Democracy is facing challenges all over the world, including in Sweden. The municipalities, with their diverse democratic and political arenas, have long been seen as a safeguard against anti-democratic forces.
Sweden is one of the world’s most decentralised countries, and in general, local democracy functions well here. It rests on a strong tradition of local self-determination, and citizens' confidence in democratic institutions is high. This provides the municipalities with the conditions to act as a democratic bulwark.
Richard Öhrvall.
“On a general level, the state of local democracy is good. The citizens are relatively content with how democracy functions and satisfied with the service provided by the municipalities,” says Richard Öhrvall, associate professor at the Centre for Local Government Studies (CKS), Linköping University.
However, local democracy also has certain institutional weaknesses that increase the risk of it being exploited by anti-democratic forces.
“With weakly developed safeguards for local democracy and the local rule of law, municipalities can be exploited and instead become showcases for anti-democratic movements,” says Gissur Ó Erlingsson, professor at CKS.
The strengths and vulnerabilities of Swedish local democracy have been highlighted in a comprehensive analysis carried out by Richard Öhrvall and Gissur Ó Erlingsson in collaboration with David Karlsson, University of Gothenburg and Jessica Wide, Umeå University.
The researchers have focused on key democratic aspects such as political representation, citizen participation and the relationship between politicians and civil servants. The findings are presented in the book Swedish Local Democracy at the Crossroads – Understanding the Past to Reform the Future (Palgrave Springer).
The problem of ambiguity
In essence, the weakness of local democracy lies in ambiguity: it is not always clear who is in charge and, consequently, who should be held accountable.
This stems partly from a lack of transparency in municipal politics, making it difficult to identify which politicians have power. It is also a result of the often unclear boundaries between politicians and civil servants, which have gradually become blurred as municipal responsibilities have increased and the organisation has expanded.
“The tasks and role of municipalities in the Swedish welfare state have changed radically over the last hundred years, while legislation has not been adapted to this development,” says Richard Öhrvall.
Municipal parliamentarism for a stronger local democracy
So how can legislation better match the reality of municipalities? The researchers propose several potential reforms, including the (optional) introduction of municipal parliamentarism.
This would mean that at the beginning of each term of office, the municipal council decides who will form the municipal board. The municipal board would then function much like a government, governing with the council’s confidence – establishing parliamentary accountability at the municipal level.
Gissur Ó Erlingsson.
“In this way, voters would better understand who is in charge and who is in opposition in a municipality. We also think that such a reform should include better legal protection and effective resources for the opposition to fulfil its important role in local democracy,” says Gissur Ó Erlingsson.
To clarify the division of roles between politics and administration, formal regulation is needed. The Swedish Local Government Act currently does not provide clear guidelines, according to the researchers. Change is necessary if local democracy is to meet growing challenges.
“With a well-functioning local democracy, municipalities can be a bulwark against authoritarian and democracy-eroding forces,” says Richard Öhrvall.
Translation by Simon Phillips.
