Yesterday we discussed the differences between the right and left-wing. Today we will ask poltical scientist Jenny Madestam detailed questions about the differences between the parties themselves. Before we begin, those of you not so familiar with Swedish politics should be informed that the right wing consists of the Moderate party, the Centre party, the Christian democrats and the People´s party liberals and the left-wing consists of the Social democrats, the Left party and the Green party.
As stated in the last article, the right-wing won government power in the last election in 2006. This newfound position in office has caused several changes in political directions between those parties in order to create a well-functioning corporation between the parties.
- I would say that the Centre party and the Christian democrats are facing an identical crisis. You can say both have sold their soul. The Centre party have given up their resistence to nuclear power and the party leader Maud Olofsson has stated they are a liberal party, having a history of corporation with the Social democrats. She has begun to talk more about the right of the individual and rethorical words such as freedom, Jenny Madestam explains.
- Conservative Christian democrats gave up their opinion about not allowing same-sex-marriage, which all the other parties are in favour of.
- The People´s party liberals have gone from a social liberal direction to a more “demanding” liberalism, a tougher demand on the individuals in society, even if party leader Jan Björklund has mentioned social liberalism in his speeches, she says.
The biggest party within the right-wing alliance, the Moderate party, has had a history of a mixture between conservatism and liberalism, which may explain their new direction in both rethoric and practice. All these changes on this side of the political side can be summarized due to the fact that both liberalism and conservatism have had their home here. It is not like in for example in the U.S. Where liberalism can be labelled “left-wing”.
- Maybe we have a narrow view of right-wing politics in Sweden. Those ideologies are from the beginning each others opposites. Earlier it has been easier to see differences between the right-wing parties, but the changes have been possible due to that both these ideologies belong on this side of the scale. This has in turn been possible because both ideologies has challenged the left wings view on the need for a big state in the welfare system. she concludes.
On the left-wing one tend to divide up the parties between the green party, the Social democrats and the Left party with the latter most to the left and the first party most to the right. But due to the fact that these parties also have to cooperate changes can be visible also here.
- The Left party has been forced to go more to the right in the agreements with the other left-wing parties. But I am sure there are a lot of people within the party which would like to see for example higher taxes.
Party leader Lars Ohly was also forced to stop calling himself a communist a couple of years ago, as both media and the people reacted strongly towards Ohly labelling himself that.
All these radical shifts in direction in the course of only a couple of years has of course made it really difficult to place the parties on an obvious ideologial scale. And it may happen more. The Sweden democrats which have expressed opinions against immigration may enter the parliament after the election which can force parties to cooperate despite ideological differences to block that partiy´s influence.
Sharp constrats or consensus? Nothing really, or both maybe...
/The cat goes political
Friday 16 July 2010
Thursday 15 July 2010
The ideologial scale in Sweden – Consensus or sharp contrasts? Part 1
Election day is getting closer in Sweden. In September it will be decided if the current right-wing government will extend their time in power with another four-year-term. Or will the left/green-party opposition take revenge for last election when they lost after 12 years in office? Both will fight to form government and they will do everything to distinguish themselves from each other. The campaigning is getting more and more intense. Both sides are doing their best to portray their opponent as a worst case scenario and themselves as the only possible way.
In recent years, however, opinions have grown that the parties have become more and more similar to each other and difficult for the voters to separate between the sides. On the other hand there are people who claim there are major differences. To get to the bottom of these contradicting opinions, I decided to call someone who maybe can shed some light on this mater: Political scientist Jenny Madestam at Stockholm University.
- I do feel there is a difference between the two alliances (left/green and right). The latest suggestions for an economical budget point to that they both with concern for the welfare state. But the means to get there are different, Madestam says.
- The right-wing proposes cut-downs in the social insurance system which they believe pushes people to search for a job. The left wing wants to raise taxes in order to give people a secure income, she explains.
So, it seems that according to Jenny Madestam this is where the big difference lie – in the mater of politics regarding employment and economic compensation for the unemployed. But both sides claim they put great value into the welfare state – which was maybe not so clearly expressed from the right wing government a couple of years ago. The biggest party within this alliance, the Moderate party, won the last election probably because they launched a broader image to the voters.
- Prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has been good at borrowing messages and rhetoric from the Social democrats, says Madestam but at the same time withholds that they in practice have moved in a more social liberal direction.
This may be confusing to voters who might have a hard time to see clear alternatives to choose from. And Madestam also believe parties portray their opponent to give the voters just that – a clear “good” option in stark contrast to the other “darker” side.
- Maybe they exaggerate the differences between them. If you listen to the latest speeches you can get that impression. Its true there are two different ideological sides but its not a question of two completely different systems.
In part 2 tomorrow we will go more into detail and ask Jenny about the ideological standpoints and differences between the parties and not just between the two alliances.
In recent years, however, opinions have grown that the parties have become more and more similar to each other and difficult for the voters to separate between the sides. On the other hand there are people who claim there are major differences. To get to the bottom of these contradicting opinions, I decided to call someone who maybe can shed some light on this mater: Political scientist Jenny Madestam at Stockholm University.
- I do feel there is a difference between the two alliances (left/green and right). The latest suggestions for an economical budget point to that they both with concern for the welfare state. But the means to get there are different, Madestam says.
- The right-wing proposes cut-downs in the social insurance system which they believe pushes people to search for a job. The left wing wants to raise taxes in order to give people a secure income, she explains.
So, it seems that according to Jenny Madestam this is where the big difference lie – in the mater of politics regarding employment and economic compensation for the unemployed. But both sides claim they put great value into the welfare state – which was maybe not so clearly expressed from the right wing government a couple of years ago. The biggest party within this alliance, the Moderate party, won the last election probably because they launched a broader image to the voters.
- Prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has been good at borrowing messages and rhetoric from the Social democrats, says Madestam but at the same time withholds that they in practice have moved in a more social liberal direction.
This may be confusing to voters who might have a hard time to see clear alternatives to choose from. And Madestam also believe parties portray their opponent to give the voters just that – a clear “good” option in stark contrast to the other “darker” side.
- Maybe they exaggerate the differences between them. If you listen to the latest speeches you can get that impression. Its true there are two different ideological sides but its not a question of two completely different systems.
In part 2 tomorrow we will go more into detail and ask Jenny about the ideological standpoints and differences between the parties and not just between the two alliances.
Friday 9 July 2010
One way integration?
I was sitting on the subway a couple of weeks ago and was astonished of what was said when I accidentalley overheard what two men just two metres away from me discussed. The two men were young, maybe in the early 20´s and probably of middle eastern descent. One of them told the other about his recent experience at his new appartement. The landlord has apparentely greeted him "welcome" to his new place by asking him to "keep him for himself"... "You know how people can be with their prejudices(!)", she said.
The man was shocked, but ignored her advice and politely said "hello" to his new ("ethnically Swedish") neighbours. According to him, 80 percent didnt respond and he compared it to "being black in the US in the 20s"...
In media the integration problem is sometimes labelled as only a problem in immigrant suburbs as Rinkeby and Rosengård. But REAL integration cannot just come from one part. Both sides must be open and tolerant and not judgemental towards each other. Not like when I watched the news a couple of weeks ago - An immigrant woman phoned a day care centre to ask if there was a place for her child there. The woman in the daycare centre replied: "Im sorry it is full". When the immigrant woman phoned back a few minutes later, but pretended to be someone else with a more Swedish sounding name, all of a sudden they were more than welcome!
Anti-discrimination laws and investigating money in teaching the Swedish language to immigrants is good - but it is far fram enough. Only when we all in this country who like to believe we are so tolerant to each other turn that self-imagination into reality - then we can talk about reality. We need a change in peoples mindset, not just pretty words written in the law. Without a changed mindset those rules will be ignored anyway.
I also recommend this article on the topic. Also, watch the documentary I recommended in the post below. No matter religion or colour of our skin we are all human - and people are good and evil in general - it is not based on of how people look or which faith they have.
I can imagine this is a big problem in the whole world. People are often afraid of what they portrait as something unknown. Please share your thoughts on this topic.
/ The cat goes political
The man was shocked, but ignored her advice and politely said "hello" to his new ("ethnically Swedish") neighbours. According to him, 80 percent didnt respond and he compared it to "being black in the US in the 20s"...
In media the integration problem is sometimes labelled as only a problem in immigrant suburbs as Rinkeby and Rosengård. But REAL integration cannot just come from one part. Both sides must be open and tolerant and not judgemental towards each other. Not like when I watched the news a couple of weeks ago - An immigrant woman phoned a day care centre to ask if there was a place for her child there. The woman in the daycare centre replied: "Im sorry it is full". When the immigrant woman phoned back a few minutes later, but pretended to be someone else with a more Swedish sounding name, all of a sudden they were more than welcome!
Anti-discrimination laws and investigating money in teaching the Swedish language to immigrants is good - but it is far fram enough. Only when we all in this country who like to believe we are so tolerant to each other turn that self-imagination into reality - then we can talk about reality. We need a change in peoples mindset, not just pretty words written in the law. Without a changed mindset those rules will be ignored anyway.
I also recommend this article on the topic. Also, watch the documentary I recommended in the post below. No matter religion or colour of our skin we are all human - and people are good and evil in general - it is not based on of how people look or which faith they have.
I can imagine this is a big problem in the whole world. People are often afraid of what they portrait as something unknown. Please share your thoughts on this topic.
/ The cat goes political
Monday 5 July 2010
Religious peace?
Viewed this really interresting documentary from 2004 about religious fundamentalism. An English journalist with catholic background travels to Jerusalem, former Yugoslavia and USA in an attempt to find out why people take on so extreme views on their belief - and are even prepared to use violence and kill people with a different faith from your own. And what can bring peace to the religous conflicts out there? The documentary is in three parts. Part 2 and 3 can be found below.
/The cat goes political
/The cat goes political
Sunday 4 July 2010
Cleopatra - the last queen of Egypt
Yes - although arguing for a republic in Sweden I will now talk about a queen.
I have just read one of the most fascinating books I have ever encountered.
"Kleopatra - Liv och legend" ("Cleopatra - Life and legend")by Swedish historian Allan Klynne takes a closer look at one of the most famous women ever. But what is true and what is myth? Cleopatra´s life (and sometimes what you think you know about her life) has been the source of a lot of myths around Cleopatra.
Klynne desribes the life of Cleopatra, her leadership in Egypt and how people´s judgement of Cleopatra and the idea of who she was has changed over centuries. The result is as I interpret it that Cleopatra has been often the target for people either as a model for how "women should be" or as an example of womens "inability" to rule over kingdoms and their "manipulative games" they play on men. Writers have throughout history used Cleopatra for their own causes and interpreted he rlife as suiting for their message.
Cleopatra has unfairly been looked upon as a woman that uses her sexuality to misguide men for her own purposes (both her marriages with Julius Ceasar and Anthony has been explained this way) and she has also been descrobed as unfit to run Egypt.
The fact that she led armies, expanded her kingdom and re-established Egypt as a major power force in the has been neglected in turn for attributing "negative" women attributes to Cleopatra.
This is a really interresting book. I don´t know if it has been translated to other languages. If not, I strongly advice you to take a look at the life of Cleopatra and discover for yourself how discredited someone might be - just because she´s a woman.
/The cat goes political
I have just read one of the most fascinating books I have ever encountered.
"Kleopatra - Liv och legend" ("Cleopatra - Life and legend")by Swedish historian Allan Klynne takes a closer look at one of the most famous women ever. But what is true and what is myth? Cleopatra´s life (and sometimes what you think you know about her life) has been the source of a lot of myths around Cleopatra.
Klynne desribes the life of Cleopatra, her leadership in Egypt and how people´s judgement of Cleopatra and the idea of who she was has changed over centuries. The result is as I interpret it that Cleopatra has been often the target for people either as a model for how "women should be" or as an example of womens "inability" to rule over kingdoms and their "manipulative games" they play on men. Writers have throughout history used Cleopatra for their own causes and interpreted he rlife as suiting for their message.
Cleopatra has unfairly been looked upon as a woman that uses her sexuality to misguide men for her own purposes (both her marriages with Julius Ceasar and Anthony has been explained this way) and she has also been descrobed as unfit to run Egypt.
The fact that she led armies, expanded her kingdom and re-established Egypt as a major power force in the has been neglected in turn for attributing "negative" women attributes to Cleopatra.
This is a really interresting book. I don´t know if it has been translated to other languages. If not, I strongly advice you to take a look at the life of Cleopatra and discover for yourself how discredited someone might be - just because she´s a woman.
/The cat goes political
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)