" and used red-baiting tactics against the Liberal–National Labour–Progressive coalition. Westergaard condemned the attempted "sabotage" of Reform and led a vocal campaign to rally the Liberal faithful.

The election ended with a swing to the right. Reform initially captured a greater share of the Liberals' previous support, from supporters alarmed by Westergaard's actions. The Liberals were mauled, dropping to 10% of the vote. Additionally, the split tore through the party in the states, causing most members of the Chamber of Nobles to defect to Reform.

In their last meeting before Albendor was sworn in, Gunnar joked to Westergaard, "Sofia, you've already caused two constitutional crises as Chancellor. Please don't try for any more in opposition."

Legacy

The split initially appeared to be a disaster for the Liberals. Most Delkoran commentators assumed they had destroyed their chances of being in government again; a few even predicted the extinction of the party.

Now firmly in control of the party, Westergaard rallied supporters and succeeded in reconstructing the Liberals as a social democratic party. Their traditional preoccupation with individual liberty was now harnessed to advocate greater regulation, economic interventionism, and later geolibertarianism. Shortly after the election, the Progressives voted to merge with the Liberals. The Liberal and Reform parties spent the next decades fighting claims to be the rightful continuation of the party; they would often compete in elections with the dueling labels "Progressive Liberals" and "Reform Liberals".

Buoyed by the rallying figure of Westergaard, the Progressive merger, and the alignment with National Labor, the Liberals steadily rebuilt and increased support in federal and state elections. By contrast, Reform quickly entered a downward spiral: entering coalition with the Conservatives deprived them of a distinctive identity and made them a target for voters' ire as the Delkoran economy crashed in the 1950s. Mathiesen's resignation and subsequent leadership struggles added to their woes.

The Liberals surpassed Reform in 1948, and at the 1952 federal election Reform lost all its seats, falling short of the electoral threshold. They merged with the Free Republicans in 1960. The Liberal revival continued under Westergaard's successor Osvald Bjerg, who entered a coalition with National Labor in 1975, and culminated in the Liberals regaining their plurality within Adric Azengaard's traffic light coalition.

The split was a defining moment in Delkoran politics. It ended the second party system: the purging and later eclipse of the classical liberal faction allowed the social democrats to reshape the Liberal Party in their image, turning them from centrist kingmakers to reliable partners for National Labor. The split made it easier for middle class voters torn between loyalty to Liberal or Reform to later join the "Elvensar Coalition".

It had mixed consequences regarding the independence of parliamentarians. Although the Court's ruling ostensibly strengthened party discipline, the extreme nature of Westergaard's actions and the lengthy "desert crossing" endured to rebuild the Liberal Party deterred other party leaders from a similar course. Similar splits befell the other major parties in the 1990s: National Labor expelled its rightist wing after the 1991 federal election while the moderate New Conservatives left the Conservative Party in disgust at the neoliberal conspiracy; both factions combined into the Centre Democrats.

The memory of the split played a role in Adric Azengaard's challenges against Rengar Thomassen for the Liberal leadership in 2006 and 2010. Azengaard stated, "How can the party that cleaved itself with the Westergøkse on the principle of working with the Left Republicans suddenly draw a line at working with the Green Party?".

The split remains well-known in Delkoran society and culture. It inspired the expression "Westergaard's chance" (Westergaards chance), referring to battle against all odds that ultimately ends in success after great sacrifice. When Akashi was affected by the neoliberal conspiracy, Delkoran commentators likened the conflict between the moderate Ran Tsukuda and neoliberal Ichirō Kondō to the Liberal split. Similar comparisons were made for the Gylian NB–UFP split of 1989.

Retrieved from "https://iiwiki.us/mediawiki/index.php?title=Liberal_Party_split_of_1940&oldid=308285"