Against Swedish exceptionalism

A ghost is stalking Swedish historiography. The ghost of Swedish exceptionalism. Only one man can exorcise it. His name? Erik Bengtsson...

Jokes aside, Erik Bengtsson's recently published book "Världens jämlikaste land?" is a polemic against a strong exceptionalist strand in Swedish history writing, according to which modern Swedish equality, democracy and societal peace have deep roots in the pre-modern past, among the peasantry in particular, and that Sweden is therefore unique among the nations. The author, a leftist historian, begs to disagree. His book deals with the period from the mid-18th century until today.

All nations in the world believe themselves to be unique in some ways, so in context, claims of Swedish exceptionalism are - ironically enough - unexceptional. It's really a kind of Swedish national myth.

The author believes that Sweden, if anything, was *less* equal and democratic than other European nations during the 19th century, including its neighbors Denmark and Norway. In 1867 (when Sweden had just gotten its first modern Parliament), only 21% of adult Swedish males had the right to vote (and only to the lower house). In the same year, the figures for Germany and France were 100%, Denmark 73%, Britain 59% and Norway 33%. Swedish local elections were completely undemocratic, with the rich having more votes than the poor, since one person could have more than one vote, and the number of votes were tied to private fortunes. Even private companies could vote! Some Swedish towns were literal "company towns", with virtually all votes in the hands of one private business. The upper house of Parliament was appointed by these grossly undemocratic local governments. The author isn't impressed by the pre-1860's political system either. While the Swedish peasants were recognized as a separate estate in the Diet, they had much fewer delegates than the nobility, despite being the majority of the population. At the local level, the parish councils (sockenstämmor) did include (male) peasants, but excluded landless laborers and the unemployed - a substantial portion of the population, especially when population levels started to rise during the 19th century.

Bengtsson is critical to the often repeated notion that the Swedish peasantry was "free" and therefore an important democratic force of ancient provenance. The so-called royal peasants (kronobönder) weren't free at all, living on land owned by a noble and forced to work it on his behalf. But even land-owning peasants were hardly "free" in our sense of the term, since they were forced to pay extortionate taxes. (I assume the males could also be drafted by the military.)

The author believes that the workers and landless rural laborers were a more important force for democracy. The upper layer of the peasantry became increasingly reactionary and entered an alliance with the conservative forces in the "modern" bichameral Parliament after the Estates had been abolished.

As for economic "equality", Sweden during the 19th century was probably on current "Latin American" levels of inequality, and often compared negatively with other European nations at the time. The nobility dominated politics and the military even after their political privileges had been abolished. Paradoxically, however, Sweden was more peaceful than more democratic nations, such as Germany or the United States. Since those nations still had a large degree of inequality, more democracy meant that their elections became another arena for social conflict, often leading to fraud or violence. The quasi-democratic system in Sweden, by contrast, led to peaceful co-existence between a number of elite and special interest groups, and widespread de-politization of the excluded majority. (Apparently, historians often complain about how incredibly boring Swedish politics were circa 1870!)

The author believes that it was precisely the widespread inequality and exclusion that made it possible to create a uniquely broad coalition of forces for democratic and social change. "Everyone" (except a small elite) had grievances against the system. Although Bengtsson at times sound like a Marxist, he nevertheless supports the Social Democratic-Liberal alliance which eventually overturned "the old regime" in favor of a modern democracy with universal suffrage. While the process wasn't entirely peaceful, it was much less violent than in many other nations, perhaps because of the broad unity of forces on the democratic side. In the end, the bourgeoisie (and its noble appendages) decided to adapt itself to the new situation. 

While the book is interesting, I think its polemical attitude against the exceptionalists is unhelpful. At one point, Bengtsson almost mocks the Social Democratic writer Fredrik Ström who in 1944 wrote that there is a continuity between the labor movement and earlier freedom fighters such as Engelbrekt, Puke, Vasa, Dacke, all the way to the liberal "People's Parliaments" of the 19th century. Exclaims Bengtsson: "How can you oppose the injustices of your society in the name of the traditions of the same society". But surely there *is* a continuity, certainly indirectly (why can't 19th century workers reading about 15th century rebel leader Engelbrekt be inspired by his example?), but in some cases even directly. Bengtsson himself believes that there is a kind of continuity at least during the 19th century between the Dissenters and prohibitionists on the one hand, and the somewhat later labor movement on the other. But surely Dissenters existed in Sweden long before the mid-19th century? And what about peasant resistance (and peasant attitudes towards both their masters and their neighbors) before the mid-19th century? Bengtsson responds to two other historians who point out that the Scandinavian-American areas are more equal than other parts of the United States, that the "unique egalitarian values" of these people didn't seem to work in Sweden. But this is a strange argument, since the values of the people (or the migrants) might have been very different from those of the Swedish nobility, even apart from the fact that every society has a "counter-culture" to the official one. It's almost as if Bengtsson in his eagerness to polemicize forgets his own insight that Sweden was indeed a deeply divided society! Oh, and Olof Palme was a Baltic German noble. 

"Världens jämlikaste land?" is nevertheless an interesting book, and a necessary antidote to a certain kind of classless and anachronistic idealization of the Swedish past. It's main point seems to be that positive progressive changes in a society are the result of concrete political actions under certain modern conditions. No mysterious essence is at play. 

Personally, however, I suspect there just might be deep differences between various cultures, even if "only" historical ones, that plays a larger role than we would like to think...