|
September 1998 Important issues which, for various reasons, have been assigned a low priority during the 1998 election campaign |
|
1998 Swedish National Election
|
|
|
Prime Minister Göran Persson has spoken eloquently of the need to convert to an ecologically sustainable society, and of the economic advantages such a transformation would bring. But the environmental budget remains one of the smallest, and there has been little discussion of such issues during the election campaign. This may have something to do with the strong resistance to environmental initiatives from powerful segments of the business community and associated unions. The continuing conflict over nuclear power provides the most obvious example. The negative public opinion that mushroomed in the wake of Harrisburg and Chernobyl has been reversed with an unrelenting propaganda campaign which has emphasised the stated economic benefits of nuclear power, while ignoring its costs, unresolved technical problems, and enormous environmental risks. The economic crisis has been very useful in this regard, once again pitting the economy against the environment. |
|
|
|
Much of the responsibility for the environment and agriculture has been transferred from the national level to the EU, where commercial considerations are accorded an even higher priority than in Sweden. One of the most strident voices for EU membership during the 1994 referendum campaign, the current Minister of Agriculture, has been hard-pressed to explain why her promises regarding food safety and animal rights have been impossible to keep following membership-- as EU opponents had clearly warned. The Swedes have been learning to live with such distasteful phenomena as salmonella-infected meat products from less fastidious EU countries, and with the knowledge that their EU taxes are subsidising widespread animal abuse. The most promising environmental developments have been occurring at the local level. A large number of municipalities and their residents are actively engaged in the U.N.’s Agenda 21 and similar programmes. Environmental interests and values continue to receive strong support among young people. |
|
|
|
Globalisation vs. national autonomy The people of ”little Sweden” have been undergoing an intensive training in how to give up any hope of their nation’s continued independence, primarily through the use of economic threats and an atmosphere of perpetual crisis. The now-familiar argument is that the time of the nation-state has passed; but the reasoning is not always consistent. For one thing, the argument seems to apply only to small nations: No one has been telling China or the United States to relinquish its sovereignty, and the Persson government has been demonstrating its subservience to both. Even the most dedicated advocates of globalisation appear to be confused. Sweden’s most powerful industrialist, Peter Wallenberg, has for example written that (a) since the nation-state has become irrelevant, the Swedish government should leave business alone, and (b) business cannot fulfil its essential function because it is not receiving adequate support from the national government. On the brave new globe, it is apparently still possible to have one’s cake and eat it, too. In any event, the reigning confusion has the effect of benefiting those who want an end to Swedish sovereignty. While opponents of the Nordic model have been using globalisation and its ”new demands” as a device for prying the Swedish people loose from their general welfare state, the Social Democratic leadership has justified its concessions to ”The Market” as necessary adaptations, and claims to be forging new alliances against neo-liberalism at the supra-national level. Thus far, however, it has been difficult to detect any significant progress toward that objective-- certainly none to challenge the steadily expanding power of multi-national corporations. Instead, the SDP leadership appears to have indulged in a series of self-fulfilling prophecies that have gradually eroded Sweden’s autonomy. The latest is a pending decision to liberate Sweden’s central bank from democratic control, as a prelude to participation in the European Monetary Union (EMU) and, ultimately, membership in a ”United States of Europe”. The Social Democratic leadership denies any such intentions, of course; and it may even believe its own reassurances. But its pattern of behaviour during the past two decades has led in the direction of steadily diminishing national sovereignty. |
|
|
|
EU/EMU The single largest sacrifice of national sovereignty has, of course, been Sweden’s entry into the European Union. Membership was originally opposed by a significant majority of the people; but they were eventually brought around with a massively financed campaign full of doubtful promises, threats, manipulation and outright lies. In the sober aftermath, the Swedes have become the most disaffected inhabitants of the EU among all fifteen member-states. The extent of their displeasure became apparent in Sweden’s first EU election in 1995, which was dominated by anti-EU candidates. The reaction of one Austrian Conservative was: ”I am not especially dismayed by the results. It is obvious that the Swedish people must feel betrayed. There was, after all, a lot of talk during the referendum campaign about unemployment disappearing, and other absurdities.” Opinion polls indicate that, if a new referendum were held today, well over half of the voting population would reject membership. Nevertheless, the EU train keeps chugging along toward objectives that have emerged from an obscure process that no one appears to understand, but in which Germany, France and powerful multi-national corporations clearly play decisive roles. The EMU is one such objective. Although the Persson government has outwardly adopted a wait-and-see policy, pressures to join the monetary union are steadily mounting. Experience suggests that they will be perceived as difficult to resist, and it is entirely possible that Göran Persson may not want to resist them. But he and his government have been avoiding the issue, since many SDP voters retain bitter memories of the referendum campaign, and there is general resentment toward the EU and its advocates. Of the other parties, the Conservatives and Liberals have come out in favour of the EMU, while Centre, the Left and the Greens are strongly opposed. |
|
|
|
Foreign policy Given the above-noted developments, it is hardly surprising that little remains of the Hammarskjöld-Palme legacy in foreign policy. It has become commonplace for admirers of that tradition around the world to lament, ”Where has Sweden disappeared to?” Partly, it has disappeared into the EU, and may also be in the process of disappearing completely into NATO. Sweden is now an increasingly active participant in ”Partners for Peace”, a concept somewhat analogous to ”Atoms for Peace” which was devised in the political fallout of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to allay U.S. citizens’ anxieties about nuclear war. The response of Sweden’s current foreign minister to the recent U.S. bombings of Afghanistan and Sudan-- clear violations of international law-- was that they were ”unavoidable”, but that she hoped other nations would not behave the same way, as ”that would be to take the law into one’s own hands”. The same kind of double standard has been applied to China. Göran Persson has kow-towed for Chinese leaders on a commercial expedition to that country, and his government recently observed the diplomatic niceties by refusing to permit a Taiwanese scholar/politician to enter Sweden in order to participate in an academic conference. As a result of changes to immigration policy, war resisters can no longer find a refuge in Sweden. If the Vietnam War were to be inflicted on Indochina today, it would most likely be regarded by official Sweden as ”unavoidable” and nothing worse. In short, Sweden’s foreign policy is going the way of its sovereignty. The United States government is today quite pleased with ”little Sweden”. |
|
|
|
Democracy Inevitably, the trend toward globalisation and decreasing national autonomy has clearly weakened the foundations of participatory democracy, whose established setting is the nation-state. What is the point of voting and trying to stay informed if important decisions are essentially determined by large, anonymous, external forces with vast amounts of financial and/or military power at their disposal? There are also growing indications of a vicious circle of mutual distrust, in which political leaders doubt the capacity of the voting public to adapt to rapidly changing conditions and, in their superior wisdom, resort to various kinds of manipulation and pressure tactics. These may produce an immediate desired effect, but as often as not lead to alienation, apathy and contempt among the voters. Declining voting frequency and the strong anti-EU opinion suggest that this process is well-advanced in Sweden. As elsewhere, the problem is aggravated by the behaviour of mainstream news media which faithfully reflect the basic premises and attitudes of the powers that be. The entertainment imperative and journalistic limitations of television are also making themselves felt. It is indicative that the two most disastrous politicians of recent years, Kjell-Olof Feldt and Carl Bildt, have both ”played” convincingly in the broadcast media. They usually act and sound like they know what they are talking about. |
|
|
|
Gender issues During the 1970s, the reduction of class distinctions was an objective of the highest priority in Swedish politics. But interest in that issue has dissipated in tact with the ideological shift to the right that has taken place in recent years. There has been a modest revival as a result of changes in the labour market and cuts in the general welfare system. However, it has not been a major concern during the current election campaign, due to the Conservatives’ lack of interest and, most likely, the Social Democrats’ reluctance to focus attention on the inequities that have resulted from its austerity programme. The issue of social and economic equality between women and men has undergone the opposite trend. Although there was growing interest in gender issues among women on the left during the 1970s, blatant sexism was still fairly common at that time. Since then, there has been a steadily growing public awareness of issues related to gender equality. Such issues were given a sharp focus during the 1994 election campaign when a proposal to form a ”Women´s Party” was greeted enthusiastically. The proposed party threatened to attract considerable support, leading the established parties to arrange increased female representation in the parliament and government. Thanks largely to a 50-50 gender rule among SDP candidates, the sitting parliament includes just over forty percent women, the highest proportion in the world. For a variety of reasons, that ratio is likely to decline slightly following this year’s election. |
|
|
|
Despite such signs of progress, women do not account for anywhere near half the leading positions in politics and government, and the economic elite is still almost entirely male-dominated. The advances of women have made it politic to pay at least lip-service to their interests. The platforms of all seven parliamentary parties mention, more or less briefly, issues of gender equality. But little attention has been given during the election campaign to such vital women’s concerns as restoration of the public sector, equal pay for equal work and violence against women, Moreover, much of the debate that has taken place has tended to ignore gender aspects. One example is the issue of ageing, which often affects women differently than men. Inasmuch as men die, on average, at younger ages than women, there has developed a pattern by which elderly women care for their husbands until they die, at which point they are left to fend for themselves, often under conditions of chronic illness and depression. Little systematic attention has been paid to this and similar problems of women. — Al Burke |
|
|
|
||
|
|