The Swedish Constitution that we know and converse about
today just came to fruition in 1974 (1). But its origin came about during a
time of relative confusion and chaos in Sweden’s history. At this time Sweden
was a warring nation with a volatile war-minded leader in Gustav Adolph. It is
hard to determine exactly how society was such a long time ago, but we do know
that he constructed an autocratic society composed of hierarchical classes with
unequal representation in government. This, along with the horrid and unsafe
living conditions due to war and lack of attention to pubic issues, led the Riksdag
of the Estates (the loose assembly of representatives of the different regions
within Sweden in the early 19th century) to decide to meet and
discuss the major problems and potential solutions (2). This meeting was
comprised of people and ideas from all over Sweden, elected by (and expected to
represent) their respective regions/class. A few of the main issues at hand
were the excessive power granted to the king, misrepresentation due to
dysfunctional government, and personal liberties being infringed upon. Gustav
IV Adolf was the monarch at this time but his tenacious military mindset and
his consistent lack of concern for the average citizen led him to be replaced
by Charles XIII. At the conclusion of the meeting of the estates and these
local representatives, Charles XIII would rule with power. That power, however,
was reduced once the potential adverse effects of having such powers came to
fruition. The conclusion, in writing out this early constitution, was to give
more power to the people.
Sweden and its constituents were going through a tenuous
time and found a way to unify and trudge on in their attempts to attain freedom
by law. There was now more power
within the Estates of the Riksdag (the parliamentary body) than before and less
with the king in terms of making and enacting laws and acting without being
advised. With the newly calculated balance of power between the people, the
elected representatives, and the king, it seems that the political power in
Sweden had swung heavily in favor of the general public. Even though the king
and parliament shared power, this movement was the beginning of a realization
that the people wanted more say in their political life (directly and
indirectly through voting, representation, etc.) (4). Since then, Sweden has
been a de facto parliamentary democracy, with proportionate representation in
the Riksdag, as opposed to just a monarchy (5).
Roughly 150 years later Sweden is a much different place.
The early years after 1809 were followed by hierarchical struggles and elitist
competition. Soon enough, with the new king, his new powers, and the new system
in effect, society slowly began to change, and it is seen not only in accounts
of events but more so in written laws. From 1809 to 1866, the Riksdag
transformed, by law, from class/stature representation to a bicameral regional
representation system. One chamber was composed of representatives elected
local councilors and the other of representatives directly voted upon by the
public (6). Society was beginning to see some changes and the consensual nature
of the political system was started to show. Over time Sweden had turned into a
de facto parliamentary democracy and eventually, in the most recent version of
the Constituion that we know, there was a crucial amendment that changed
political life (or at least the letter of the law) in Sweden forever. This
amendment, one to the Instrument of Government, has come to be known as one of
the four fundamental laws of Sweden. It holds that there is not only a
functional, active body in the Riksdag, but also that the Riksdag is composed
of a Prime Minister (appointed by the Speaker of the Riksdag) who is
responsible for signing voted decisions into law and appointing officials to
governmental positions. This was the turning point for Sweden where they transitioned
from a de jure monarchy to a de jure parliamentary democracy. Another part of
this 1974 amendment was the Riksdag Act. This act made it necessary for the
Riksdag to approve changes of law over two successive periods before it can
come into the legal system as written law (7).
It is obvious that there was immense change in Sweden
throughout the 19th and 20th century. If we compare the
modes in which each constitution was formed we see that the 1809 version stems
from the dissolving of a tyrannical state and a need for change whereas the
1974 one stems from growth, cooperation, and realization as a people and a
country over time. What is more is that we can use these processes to explain
why Sweden runs in a consensual, parliamentary, proportionate fashion. Its
original constitution touches upon on all those mentioned in the preamble (such
as equality, protection, liberty, and opportunity) but to actually achieve those
things is a different story. Gradually the sentiments of the people became
omnipresent, reforms came about, coalitions formed, and by 1974, Sweden was
functional, competent, organized, and unified enough to create a new and more
“for the people by the people” government. The underlying goals and sentiments
of not-so-functional meeting in 1809 gave way to a Constitution that more so
represented how the people felt. Although there was no immediate gratification
for the lawmakers in 1809, the sentiments and opinions of those at the meeting
and those being represented were put onto paper. And that paper gave way to a
democratic, diverse society where not only can the citizens live in peace and
protection, but they have the power to successfully change the letter of the
law if that is the voice of the people.
Bibliography
(1) : "Constitute" https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Sweden_2012
(2) : "Riksdag of the Estates" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riksdag_of_the_Estates
(3) : "Sweden-Governemnt" http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Sweden-GOVERNMENT.html
(4) : "The History of the Riksdag" http://www.riksdagen.se/en/How-the-Riksdag-works/Democracy/The-history-of-the-Riksdag/
(5) : Lijphart 157
(6) : "Riksdag" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riksdag#History
(7) : "The Constitution" http://www.riksdagen.se/en/How-the-Riksdag-works/Democracy/The-Constitution/
Dan McCarthy
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with Jason that political turmoil and uncertainty must have had an effect on the way that the Constitution was made and how it works, I do not necessarily believe that this was the main factor. I think that the main reason that the Swedish constitution got its consensual roots, highlighted by proportional representation (1) was the success that the country was having during the time of the constitution’s ratification.
From the 1940’s to the 1970’s was a time of economic success (2). This was all made possible by Sweden’s neutrality in World War II. While other countries in Europe were fighting the war, Sweden was building the infrastructure of their economy. Due to this, the “industry was intact and ready to start manufacturing products that the devastated Europe desperately needed. This caused an economic boom in Sweden; a boom that made the rapid development of the Swedish welfare-state during the fifties and sixties possible” (2). This boom caused the Swedish people to trust the government. This is highlighted in the “Kingdom of Sweden,” as it states, “the success of the Swedish welfare had reached its peak and the belief in the wisdom of politicians and their decision-making was widespread and deeply held” (3). The article continues by adding that this combined with “a period in which the emphasis was increasingly on popular sovereignty, led to the widely-shared belief that popular sovereignty had to be the cornerstone of the new Constitution” (3).
Sweden developed its consensual basis, with its most powerful political body, the Riksdag, elected by proportional representation (4), due to the success the country was having. The economic success, not the turmoil, was the main reason this occurred.
Bibliography:
(1) : Lijphart 143
(2) : “The 20th Century” http://www.sverigeturism.se/smorgasbord/smorgasbord/society/history/20th.html
(3) : “The Kingdom of Sweden” pg 4 (CCW Files)
(4) : Constitution: Chp 3, Art 8
Kyle Tuckman
ReplyDeleteAt this point, it seems we have all come to the same conclusion that the Swedish constitution is consensual. I tend to disagree with the posts above written by Dan and Jason saying the biggest factor in this change were either the thriving economy which helped the people begin to trust the government, or the political turmoil in the government. I believe that the development of a consensual system was due primarily to the period of time from 1920’s to 1970’s leading up to the creation of the new constitution in 1974, where the emphasis was increasingly on popular sovereignty and as well, the development of the Swedish society was mostly positive (1). Generally during this time, one of the Swedish government’s main goals seemed to be providing widespread freedoms and rights to their constituents. This movement was likely sparked by the democratization of the country around 1920, which rid the old constitution of 1809 of important provisions such as ones dealing with the powers of the king and other monarchial factors (2).
This increase in popular sovereignty was one byproduct of the country’s creation of a successful model of democratic socialism (3). Unlike most states in Europe during the same time period, Sweden was able to create a functioning welfare state for its people. This was because Sweden’s socialist leaders “chose a moderate, reformist political course with broad-based public support in the early stages of Swedish industrialization prior to the full-blown development of Swedish interclass politics.” (3) Essentially, Sweden acted early enough to avoid extremist opinions and political and class cleavages that would have been detrimental to this system, and were in fact damaging to other European countries (3). This social democratic system consisted of a welfare state and extensive protections of civil liberties (3). These two additions, along with the increase of popular sovereignty as a whole exemplify the country’s allocation of increased freedoms to its people.
Once the Swedish people had gained such freedoms and liberties it would have been extremely difficult f to force them to give this back if the framers wanted to move the development of the government in a different direction. The importance of this increase in popular sovereignty and other civil rights to the constituents was, in my opinion, the biggest factor in the addition of Sweden’s consensual model of government. This is highlighted by inherent of the consensual model that the new constitution included, such as a proportionally representative legislature and a multiparty electoral system (4,5).
Bibliography:
(1) “The Kingdom of Sweeden” (CCW Files pg 4)
(2) “The Kingdom of Sweeden” (CCW Files pg 3)
(3) Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sweden#cite_note-14 (section on Sweden as a welfare state)
(4) Lijphart Chapter 3 pgs 35-37
(5) Constitution Ch 3. Art. 8
Eileen Loftus
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Kyle that the period of time starting in 1920 and leading up to the drafting of the Instrument of Government in 1974 was the most influential in pushing Sweden to a more consensual style of government. The 1920s were the period in which there was a general shift toward making Sweden a parliamentary democracy (1). Popular sovereignty was seen as being the most important aspect of the government especially starting at the beginning of this period, and it was seen as the basis of legitimacy for the government (2). The stress placed on popular sovereignty translates into system of proportional representation found in the Constitution, which exemplifies the consensual form of government that is strived for throughout the Constitution (3, 4).
By the time the Instrument of Government was written, the government had already been having a highly successful run under the leadership of the Social Democratic party for an extended period of time. As Dan mentioned, the economic success of the Swedes was high after they avoided choosing a side in World War II as well as creating a welfare state for its people starting in the 40s (5). But the economic success and the overall welfare of the people had resulted in a situation in which the people very much trusted their government and elected leaders, allowing them to fully support them (6). Because the government had experienced so much success in the previous 50 years and willingly chosen to create a part of the Constitution which granted proportional representation, it is clear that there was a great deal of pluralism in the writing process of the Instrument of Government.
(1) “The Kingdom of Sweden” pg. 2 (CCW files)
(2) “The Kingdom of Sweden” pg. 3 (CCW files)
(3) Constitution Chapter 3, Article 8
(4) Lijphart, pg. 143
(5) “A History of Sweden” http://www.localhistories.org/sweden.html
(6) “The Kingdom of Sweden” pg. 4 (CCW files)
Jonathan Campbell
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, there is a good mix of truth to both Dan's theory and Kyle's theory on why Sweden chose to become a consensual democracy. It is tough to distinguish which was the main catalyst for choosing that style of democracy. I strongly agree that Sweden staying neutral in World War II led to their economic stability (1), while the rest of Europe lay in shambles. However, I don't believe the faith of the citizens in the government, due to economic stability, led the government to choose a more consensual model. The government had the support, but could just have easily decided to be majoritarian and keep the positive public opinion, based on the lack of certain political analysis's that came later that suggest a consensual model makes the people happier.
One such work is Arend Lipjhart's, "Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government." If the Instrument of Government had been introduced after 1984, when Lipjhart published, I would have a stronger opinion that the government chose to be consensual due to the importance of popular sovereignty, which is in line with what Eileen and Kyle argue. I bring this up because Lipjhart concludes in his work that, "consensus democracies have an equal or slightly better record than majoritarian democracies in economic management and in the control of violence. Moreover, they perform better at promoting women's representation, reducing inequalities, encouraging electoral participation, promoting citizen satisfaction with democracy, protecting the environment, providing social welfare..." (2,3).I believe that the Riksdag was onto something and believed that a consensual model would align with the citizens wants, but I don't think there was enough data and information at the time to say it was the main driving force. The economic stability as well as the push for popular sovereignty go hand in hand, leading to a consensual democracy (4).
Sources:
(1) Sweden's Neutrality during Two World Wars by Jihyeon Park
(2) Two Models of Democracy by Scott Mainwaring
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_democracy/summary/v012/12.3mainwaring.html
(3) Lipjhart, Ch. 15/16
(4) “The Kingdom of Sweden” pg. 3 (CCW files)