Democratic Dilemma

It was a sad, sad day today. The party I voted for didn't do well at all, very bad actually, even though it remains the largest party (by less than a percentage), and the collaboration it is a part of did not get enough votes together either. That's unfortunate. But the worst aspect of the election result is that Sweden now has a far-right, anti-immigration party in Parliament, the Sweden Democrats. "Welcome to the world of nasty parties", a British journalist wrote before the election. Sweden has been one of few democracies without this type of parties, and I had been hoping we could keep it that way, but... Let's hope they just stay for this mandate period (though I'm not so confident that it will just be four years...).

I'm not going to go into why this happened, why people vote for them and what role they may play as king maker in Parliament - can't bother right now (though I'm working on such a piece at work) - instead I want to express support for Aftonbladet's campaign campaign "We life different".

I also want to bring a dilemma I have at the moment. I discovered today that members of my extended family have (at least two out of the three people concerned, it seems) voted for the Sweden Democrats. I feel this is just so wrong that I don't know what to do with the information how I feel about it. Do I show my disgust for their opinions by "breaking up" with them; do I just remove them from my Facebook friend list for a while; or do I do none of the above and instead constantly take the debate with them?

I have thought a lot today about democracy and was reminded of one of political scientists and a piece of work that had big influence on me during my studies; Robert Dahl and his book "Democracy and Its Critics". The core question in the book is whether democracy is about the process or the end in itself.

I am definitely a big supporter of the democratic process and understand that we have to accept the opinion of the majority and that sometimes others have a different opinion - like right now with more people voting for the centre-right Alliance rather than "my" guys the Red-Greens - and that sometimes these opinions may be really unwanted ones. But there is a limit, a border, which sometimes should not be crossed and this situation is such a case. That said, we still need to accept the situation - this is the drawback of democracy but democracy is still the best system available. But I will never accept and respect people with racist opinions.

Annunziata Rees-Mogg or Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax

The British Tories (Conservatives) may in all likelihood be winning the UK general election in May (or early June; exact date to be announced soon), yet they struggle to overcome their image of a party for the elite and the posh. Recently one of the Conservative Members of Parliament (MP) spoke publicly on the "ghastliness of people in standard-class train cars" and said he was in favour of allocating funds to allow politicians to travel in first class. The Tory party leader David Cameron was quick to disassociate himself with the MP's opinions but with these party colleagues it may be difficult to completely shread the snob stamp:

Many old-time Tories are leaving Parliament this year, including the unrepentantly first-class-loving Sir Nicholas [the MP]. But there are more waiting in the wings. Last year, worried about how an impeccably pedigreed Tory candidate named Annunziata Rees-Mogg would go over with hoi polloi, Mr. Cameron suggested that she might want to campaign under the name “Nancy Mogg”

She refused, although, to be fair, another candidate, the spectacularly named Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax, dutifully "de-toffed" himself by downgrading to “Richard Drax” on campaign posters.

Meanwhile, Ms. Rees-Mogg’s brother, Jacob, a banker who is also running for Parliament and who appears to believe he belongs to the “Brideshead Revisited” era, having once taken his childhood nanny with him on the campaign trail, went on television to denounce Mr. Cameron’s plan to get more women and minorities elected as the triumph of “potted plants” over “intellectually able people".

Political Flute

This evening I attended an Almedalen political week type event. Once a month until the general election in September, Politikerbloggen, in cooperation with TV4, will interview a party leader in an informal format (a stand-up comedian warmed up the audience). It airs only on the web but there was a lot of other media present who will undoubtably broadcast or write about in some way. Up tonight was Christian Democrat Göran Hägglund, who I would never vote for but who is always fun to listen to, as he's quite the comedian himself.

If you're wondering why he's holding a flute it's because the hosts wanted him to demonstrate why (or how) he had the highest mark in music when he was in secondary school. I can reveal that he managed to get at least one tone out of it! :)

Questions for Europe

Learn more about the EU and European politics on this site. You can no longer submit your own video questions but you can read up on a variety of topics! And don't forget to vote this weekend!

Yes!!!!!

Image from dn.se

I'm off to London for a few days and will be back here next week!

Palin Tribute

Mr President(ial Candidate), Sort Out the Healthcare System!

I've written on the issue of different healthcare systems before. I came across this article on the American health service in my saved items in my inbox and wanted to share it with you. It's a year old but it feels very topical.

America’s Lagging Health Care System (editorial in New York Times, November 2007)
Americans are increasingly frustrated about the subpar performance of this country’s fragmented health care system, and with good reason. A new survey of patients in seven industrialized nations underscores just how badly sick Americans fare compared with patients in other nations. One-third of the American respondents felt their system is so dysfunctional that it needs to be rebuilt completely — the highest rate in any country surveyed. The system was given poor scores both by low-income, uninsured patients and by many higher-income patients.

The survey, the latest in a series from the Commonwealth Fund, is being published today on the Web site of Health Affairs, a respected health policy journal. Researchers interviewed some 12,000 adults in Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Given the large number of people uninsured or poorly insured in this country, it was no surprise that Americans were the most likely to go without care because of costs. Fully 37 percent of the American respondents said that they chose not to visit a doctor when sick, skipped a recommended test or treatment or failed to fill a prescription in the past year because of the cost — well above the rates in other countries.

Patients here were more likely to get appointments quickly for elective surgery than those in nearly all the other countries. But access to primary care doctors, the mainstay of medical practice, was often rocky. Only half of the American adults were able to see a doctor the same day that they became sick or the day after, a worse showing than in all the other countries except Canada. Getting care on nights and weekends was problematic. Often the care here was substandard. Americans reported the highest rate of lab test errors and the second-highest rate of medical or medication errors.

The findings underscore the need to ensure that all Americans have quick access to a primary care doctor and the need for universal health coverage — so that all patients can afford the care they need. That’s what all of the presidential candidates should be talking about.

For Those Obama Supporters Out There

Courtesy of Towleroad.

The Better Palin

Found this over at Aussie Kicki's!

No Home, No Vote

I just read a very disturbing article in New York Times about Americans losing their right to vote because they have lost their homes in the current financial crisis. Lack of a valid address equals not being able to register to vote. And this does not just apply to homeless persons but also to people who have a new place to live but have not had the time - or thought (I guess you have other things on your mind when the bank takes your house) - to re-register under the new address.

"More than a million people have lost their homes through foreclosure in the last two years, and many of them are still registered to vote at the address of the home they lost. Now election officials and voting rights groups are struggling to prevent thousands of them from losing their vote when they go to the polls in November.

Many of these voters will be disqualified at the polls because, in the tumult of their foreclosure, they neglected to tell their election board of their new address. Some could be forced to vote with a provisional ballot or challenged by partisan poll watchers, a particular concern among Democrats who fear that poor voters will be singled out. That could add confusion and stretch out lines that are already expected to be long because of unprecedented turnout."

Full article here.

McOld

McCain might have chosen a running mate who's young and a woman*, but it doesn't change the fact that the McCain team is an old** ticket.

10 things younger than John McCain, according to GQ Magazine and thingsyoungerthanmccain.com:
1. ISRAEL: Born in 1936, McCain was 12 years old when the Jewish state as formed in 1948
2. McDONALD'S: Opened in California in 1948
3. ALASKA: Became the 49th state in 1959. McCain is older than Hawaii too.
4. NYLON: The synthetic material was first used in a toothbrush in 1938
5. THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE: Completed in 1937
6. THE DANDY: The comic premiered in the shelves in 1937
7. BALLPOINT PENS: The biro was patented in 1938
8. THE FIRST COMMERCIAL: The Bulova Watch Company aired the first ad in 1941
9. SCRABBLE: Patented by Alfred Butts in 1948
10. SPAM: Introduced in 1937

*If I were an American voter I would never vote for someone who's a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and opposes women's right to abortion; it doesn't matter that she's the first female vice president candidate.
** Old as in policy and age.

The Lisbon Treaty and the Irish

Please Ireland, vote yes today! Since you're the only ones having a referendum on ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, you're holding its future in your hands! The EU cannot spend another four years on a new treaty (we all remember what happened with the Nice Treaty)!

I have written about the benefits of the EU several times before, for example here, here, here, here, here and here.

Updated: an older post specifically on the EU constitution (that has now been renegotiated into the Lisbon Treaty).

They Did It My Way (Not)

Well, you have probably heard that it didn't go my way in the election. Eric Sundström gives an excellent analysis of why the Social Democrats lost, looking for answers both in the opposition's strategies but also within the party itself.

Vote Social Democrat!

Tomorrow 17 September is the Swedish general election (local, regional and national). I will vote for the Social Democratic party; to give them a new mandate for the next four years. Here's a list of blogs telling you why:

Eric Sundström
Tora Hansjons
Jonas Morian
Nisha & Krister
Nina Unesi LO
Bäst i världen
Motallians
Skolfröken

Bloggressive...

...is apparently the new word for when you get angry while you're blogging. I'm angry, well, I was already before I started on this post. I'm not angry with the French result as such; they are allowed to vote in any way they want, though I had hoped people would have voted on the issue at stake instead of expressing disatisfaction with the people in power due to high unemployment levels or what have you. But that's always going to happen to some extent.

No, I'm angry with the Swedish Left Party (aka the former communists). This is a party that's usually against the EU and the supranationality and transnationalism it entails. They want Sweden to remain sovereign and don't want to secede power to the EU and its member states. However, today the Left Party is saying that the French result means that Sweden can and should abandon its ratification process. To me, that, if anything, is saying that Sweden doesn't have its own say and to let France decide instead for us. Granted, the constitutional treaty may fall in the end but we're not there yet. Until that day we should let each member state have its say, irrespective of whether it's ratification (or rejection) through a parliamentary vote or a referendum. So the Left is contradicting itself by saying that today we accept supranationality (at least as a means, if not an end). "Listen to France when it suits us."

To make matters worse, the Left had threatened to leave the Government as a results of the French vote. The Left party is not actually a coalition partner and accordingly doesn't hold any ministerial posts, but in effect, together with the Greens, it functions as a partner to the minority Social Democratic government. They threaten not to agree to the budget which is scheduled for September unless Sweden opts out of ratification. Not sure whether they are serious or whether they are in the position to demand such actions, but the whole thing just pisses me off! It's perfectly understandable that France is in a crisis but Sweden??

The French didn't even reject the constitution for the reasons the Swedish Left Party would. Not even the French Left has the same opinions. Many voted no because they don't think the EU does enough on social issues (the European social model) and think they can amend the Treaty (in effect add) and have a new vote. I.e. they want Europe to do more (even common taxation in the future). The Swedish Left would cringe if they really understood this (which they don't seem to do) because they want to move power back to the nation state, not add to the European level. Oh well.

At least these nay-sayers voted on the basis of a conviction and had actually read the constitutional treaty. I heard one guy on the news who said "I haven't read it so I'm going to vote no." Sigh.

I will end with a thought that was voiced at the seminar I attended this morning on the topic: perhaps the positive thing that will come out of today's results is that the UK will vote yes to spite the French!

Non Constitution

The first results are in and it looks like France has voted non to the EU constitution. Sadly so, in my opinion. However, this does not need to be 'the end of the EU', as some people seem to think.

A few weeks back I attended a seminar on the EU organised by the Swedish government, where Magnus Rohback from the (Swedish) Prime Minister's Office presented his thoughts on the future of the EU in the light of the French referendum.

He identified the following points as the main issues right now:
1) The ratification of the Constitution
2) The 2007-13 budget negotiations
3) Further development and realisation of the internal market (the Services Directive, common rules for financial markets, state aid, consumer protection, etc.)
4) Common actions for sustainable growth, employment, environment, etc.
5) Enlargement
6) The implementation of the Hague Programme, i.e. asylum, migration, judicial cooperation, mainly combatting organised cross-border crime and terrorism)
7) The EU's international role (cooperation with Russia, Iraq, the Middle East, the WTO Doha round, the UN Millenium conference, etc.)

Mr Rohback mentioned that one of the reasons for the Constitution was that it was seen as a way to manage and make functionable, an enlarged Union (remember that behind the Constitution Treaty is three years of work). However, enlargement (+10) has taken place and so far it has not affected the EU negatively. On the contrary, it has made procedures more austere, disciplined and effective.

Even so, the political significance of a French rejection is huge:
- the legislative process will lose pace or even stop;
- it will become increasingly difficult to reach hard compromises;
- the process of further enlargement will be increasingly complicated (enlargement being one of the reasons for French refusal);
- there is risk that the Union become introverted, affecting its international role.

But even with a French no, the process will go on (and should go on, I believe). The EU has gone through periods of sclerosis before, which doesn't necessarily need to be a bad thing. It is a time of consolidation, of catching up. The work (see points 2-7 above) will continue even if the bigger visions have been momentarily lost. Throughout the history of the EU there has been a constant pull between visions and the every-day work of implementing EU policy. In the 1970s and early 1980s there was a period of stagnation, which originated in a questioning of the identity and purpose of the EU, partly due to the accession of the UK to the Union. Today we may be in a similar downturn; however, it is NOT the end.

Vote Oui

"If we say no to the Constitution to say no to the Europe we don't like, then we end up with the Europe we don't like."

Daniel Cohn-Bendit, MEP (and leader for the 1968 revolt in Paris)