Monday, July 20, 2009

Extreme right wing gains in Sweden

Swedish public radio discussed the possibility that the extreme right wing populist party The Swedish Democrats might succeed to enter parliament next election (2010). Sweden is traditionally seen as something of an exception in Europe in that such parties just never seem to be very succesful at the polls. An optimistic reading of this history is that Swedes simply are much more tolerant, democratic and respectful to minorities - as indicated by its status as a country with a long history of multiculturalism - which is seen as the explanation for their lack of electoral success. In that respect, it is often compared to Canada, which invented multiculturalism and from this point of view, the growth of a party like the Swedish Democrats must be seen as deeply troubling sign that Sweden is becoming more racist and less tolerant.

However, I have a lingering feeling that this interpretation might be an overly generous reading of Swedish political culture. It seems to me that the cause should rather be sought elsewhere, and I think I would begin my search in the entrenchment of the Social Democratic People's Home, Folkhemmet, and its highly paternalist construction.

Historically, Sweden embraced the nation-state concept vigorously and was one of the countries that chose to pursue eugenics, racial hygenie, with substantial government funding back in the early 1920s. This was not right wing politics back then, but supported by all parties across the political spectrum. I think a fair case could be made that the notion that Sweden has historically been a homogenous nation comes from this time. That notion is, of coures, false. There have always been minorities in Sweden - Finns, Sami, Jews and others, but part of the nation-state policy included the suppression and assimilation of these minorites in the pursuit of "racial purity".

By the end of World War II, "racial hygiene" lost its appeal as a science for obvious reasons. But the Social Democrats were in power, and expanded the centralist Swedish state with the aim of building the People's Home, Folkhemmet. This was a highly hierarchist and paternalist state, based on the notion that enlightened rulers could engineer society to more evolved state, as it was. The Myrdals were very influential in this project, and part of their ambition was to create the "A" Class human. Therefore, eugenics remained as a political tool to "enhance the gene pool" and to "remove degenerative elements" from the popular body. Those "degenerative elements" included the disabled, as well as categories of people who could be argued to have been the Swedish equivalents to "visible minorities" in the Anglo-Saxon world, particularly the Roma and the Travelling People (commonly known as "Tattare" by Swedes). Meanwhile, other minorities, like the Sami, were forbidden to speak their language and express their diversity in public.

Thus, for several decades, the People's Home was not only a Social Democratic project of class equality, it was also a very ethnically Swedish project, and its face embodied features that are characteristic of Swedish ethnicity, complete with blond hair and blue eyes. In that context, I do not consider it very remarkable that right wing populist parties would find it very difficult to win votes. Their potential supporters - working class Swedes - were already highly mobilized by the Social Democrats who were pursuing a political agenda of homogenization, ethnically or otherwise, an agenda that was not challenged until the 1970s with the adoption of multiculturalism (which was adopted, it is interesting to note, when Sweden closed its borders to labour force immigration).

A counter argument would be that other countries also had implemted homogenizing policies. This is true, and the Canadian residential schools for aboriginals are a good example. What I think might be the difference is that the Swedish state has been a highly centralist and paternalist one, with a clearly hierarchical structure (unlike, for instance, the highly fragmented Canadian polity). This has acted as a very powerful conduit for homogenizing policies at the same time as it has effectively obstructed the expression of diversity by the subaltern groups in society. And this pattern persists today, as seen when high Social Democrats, like those leading in Malmö, advocates with such force in favour of restricting the freedom of movement for a particular category of people (immigrants). Moreover, in public space this is seen as a legitimate political tool, notwithstanding its clearly authoritative implications.

Against this history, I can't say that I am surprised that the extreme right wing populists have found a new niche as "defenders of the People's Home" - after all, since the discourse has shifted from one of homogenization towards one of multiculturalism and respect of diversity it is very difficult for mainstream politicians to pursue the old type of policies while at the same time speaking in favour of multiculturalism. The problem is, of course, that they try (as seen in the Malmö example). This creates exactly the kind of contradictions that the right wing extremists thrive in and it is deeply troubling that there is no reason to believe this trend will lose its momentum.

2 comments:

  1. I believe you hit very close to the mark.
    I do however think there is even more to it, and not just related to the extreme right.
    From my own political work, I see a steadily increasing rift between the interests of the mainstream political parties, and those of the people.
    The traditional left/right separator is losing its importance as both Social Democrats and Moderates are abandoning more of their ideologies, becoming more centrist and focusing more on financial details.
    Like you point out, those of the worker class that are concerned about Folkhem, move towards SD, but so do the conservatives that feel the Moderates are becoming too socialist and pragmatic. The first move is often to the Christian Democrats or People's Party, and from there the step is a fairly short one to SD nowadays.

    At the same time, we see a migration of liberals leaving the core parties and heading in the other direction. The socio-liberals go towards the greens, and on the right they first flocked to the Centrists, but are now fleeing even further away after their new liberal face proved false. The ones that feel the most betrayed, on both sides, usually end up with the Pirates whom are polar opposites to authoritarian SD.

    The socialists generally migrate further left.

    It's late and I'm rambling. What I'm trying to say, is that the political map is being recalibrated along the libertarian/authoritarian axis, where the differences between the mainstream parties are steadily decreasing. Thus the fringe parties can pick up the "spill".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very interesting points raised, all pointing to a variety of factors being at play in an intersectional fashion to create push-pull effects on the electorate, as it were. It seems to me that all these difference parties are subjected to forces and problematics that push them in different directions, creating this situation. The socialists are confronted with the same core problem that has plagued them since the start - how to really transcend Capitalism? For a long while, Keynes served them a way to postone addressing that for a few decades by providing them with a comprehensive macro economic program they simply didn't have before (detailed by Claus Offe in a very interesting paper from 1984). But when Keynes met a dead end, the problem came back with a vengeance, and has plagued socialists since then across the Western world. For Swedish socialists, this came home to roost with the recession of 1991, and the Social Democrats only card to play since then have been "sound state finances", but they're dead when it comes to new political visions. The only inspiration seems to be Blair's ole New Labour, which is effectively running towards the Centre.

    The Left Party, of course, still carries the old Communist baggage, which came back with a vengeance with Ohly and has forced most of the reformists out and brought the Party back to its historical 4 % levels. The only news is the gaggle of post-modernist construvist identity crowd (feminists, queer theorists and others) whose only common denominator is that they are all radical anti-capitalists. Being that, they really aren't going anywhere...so in comparison to their position during the 90s, they have returned to their camp on the far left side, with some new company added for spice.

    The center-right parties, it seems to me, wrestles with the problem that the Swedish electorate simply haven't gotten the fact that Keynes is (or was) dead and are simply stuck in the Social Democrat discursive paradigm. In other words, their heads are in exactly the same mindset it was in 1976 - "we have to be better Social Democrats than the Social Democrats to stay in power". This explains why traditional conservatives don't recognize themselves in Reinfeld's "New Moderates". And so they have effectively ran left.

    The People's Party is in the hands of PR consultants who have jumped the Hierarchist bandwagon, particularly in the field of immigrant integration. It's a sad time when the step from the party that purports to be liberal is only a step away from the populist right in terms of policies.

    The Centre Party, finally, has had a few liberatarians (neoliberals), primarily the Party leader and the leader of the Youth organization, who saw the space opened by the demise of social liberalism in the People's party and moved in to fill the void. Until Ipred came along.

    It is interesting to note that the only party that seems true to its ideological history is the Christian Democrats, but being socially conservative, and religiously so to boot, in the most secular nation of the world, dominated by the legacy of the Social Democrat People's Home, is simply not an easy place to be.

    So to sum up - yes you're right, the parties have migrated towards the middle, but I'd argue that they have been pushed in there for different reasons. And I'd also argue that they all risk losing long term credibility because of their manoeuvering. People are mostly smart enough to see through PR stunts.

    ReplyDelete