MISGUIDED OPTIMISM ABOUT FRA ACT

Henrik Brors, editorial writer with Sweden's largest morning daily, Dagens Nyheter, thinks that the FRA Act marks the beginning of citizen activism in Sweden.

When the dust has settled after the Riksdag's passing of the FRA Act [the act] might turn out to have been a turning point. Voters took one step closer to their elected officials - and discovered that it is indeed possible to influence politicians.

This is a highly unlikely scenario. The Swedish parliamentary system is designed to discourage direct influence from the voters. All such influence is filtered through the political parties, who have formidable control over the ballots in general election. They also have extreme loyalty policies in the Riksdag: over the course of a four-year term, a member of the parliament can break party ranks on one or two minor issues. In total. Not per session. No - that is one or two minor issues over four years.

To break party ranks in one major issue like this the Riksdag member has to have extremely strong support in the party as a whole - or an extremely strong political death wish. As for those who broke ranks on the FRA Act, it is hard to say which applies to each of them. One thing is sure, though: there will be serious consequences.

Because of this very tight party loyalty, it is highly unlikely that Henrik Brors is correct. On the contrary: if the people cannot sway their elected officials on an issue of this magnitude, then how would they be able to do it on smaller issues? How could you motivate people to get involved again, when they were unsuccessful here?

Henrik Brors admits (inadvertently) that he does not foresee a change in the Swedish tradition of isolated parlamentarians. The only example he can come up with is from 1959 when one member of the Riksdag abstained from voting on a bill that introduced a Swedish version of the U.S. Social Security system.

The lack of success in citizen uproar in Sweden is sharply contrasted against what the American public accomplished a year ago when they stopped Congress from voting for a bill that would have granted millions of illegal immigrants amnesty and a path to citizenship. The American public opinion has many features that Sweden does not have: a free television and - even more importantly - free radio. Americans listen to talk radio on the AM band, and do so in huge numbers. Rush Limbaugh, the king of talk radio, has 22 million listeners every week. He and others, like Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Neil Boortz and Mark Levine, helped stage a massive uproar against the proposed amnesty bill - and they were successful.

Sweden's very tightly regulated media market adds to the difficulties in having the people influence their elected officials in real time, so to speak. And this is on an issue where, for a change, the media actually appeared to side with the people. How does Henrik Brors expect the people to sway the Riksdag on issues where mainstream media sides with the Riksdag?

The next test for real time influence of the Swedish people on their elected officials will come with the constitutional reform. It is highly doubtful that Henrik Brors and his newspaper colleageues will be ready to help the people out the way they did here.