Daniel McCarthy
The Swedish
Constitution begins with a clear and detailed preamble. The preamble begins with,
“All public power in Sweden proceeds from the people” (1). The
preamble continues to focus on “equal worth of all,” regardless of external
factors such religion, sexual orientation, or race (2). The preamble continues to describe the
fundamental rights of all citizens, ranging from freedom of opinion to worship.
Overall, the preamble focuses on all people and their equality. Through a mainly
consensual institution, the majority of the Swedish constitution reflects the
goals and ideals of the preamble.
There are
many considerations when determining whether an overall institution is
consensual or majoritarian. In “Patterns of Democracy” by Arend Lijphart, he
writes about the distinctions made between the two types of institutions in
chapters 2 and 3. Using those chapters, and the Swedish Constitution, this
table shows how this constitution falls.
This table shows that Sweden is clearly not a country with
solely consensual or majoritarian institutions, as evidence by having an
independent central bank (consensual) and a unicameral legislation
(majoritarian). Overall, Sweden is a mix of both, falling somewhere in the
middle, but leaning more on the consensual side.
Almost all countries have a
division of power between central and noncentral governments, the extent to
which they do is the difference in consensual and majoritarian
governments. In the majoritarian model,
“The central government must control not only the central government apparatus
but also all noncentral, potentially competing governments” (3).
Thus, making it both “unitary and centralized” (3). On the other hand, the consensus model has
decentralization and guarantees a “division of power” (3). The
Swedish Constitution shows that they are a mix. Chapter 14 in the constitution
specifies the existence of local governments, and more specifically the country
is divided into 21 counties and 290 municipalities, displaying its
decentralization (4).
However, the local governments are ultimately up to the discretion of Riksdag
(5), and thus creating a Unitary and Decentralized government
(6). While the decentralized nature with lots of local governments
focuses on the needs of people, following the preamble’s ideals, allowing a
separate governmental body to overturn any local level decision contradicts
this ideal.
In terms of the electoral system,
the way in which Sweden leans is very clear. A consensus democracy uses proportional
representation in order to “represent both majorities and minorities” (7). The Swedish Constitution dictates just this. In chapter 3 of the
constitution, it describes the seats being filled amongst the constituencies
based on voter population. This proportional representation is dictated so that
power can be shared between the multi-party system, and thus, “By sharing power
with the parties in opposition and including them in the rule of the country,
the government is supposed to be regarded as representative for the people as a
whole and consequently one that all can feel loyal to” (8).
This part of the constitution clearly follows the ideal of giving equality and
power to all people, as all voices can be heard through the multiparty,
proportional representation.
The last institution I will look at
is the executive system. At first glance it seems that the Swedish executive
system is majoritarian as the Riksdag can dismiss the Prime Minister (9), and majoritarian systems have cabinet dominance and a lack of power
balance. However, unlike majoritarian
systems there is not a single dominant party within the Riksdag, as minority
opinion is also present, much like a consensual type. This, along with the
ability for movement of party control in the Riksdag to determine the Prime
Minister makes this is more consensual, once again following the ideals of the
preamble since ideas of all types of people are valued.
Bibliography:
(1) : Constitution: Chp 1, Art. 1
(2) : Constitution: Chp 1, Art. 2
(3) : Lijphart 186
(5) : Constitution: Chp 1, Art 4
(6) : Lijphart 189
(7) : Lijphart 143
(8) : “Scandinavian Political Studies” https://tidsskrift.dk/index.php/scandinavian_political_studies/article/view/13355/25455
(9) : Constitution: Chp 6, Art 3
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKyle Tuckman
ReplyDeleteAfter reading through the Swedish Constitution, I also think that although at times the constitution can resemble the majoritarian model of democracy, for the most part promotes the consensual model of democracy. The most important difference to be made between majoritarian and consensual models is that the majoritarian model favors the majority in all respects, whereas a consensual model does not (1). The consensus model is clearly represented in the Riksdag in that seats are evenly distributed among parties, based on the amount of votes a party receives during the electoral process (2). One aspect of the Swedish government that could lead one to believe that it is more majoritarian is that the Riksdag is that a majority in the Riksdag completely controls who the prime minister is, and can discharge him with a majority vote (3).
One important fact keeps this majority driven process from designating the government as majoritarian. First, there really never is a single majority party in power in the Riksdag, forcing coalition governments of multiple minority parties to form in order to have the ability to make majority decisions. Not having one dominant party ever present in the legislature is in and of itself consensual. This is exemplified by the most recent elections in Sweden, where The Centre-Right Alliance for Sweden coalition led by prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt who were seeking their third term in office, lost to Stefan Löfven and the minority government he formed consisting of the Social Democrats and Greens (4). Since there are always seats for minority parties, no one party ever actually holds a majority and parties in power are always changing, it is safe to say that all parties and coalitions have an equal opportunity to elect a Prime Minister, making the system consensual.
(1)- Lijphart chapters 2 and 3 (broad)
(2)- Constitution Chapter 3, Art. 7
(3)- Constitution Chapter 6, Art. 3-4
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_general_election,_2014
Eileen Loftus
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with the above posts that although the Swedish system demonstrates certain aspects of a majoritarian government, it much more closely aligns with the consensual model. The preamble indicates the desire to have government that would stress the equality of all people, and the consensual government is the more apt system to obtain this social parity (1). This goal is indeed achieved not only through the proportional representation elections (2), but also through the local governments that wield their own power throughout the country (3). These systems, both of which are considered to be characteristics of consensual governments, ensure that the equality laid out in the preamble will be enforced (4). Through proportional representation and a partially decentralized government, a variety of viewpoints can be expressed that would have been silenced in more majoritarian governments. It is evident that a multitude of opinions are being voiced, as there are currently eight different parties represented in the Riksdag (5). The multiparty system is yet another indication that the Swedish government tends to be more consensual (6). None of the parties wields a majority of the seats; the three largest parties hold 32%, 24%, and 14% of the seats (5). Although the Social Democratic Party and the Moderate Party have had the highest and second highest shares of the seats respectively in each Riksdag since 1979, there has not been a single election in which the a single party has been able to capture a majority of the seats in this period (7). Because of the breakdown of the apportionment of seats, it is clear that no single party will be able to dominate the others without forming coalitions with others. So even though the Riksdag controls the Prime Minister, which generally would point to a majoritarian government, the fact that no single party controls the Riksdag indicates that this power does not operate as a truly majoritarian aspect of the system (8).
(1) Constitution Chapter 1, Articles 1 & 2
(2) Constitution Chapter 3, Articles 6-8
(3) Constitution Chapter 14, Articles 2 & 6
(4) Lijphart, 37-38
(5) “Riksdag: The Parties” http://www.riksdagen.se/en/How-the-Riksdag-works/The-parties-in-the-Riksdag/
(6) Lijphart, 36
(7) “Elections to the Swedish Riksdag” http://www.electionresources.org/se/
(8) Constitution Chapter 6, Articles 3-7
Jonathan Campbell
ReplyDeleteI agree as well that the Swedish constitution contains parts that would be classified as majoritarian, but as a whole the constitution is more consensual. An interesting thing to think about that hasn't been brought up is whether or not each institution holds the same weight when trying to classify the country. If you are a believer that certain institutions are more relevant in classifying a constitution as majoritarian or consensual, then you have to factor that into your decision. While looking at the division between central and noncentral governments, it is seen that Sweden is unitary and decentralized (1), making this neither a strict majoritarian nor a strict consensual government (2). However, if you place more value in classifying a government on whether the central government is unitary or not, then the argument could be made that in this aspect the Swedish government is more majoritarian than consensual. The same argument can be made for it being consensual if one believes it is more important to look at whether the government is centralized or decentralized. Political science is often very subjective and does not have concrete values or answers as to how much a country is consensual or majoritarian. The best that political scientists can do is try to give definitions for things and analyze patterns that are seen. These definitions and patterns are then used to categorize governments as one way or another, yet it is all too often that each government is very unique in a plethora of facets, that it is difficult to give a generic term of consensual or majoritarian term to classify a government. I believe that this is seen with the Swedish government and constitution quite well. I still agree that I would classify the Swedish constitution as consensual if I had to, but I think it is imperative to realize that political science is not clear cut, leaving a lot of room for debate when trying to label a constitution or government.
(1) Constitution: Chp 1, Art 4
(2) Lijphart chapters 2 and 3
Jaosn Gold
ReplyDeleteFrom the posts and subsequent comments above it is pretty clear that if we had to define Sweden's government the term consensual applies more appropriately than does majoritarian. The separation of the institutes and the shared power among those with authority in those institutes epitomizes the concept of consensual democracy (1). The last comment made by Jonathan, however, raises an interesting point that I'd like to not only agree with but also analyze and expand upon. The previous comments explore how Sweden's government runs in a consensual fashion in general, but also shine light on the fact that it has majoritarian characteristics. It is important and intriguing to shine more than light on that situation and give a clearer perspective.
Part of the first definition of a Majoritarian democracy is the concentration of executive power in one party (2). If we keep this definition in mind and then take a look at the preamble to Sweden's constitution, there are a few main areas in which it harps. It talks about proportionate and varying representation, equality of rights, and tolerance over ignorance. These are ideals that the authors of the preamble and constitution had in mind when when shaping their society. It is evident that many of these ideals embody the ideas of freedom, protection, opportunities, and smooth and effective governance along the way (3). The theoretically more consensual government that Sweden has implements these ideals through local governments and authorities. In Sweden, however, the Rikstag technically has a tremendous amount of legislative control and can change leadership positions with a simple vote. It also important to remember that in a majoritarian democracy it in the in their utmost interest to rule with the population and the law of the land (its preamble and subsequent constitution). The fact that Sweden has a governmental system in which one body has so much power and control at their whim might edge them closer to the majoritarian side, while the fact that the system functions well and allows for variation and effective ruling from a distance bodes much more towards consensual. The goals, ideals, and spirit of the local law (ultimately governed by the Riksdag) ultimately stems from that of Sweden's preamble. I'll be clear in that I do not think Sweden runs a majoritarian democracy. But I'd also like to emphasize that not only does Sweden's government show some signs of majoritarianism, it exemplifies them and almost qualifies itself (by verbal definition, not necessarily functionality and practice). The Rigstock, admittedly, is composed of different parties and peoples and groups of the likes. Within the Rigstock, however, resides complete control of the Prime Minister position and many other integral parts of society based on somewhat universal feelings and sentiments. Although almost clearly defined as consensual, one could feasibly argue that there may be an underlying, loosely defined majoritarian aspect as well.
(1) Lijphart Chapter 3
(2) Lijphart chapter 2
(3) Constitution: Preamble