The Sweden Democrats: Rise of Swedish Nationalism - and how to deal with it

The Rise of the Sweden Democrats

As of the general election of 2010, Swedish voters gave the "Sweden Democrats" (a fringe nationalist movement with its roots in various outright racist groupings) a 5,7% mandate in parliament.
With a weak minority centre-right coalition government, the Sweden Democrats have risen to become kingmakers in several important intraparliamental votes.

The Sweden Democrats campaign on a platform of curbing immigration and emphasizing a diffusely defined set of conservative values associated with "traditional Sweden". With a general image make-over and the brushed-up stewardship of even-tempered party leader Jimmie Åkesson the party has to a large extent managed to disassociate itself from it's racist beginnings.

Åkesson's skillful management of this very motely crew has however  not succeeded in preventing several outspoken party officials from causing a string of PR-disasters, the recent culmination being a video recording of high ranking party officials in a drunken brawl with racist overtones.

The Sweden Democrats populist anti-immigration policies traditionally attracted a small number of under-educated working class males, but have recently been growing their middle-class base, chiefly at the expense of the Moderates (centre-right) and Social Democrats (centre-left).

While it is self-evident that the established parties would not take kindly to the newcomer, it should be noted that there was a public outcry of unprecedented magnitude when the results of the election were made final and the Sweden Democrats got their parliament seats.

It is not part of the self-image of the Swedes to have a nationalist party taking place in parliament. Parties of this kind have been common in many European countries for decades - but Swedes like to think of themselves as morally superior to this tendency.

The Swedes, being morally homogenous by tradition and clearly culturally shocked at this turn of events, saw the election followed by fierce media campaigns celebrating multiculturalism and slamming the Sweden Democrats with the intention of beating them back to where they came from.

The established parties fell over themselves to display their distance-taking from the Sweden Democrats - sometimes to the point of outright clownery: the then leader of the Left-Party, Lars Ohly, refused to have his makeup put on in the same room as Åkesson prior to a televised election-night debate.

Later, the short-lived and gaffe-prone post-election opposition leader Håkan Juholt managed to cause another stir when refusing to participate in a debate on national television as it was made clear that the studio layout, which put the governing coaltition parties on one side and the opposition on the other, meant Juholt had to stand next to Åkesson.

The following two years has seen a generally positive trend for the Sweden Democrats, with the latest poll numbers ranking them a hefty 8,7% of the popular vote. Capitalizing on the indignation following a slightly earlier poll, which awarded the Sweden Democrats a two-figure rating, evening newspaper Expressen invited Åkesson to participate in  weekly political webcast-forum Bar & Politik and then strategically released the scandalous video of drunken Sweden Democrat party officials wielding iron bars while using derogatory terms for non-ethic Swedes and referring to a hapless female passer-by as a "whore".

The outright schadenfreude lasted for about two weeks (the "Åkesson" hashtag briefly trending globally on Twitter), after which it could be noted that the Sweden Democrats had still not dropped in the polls, but stood firm and possibly had grown marginally.

What is causing the Sweden Democrats to surge?

It should now be clear that neither of the tactics employed so far (exclusion exemplified by politicians, and slamming media reports by journalists) have managed to put even a dent in the SD poll numbers.

In an interesting turn of events, journalists are now turning to analyse why the Sweden Democrats are growing, and the explanations are many:

• It is because journalists and politicians are accepting the premises of the SD-world-view in debating them
  
• It is because journalists and politicians are refraining from debating SD and thus making them into martyrs
  
• It is because the media has focused on SD's growth in the polls, that this has become a self-reinforcing tendency
  
• It is because SD has become part of the establishment and thus have become a more viable alternative
  
• It is because SD is not part of the establishment and can capitalize on being the underdog
  
• It is because the economy is not good enough.

The last item on the list was published in Swedens largest daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter 30/11/12 (article in Swedish here) - a front page feature tracking the SD poll numbers correlation to the number of redundancies in the workforce, implying disgruntled unemployed voicing their frustration by coming out in support of SD, a questionable argument as the DN correlation is weak and does not substantiate casuality, as shown by a more detailed graph over a longer time:

The common denonimator for the above explanations is that they all desperately avoid the central premise: that the Sweden Democrats are claiming an incrementally larger share of the 25-30% of Swedes that partially or fully share their views on immigration issues (Demoskop, Lifestyle and Value survey 2012). The root of the problem lies in identifying why these views are becoming prevalent and countering them with hard facts and solutions, rather than protecting the sense of Swedish moral superiority by looking for external causes for the SD-surge - as it apparently is unfathomable to think a large chunk of the Swedish demography is not all that keen on diversity after all.

What factors are contributing to this shift towards an anti-immigration sentiment?

One cause is the clash between a long tradition of homogenous, centralist social engineering and the sprawling diversity of multiculturalism. This clash might have been compounded buy the rapid rate of change Sweden has been undergoing since moving from an isolated socialist industrial manufacturing nation up until the late 1980's, into a modern, open and liberal intelligence-driven economy. When culturally conditioned for conformism and a sense of moral superiority, diversity might by the disantvantaged be percieved as a provocation.

Heavy-handed and outdated bureaucratic regulations of employment limit the number of legitimate ways low-skilled workers can gain entry to the labour market. This lack of opportunity traps the uneducated in dependence on benefits, and has created large clusters of unemployed residential areas where black-market career paths become an attractive alternative to the out-of-reach legitimate labour market.

High minimum wages tells the labour market "if you are less skilled than this, you cannot work". It is also difficult and expensive to let people go, which impair recruitment risk-taking. With potential extra overheads associated with employing staff with limited knowledge of the Swedish language, this poses a massive disantvantage for non-ethic Swedes when competing for already scarce jobs.

The framework for the Swedish labour market regulations was put in place during the industrial era, with the aim of fostering a class-less and fiscally egalitarian society. In modern times, it has ironically become one of the strongest mechanisms for the creation of a new underclass, as it protects the interests of the native middle-class which is also armed with a full-fledged Swedish school-system education.

Desiring  to avoid wage-dumping by preventing immigrants to compete on price (which would encourage recruitment risk taking) long-term benefit programs and adult-education programs have been put in place with the aim of raising the employability of the low-skilled to meet the wage and job security standards.
Naturally, demand outstrips supply, and the general quality of many of these programs are questionable. It also cements the perception of immigrants as an expensive burden for the tax-payer.

The dissonance between the desire to welcome diversity and the rigidity of the labour market is contributing to a segregation and polarisation of society which provides a platform for parties such as the Sweden Democrats, who emphasize ethnicity as the defining characteristic of social and financial challenges arising from immigration, rather than socio-economic structure and a lack of opportunity.

A percieved lack of safety is by Sweden Democratic voters often presented as a reason for their stance. The city of Malmö, incidentally the current home of this blogger, has received a very negative portrayal in the media, with a focus on criminal gangs and shoot-outs. While not all fear-mongering, the crime rates are statistically generally on the decline and it is hard to determine the real causes for the perceived lack of safety. As a returning citizen of Malmö after 10 years of absence, there is an observable change in as much as loitering large groups of young men have become established in certain parts of the city, where previously there was no such behavior. If this is enough to rattle the Swedes' sense of security, or if there are more actual threats lurking, remains unclear.

The clip below (Swedish only, no subtitles) shows TV-journalist Janne Josefson interviewing two SD-voters living in Almgården, a poverty-stricken blue-collar residential area with a 35% local support for the Sweden Democrats, adjacent to the infamous Rosengård in Malmö. Ridicule or dismissal of these ladies would be easy and counter-productive: they are light on hard facts and heavy on opinion, but their perception of lack of safety is legitimate and very concerning. A general sense of being abandoned by the traditional political parties who talk fondly of multiculturalism but offer little in the way of solutions for those trapped in poor and crime-ridden areas clearly paves the way for the Sweden Democratic hardline approach where the immigrants themselves are painted as the problem to be removed.

Abridged transcript:

"What do you think of the development of Malmö?"
"Horrible, what will things be like in 20 years?"
"What are you thinking of?"
"You really need to keep an eye on your children..."
"What are you thinking of?"
"There has been enough going on out here... it is horrible. I grew up here, you used to be able to play outside at any time. Now people barely dare to walk their dogs at night."
"Why is that?"
"Crime, addiction... old people worry about getting mugged."
"Is this something you have read, or experienced?"
"I have experienced a lot..."
"Who do you feel is responsible for this development?"
"Who to blame... immigrants, tougher punishments for criminal behavior might be needed... we need to draw the line somewhere."
"People would call you anti-immigrant for saying that..."
"They can call me what they want, if people mistreat me I won't stand for it. We vote Sweden Democrat, but we are not racist or anything, we just need someone to start drawing the line out here."

Capitalizing on fears like these, and offering simplified scape-goat solutions is the hallmark of populists everywhere. Confusing the demographic group of a criminal with the cause for his crimes represents an extremely ugly form of collectivism, where the acts of an individual is attributed to race and heritage rather than being the responsibility of the individual and his or her situation. Explaining the structural nature of the problem, and applying long-term solutions through economic and labour-market reform is unlikely to impress the citizens of Almgården, it is however better than not doing anything except for hoping that the Sweden Democrats will go away if we want it badly enough.

The Sweden Democrats represent an anti-globalisation, xenophobic and protectionist line of thought, that certainly would wreak havoc on the economy if implemented even partially.

This blogger might be biased as a businessman, but wary of the anxiously failing attempts to counter the Sweden Democrats with moral derision and social exclusion, it is my firm conviction that the bottom line is a hard but fair master. When in doubt, look at the balance sheet: clearly everyone stands to gain from free trade and free migration - and it is difficult to have one without the other.
Crunch the numbers, creative incentives and opportunity and make the thing work as a business rather than a patronizing and polarizing charity: It is hard to imagine anything more humiliating than being reduced to victimhood and dependence on government-alms, trapped in a social system that prevents one from taking legitimate charge of the situation - by and large, this is how many immigrants come to be treated by the Swedish welfare system.

As the old Persian saying goes: "Let the Caravan Broker the Peace"

Sweden and the neo-fascists

Quite wary of the polarized and dumbed-down Swedish discourse on how to best transform into a heterogenous, open and multi-cultural society, the recent private mobile-video of a drunken troupe of "Sweden Democrat" nationalist MP's armed with iron bars is just irresistible.

Sweden has been a conformist and homogenous society for centuries. Swedes like to think of themselves as cosmopolitan, open and dynamic, a self-image not always neccessarily rooted in reality.

When I first moved to the UK in the early 2000's and got to parttake in discussions on the Iraq war, I was benevolently asked by an older lady if I was "Used to discussing issues like these, given how isolated Sweden is?"
Naturally I balked at the insolent assumption that Sweden would be isolated and not up to scratch on international politics - inwardly comparing this to the popular urban legend having it that Americans believe polar bears to be roaming the streets of Stockholm.

However, over the duration of a few years, I came to see that by and large, Sweden is isolated and not very experienced in discussing international realpolitik in a sophisticated manner.

"Not In My Name", they chanted down Tottenham Court road during the Blair administrations unpopular participation in Iraq. The white-poppy movement (A provocative take on the traditional red poppy worn to support  veretans of war) - a political movement with some similarities to Swedish activism which is keen to take to the streets. The impact of these manifestations are generally of no consequence, but where Britain and Sweden firmly diverge is in terms of the level of intellectual debate surrounding the boisterous idealists in the streets.

One of my favourite video-clips to illustrate this is one in which Margot Wallström, top Social Democrat party official and member of the European Parliament gets crushed on Newsnight. To be fair to Wallström, English is her second language and she is at a distadvantage in that respect, however she does work internationally and ought to be experienced in handling situations of this nature. It is clear how the Eton-breed sophistication and rethorical journalistic eloquency has her shivering like a rabbit caught in the headlights of an oncoming truck loaded with witty sarcasm and Oxfordian debate-group training.

In spite of this situation, the Swedes emotionally perceive themselves as morally more advanced than the rest of the world, and thus swing between condemning the morally inferior and attempting to teach others how to behave. Social Democrat Marita Ulvskog is a treasure trove when it comes to finding practical examples of the emotionally based, often logically self-contradictory, morality. In the 1990’s, when defending an internationally controversial bill against the criticism that her fraction of politicians were elevating their own morality to law, she retorted: (My translation) “This has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. We are merely trying to instil certain values and establish certain norms that allow men and women to live together in society.” It would have been interesting to hear her explain what she thinks constitutes “morality”.
When confronted with arguments of other European nations not passing such laws and still getting the same societal results she merely offered: “We can pass these laws because we have come the furthest with these questions.” I wish to make it clear that it is not my intention to slam Ms. Ulvskog, but I do think the quality entertainment she provides is dampened by the fact that she still wields some political influence.

Part of the moral code that the Swedes have accepted are traditional humanistic values (which, incidentally, is nothing more than secularised Christianity no matter how religiously pluralistic they claim to be). This morality advocates self-sacrifice, the greater good as a moral end and solidarity with the needs of the state as a whole. In Sweden this sacrifice is chiefly made through taxation and by surrendering choice in social matters.

As the citizen morally accepts giving up the greater part of his life to working for the state he attains two things:

1) He can grant himself the sense of moral righteousness (as he willingly sacrifices himself for the good of the people), and

2) He is relieved of personal responsibility for his own life as the state for which he altruistically has accepted to work will now protect him.

The state owes me what I need, and I am good.

This outlook creates a comfortable political stability and social homogeneity, where the only source of conflict (save for the self-glorifying indignation of the media when the needs of select groups of citizens are deemed to not have received enough attention from the state) comes from the world outside Sweden.

How does the Swede sustain the self-image of tax-based altruistic moral superiority, which is necessary to deserve the right to not be responsible - when there is suffering in the rest of the world?
As above: by swinging between condemning the morally inferior and attempting to teach others how to behave.

The moral imperative of altruism advocates free immigration and pluralism. The political imperative of socialism demands homogeneity and obedience. The resolution of this conflict in Sweden has been achieved by reducing the meaning of multiculturalism to dabs of fascinating new colors on the surface of the Swedish machinery.

To encourage pluralism, to accept multiculturalism, to allow diversity, would have required a partial dismantling of the Swedish system, and as a consequence a partial dismantling of the self-image of the Swedes. Instead the policy slogan of “All the same, all different” was adopted, which effectively means: “We welcome you to sell falafel and to teach belly-dancing in subsidized study-groups as long as you willfully embrace the moral and social codes by which this state is run.” This attitude is perhaps best manifested by Mona Sahlin, former leader of the Social Democratic party (Who incidentally was elected to the post by a similar kind of twisted logic in which sexism was used to propagate feminism) when she used young (popular with the kids) Eritrean (popular with the immigrants) girl (popular with the feminists) rapper (culturally diverse with a hint of ploished street cred) "Feven" as a political vehicle designed to illustrate how the “New Swedes” were being embraced and embracing the socialist government machine.

As the morality of altruism cannot permit ordering how others should behave, two constructions are formed to sustain the Swedish morality of superiority and self-image in the face of deviance: the unspoken social agreement that serious deviations from the established norms are the result of immaturity and ignorance and will fall away as the deviant matures and becomes moral, and secondly that while wishing to deviate, society may graciously grant the deviant a contained arena in which to do so.

This is not multiculturalism, this is Jurassic Park-style social governance.

So in a sequence of events: the top-down hegemony of Swedish altruistic socialism will feel morally superior to other European countries by allowing sanctity to more refugees and asylum seekers, then indirectly punish them as socially deviant and morally inferior, then altruistically grant them subsidies and an arena in which to deviate, then antagonize them when the behavior violates the regulations of the social system hosting the arena.

This process contributes to the friction that is now being made flesh on both ends of the spectrum:

1) turbulence in immigrant-heavy areas with the swathe of social problems that follows
2) Undereducated blue-collar disgruntlement and sense of betrayal, followed by surging anti-immigration parties.

In Sweden, the two political blocs consist of a left wing which favors big government left-wing programs, and a right-wing bloc which favors big government right-wing projects. To scale back government itself can never be on the agenda as it alone can provide the necessary system for sustaining the right morality.
Faced with the consequences of this morality there are three evident possible reactions:

1) For opportunistic politicians to reverse the law of cause and effect and claim that it is a lack of morality (morality manifesting through regulation enforced through taxation) that has produced the increasingly chaotic situation, a road at the end of which one inevitably finds the muzzle of a gun.

2) Partial rejection of the dominant social morality which is manifested through the surge of iron-bar equipped populist and racist political parties which we are currently witnessing, with the "Sweden Democrats" hitting a hefty 12% of the popular vote in the latest polls.

3) A progressive dismantling of the top-down collectivist government style, and the permission of individual identity opposed to the morality of the collective.

Take a wild guess which of the above I might suggest as preferable?

Glamour and the lack thereof

I am crushed by the dense atmosphere Lana Del Rey has managed to create in "Off To The Races" on her "Born to Die" album - a tremendous Hollywood-noir mood that manages to portray glamour that is coming apart at the seams while retaining its sexy allure.

Vividly, she paints the pseudo-1940's Sunset Boulevard mansion backyard:

Swimming pool glimmering, darling,
white bikini off with my red nail polish.
Watch me in the swimming pool,
bright blue ripples, you
sittin', sippin', on your black Cristal

and then continues, reflecting on her own loss of control and decline:

And I'm off to the races, cases
of Bacardi chasers,
chasin' me all over town
'cause he knows I'm wasted, facin'
time again on Rikers
Island and I won't get out

Her husband watching, Lana slips on her red dress, puts on her make-up and perfumes herself with cognac and lilac, and then for a moment drops her bubbly airhead tone of voice and briefly reveals a worn-down middle-aged woman who laconically remarks "says it feels like heaven to him."

The most powerful and evocative illustration of escalating depravity is made when she subtly substitutes "scarlet" for "harlot" in the last two renditions of the refrain:


I'm your little scarlet/harlot starlet,
singin' in the garden.

This format of crash-and-burn tragedy-legend of addiction and fall from grace cannot be told in a Swedish context at all, as there never was much glamour or wealth to begin with. (There was a lot of low-brow addiction though.) Naturally Sweden has it's own enfants terribles, but none of these stories (Leila-K, anyone?) come anywhere near the mythical status of Marilyn Monroe, Michael Jackson, James Dean or River Phoenix. Likely, the Swedes would argue themselves better than that - quoting the sensibility of bland moderation as morally superior to the wild and sprawling American Dreams of fame and potential misfortune.

The UK does have more of a real set of legends in this vein, mostly within the music industry (Sid Vicious, Brian Jones, Keith Moon and Amy Winehouse perhaps?) - though in my opinion, Lana puts her finger on the grandness of scale between the world of American modern legend and it's European equivalant, a difference so great that the UK and Sweden suddenly seem very similar and dull.

Celebrate the grandeur of the spectacle.

The Economy of Babies

There is a fascinating observation to be made on economy as an intrinsic value of all living things: my two 16-month twin daughters make a fantastic dataset for this purpose.

As of the last few months, they have clearly started to apply the notion of value to objects around them. They will act to obtain items of perceived value at all times, be it food, toys or attention.

Novelty is a big, if short-lived, factor in determining value. Much like a brand new vehicle, half this value will be lost within a day of first possessing the desired item. The pursuit of a novelty item will quickly wanes, as a more critical evaluation takes place.

Scarcity is another big factor: the girls consider toys their property, and they are available in abundance. An iPad is of infinitely higher value as they are often visibly available, but rarely within reach for unsupervised play. To get their hands on an iPhone, iPad or a remote control is a highly desirable prize - even though they already own many toys that might deliver a superior entertainment experience for their age-group.

More interestingly, and much to our entertainment, my wife and I recently identified a new variable of value in the baby-economy: Energy.

My wife recently bought the girls a wind-up toy TV that will play a cheerful - if obnoxious - melody and display some camp graphics for about a minute after fully wound up. As there is only one toy of this kind, the value of the TV is high to begin with, and the girls will often try to keep it for themselves. What caught our attention was how the battle to possess the TV was intensified as soon as it was wound up and started to play.

The girls know full well that there is only one object of this kind, and that the cheerful melody is available for a limited time only, and it thus becomes imperative to own the TV while it is playing.

A fully wound TV has a higher value than a non-wound TV: as the spring unwinds, the melody progressively slows down and value diminishes correspondingly.

Last night, while trying to buy ourselves some time to finish a Vindaloo and a rather lovely glass of Chianti, my wife quickly wound the toy TV while one daughter was holding it. Little were any of us expecting the lurking twin behind the sofa, who shot out from her hiding place as soon as the music started to play. She nicked the fully wound TV from the unsuspecting hands of her sister and made for the kitchen as fast as her little legs would carry her, eventually settling into the farthest corner of the room, TV pressed between her body and the wall.

She did not DO anything with the toy, she did not watch the screen or play with its controls. She wanted to own the high value item before energy and value was drained.

Originally, the toy built up is value though play and interaction - the wound toy being more fun than the unwound toy. As things progressed, the value of the wound toy was internalized and made abstract to the point of making it an investment: "We both know how much fun this thing is on the rare occasions that it plays that tune, we don't really need to experience it anymore."

Still hiding in the kitchen, as the music started to slow down, she willingly surrendered they toy back to her sister - seemingly the act of a short-term position during a stock-market peak: "I extracted the highest value from this position. You want it? Great! Please let me sell you my shares as they start to depreciate!"

I am a very proud daddy of this promising little value-analyst, but we might need to keep the smash-and-grab approach in check.

The Passion of the Swede

A picture that has been prolific in Swedish social media lately is this snapshot from a catalogue of toys:

This is the marketing material of a purveyor of products aimed at children, and as visible in the picture, the reason for its current viral status is the fact that the gender roles have been inverted in all the pictures.

As the father of two daughters, I am certainly in favour of equal opportunity in all spheres of life - and I generally perceive the dismantling of social and political structures that limit free choice as an excellent development for both the economy and the individual.

Albeit the PR-company that has developed this concept has done a very good job managing to get a catalogue of toys to trend in social media, and in spite of it deserving some criticism for being somewhat too obviously opportunistic in targeting morally anxious middle-class parents, what stands out is something else: the reactions in the user commentary.

"Absolutely wonderful! Finally! :)"
"This is superb!"
"I never expected this, after all attempts it was feeling hopeless. But look! How lovely!"
"Good! Wonderful!!"
"Amazing, I'm sharing this immediately!"
"Finally!"
"He he he, my heart grows warm and happy!"
"Just my feeling, smiling inside!"
"I had been waiting for this..."
"Super"
"Wow! Totally amazing, finally, not a day too soon!"

The list goes on in the same style all over social media. Going by the the unanimous and ecstatic praise one would perhaps associate with unexpected peace in the middle east or a cure for cancer, it is a perfect example of the Swedish psyche: once a value gains moral footing in society, the middle classes will fall over themselves to outdo each other in expressing their alignment with the aforesaid morality.

As stated before (and I am doing it again to protect myself from the furore of my Swedish audience) I am all in favour of equal opportunity and liberalisation from culturally inherited roles for individuals.

The religious certitude of the above quoted commentary is worrying in the sense that it exemplifies how easily large numbers of Swedes can be manipulated and passionately mobilized in favour of various causes as long as they are presented carrying the correct moral value-symbols. The Kony 2012 campaign (a partisan and politically questionable viral YouTube-video) is a recent example of this, where the moral markers "care for third world" and "love the children" were effectively paired with "you can make a difference by sharing this" - accompanied by a grand Hollywood-style soundtrack. Within hours social media was littered with unreflected convictions ("Share this! It will change your life!"). The interesting thing about the Kony campaign was that it's luridness quickly got it called out by various groups who were working to actually make a difference in it's sphere - who responded with viral campaigns of their own. This prompted some muted but apologetic shares of videos countering the Kony emote-fest, sans ecstatic exclamations. What differentiates the Swedish reaction to Kony compared with most other countries was the coordinated excited alignment as per the quotes above, which rapidly switched to coordinated silence when the campaign lost it's moral credentials.

The toy catalogue presents an inversion of roles, not a liberalisation: it merely substitutes one set of roles with a new set of roles. This is acceptable - given that this is just ordinary marketing material half-cleverly capitalizing on the moral convictions of it's target demographic. Albeit unsophisticated, the attempted promotion of gender neutrality most likely has some genuine good intentions complementing the strategic market positioning.

However, this is not about the catalogue or gender equality, Kony or any other specific issue. This is about the Passion of the Swede.
As made apparent with the advent of social media, they will descend on any and all events or trends and lavish unreflected praise on anything being presented with the right moral markers - and destroying anything superficially at odds with those same markers.

Brilliant economist Joseph Schumpeter wrote of the inevitable transition from high-output capitalism to the high-maintenance welfare state, and the corresponding shift of power from accomplishment to entitlement. The free market forces that created the resources required for mass-education were voted out of power by the unaccomplished as soon as their level of education made it possible.
This demographic substitutes activity with activism, a characteristic that in collectivist Sweden has established superficial "questioning" as an integral part of education,  often more highly valued than knowledge.
As long as you question the right things, that is.

As a result, Sweden abounds in half-educated, mediocre, aligned, collective and synchronized moral posing masked as questioning and taking a stand.

Taking a stand requires opposition and force. When everyone is taking the same stand it's really just a bunch of people standing around.

The Debate Climate

British author Andrew Brown writes in his biographical memoir "Fishing in Utopia" on life in Sweden: "Their conformism does not mean that the Swedes do not change, but when they do, they do it like a school of fish: all of them change direction at the same time." (Quoted from memory, hopefully approximately correct)

During the six months since my return to Sweden, this statement has strongly resonated with me.
In stark contrast to the internationalism and pluralism of British quality news reporting, Swedish media seems to pick a focus-grouped theme that over its life-cycle of around three weeks, will dictate the debate climate of the entire nation.

It is obvious that commercial media anywhere will favour stories that sell, but the striking difference between Sweden and the UK is the passionate seriousness with which the population as a whole will invest themselves in each of these themes - and the fact that there will not be room for any parallel debates (a situation likely aggravated by the diminutive population and market.)

Let it, in the name of clarity, be noted that this does not concern daily news reporting, which in Sweden is  adequate albeit with a forgiveable provincial slant. The debate-themes however, mono-debates, are most often opinion-material with a strong moral component (though sometimes evolved from a news story with moral implications) - and once one is in swing it will suffocate most other debates that might be relevant at the same time.

A typical example might be last year's debate on the ethical treatment of ferrets by the fur industry. This story obliterated any plurality in the debate climate for around three weeks in early 2011. The evening news in all channels ran heart-wrenching stories on the squalid conditions of ferrets. The tabloids headlined with ferrets in both news- and opinion-sections. Upheaval in the blogosphere and on social media networks where people would collect signatures and arrange demonstrations. Follow-up with subjective news reporting on representatives form the fur industry and activists. Cries for new legislation, witch-hunt for those, somebody, anybody responsible.

...and then it slowly petered out, like a flame that had consumed all oxygen.

The average swede will likely, upon this reminder, argue that they still care deeply about the fate of the ferrets, and if things are still awry in ferretland that somebody ought to do something and that there is something wrong with a society that allows ferrets to be mistreated - and then return to making passionate indignant Facebook-posts about whatever mono-debate is the current rage and how the coalition-block of choice would be best at dealing with the issue.

A few weeks ago, the debate focused on the morally ambitious linguistic engineering suggestion to introduce a gender-neutral pronoun, with the hope of facilitating the dismantling of perceived oppressive patriarchal structures. Cue passionate reporting on both sides of the issue, with conservatives painting the issue as the end of civilization, and its proponents as the key to gender-neutral nirvana. Cue social media havoc, broadcasting specials, tabloid reports, propaganda, demonization. Cue reviews of the opportunist but progressive children's book first out to make use of the new pronoun, cue reviews of the second, critical, children's book to make use of the new pronoun. Cue interviews with gender specialists at daycare centres wanting to implement the new pronoun, cue interviews with those opposed to sending their children to gender-neutral daycare and cue a favourable special with the Stockholm hipster couple raising gender-neutral baby Kim, whose sex is kept a secret.

...and then it slowly petered out, only to be replaced with a hairy armpit, which is the hilarity that triggered this post.

I will not linger on the details, but a lady was captured on camera with ungroomed armpits and subsequently ridiculed in social media by adolescent boys. Cue everything, everywhere, with gusto.

Some might argue that these stories are all modestly relevant, if somewhat quaint, storms in a teacup - but they then fail to realize that living in Sweden means living in the teacup, and when it storms it will splash into every corner of your existence.

During my years in London, the only thing that comes even near the Swedish debate climate is that surrounding "baby P", a social services scandal involving negligence causing the death of a baby.

British press is generally characterised by qualitative latitude, ranging from the Sun all the way up to the Times and the Guardian - but also with pluralism. All the media channels will not be debating the same issues at all times.


Swedes might oppose criticism of this kind by emphasizing how plural and broad the news reporting really is, and simultaneously argue that a manifestation where 15 young ladies decide to showcase their hairy armpits is newsworthy enough to be broadcast in a segment of it's own on national primetime TV on all channels, as it confronts an important issue (right up there with Nelson, the baby rhinoceros that died from its cerebral palsy after only eleven days in 1995 and caused national mourning and a complete media meltdown).
This is nothing short of absurd as it leaves out the most critical element: that importance is best determined through pluralist trial - and that sacrificing pluralism on the altar of perceived importance most likely has yielded Sweden very little of both. It would be the keen hope of this blogger that the diversity Swedish ideologues so keenly claims celebrate and strive for indeed will break up the mentally collectivist hegemony to facilitate a less contrived state of affairs when it comes to open debates.

The "People's Home" Explained

This week I am posting a reworked text that I originally published on my Facebook page. I think the piece is warranted on this blog to explain the root causes of certain Swedish attitudes and socio-political concepts. For those of you who read it before - we will be returning to the normal Sweden Vs. the UK format as per next week. For the rest of you, particularly my non-Swedish readers, this text might be helpful in interpreting subsequent posts!

* * *

To make sense of the viciously polarized political climate of contemporary Sweden, with the centre-right coalition dramatically dubbed "The Alliance" governing, and the Greens, Social Democrats and the Left in opposition, it is necessary to consider the remarkable social and economic makeover the country underwent during the 20th century.

At the turn of the last century, Sweden was reaping the fruits of rapid industrialization, and was in the process of transforming itself from a poor agrarian economy into a wealthy manufacturing nation. The development of large scale manufacturing plants had generally been the result of lassiez-faire industrial policies at the end of the 19th century, and as a consequence both wealth and an urbanized workforce emerged to replace the hitherto dominant rural farming class.
The unions worked in close collaboration with the upcoming Social Democratic movement to institutionalize workers rights and improve working conditions. Initiated during the 1920's and 30's, an ambitious experiment in social engineering was undertaken with the outspoken aim of establishing a cradle-to-grave governing system dubbed "The Peoples Home". This was a large-scale socialistic project relying on planned economy, with a marginal tax eventually pushing well into the eighty-percent strata - legislation implemented to eradicate private wealth and foster a unified and equalized people.
Operating supply-side economics would at this point have strangled economic growth, had it not been for the passive stance taken visavi the aggressive German NSDAP which engaged in massive trade on the Swedish mineral ore market during the war.

As World War II came to an end, with Europe scrambling to rebuild, Sweden was the only remaining highly industrialized manufacturing economy, and was over the coming 20 years thus propelled from a wealthy nation into a super-rich nation-state. By the mid-sixties, Sweden clocked in as the per-capita wealthiest nation in the world.
As this wealth flowing through the Swedish economy was associated with the success of the Social Democratic leadership (a myth deftly propagated by the party and it's affiliate union-organisations) it came to establish itself as the dominant political force for the coming half-century.

As Europe rebuilt itself, and the heavy-handed labour-tax reduced competitiveness and saw ever-dwindling manufacturing returns, the cost of the ambitious well-fare reforms quickly became unsustainable. The first cracks in "The Peoples Home" became visible during the 1970's oil crisis, in which the isolated and depreciating Swedish currency saw energy costs soar, prompting a brief shift in goverment. As the Social Democratic hegemony continued, the oil crisis and the ensuing fragility of Swedens isolationistic economic model was felt, the blame could effectively be put on the opposition which remained out of power for more than a decade after.

In order to maintain the expansive well-fare programs of The Peoples Home under a dwindling GDP, the retirement funds set aside during the golden years of Nazi funding was mortgaged. Thus, straddled with an unsustainable economy, and an escalating future retirement-defeceit, the cracks in the system eventually became so severe that the currency stagnated. In the early 1990's this prompted another government shift, the Swedish Krona was put into flotation and immediately depreciated close to 30 percent.
Again, this dire state of the economy was played on the daddeling centre-right coalition, who were in power through support by the unsavory populists in "New Democracy" - a now-defunct political one-hit-xenophobic-wonder of the 1990's. Even as the Social Democrats regained power, the People's home was coming apart at the seams.

The economy was by necessity progressively liberalized, and in 1995 Sweden became a member of the European Union. As results of the gradual liberalization of the economy propagated through the system, the ideological mythos that it was the sudden onslaught of private enterprise that had killed the morally superior and solidaric model of The People's Home was fostered. Bent on reminiscing about the Glorious Years of the 1960's and early 70's, while deploying a social-conservative agenda under prime minister Göran Persson, the Social Democratic party became increasingly irrelevant for both it's own base who were demanding the financially impossible reinstatement of the Peoples Home, and the opposition who thought them fiscally naive and backwards. The Social Democrats lost power altogether in 2006.

At this stage, a generation had grown up in the last days of the people's home, and reached maturity in a pan-european market economy. This dual experience made the upholding of the Social Democratic cosmogony increasingly difficult, to the point of bringing about a country-wide cutural shift away from socialism altogether.

By the time Sweden held it's last general election in September 2010, the Social Democrats had been so weakened that they had to pin their hopes of regaining power on a coalition with the Left party and the Greens.  Wary of faltering big-government projects, many speculate that partnering with the Left party - a fringe movement with its roots in Communism - drove additional voters to abandon the Social Democrats in favor of the centre-right Alliance.

After an humiliating obliteration in the election with a worst-ever result, the Social Democrats were scrambling to reinvent and rejuvenate themselves. Dragging their feet in a bungled and archaic closed-doors intra-party selection process, a new party leader nominee - the face of rejuvenation - was finally presented: Håkan Juholt.

The face of rejuvenation

Juholt is the long-term and left-leaning small-town Social Democrat now tasked with making his party relevant again. Some speculate this will be a tough challenge indeed, as moving the party further to the right would fashion them nothing more than a light-alternative to the centre-right coalition, and going further left might alienate more of their working base.

The erratic flip-flopping of Juholt during the early stages of the NATO-led intervention in Libya further damaged the credibility of a potential Juholt-led administration, which at the moment of writing generally is interpreted by the media as a government that could end up anywhere politically. A lack of media training has seen Juholt's bumbling shadow exchequer Tommy Waiderlich deliver gaffe after gaffe eagerly pounced on by scandal-thirsty tabloids - in stark contrast to the grave and professionally presented sitting exchequer Anders Borg. As the greens has initiated a process of distancing themselves from the Social democrats, Juholt will need to find new friends very quickly indeed in order to deliver an electable platform in time for the next election.

Recognising the democratic value of a well-organised opposition, many have expressed concerns that the Moderates, the dominant party within the Alliance-coalition, might become lodged and identified with the state in the same way as the Social Democrats were before them.

Being reduced to representing chiefly immigrants, the undereducated and unemployed, one might argue that reminiscing about the golden years of the People's home might strengthen the Social Democrats hold of their dwindling base - but one may be entitled to ask by what standard it is appropriate to consider financially unhinged nostalgia as reinvention - and if this really is the right kind of rejuvenation when Juholt bashes Twitter as an irrelevant fad?

Interestingly, Sweden's largest daily just ran a story that corroborates my point. The first link is to the Swedish original text, the second is an English Google translated version which is intelligible and hilarious in parts. If anything requires explaining in English, please use the comments section and I will do my best to oblige!

http://www.dn.se/ledare/signerat/socialdemokraterna-cirkus-juholts-nya-forestallning 

English version

UPDATE:

Here is another article on the same topic:

http://www.dn.se/ledare/huvudledare/klasskamp-utan-segrare