Playing with fire? Swedish mobilization for participatory democracy

Abstract

Swedish service democracy is solidly based on a successful welfare state configuration. When good social services are received, citizens reciprocate with their stabilizing trust and legitimacy. Towards the turn of the last century, several economic, organizational and ideological foundations of Swedish representative democracy were faltering, owing to exogenous trends as well as to self-inflicted actions. A governmental commission was set up in 1997 in order to combat a weakening legitimacy. Confronted with extensive social science research, the commission chose to try to shift the focus from the output side to the input side of Swedish democracy. It argued for a legitimacy rooted primarily not in substantial qualities of social service but in procedural qualities such as citizen opportunities to gain influence and autonomy. Not completely disinterested (as its members were party representatives), it recommended leaving room for a participatory democracy with advanced deliberative qualities. In the ensuing debate, competing ideals of democracy were advanced.

Keywords:

• Participatory democracy
• Swedish democracy
• welfare state democracy

Notes

1. The Instruction of Government, Ch. 1: ‘Art. 2. Public powers shall be exercised with respect for the equal worth of all and the liberty and dignity of the private person.

  ‘The personal, economic and cultural welfare of the private person shall be fundamental aims of public activity. In particular, it shall be incumbent upon the public institutions to secure the right to health, employment, housing and education, and to promote social care and social security.

  ‘The public institutions shall promote sustainable development leading to a good environment for present and future generations.

  ‘The public institutions shall promote the ideals of democracy as guidelines in all sectors of society and protect the private and family lives of private persons. The public institutions shall promote the opportunity for all to attain participation and equality in society. The public institutions shall combat discrimination of persons on grounds of gender, colour, national or ethnic origin, linguistic or religious affiliation, functional disability, sexual orientation, age or other circumstance affecting the private person.

  ‘Opportunities should be promoted for ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities to preserve and develop a cultural and social life of their own.’

2. This section summarizes relevant parts of the thirteen research volumes and thirty-two leaflets produced by the approximately 100 scholars contracted by the Swedish Commission on Democracy. Except for direct quotations they are not referred to explicitly in the article. They are available, mostly in Swedish, via http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/3808/a/22272.

3. The Swedish political parties receive yearly about 250 million Swedish kronor in public grants (Utredningen om offentlighet för partiers och valkandidaters intäkter 2004).

4. In contrast to the subsequent Norwegian and Danish Commissions, the Swedish Commission on Democracy was not designed as a research programme but in accordance with the Swedish public committee tradition; its members were appointed by the government from a group of candidates who were nominated by the political parties.

5. Indeed, democracy became a more stringent policy area in Swedish government. Yearly bills on democracy are presented to the Parliament. Substantially, however, the government was hesitant about the Commission's ideas. The newly installed Minister of Democracy was fired (Montin 2006; Regeringen 2002).