The Swedish bureaucracy watchdogs, Ombudsman for Justice (Justitieombudsmannen, JO) and Chancellor of Justice (Justitiekanslern, JK) have been actively criticising various authorities in the country for unduly long processing times. For a good reason.
At the same time, it has turned out that JO is unable to measure its own processing times and the JK's processing times have doubled over the past five years.
So, the bureaucracies in the country are slow and arrogant, and therefore these two bureaucracies have been set up to monitor them. Now that the monitoring bureaucracies have become slow and arrogant, what to do? Obviously, set up a new bureaucracy to monitor these two!
I am quite convinced that the Finnish authorities (Justice Chancellor / Oikeuskansleri, Parliamentary Ombudsman for Justice / Eduskunnan oikeusasiamies) face similar challenges: insufficient resources, more things to do than they can achieve. And they crave for more resources so that they could do good things.
Of course, everywhere the laws of nature are the same: bureaucracies can only expand and get more responsibilities; they very seldom scope down on their own, because every organization wishes to prove how useful and important it is.
In the private sector, companies run out of money, and when owners do not get any dividends, they'll order changes in leadership until something happens. The companies then start to really think what they actually have to do and what not. That leads to rationalization. Not always pleasant, but unavoidable and, in the big picture, extremely useful.
But the public sector does not run out of money, because it can always rise taxes (until it meets the Laffer curve). If the voters disagree, the public organizations can always drop the bottom layer of the bureaucracy: if budget cuts threaten police leadership, you take out the cops from the beat. If cuts threaten hospital bureaucracy, you reduce nurses and doctors until the budget is in balance. The voters soon learn.
Therefore, I think it is an extremely good thing that the Greek and Irish governments are defaulting. It just might make people think. Of course, there's no guarantee that anyone wakes up, but there's a chance.
Näytetään tekstit, joissa on tunniste sweden. Näytä kaikki tekstit
Näytetään tekstit, joissa on tunniste sweden. Näytä kaikki tekstit
22.9.2010
Panic and hysteria in Sweden
The Swedish election drama is becoming a frightful circus. Judging by the headlines, the whole country is getting psychotic.
Sweden Democrats, a tiny fringe party, gets enough votes to enter the parliament, and suddenly tabloids make headlines about "dark forces". The parliament changes its rules for setting up working groups just in order to keep this little party totally isolated. Bagfuls of uncounted votes appear here and there before the final recount, in the hope that the build-up of Riksdagen could be adjusted and it just might be possible to set up a cabinet which does not need any support from Sweden Democrats. Put it in scale with the size of the country, and the whole show is more remarkable than the Bush-Gore recounts in the U.S. in 2000.
The election drama built up over a period of time. Publishing campaign adverts was restricted. The police told the Sweden Democrats not to make campaign gatherings because they could be attacked. Is that kind of situation acceptable in a democracy? On the other hand, it turns out that the SD member who claims to have been attacked and wounded with swastika marks may actually have inflicted the wounds himself - but who knows now? Paranoia is the word of the day.
Yes, some of the people in SD are probably racists. However, I think that a much more typical description of SD activists is that they are people who are fed up with the political class of Sweden. They are also politically inexperienced, enthusiastic but naive, and probably unable to co-operate even with each other, let alone anybody else.
The same is true with most populist movements. SD is characterized as an "extreme right" party, although in my opinion, their agenda is rather more typical of the political left, except for the subject of immigration. The ideology is: tax the rich, defend the poor, work against big international corporations, save the welfare system and increase redistributive actions of the state. Typical leftist policies. Again, the same is true with similar movements in other countries, like Perussuomalaiset in Finland. The movement is proletarian in heart, and perhaps that is what so scares the Swedish political elite.
This elite seems to be utterly at loss as to how to deal with the situation. Here the Swedes could learn a lesson from Finland, and also their own history.
In 1960's and 1970's Finland, the radical left - Stalinists - were popular among the young. The movement was embraced by then-president Urho Kekkonen, and effectively hugged to Brezhnev-like half-coma, if not full death.
In 1980's Finland, the populist SMP (Finnish Rural Party) attracted the votes of the neglected concrete suburbs, with a largely populist agenda. How were they then contained? They were made accountable for their campaign. Urpo Leppänen promised that he'll eliminate unemployment if his party gets enough votes to make him the employment minister. Well, he got his way. He became the minister. And he found out, the hard way, that it is easy to make promises but difficult to deliver. The party had got its votes, but it had no sustainable policy, it had no sustainable organization, and once the emptiness of this balloon was made visible to everyone, it imploded. Urpo Leppänen's policies turned out to be, although popular, too expensive and inefficient. SMP lost the next election and became a fringe party again.
Why don't they do the same to SD in Sweden?
As said, some of the Sweden Democracts are no doubt racists. More often they may be people who just want to protest the political culture in Sweden, and are unrealistic and un-co-operative. But "dark forces"? Come on, they don't look like Lord Voldemort to me. They lack the intelligence, the cunning, and the evil.
Some of the founders of SD have a background in Swedish Nazi groups. That doesn't impress me. The Left alliance in Sweden includes Vänsterpartiet, whose background is in the Communists, a similarly violent and destructive political ideology. Nobody is making a fuss about that. Hey, look at Björn Wahlroos, who was on the frontlines of Stalinist revolution in Finland in early 1970's, and see where he's now. People do change.
To conclude the lesson, here's what the Swedes should do. Don't isolate SD. That will just inflate their significance and help them grow, and continue to increase the tension. If the unhappiness of people - voters - has no way of coming out, the result will be increased violence - which so far has mostly included just unpunished rioting against the SD and the general civil unrest in places like Rosengård.
I suggest the democratic way. Engage the SD. Make them responsible for what they say and what they promise. If it turns out that their ideas were wrong, that their promises were unfounded, the best way to expose this is to debate the politics.
And remember, as far as I understand, that's what was done in Sweden with the Communists, who - despite a history of supporting murderous regimes - are now a happy member of the left alliance.
Sweden Democrats, a tiny fringe party, gets enough votes to enter the parliament, and suddenly tabloids make headlines about "dark forces". The parliament changes its rules for setting up working groups just in order to keep this little party totally isolated. Bagfuls of uncounted votes appear here and there before the final recount, in the hope that the build-up of Riksdagen could be adjusted and it just might be possible to set up a cabinet which does not need any support from Sweden Democrats. Put it in scale with the size of the country, and the whole show is more remarkable than the Bush-Gore recounts in the U.S. in 2000.
The election drama built up over a period of time. Publishing campaign adverts was restricted. The police told the Sweden Democrats not to make campaign gatherings because they could be attacked. Is that kind of situation acceptable in a democracy? On the other hand, it turns out that the SD member who claims to have been attacked and wounded with swastika marks may actually have inflicted the wounds himself - but who knows now? Paranoia is the word of the day.
Yes, some of the people in SD are probably racists. However, I think that a much more typical description of SD activists is that they are people who are fed up with the political class of Sweden. They are also politically inexperienced, enthusiastic but naive, and probably unable to co-operate even with each other, let alone anybody else.
The same is true with most populist movements. SD is characterized as an "extreme right" party, although in my opinion, their agenda is rather more typical of the political left, except for the subject of immigration. The ideology is: tax the rich, defend the poor, work against big international corporations, save the welfare system and increase redistributive actions of the state. Typical leftist policies. Again, the same is true with similar movements in other countries, like Perussuomalaiset in Finland. The movement is proletarian in heart, and perhaps that is what so scares the Swedish political elite.
This elite seems to be utterly at loss as to how to deal with the situation. Here the Swedes could learn a lesson from Finland, and also their own history.
In 1960's and 1970's Finland, the radical left - Stalinists - were popular among the young. The movement was embraced by then-president Urho Kekkonen, and effectively hugged to Brezhnev-like half-coma, if not full death.
In 1980's Finland, the populist SMP (Finnish Rural Party) attracted the votes of the neglected concrete suburbs, with a largely populist agenda. How were they then contained? They were made accountable for their campaign. Urpo Leppänen promised that he'll eliminate unemployment if his party gets enough votes to make him the employment minister. Well, he got his way. He became the minister. And he found out, the hard way, that it is easy to make promises but difficult to deliver. The party had got its votes, but it had no sustainable policy, it had no sustainable organization, and once the emptiness of this balloon was made visible to everyone, it imploded. Urpo Leppänen's policies turned out to be, although popular, too expensive and inefficient. SMP lost the next election and became a fringe party again.
Why don't they do the same to SD in Sweden?
As said, some of the Sweden Democracts are no doubt racists. More often they may be people who just want to protest the political culture in Sweden, and are unrealistic and un-co-operative. But "dark forces"? Come on, they don't look like Lord Voldemort to me. They lack the intelligence, the cunning, and the evil.
Some of the founders of SD have a background in Swedish Nazi groups. That doesn't impress me. The Left alliance in Sweden includes Vänsterpartiet, whose background is in the Communists, a similarly violent and destructive political ideology. Nobody is making a fuss about that. Hey, look at Björn Wahlroos, who was on the frontlines of Stalinist revolution in Finland in early 1970's, and see where he's now. People do change.
To conclude the lesson, here's what the Swedes should do. Don't isolate SD. That will just inflate their significance and help them grow, and continue to increase the tension. If the unhappiness of people - voters - has no way of coming out, the result will be increased violence - which so far has mostly included just unpunished rioting against the SD and the general civil unrest in places like Rosengård.
I suggest the democratic way. Engage the SD. Make them responsible for what they say and what they promise. If it turns out that their ideas were wrong, that their promises were unfounded, the best way to expose this is to debate the politics.
And remember, as far as I understand, that's what was done in Sweden with the Communists, who - despite a history of supporting murderous regimes - are now a happy member of the left alliance.
17.9.2010
The Greens for Sweden Democrats
Sweden will have parliamentary elections on Sunday. As the election day closes in, the lead of the center-right coalition is becoming stronger in opinion polls, and the red-green opposition is losing. One interesting thing is of course also what will come of the Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna), who might exceed the 4 % threshold and enter the parliament.
The extreme left is trying to harass the campaign of the Sweden Democrats. TV advertisements have been banned, and speeches of party leader Jimmie Åkesson have been drowned by vuvuzela concerts - which really looks like bullying tactics to silence political dissent, so it is collecting sympathy for SD. Some of the harassment is going really, really far: one SD candidate was beaten up by masked men who cut a swastika to his forehead. Even Lars Ohly of the Left had to condemn this. Now, this kind of things can only embarrass the left, and give sympathy to the SD, possibly helping them to parliament.
Because some of the SD are obvious racists, and many more are just otherwise obnoxious, it's unlikely that the coalition would like to work with them in governing the country. But what if SD reaches a position where it can deny a majority from either of the blocks?
This actually looks like a dream setup for the green party (Miljöpartiet). The red-green block won't work with any of the parties of the current center-right coalition, but the coalition just might work with the greens, at least preferably to the SD. So: if SD wins, that opens a strong position for the greens. They will be holding the balance of power.
So, secretly the Miljöpartiet must be wishing very hard that Sverigedemokraterna wins votes from the moderate right.
The extreme left is trying to harass the campaign of the Sweden Democrats. TV advertisements have been banned, and speeches of party leader Jimmie Åkesson have been drowned by vuvuzela concerts - which really looks like bullying tactics to silence political dissent, so it is collecting sympathy for SD. Some of the harassment is going really, really far: one SD candidate was beaten up by masked men who cut a swastika to his forehead. Even Lars Ohly of the Left had to condemn this. Now, this kind of things can only embarrass the left, and give sympathy to the SD, possibly helping them to parliament.
Because some of the SD are obvious racists, and many more are just otherwise obnoxious, it's unlikely that the coalition would like to work with them in governing the country. But what if SD reaches a position where it can deny a majority from either of the blocks?
This actually looks like a dream setup for the green party (Miljöpartiet). The red-green block won't work with any of the parties of the current center-right coalition, but the coalition just might work with the greens, at least preferably to the SD. So: if SD wins, that opens a strong position for the greens. They will be holding the balance of power.
So, secretly the Miljöpartiet must be wishing very hard that Sverigedemokraterna wins votes from the moderate right.
Tilaa:
Blogitekstit (Atom)