So fragile is our democracy: "We've been a little naive"
The Swedish Constitution assumes that politicians want well – now researchers think it must be tightened up. Patrik Bremdal, associate professor of constitutional law at Uppsala University, says that more and more discussions are taking place about the constitution in jurisprudence and that it is now necessary to review how the Swedish constitution can be strengthened.
- It is time to review the Constitution and consider whether it adequately protects democracy. Developments in Europe show that it is necessary to review how we can strengthen the Constitution, Patrik says.
He has developed a part that is part of the law school at Uppsala University where students are divided into five groups. Two groups represent a populist party with a majority in parliament. One group is in opposition and two groups represent the EU and the European Court of Human Rights.
- What usually becomes clear in the exercise is that it is quite easy to dismantle democracy if you have a majority government.
What is happening is that the group representing the ruling party is changing the electoral system and the electoral law in order to be able to spread propaganda at the polling stations and ensure that only the ruling party's ballot papers were distributed. But they also change the constitution. The opposition is trying to find ways to oust the government through a vote of no confidence and demands for a referendum, but this is impossible as they lack a majority in parliament.
- The groups representing the opposition see that it is possible to delay the process of dismantling democracy, but they cannot stop it. The EU can threaten to withhold money to be paid out or other benefits to influence states, but then states can also choose to leave the EU and then the EU has no power at all, says Patrik Bremdal.
If a party wants to change the Swedish constitution, two decisions are required with one election between them, which can also be a special election.
- The Constitution was created in the 1970s when Sweden had relatively few problems. It was designed with good reason to be quite flexible, which suited the needs that existed then. Today, new conditions have arisen and the constitution should therefore be reviewed, he believes.
Right now, two different investigations are underway into how the constitution could be changed.
- One is about strengthening the independence of the courts and judges and another about how to strengthen the constitution by making it more difficult to change the constitution.
Patrik believes that the current system is based too much on the fact that those who govern are good and want to preserve democracy.
- History has shown that trusting the goodness of those in power is not always the best way to go.
He goes on to say that it should be considered whether Sweden could be deserving of a constitutional court as in Germany. New laws can then be invalidated if the Constitutional Court finds that they are unconstitutional.
- The problem with a constitutional court is that democracy risks being curtailed when you move power from elected representatives to lawyers. There is a real risk that such a court will become political and that it will be very important who sits there.
Another possible problem that Patrik Bremdal sees with the Swedish constitution is that several of the human rights regulated in the constitution can be limited by ordinary law, which can be used by a malevolent majority.
- Freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom of demonstration can be restricted by ordinary law. In this way, a government can limit the opposition's ability to disseminate information to voters.
The government's control over the authorities means that the government can quickly appoint loyal managers in important positions. The government is also responsible for appointing judges, and controls the judiciary.
- So power is closely tied to the government. There are also advantages to an effective government and a flexible constitution where you can quickly adapt to the prevailing conditions, as during the pandemic when the government could quickly limit freedom of association and demonstration for a limited period to save lives, concludes Patrik Bremdal.
Elisabeth Hoff
Five ways to erode democracy:
- Take over control of public service, and increase control of other media by, for example, directing press support at media loyal to power.
- Appoint loyal judges in the courts, loyal rectors of higher education institutions and heads of government agencies.
- Amend the Constitution to make it possible to restrict various rights and freedoms such as freedom of association and freedom of demonstration.
- Change the rules for party support to reduce other parties' ability to influence.
Change the division of constituencies so that it benefits one's own party.
Source: Forskning.se