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.

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.

Education: Big Money and Free Market?

The Swedish National Agency for Education has just published its latest report on the development of so-called independent or free-standing schools in Sweden. Since freedom of choice for pupils and freedom of establishment for providers were introduced in the early 1990s the number of applications for new independent schools and the number of pupils attending such schools have risen substantially. (I should mention that independent schools are still publicly financed; it is a voucher system of sorts.)

This year 560 applications reached the Agency for Education in its capacity as reviewer and approver of independent school licences. Today 9.1% of Swedish compulsory school pupils and 17.4% of upper secondary school pupils attend an independent school. In some bigger cities, e.g. around Stockholm, independent schools cater for almost 50% of the pupils, while some rural, often northern towns have no or very few independent providers.

Initially most of the independent providers were parent co-operatives or association and trusts, i.e. non-profit organisations, but today most of the schools are owned and run by big education chains, a development which has its pros and cons. Since independent schools in Sweden are allowed to make a profit and filter back that profit to its owners (often venture capital and similar organisations), it makes sense that more and more companies want to have a piece of the cake, and that they want to grow. Economies of scale, makes sense. By the way, this is a very different situation to the UK where profit in the education sector is not allowed. This has however not stopped the Swedish education provider Kunskapsskolan, which is making an entry into the UK education market.

The National Agency for Education, and others, have expressed concerns over the disrepancy between the legislation - and the intent of the reforms - and the current situation and the consequences for society's control over these schools and the school system as a whole. Swedish municipalities are responsible for the education of its minor citizens, but what happens when all or a majority of pupils choose another school? How do they keep the municipal school open or in other ways prepare for having to take in a substantial group of pupils when an independent school close down (for whatever reason: bankrupcy, withdrawal of permit, etc.)?

The Swedish education sector has changed over the last 15 years but the legislation regulating independent schools has not been amended since 1994. The law talks about independent schools as a complement to the municipal schools, for example other types of pedagogical methods, and not big chains with schools all over the country. Despite a completely new and different situation, the regulation about municipalities' responsibility and obligation for education provision has not changed. When an independent school has applied for a permit in a certain municipality the Agency for Education especially looks at the municipality's consequence assessment, including pupil prognoses and possible effects on the schools and education programmes already provided in the region. Unfortunately the quality of the consequence assessments is varying and some municipalities do not have the resources to do one.

Another current topic is how many schools does the sector have room for when the competition for pupils gets tougher? And how long can independent (and municipal) schools compete on different conditions? According to the Agency for Education the risk of over-establishment is huge and the number of applications is a surprise to them. The development in the Swedish school sector has occurred at a time when the age cohorts have been large and growing, but next year is the peak before the numbers start to shrink. The competition will lead to both independent and municipal schools being forced to re-organise or close down. To give an example, in one Swedish municipality last year's applications to start independent schools covered 7,700 education places in a town with only 4,500 pupils.

The Agency for Education argue that the municipalities are badly prepared for tougher competition. Since the municipalities by law still have the utmost responsibility for the education in the area they must always have a preparedness for a transfer of students from independent schools and for having to keep a school open despite a low number of pupils. As government organisations however, municipalities are more slow-moving creatures than independent schools and they cannot get rid of personnel or facilities easily, which means that the cost per pupil increases in such a situation. The ability to plan long-term is diminished. A municipality thus risks both school closures and increased costs for its pupils' education. Since the independent schools do not have the same obligations and responsibilities, they conditions are not the same for the two types of actors. The education market is not a level playing field.

In addition to the "market factors", there are also other differences in conditions between independent and municipal schools. The principle of free access to public records (the famous Swedish offentlighetsprincipen) does not apply to independent schools. The Justice Ombudsman or the Attorney General do not have jurisdiction here. The only inspection that takes place is that of the Agency for Education, and the municipalities have some right of insight into the independent providers in their area. This means that in municipalities with very many independent school the citizens have very little control over a major part of the local school system.

The government is starting to address some of these issues by looking at how to increase national government control (through agencies such as the Agency for Education) over the school system and how to make the conditions for independent and municipal schools more equal, but the "solution" is not obvious. There are also other negative aspects of the present competition in the education sector, such as the methods used by schools (municipal and independent alike) to attract students, for example, through flashy brochures and offering laptops and other perks, instead of competing on the quality of the education and pedagogy. But that's a topic for a future blog post!

Source: Skolverket/National Agency for Education

Show & Tell: Change

This week's theme is change. Two different things sprung to mind:

• Climate Change - the change happening and the change we need to make
• Gender equality and the change achieved and the lack of change

I have chosen the second topic this time around. It would have probably been the perfect post for last Saturday, which was International Women's Day, but six days late isn't too bad!

8 VOICES ON GENDER EQUALITY IN SWEDEN
First, some thoughts from Swedish personalities on the best and worst with being a woman in Sweden today*.

Jan Guillou, author:
- The best is that we live in the world's most gender equal country. The worst is that the gender equality has not come very far. (It's all relative.)

Katrine Kielos, temp. Editor-in-Chief, Dagens Arena, columnist
- That we live the world's most gender equal country according to the Global Gender Gap Report 2007. At the same time the worst thing is that Sweden is not gender equal, just least unequal according to the same report.

Pär Ström, integrity and gender equality debater, author of the book "Mansförtryck and kvinnovälde" (Oppression of men and female empire):
- The best with being a woman is that there is great understanding and great interest in society for women's problems and difficulties. The worst is that Sweden to an unusual high degree has typical female and male professions. This has to do with people's free choice, but a consequence is that it is more difficult for the average women to have a career.

Anitra Steen, CEO Systembolaget [state monopoly alcohol stores]:
- The absolute best thing is that there is an infrastructure that makes it possible to have children and at the same time develop your career and yourself. That there are childcare, parental leave allowance and other tools helping one to manage family life in parallel with a career. I don't want to point out the worst things; I think that the most dangerous a woman can do is to see herself as a victim, then I rather see the advantages.

Thomas Bodström, Chair of Parliament Justice Committee:
- The best is that we probably live in the most gender equal country. The worst is that women are being abused and sexually assaulted in Sweden today.

Ebba Witt-Brattström, Professor in Literature, feminist
- That we have a global task to before the world's women show that it is possible to achieve our relatively high degree of gender equality, and at the same time combat the increasing contempt for women within and outside the country. The worst is that we right now have a meaningless debate about feminism directed by the media and with little relevance to women's reality.

Tobias Billström, Minister for Migration
- We live in one of the world's most gender equal countries. But there are still informal barriers, for example that womens labour market is so limited to the public sector.

Dilsa Demirbag-Sten, journalist and author
- The best is that me and my male fellow beings are equal before the law. That I live in a country where the state is obliged to protect me from oppression on the basis of religion, opinion, gender or sexual orientation. The worst is cultural relativism, that women are still oppressed in the name of culture and religion.

A FEMINIST GOVERNMENT VOICE
Second, some thoughts from the Swedish Finance Minister Anders Borg**. I didn't vote for them and I don't agree with most of the stuff they are doing, but Borg is one of the most sensible members of the Cabinet and he's not afraid of calling himself a feminist.

Why do you call yourself a feminist?
- Because I think it is one of our time's greatest restriction on freedom that men and women are limited by gender roles, that say what they should do and shouldn't do. Freedom is about shaping your own life, and the fact that gender roles endure is one of the greatest barriers.

It has been a bit taboo to call oneself a feminist in your party [Moderates/Conservatives], why is that?
- Historically it's been like that, but I think the attitude has changed a lot. Young people want to have the right to shape their own lives and young fathers want to be part of family life. If you want to live a good life you must take responsibility for your children and then you cannot let gender roles hinder that.

The lack of gender equality is one of Sweden's and Europe's biggest problem. When did you have your feminist awakening?
- I have worked with gender equality issues for a long time, but it becomes more concrete when you have children. More practice and less theory.

What can you as Finance Minister do to reduce the gaps between women and men?
- At the moment there is a positive development, women's salaries are increasing and women work more so that their incomes are growing. The one with the power over the money has great influence over the family; if women earn 40% less than men it has consequences. I work for getting women into the labour market, and making it easier for them when they are there.

What development has been most important during the 2000s from a feminist perspective?
- I think that the gender equality work has stood still. The positive exception is that I think I'm seeing that young men are more active as parents. When I took parental leave for the first time people laughed and said "now he's going on vacation". But the next time I saw a change in attitudes.

What is the most important feminist issue for you right now?
- The gender equality bonus. When a couple share the parental leave, and the lowest earner go back to work and the highest earner stay at home, they get 3,000 SEK in tax reductions each month.

What is required from the feminists of the future?
- You have to make yourself aware and discuss these issues with others. You have a personal responsibility.

* Source: Svenska Dagbladet 8 March 2008
* Interview in Dagens nyheter 2 March 2008

Democracy à la China

I read in (Swedish broadsheet) Svenska Dagbladet the other day that Chinese school kids are choosing class reps in free elections. Perhaps a good sign for the future, or not...

The article tells the story of some third graders who are choosing a class constabulary, a story that is the subject of a coming documentary "Please Vote for Me" looking at how free elections take place in an autocracy (presumably to be shown in the non-Chinese world). The election campaign is a tough one and seems to centre around pointing out the opponent's bad sides. "You don't have any self-confidence", says one eight-year-old and points out to the class that his opponent cried again recently. "You won't be able to control the class if you're that sensitive."

The Chinese director Chen says he wanted to do the documentary because he expected to see unrepressed, naive longing for freedom, but the third graders, pushed hard by their parents to win the attractive position, turn out to be shrewd political players. One father supports his candidate son by buying the class gifts and excursions and says to his son: "[Opponent] Cheng Cheng will probably say that you hit your classmates. Then you must say 'I have supervision over the class and if I'm not strict they will not obey me'".

The director argues that the Chinese one-child policy means that the children are always surrounded by adults and therefore very early on absorb the rules of the social game. And thus also those of the dictatorship. In this way children provide an interesting reflection of the adult world's values. According to Chen the school elections demonstrate how long the road to democracy in China is. "The dictatorship's values sit deep down in the Chinese society and free elctions are far from the same as when a country is governed by democratic ideas."

Who won the election? The little dictator Luo Lei with the bribing father. The bribes, the tough hand and the speech about the good leader who punishes his subjects seem to have been a hit with the classmates.

Practice Makes Perfect

The Economist has appointed Sweden the world's most democratic country. Sweden gets 9.88 of 10 possible points. The Economist calls it "an almost perfect democracy". Sweden is followed by Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Finland.

Factors taken into account are how the electoral system and the political administration works, level of political participation, the nature of the political culture and the status of civic rights. Sweden gets top grades in all categories except for one: political culture, i.e. the number of politically active citizens and how losers in an election accepts the results. But the points were still 9.38 in that category.

The Economist divides the world in four categories:
- 28 countries are complete democracies (in Eastern Europe, only the Czech Republic and Slovenia belong here) (two Latin American states qualify: Costa Rica and Uruguay)
- 54 are deficient democracies (Italy is the only EU country in this category)
- 30 are called hybrid regimes
- 55 are authoritarian regimes

USA gets 8.22 points and lands in place 17 of the complete democracies. It would have scored higher if citizenship rights had not been hollowed out as a result of the war on terror. The UK does not score very well either - place 23 - which depends on a substantial decrease of e.g. voter turnout and membership in political parties.

Russia is a hybrid with weighing in at 5.02 points and North Korea gets a full 1.03 points.