Civil Society and State Relations in Sweden

Michele Micheletti

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781351951135
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

Sweden, as many other prosperous nations, is presently reassessing its national goals, political culture and collective identity. Newer groups in society are demanding equal treatment, and others whose struggles for recognition are older and unwon, are successfully mobilizing support for political change. Social democratic political hegemony has been eroded and other new political forces are now reinterpreting past political ideas and methods of action and a need for historical perspective. This book analyses the history of Swedish civil society. Social movements and interest organizations have played crucial roles in Sweden. Their history is also Swedish history and concerns struggles for political recognition and welfare state development and cutbacks. Theoretical developments within sociology, social psychology, public choice and political science are combined to enrich the analysis. Some of the theoretical elements used in this book are organizational waves of development, organizational life cycles, political opportunity structure, and topologies of collective action organizations. The book analyzes Swedish civil society history from the Midas to the 1990s. Swedish civil society history is divided into six periods. The role played by collective action organizations in the important developments in politics, society and economy in this one hundred and fifty year period are described, compared and analyzed. The primary focus is the impact of change brought about by these developments on collective action organizations.

1
Analyzing change in Swedish civil society

A main task for social science is analysis of the major changes that have occurred in politics in the twentieth century. This task is especially important today as people seek a better understanding of contemporary problems by reflecting upon their historical roots. An important part of the Swedish political heritage is social movements and interest organizations. This chapter provides an analytical perspective for studying Swedish collective action over time. It summarizes the theoretical approach developed by the author in a companion volume, Understanding organized action. The reader may choose to refer to this book for references to scholarly writings not cited here to save space. The term ‘collective action organization’ is used to refer to people who work together for a goal and, thus, engage in collective action. The groups studied include ad hoc networks, social movements and interest organizations.

Civil society and government

Perhaps the concept of civil society is best understood when it is contrasted with the concept of mass society. Mass society is the naked society, a society without collective action organizations that clothe and protect individuals from excesses of government. Organizations of civil society play a crucial role in balancing tensions between individuals and government. Individuals come together in ad hoc groups, social movements, political parties, and interest organizations to act collectively on matters that concern them. Along with private enterprise and the mass media, these organizations constitute civil society. Civil society is a filter between the people and government. The main characteristic of organizations of civil society is their independence from government. The importance of collective action organizations for democratic political development is underscored in the role they play to help rethink progress, redefine democracy, and change the boundaries of the political.

Civil societies are well-developed in all democratic nations and absent in totalitarian ones. All collective action organizations do not promote freedom and democracy. The history of the national socialist movement in Germany shows that the actions of collective action organizations can promote political repression rather than democracy. Anti-democratic tendencies that emerge in civil society and gain public support impact government politics and institutions.

The important point in this and other discussions on civil society is that there must be a balance between political order, which is the responsibility of government, and individual freedom, which is guaranteed by a well-functioning civil society. The balance between order and freedom is never given, cannot be decided for future generations, and must constantly be reconsidered. Public debate on this balance occurs in times of great social, political, and economic transition.

This book shows how collective action organizations have safeguarded and furthered the development towards justice, democracy, and equality in Sweden. They have been instrumental in reevaluating the role that government plays in Sweden by questioning accepted distinctions of private and public responsibility. Figure 1.1 illustrates how they have broadened our conception of political democracy by struggling with government to enhance the number of issues included as inherent citizen rights. The characterizations of the political sphere and struggles included in the figure are explained more fully in the following chapters as well as in the companion volume.

On several occasions, collective action organizations have defended the political order in Sweden and other countries. They behave in this fashion when their supporters believe that their rights have been or can be recognized by government and when they feel that their interests are threatened by other collective action organizations which struggle with government and demand recognition of newer and different rights. Such developments show that collective action organizations evolve over time and that their position on the political order changes after they become established, legitimate political actors. Position on the political order is determined by the kind of social change sought by collective action organizations. There are four basic categories here: reactionary; conservative; revisionary, and revolutionary.

Collective action organizations that advance aims that are no longer held by the general public are reactionary. Supporters of such organizations want a return to the past. Frequently this reaction involves romantic notions of the good old days and a belief that older values are better than new ones. Conservative movements seek to maintain the status quo by exerting effort to

Figure 1.1 Role of collective action organizations in redefining democracy

obstruct change. They are created when change is forthcoming. Swedish examples are provided in the following chapters. Revisionary or reformist movements accept some of the purposes and methods of the present political order but wish to modify them. They demand reform in political democracy, property rights, class, race, religious, and gender relations. Most Swedish social movements began as revisionary collective action organizations but have evolved into conservative ones. They resist further political, economic, and social change and find it difficult to renew their goals to reflect the current needs of their members and society at large. Revolutionary movements completely reject the existing political order and want to supplant it with total change.

Another way to characterize collective action organizations is by their goals. Organizations which are outward- or public interest-oriented seek to change aspects of society and politics without considering the personal needs or problems of their members. Organizations which concentrate on changing the personal situation of their members are inward-oriented or personal change oriented. Many Swedish collective action organizations are a combination of the two types.

Other classifications exemplify the variety of organizations of civil society. Class-based organizations recruit mainly from one social class and promote and defend its interests against the interests of other social classes. The best example here are labor market organizations for workers and employers. Non-class based organizations recruit from all social classes and promote and defend a cause common to them. Strict public interest organizations are non-class based. They are volunteering organizations. Collective action organizations may also be comprehensive or restrictive in breadth. Transformative movements advocate comprehensive change in society, economics, and politics. Examples from earlier decades include the teetotaling, free church, and union movements. Today the Swedish women’s and environmental movements are transformative movements. Restrictive movements seek change in limited areas only.

Figure 1.2 summarizes this typology of collective action organizations. Scholars use typologies to classify according to certain crucial variables or elements. Typologies tend to be ideal types. This means that certain aspects of reality are exaggerated for analysis. This book uses typologies to analyze the complex and changing nature of collective action organizations. They are useful in comparative research and make it possible to classify a particular organization in many ways. Collective action organizations may even change category over time. This book shows that this has happened to several important Swedish collective action organizations.

Swedish historians and social scientists have contributed greatly by offering definitions of social movements. They have specified a number of criteria, many of which have been incorporated into the typology of social movements and interest organizations presented in figure 1.3. The most important aspects of the ideal types involve the goals of collective action organizations. Interest organizations advance and defend the economic interests of their members. Social movements promote ideas and are mass-based organizations dedicated to promoting numerous and varying democratic values. Other criteria concern organizational structure and democracy. At first glance, these distinctions appear to be sharp and clear, but most collective action organizations are hybrids. Most collective action organizations are more-or-less social movements or interest organizations and tend to change position over time. Examples are given in the following chapters.

Figure 1.2 Typology of collective action organizations

The distinctions presented in figure 1.3 raise analytical questions about the true nature of many Swedish collective action organizations commonly defined as social movements. For instance, the criterion of equality among members is usually interpreted to mean equal treatment regardless of race, creed, color, gender, and social class. Yet many Swedish organizations classified as social movements have discriminated against women, immigrants, young people, and members who hold undesirable political views. The criterion of independence of social movements from their counterpart is also problematic, as many organizations Swedish social movements are highly reliant on government. Questions can even be raised about the criteria of geographic scope, member commitment, organizational size, and democratic governance of many collective action organizations presently classified as social movements in Sweden. Problems of classification may seem to be purely theoretical ones, but they have important political implications as discussed in chapter 8.

Figure 1.3 Ideal type social movements and interest organizations

Political democracy and collective action organizations

Many collective action organizations seek to improve democracy by formulating and articulating the interests of specific groups and promoting them publicly. Organizations of civil society help politicians and government officials better understand the people by providing information. Autonomous and independent collective action organizations help prevent government domination over citizens and act as a political check on government and other collective action organizations. They improve public life by working together with government and other organizations. The problem is that independent collective action organizations also create serious problems for political democracy. First, organizations can stabilize political inequalities by articulating the interests of their members in adamant, ritualized, and routine ways. Discussion in Sweden on the involvement of special interests in politics has concerned this problem. Trade unions, for instance, have been criticized for opposing plans for reform of the Swedish welfare state.

Second, independent collective action organizations can deform civic consciousness. This happens when resourceful organizations dominate over unorganized individuals and small organizations with limited means for political influence. This allows them to distort and impede the expression of the general will. The impact of this problem has been felt in Sweden in the 1990s. Also, many of Sweden’s largest collective action organizations have represented interests that are peripheral to their main tasks, which has hindered the development of more specialized organizations. Examples include the absence of a strong and independent Swedish consumers’ and women’s movements.

Third, unequal resources allow organizations to exercise disproportionate influence over public policymaking. Organizations with sound financial bases can represent their members more effectively. They can employ experts to influence policymakers and engage in expensive public relations campaigns. Today there is growing concern in Sweden about the importance of financial resources for organizations to influence public opinion and lobby government.

Finally, organizations can upset political accountability. This happens when government delegates public authority to collective action organizations and when government and organizations become intertwined and interdependent, as has been the case in such corporatist systems as the Swedish one. Citizens cannot hold politicians and civil servants solely accountable for government actions and do not choose leaders of collective action organizations in general elections.

It should not be concluded that collective action organizations are a menace to democracy. Their importance for political democracy has been made clear earlier. The underlying dilemma of political democracy is that collective action organizations are both desirable and harmful and what makes them desirable also makes them harmful. Their desirability lies in their ability to compensate for imperfections in electoral politics by formulating and articulating

Figure 1.4 Considerations involved in striking a balance between civil society and government that maximizes democracy for all participants

the interests of citizen groups. They express intensity of preference, give voice to the less fortunate, place democratic demands on government, and provide government with valuable information. They become harmful once they lose perspective of their particular and crucial role in politics and when government becomes too reliant on them. Some scholars even blame collective action organizations for the most serious problems of modern government: atrophy of institutions of popular control; maintenance of old and creation of new structures of privilege, and conservatism in several senses of the term.

The basic problem is that a balance must be struck among three needs of modern political democracy: independent, autonomous collective action organizations of civil society; elected government to ensure political accountability to the people, and a working relationship between government and civil society to further democracy. The question is: Can democratic government be designed to control the mischiefs of special interests without endangering essential liberties and the independence and internal democracy of collective action organizations? Figure 1.4 summarizes the issues which must be considered when attempting to balance these complex demands.

Debate on the dilemma of democracy is an ongoing one, as a balance struck between civil society and government for particular circumstances, e.g., wartime, may prove inappropriate in other situations, e.g., a period of rapid reform and value change. Swedes have debated this important political issue in different periods of civil society history. A new evaluation of the balance between civil society and government is occurring today.

Pluralism and corporatism

University disciplines study collective action differently. Theories of pluralism and corporatism have dominated in political science. The theories have undergone considerable academic debate, and views vary on how they should be defined and whether they still are viable theories for contemporary analysis. This section indicates how they can be used to analyze Swedish collective action organizations.

A Swede was the first social scientist to define how corporatism functions in modern western democracies. It is unfortunate that his work has not been given international recognition. He coined the term free corporatism in 1946:

There are different opinions on how the concept of corporatism should be defined.…[T]here is general agreement that a corporation is an association of fundamentally private character which is granted special government legitimacy, possibly delegated public tasks, or controlled by government. Even opponents of corporatism must understand that this kind of relationship between the state and individual associations is present in our country and that it is compatible with democratic govemment…(Heckscher, 1951, pp. 182–83, my translation).

His message was that Swedish collective action organizations are incorporated into and possibly coopted by government. Later scholars of European politics agreed with him. The theories of interest group pluralism that were formulated by U.S. scholars in the early postwar years did not take this into account. Time was ripe for a theory of government and civil society relations that considered problems of organizational democracy and the privileged status of certain collective action organizations. This was the aim of corporatist theorists.

Corporatism as a theory for analyzing western democracies began to develop in the early 1970s. It offers a realistic view of the role that collective a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Figures
• Appendices
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1 Analyzing change in Swedish civil society
• 2 Formation of modern Swedish civil society
• 3 Sweden’s democratization and social movement institutionalization
• 4 Creating the ‘strong society’
• 5 The Swedish model
• 6 Rethinking politics and the dissatisfied generation
• 7 Repluralization and resurgence of Swedish civil society
• 8 Over a century of collective action organizations
• Appendices
• References