When and why are Swedes willing to "pause democracy"? "
Political scientists Sten Widmalm and Thomas Persson recently wrote a debate article in the daily Dagens Nyheter (Today’s News) about the recent research on attitudes and behaviors regarding democracy.
Widmalm and Persson write that in recent years, politicians and opinion leaders across the political spectrum have increasingly expressed the view that democracy should not be seen as a meta-ideology.
They argue that according to the new SOM (Society, Media, Opinion) survey created at the Univeristy of Gothenburg, such attitudes about democracy seem to be shared by voters:
“The results are both surprising and worrying.”
As Widmalm and Persson write, ever since 1945, there has been a broad consensus among political scientists, social commentators, and representatives of political parties that democracy represents a kind of meta-ideology. As during the 1960s, one of the most active and famous opinion-makers and liberal activists, Herbert Tingsten developed the idea that democracy is primarily about "the form of government" and "different political views” by writing that:
"One is a democrat first, but also conservative, liberal or socialist."
However, according to Widmalm and Persson, now there are signs in Sweden that the earlier consensus on the position of democracy can no longer be taken for granted.
Recently, and during an ongoing global “de-democratization process,” politicians and opinion leaders, not only on the populist fringes but also in the political center, have increasingly expressed the view that democracy should not be regarded as a meta-ideology. In Sweden, climate change, pandemics, crime, Quran burnings, NATO membership applications, and other events are increasingly associated with restrictions on democratic freedoms and rights.
Widmalm and Persson asked how willing are Swedish citizens to set aside democracy to solve societal problems and crises? Their answers are based on their research project, "The Open Society" and a survey based on a random representative sample of 3,750 people in Sweden with a response rate of 48 percent. Widmalm and Persson write that it means that all conclusions should be drawn cautiously and that at the same time, the answers tell us something essential about the position of democracy as a meta-ideology.
Views on democracy results from the study. Shares answering the question of when democracy should be temporarily limited in order to deal with the pandemic, integration problems, climate change, and other topics.
Respondents were asked, "To what extent do you agree that democracy should temporarily be limited to handle the following?" regarding a number of societal problems and crises such as crime, financial crisis, integration problems, climate, and environmental crises, gender discrimination, and pandemic.
Widmalm and Persson write that a majority of respondents in all cases but one topic agreed entirely or partly with the statements:
63 percent of respondents believe that democracy should temporarily be limited to deal with climate and environmental crises.
61 percent believe serious crime is a reason to restrict democracy to address the problem.
Most believe that a pandemic justifies pausing democracy – as many as 71 percent.
A financial crisis (53 percent) and integration problems (52 percent) also seem to be reasons enough to abandon our democratic system of government temporarily.
Only gender discrimination is not believed by a majority to be resolved through democratic restrictions; however, 40 percent are willing to do so.
Widmalm and Persson write that, for example, people who sympathize with the Green Party, Social Democrats, Center Party, and Left Party (ecogolists, progressives, liberals, centrists, socialists) seem more inclined to pause democracy to solve climate and environmental problems. In contrast, serious crime and integration problems seems to lead to the same tendency among sympathizers of the Sweden Democrats, Moderates, and Christian Democrats (centrists, conservatives, far-right populists and nationalists).
Widmalm and Persson argue also that there is another important conclusion:
What is surprising about these results and what causes concern is that the willingness to agree to stop democracy temporarily seems to be so widespread. A quarter of respondents (25 percent) say they are prepared to pause democracy for all the problems mentioned, and nearly two-thirds (64 percent) are prepared to pause democracy in half of the cases.
Furthermore, Widmalm and Persson write that:
Suppose our politicians, opinion leaders, and the institutions in society that are supposed to maintain democratic order become increasingly willing to negotiate away rights and compromise on fundamental principles of freedom of expression, freedom of demonstration, and freedom of the press. In that case, it may – our results show – find unexpectedly strong support among citizens. This is despite the lack of strong evidence that restrictions on democracy would make it easier to solve, for example, pressing environmental problems, serious crime, or a pandemic.
Widmalm and Persson argue that in the long run, this could lead to a downward spiral for democracy, as witnessed in many other countries. To reduce the risk of such development, Widmalm and Persson argue that their results can be interpreted as an understanding of democracy having become too "politicized" – democracy is made part of the problem and is seen as an obstacle to achieving various political objectives.
By referring to a quote of Tingsten, Widmalm and Persson write that understanding democracy as a form of "government," a set of mechanisms for peacefully managing conflicts of interest, must be kept separate from "the content of decisions and the structure of society." They conclude that it is important to respect this principle and not begin to regard various political objectives as part of democracy. Otherwise, we risk throwing out democracy with the bathwater when the next crisis or societal problem arises.
Thanks for reading. You can support and reward my writing via:
Pay Pal – lauvlad89@gmail.com
Algo - NCG6LBALQHENQUSR77KOR6SS42FGK54BZ5L2HFDSBGQVLGYIOVWYDXFDI4
ADA – addr1q9vfs6nqz4xmtnpljwhv4tukyskd2g7enxd87rpugkwwvfun5pnla5d5tes2mvurrc77e7837yd0scrfk063qlha8wgs8d4ynz
Bitcoin 3HbxyDXE9MhNQ8RqsirqgYvFupQzh5Xby2
ETH - 0x8982cdb97bd23f092f78a16a4fc93c5c4607a285
Seeds – vladlausevic
Skycoin – ZxjhWMJRbTNCRQzy5MekZzH4fhdWFCqBP8
Tezos — tz1QrRzkTAKuPKF8dmGW6c1ScEHBUGvoiJBM