The Norwegian government has just won a narrow election victory, providing Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and his Labour Party with the opportunity to secure a second term in power. The result came after a campaign characterised by insignificant issues – there was very little by way of substance, even if we live in dangerous times. The only real debate on was on the wealth tax, which seemed excessive (both the debate and the tax). But the European Union, Russia, Trump’s United States, trade and war – these heavy themes were totally absent. The election campaign was not only boring, depressingly so, but also devoid of substance.

Notwithstanding this, security played a key role indirectly, with the return of the brilliant and likeable Jens Stoltenberg to the government as finance minister, the single most important factor behind the Labour Party’s progress. Together, the trio of Stoltenberg, Støre, and Espen Barth-Eide, long-serving foreign minister, provided steady leadership in unruly waters. They are trusted to handle international politics, much more so than the women of the opposition – Erna Solberg of the conservative party (Høyre) and Sylvi Listhaug of the right-wing, and somewhat populist, Progress Party. The latter group has no significant international experience. It was a widespread attitude that, in times such as these, proven hands with more experience and a network of contacts are preferable. Friends told me that they voted Labour because the alternative was less reliable in international and security affairs.

One could say that the major questions – and answers – were: whom do you trust in a dangerous world, who can contact Trump? (Answer: Jens); Who can call anyone and get through? (Also Jens); and who can run the ship of state on the open sea? (Jens and Jonas).

So paradoxically, international politics, security and defence played a key role in this election campaign, but without any debate, as would have befitted a democracy. The mood was resigned; voters became disillusioned, as issues such as the EU, Trump and NATO, trade policy, etc. were totally absent from the agenda.

I find it sad that ideological differences between the parties no longer seemed to be known, grasped, and decisive, as ideology is supposed to be why we have parties in the first place. The difference between socialist, liberal, and conservative was neither known nor highlighted. Big questions, such as the role of the state, were never debated, while silly issues and superficial proposals acquired media attention. Even the debates with party leaders were marked by this unseriousness; there were more interruptions than arguments. As a professor of political science, this saddens me, because this is a sign both of political decline and of a weakening of democracy. Click-bait dynamics play a key role in media these days, and the audience figures for the various debates appear to have been the main criterion of success. With many party leaders present, there was constant interruption by them all, seeking to seize the floor without being invited to speak, and the result was a shouting match, undignified and uninteresting.

In sum, the serious issues that concern the national interest, and which should have dominated, were totally absent in the debates: foremost here is the EU and Norway’s potential membership. Norway being the only Nordic country that is not a member, has a need to become one now, and the main reason for this is Russia, though Trump’s US is also a vital factor. Can we trust the US in NATO? The doubts are grave. Can we trust the US in trade policy? Clearly not. Is Russia under Putin aggressive? We know that the answer is yes, and that Russia’s ambitions go far beyond territory in the Ukraine. Is Russia’s strategic nuclear capability in Norway’s close neighbourhood? You bet.

All this leads to the conclusion that it is dangerous to be alone with Russia, with Trump’s US – as well as with China. Norway needs to be in the EU because it is the only organisation for collective European agency in world affairs, and there is safety in numbers. It was alone against China in the period 2010-16, when China imposed political isolation on Norway as punishment for the Nobel Committee awarding of the peace prize to Liu Xiaobo. Norway suffered greatly from being a pariah in international politics at that time. At the UN, it could do little as long as China would have nothing to do with it. Similarly, Norway could not face Russia alone in a bilateral conflict in the High North. Nor could Norway take on Trump alone in a trade conflict. For that, European unity is vital.

There is, of course, recognition that EU membership will help Norway, make it safer, and is urgent at this time, given the current risks surrounding the US, NATO, and Russian aggression. But where was the courage to talk about this? The EU cannot be debated in the election campaign, as it does not draw voters, party leaders would concede privately. But voters are not able to raise this issue unless politicians do so first: they have to show political leadership, not just follow voters’ whims like sheep.

Regrettably, in Norway’s latest election, the EU issue was sacrificed, as so many times before, for domestic political reasons. The Labour Party would lose its coalition partners, in or out of government, if the issue were to be raised – the left Socialists SV, the Centre Party, the Greens and the Reds. This gang of four are all against EU membership, and Labour depends on them all to have a majority in parliament. But also the conservatives, all for EU membership, were unwilling to raise the issue, for that would alienate their potential coalition partners, the Progress Party and Christian-Democrats. So self-censorship on this issue prevailed.

Finally, the large number of mini-parties in Norway is a grave cause for concern. They are not parties that take security and defence issues seriously and lack the ability to govern. The party landscape is composed of many small parties that are typically centred on ‘one issue’ and have no ideological foundation. There are the Greens (MDG), focused on climate policy; the Reds (Marxists), who want bloodless revolution but remain faithful to Marx; the Christian-Democrats, who are more of a community of faith than something like the CDU in Germany; the Centrists, whose key issue and interest is maximising farm subsidies; and the Left (Venstre), which is not so much leftist as extreme individualist, wanting surrogacy, euthanasia, and all manner of radical liberal things. In addition to all these small parties, there are several even smaller ones that did not manage to win seats parliament this time round.

Nonetheless, all of the mini-parties listed above, except for Venstre, gained more than 4 per cent of the vote, the threshold for winning seats in parliament. If a party wins more than 4 per cent it will be able to compete for 19 ‘mandates’ in parliament, amounting to 19 seats out of the total 169 in Norway’s lower house. These 19 are divided among the parties that are too small to get elected in many districts, but who got many votes at the aggregate level. Most of these small parties made it above the threshold, so they have been rewarded with extra mandates. Thus, they are able to play a role in national politics and decide the life or death of the bigger parties.

The larger parties are three – Labour, the biggest with 28 per cent in this election, Progress Party, with 24 per cent, and the losing Conservatives, similar to the British party of the same name, which stood at only 14 per cent, down from 26 some months ago.

Ultimately, Labour won because of the return of Stoltenberg and the weakness of the opposition Conservatives. Erna Solberg, leader of the Conservatives, would normally have been a serious contender, but she was severely weakened when it was alleged that her husband may have engaged in insider trading. This was never proven, and he did not make much profit from his considerable day-trading, but it nonetheless stained her reputation and many thought she should have stepped down. From this time on, her party was in decline, and it was almost a joke that the party slogan in this campaign was ‘No slogans’. There was, in fact, little that the party seemed to offer beyond the party leader herself, and it turned out that voters were tired of her.

Thus, the alternative for voters were either a single-party Labour government, depending on the Reds, the Greens, the Centrist, the Left Socialists; or a coalition government consisting of Conservatives, Progress Party, Venstre and Christian-democrats. But Venstre did not make it past the cut-off threshold, wining only 3.8 per cent of the vote, and so the latter coalition government was not possible, given the low support for the Conservatives.

In sum, Labour did not win the election, but all the mini-parties needed to support Labour made it to 4 per cent or above. Hence, they received many extra mandates, making for a majority of 88 mandates for leftwing parties to 81 on the non-socialist side. Conversely, only one of the two mini-parties of a non-socialist orientation made it above the threshold.

In terms of party progress, the party bearing that name was the winner, very clearly so, and this tell us that a right-wing political wind is very strong in Norway. Labour can only be called a winner if one compares its current position to the 14 per cent support the party held last year, before Stoltenberg re-entered the fray. Traditionally the party has been Norway’s largest. Norway’s new government is dubbed the ‘tutti-frutti’ coalition, with mini-parties combined in a strange party mix supporting a minority, one- party government.

In short, Labour got lucky on several counts: with Jens acting as the steady helmsman in a storm, and with the stubbornness of Erna Solberg, who did not realise that that there is a time for everything, including stepping down; and with the haphazard outcome of the voting for the mini-party tutti-fruttis. Crucially, Prime Minister Støre is not out of the woods yet. In dangerous times like these, solid substance is needed, not political stunts. Labour is steady in security and defence, but will now also have to secure the support of the Marxist Reds.