Read news from:
Austria
SHARE
COPY LINK

EDITORIAL

Too many cooks?

At the latest count, voters at the next Swedish election will have a choice between at least ten political parties.

Published: 14 October 2005 13:40 CEST

They can choose between a feminist party, a Eurosceptic party and a healthcare party as well as the usual assortment of conservatives, liberals, socialists and communists. But which party should Eurosceptic feminists vote for?

More importantly, is all this choice obscuring the point of democracy – electing someone to run the country?

According to a new opinion poll, the Eurosceptic June List, which today has no representation in parliament, would win 4.8 percent of the vote in a general election – more than the Left Party or Christian Democrats, which hover perilously close to sinking below the 4 percent barrier that they need to pass to get into parliament.

Why is this a problem? More parties means more choice, and if a party doesn’t get enough votes to get into parliament, then that’s the will of the people.

But this depends what you think politics is for. If you think that politics is about getting your face on the front pages and making a fetish of single issues, then the Feminist Inititative and the June List are a great thing.

However, for those of us who think that politics is about making a difference – about power – then this proliferation of small parties splintering the vote is only going to achieve two things. It will mean more parties risk slipping below 4 percent, and it will distract debate from the main issues.

It also forces parties that are actually relatively close to each other, such as the four conservative-liberal parties, to artificially accentuate their differences in order to maintain their share of the pie.

Small parties that do get in – like the Left and Green parties in the current parliament – simply end up blackmailing the larger parties and claiming more influence than their paltry electoral support gives them a right to. This gives a party whose leader calls himself a communist and which calls for a six hour working day a veto over the budget.

And the fact that the communist opinions of a man whose party commands less than five percent of the vote – or that the machinations of such a marginal party as the Feminist Initiative are considered important – is a sign that the system is not working.

Surely fewer political parties would improve the quality of the political debate? There certainly seems to be room in the long term for mergers within the right-wing Alliance. On the Left, the time is coming for Social Democrats to decide whether a more formal Alliance with the Greens (as the Greens are demanding) might be appropriate.

Perhaps even raising the threshold for parties to get into the Riksdag could work in the long-run. A threshold of five or six percent would force some of the parties into mergers that would make them focus on their similarities, not their differences.

This would also focus voters’ minds on the only question that matters at election time: who do you want to lead you?

Does Sweden have too many parties? Discuss!

MEDIA

Editorial: Should suspects keep their privacy?

Foreigners reading Swedish newspapers – including The Local – are often surprised by the way crime is reported here. In particular, the Swedish convention of almost never naming suspects is something that we, as British and American journalists based in Sweden, constantly grapple with.

Published: 22 June 2006 19:36 CEST

The names are usually taken out of the reporting by journalists, not by police or the courts. When a case comes to court, we get documents from the court detailing the full names and addresses of the accused, and the names of the victims.

This leads to tortuous constructions, such as “the 33-year old man,” being repeated throughout an article (something that gets worse when a suspect celebrates a birthday between committing the alleged crime and coming to trial – “the 33-year old, who was 32 when he committed the crime”).

The following paragraphs from the press code are particularly important in explaining why journalists tend to refrain from publishing names of suspects:

“Consider carefully the consequences of publishing a name if that can harm people. Refrain from such a publication unless it is obviously in the public interest to publish the name.”

“If a name is not given avoid publishing photos or information on job, age, title nationality, gender or something else that would make identification possible.”

At the moment we have chosen to follow Swedish practice of not publishing this information, although we tend to push this as far in favour of naming the suspects as possible. Therefore, when large parts of the Swedish press were naming ‘Haga Man’, Niklas Lindgren (after he admitted to the attacks), we also started to name him. TT and SVT still aren’t naming him, but this in our view is excessively cautious.

There are plenty of good arguments in favour of naming suspects and convicted prisoners: the basic principle that journalists should provide as much relevant information as possible in an impartial manner being the most significant of these. American journalists visiting Sweden are often particularly insistent that this point should be considered before all others.

A point often used in Britain to justify identifying suspects is that naming someone arrested and charged with a crime removes suspicion from anyone who might have been questioned earlier in the investigation. People’s identities are usually only kept secret when to identify them would risk identifying the victim – in incest or rape cases, for instance.

Another factor to take into consideration is that justice should be conducted as far as possible in the public arena. People are charged and prosecuted in the name of the Swedish people – that justice is seen to be done is important.

On a practical level, people have made the point that naming a suspect on the loose can help police track him down. There is also the advantage that using names and pictures can jog the memories of witnesses.

All this can arguably be done without sensationalizing a case, although the tabloids will inevitably be tempted to do so.

Indeed, in some cases not naming people involved in a case can lead to greater sensationalism. Take the example of the Knutby murders: did referring to Åsa Waldau as ‘the Bride of Christ’, to Helge Fossmo as ‘the Pastor’ and to Sara Svensson as ‘the Nanny’ actually turn a case about the deaths of two women into a soap opera?

In fact, are we looking at the wrong issue? Is it perhaps more worrying that crimes are reported here in every sensational detail (names apart) before they have even reached court. Does this detract from the respect that should be accorded to the judicial process.

The argument against naming the people charged is simple: they are innocent until proven guilty, and mud sticks. Is it in the interests of justice that someone perceived in the public eye to be guilty but found not guilty by the courts should have to live out their lives in fear of reprisals?

A powerful argument, and one that cannot be refuted, except to say that the combined weight of the arguments in favour of naming might balance this out.

Ultimately, though, there is an intrinsic value for newspapers in following the press code, even if this code might sometimes be found wanting. But it might be healthy for the Swedish media to reappraise whether the current rules are really in the public interest.

Discuss this topic