The Swedish Model or the Swedish Myth?

On a recent visit to the United States, I was somewhat surprised to hear Sweden mentioned by several political commentators and talk-show hosts. As a non-Swede living and working in Sweden, I have always had the distinct impression that the rest of the world had quite forgotten the inhabitants of what I endearingly call “civilization’s last outpost”. Indeed we are often reminded of our insignificance by Americans who confuse Sweden with Switzerland or when other Europeans refer to the Swedish political system as simply “socialist” (despite years of a center-right government).

But alas it seems that Sweden has not gone entirely unnoticed. Members of the American Republican Party (particularly the more right-leaning “Tea-Party” movement) spit out references to Sweden as if speaking of something vile dragged in by the family tomcat. While British Labour Party MPs and German SPD parliamentarians espouse the virtues of the “Swedish Political Model” with a fervor that makes one wonder if they haven’t confused Swedish politics with Swedish pornography. In the Middle-East, pro-democracy movements are often quick to disqualify notions of Anglo-American democracy opting instead to reference their desire for “social-democracy a la’ Sweden” (as if no further definition were necessary).

So what is this elusive “Swedish Model” that raises such dissonance around the globe? And where and when did it start? When discussing the Swedish political model, it might be more apropos to refer to it as a “political concept “, defined primarily by the user of the term.

The ambiguity about Sweden’s roll in the international arena probably started already at the onset of World War II. At the outbreak of the war, Sweden was divided into multiple political leanings with bitter rivalries within these political camps. The Prime-Minister, Per-Albin Hansson, was the leader of the Social Democratic Party. This was a political party built by and for the Swedish working-class but which gained considerable ground within the middle-classes due mostly to economic improvements after the worst days of the global depression. On the same side of the left-right ideological fence were several groupings of more radically socialist/communist organizations with sympathies (and economic ties) to foreign ideological movements. On the opposite side of the right-left ideological fence were affluent Conservatives, the old Swedish Aristocracy and supporters of the new European fascist-movements. Conflict had raged during past decades between Communists and Conservative forces in Finland with Swedish volunteers on both sides. Norway had their gaze to the West while Germany was essential to the Swedish economy and was generally regarded by Swedes as Europe’s cultural and intellectual heart.

Shortly after Germany’s invasion of Poland, and with Sweden’s close ties to Germany as a back-drop, Per-Albin Hansson formed a coalition-government including members of all elected parties. To the east, tensions were growing quickly between Finland and Sweden’s oldest nemesis Russia. Perhaps to avoid external conflict with both Germany and Russia (and to avoid possible civil-unrest domestically), Sweden opted out of World War II and remained neutral or “non-combative”. (By asserting to be “non-combative”, it has been speculated that Sweden hoped to send economic and military aid to Finland without breaching any international agreements.)

Neutrality at a time when the rest of Europe burned proved harmful to relations with the victors after the war. Interest in including Sweden in post-war negotiations was cool. In effect, “Those not in the game have no right to a share in the winnings.” Nonetheless, Sweden emerged unscathed after World War II and had access to emerging post-war markets. Countries all over the world were rebuilding and Swedish goods were in high demand.

This was all well and good during the 1960s and 70s. However, with the onset of globalization in the world, competition has caught up with Sweden. Although Swedish workers are still cheaper than most Western European workers, they are considerably more expensive than workers in India, China, or other developing nations; thus causing many corporations to desert Sweden in spite of the traditionally positive business climate. Furthermore, taxes on individuals in Sweden are consistently ranked among the highest in the world. This causes both a dampening of motivation and a certain degree of “brain-drain” which becomes more and more detrimental to the nation every year. Finally, Trade Unions in Sweden have been unable to stem the flow of jobs off-shore and have been punished with a decrease in their ranks as workers become more and more disillusioned.

Because the world’s political and economic order has changed so dramatically during the last few decades, it is difficult to ascertain if Sweden retains any kind of unique position in the world of political ideologies. Most people agree that Sweden has simply joined the ranks of mainstream Europe. They participate ardently in European block-politics. They maintain a middle-of-the-road political profile in regards to most global political issues. In short, they have become more or less like all other Western European nations.

What then is the Swedish Model? Sweden still remains one of the most democratic nations of the world where individual freedoms are generally protected above collective or corporate interests. There are extensive “right-of-passage” regulations insuring that Swedes made walk nearly anywhere they wish in the country. Healthcare is still ranked among the best in the world despite notable setbacks the last few decades. In short, the high taxes, higher unemployment, and decreased focus on international political issues have not had an undue effect on the perceived quality of life. The “Swedish Model” is perhaps more an ideal of personal freedom and solidarity than a blueprint of a political system.

It is the promise of creating a nation where democracy still reigns, where corporations are not able to hold democracy captive, and where totalitarianism gains no foothold in the society. Perhaps the Swedish Model is more a reflection of the Swedish psyche than the Swedish constitution. Perhaps it is only an ideal held by the disillusioned masses seeking merely a quiet life free from undemocratic intervention.

As the cold-war was simmering between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union, Sweden became more focused on improving the lives of working-class Swedes. Trade-unions played an ever greater role in Swedish politics. Some speculate that Sweden missed the ideological turmoil of World War II and therefore seemed bent on blooming ideologically in their own right. “Social Democracy” could be said to be Sweden’s “middle-road” between unbridled capitalism and undemocratic communism.

In reality, Swedish social-democracy did not include anything unheard of in other Western democracies. Universal healthcare, generous welfare benefits, free education, equality between the sexes, etc. etc. These were all concepts known in other nations as well. The difference seemed to be the extent and scope of the benefits and, above all, Sweden’s unique method of financing their utopian society.

The Swedish Trade Unions, Swedish Industry, and Swedish governments have developed a tradition of cooperation that is perhaps unique in modern history. Put simply, Trade Unions have agreed to keep wages low. Large corporations have agreed to an extensive set of rules regarding employment, job-security, and job-safety. And the Swedish governments have agreed to keep corporate taxes low imposing instead high personal taxes on individuals. In other words, Sweden’s corporations could conduct business with low labor-costs and a highly educated work-force. Swedish workers were guaranteed security and safety with a clear set of labor-laws regarding hiring/firing practices. And finally, the Swedish government could boast of incomparably low unemployment figures and a well-educated healthy work-force.

When the facts of the Holocaust emerged fully at the end of World War II, Swedes were horrified at the reality of the German atrocities. Although it could be argued that Sweden had a long tradition of anti-Semitism and racism, the cruelties committed in Germany were beyond the comprehension of all but the most rabid Swedish fascists. But despite their vocal public indignations about Nazi-Germany’s behavior, Sweden found itself in a precarious position. Unlike Finland who could argue that the threat from Russia forced them into an unholy alliance with Germany, Swedes found themselves unable to explain their passivity towards (and in some cases, compliance with) Hitler. Following the post-war carnage, Sweden attempted to become a model of what they termed “social justice” encompassing a new respect for human-rights and equality for all peoples of the world.

Since the end of World War II, Sweden has been a friend to (and a haven for) refugees from all around the globe. Peoples have arrived with different colors, religions, and traditions. And in doing so, they have joined the dominant Swedish culture. (Albeit with varying degrees of success regarding assimilation.) Nonetheless, Sweden’s generosity towards desperate populations has earned them great respect in developing countries but has occasionally put them at odds with the more powerful nations of the world.

The level of aid from Sweden to developing nations is significantly higher (as percentage of GDP) than almost any other nation in the world.¹

But Sweden has not only opened their international wallet to provoke both admiration and admonishment. They found themselves at odds with the United States by encouraging American soldiers to desert from the Viet Nam war. They have angered both Russia and China on numerous occasions by supporting dissident movements. Their open policies regarding homosexuals has angered religious groups the world over. These are just a few examples of how Sweden has irritated the powers that be in the world.

Additionally, Sweden has not only been generous to foreign refugees. They have also been generous to their domestic population in the form of social welfare, universal healthcare, free higher education, etc. etc. This has in effect “raised the bar” for many politicians around the world hoping to gain favor with local electorates. However, Sweden’s generosity has come with a price-tag.