“Dear Mr. B.”, started the letter from Systembolaget’s CEO Anitra Steen (aka Mrs Göran Persson) to Jose Manuel Barroso, “here’s why you should seriously consider cutting down on drinking”.

Well, dear Mrs P., perhaps instead of treating the President of the European Commission to a public lecture, you should start looking at more sustainable ways of managing Swedish drinking.

But first, let’s be clear: Systembolaget is part of a system that has led to Sweden having one of Europe’s lowest rates of alcohol-related deaths. This has been a good thing – Sweden had suffered from an alcohol problem for centuries. As far back as 1829, it is estimated that the average Swede (children included) drank 46 litres of vodka a year.

Yet while Systembolaget was necessary when it was founded fifty years ago, in today’s society it is struggling to justify its existence.

For quite apart from being the ultimate incarnation of the nanny state, that assumes it knows better than its citizens what is good for them, it is now clear that the alcohol monopoly is no longer functioning.

When only 36 percent of spirits consumed in Stockholm (excluding those bought in bars) were bought at Systembolaget, there is something wrong with the System. As more and more people are buying their booze outside the country, what purpose remains for the high prices and restricted opening hours?

(Indeed it could be asked what purpose there ever was in forbidding alcohol sales on Sundays once they started allowing Systemet to open on Saturdays –Sweden’s supposed to be a secular country, right?)

What Systembolaget has a hard time accepting is that the rest of Europe will never raise its prices to Swedish levels – if anything, taxes are going down (in Denmark and Finland, for a start). And as for bringing in booze over international borders, there’s precious little that Sweden can do to stop it given that it is a full member of the EU.

Sweden may be shouting its message from the rooftops, but nobody seems to be listening.

There are also issues with whether a monopoly can really be fair to suppliers. Systembolaget staff are now on trial accused of routinely accepting gifts from potential suppliers, and favouring their products in return. If Systembolaget doesn’t give all potential suppliers equal treatment it weakens the case that the monopoly is compatible with European Single Market rules.

Meanwhile, the really interesting question is what is really motivating Sweden’s alcohol policy. Systembolaget’s profits of 240 million kronor last year went direct to the state (on top of revenue from alcohol tax).

This question becomes particularly pointed when you look at the other state-owned Swedish alcohol company, Vin&Sprit, producer of Absolut Vodka. V&S takes a much less po-faced attitude to boozing than Systembolaget, with its product placement in Sex and the City, for example, beamed straight back to Swedish screens.

The company’s current “Absolut Naughty” web campaign encourages readers to “show some passion” and send Christmas kisses to friends. So linking alcohol to sex is now the Swedish state’s way of encouraging responsible drinking?

Given that V&S is one of the world’s most succesful and aggressive marketers of hard liquor the European Commission would be well advised to take paternalistic claims to moral superiority from the various organs of the Swedish state with a heavy pinch of salt.

But the real message needs to be heard not in Brussels, but in Stockholm: the Swedish alcohol monopoly is falling apart. The Swedish government needs to pluck up the courage to put it out of its misery, and come up with an alcohol policy fit for the twenty-first century.

Discuss this topic!