THE SNS DEMOCRATIC AUDIT 1995/SNS DEMOKRATIRÅD 1995
Democracy as dialogue
Report from the Democratic Audit of Sweden 1995
Olof Petersson, Jörgen Hermansson, Michele Micheletti, Anders Westholm.
Summary in English
The report shows that Swedish democracy can generally be characterized as satisfactory when compared to the ideal type but that the general trend is negative. In particular democratic practice is deteriorating on those criteria that were once the foundation of the Swedish model: control over resources, control over the political agenda, effective participation in civil society, decision-making capacity of government, and control over implementation. The 1995 report established three main aspects as essential for democracy. They are citizen rule, rule of law (Rechtsstaat) and government performance. These aspects were operationalized in thirteen criteria. Following Robert Dahl, seven criteria are specified for the aspect citizen rule: control of the political agenda; the public sphere; effective participation (three separate criteria: election campaigns, civil society, and local self-government; equality among social groups in decision-making; and finally citizen toleration). Rule of law included three criteria: liberal freedoms; due process; and separation of power. Three criteria comprised the final aspect, government performance: control over resources; decision-making capability of government; and control over implementation.The audit used the criteria in two ways. First, Swedish democratic performance was compared to the ideal type for each criterion. Second, an assessment was made of the direction in Swedish performance over the past few decades, i.e., if democratic practice is improving by becoming more similar to the ideal type or whether the trend is that democracy is deteriorating and becoming more dissimilar to the ideal type for each criterion. The report shows that Swedish democracy can generally be characterized as satisfactory when compared to the ideal type but that the general trend is negative. In particular democratic practice is deteriorating on those criteria that were once the foundation of the Swedish model: control over resources, control over the political agenda, effective participation in civil society, decision-making capacity of government, and control over implementation.
Ongoing work within the SNS Democratic Audit of Sweden applies the same theoretical framework. However, now the concentration is more on auditing certain aspects and criteria. The topic for the 1996 report is democracy and leadership. The 1997 report will focus on democracy on different territorial levels. This will involve an assessment of the democratic impact of government decentralization and local self-government, Swedish membership in the European Union, participation in international settings, and regional cooperation. Do the different government levels complement or compete with each other on the thirteen criteria? Does democracy develop differently depending on which level it is practiced? The topic of the 1998 report is democracy and citizenship. It will update our knowledge of Swedish citizen empowerment and political resources, which was investigated by the Swedish Study of Power and Democracy in 1987.
Demokrati som dialog. Demokratirådets rapport 1995.
Bo Rothstein, Peter Esaiasson, Jörgen Hermansson, Michele Micheletti, Olof Petersson.
SNS Förlag, Stockholm 1995.
The Democratic Audit of Sweden is organized by SNS, the Swedish Center for Business and Policy Studies, a Stockholm-based research organization. The task set itself by successive Democratic Audit Groups has been to contribute to a constructive, objective debate on the workings of Swedish democracy by highlighting different aspects of the Swedish political system. The group is variously composed each year, but it is always made up of four to five independent social scientists.
