Talk:Politics of Sweden
|WikiProject Sweden||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Politics||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
Would it be possible to say something about offentlighetsprincipen? Filur 17:59, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Pirate Party (Piratpartiet) not listed despite gaining greater support by the day.
- And where in the article should "Piratpartiet" be mentioned? Itake 13:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Feminism and the parties position (and the 'state')
I think it would be nice to have a section on feminism and the various parities position in relation to feminism. I think all the (major) parties except the Christian Democrats (and perhaps the Moderates ... not sure) support gender equality and feminism. Sweden has a very high number of women in parliament (close to 50%) compared to other countries. Anyway, what do people think? If people support the idea I will start it...~AFA ʢűčķ¿Ю 14:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- The moderates? They of course claim that men and women are equal, but does nothing for it. In Sweden it has become coquettish among the established parties to call themselves "feminists" - only the Christian Democrats have resisted. I have a strong feeling that this is an uncovered check in most cases, but it depends on how feminism really shall be defined. The Social Democrats have done a great deal practically, for improving the conditions for women, historically, but it seems there was a backlash during the 80:ies and 90:ies. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 18:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Popular government in Sweden rests upon ancient traditions. The Swedish Riksdag stems from the ancient court system used by all Germanic peoples, the Ting, and the election of kings in the Viking age. The Government of Sweden has adhered to Parliamentarism — de jure since 1975, de facto since 1917.
What rubbish is that? We don't elect Kings by Tings today, and kings where chosen for life (which used to be pretty short after being chosen king). There's nothing unusual with Swedens way to democracy, except possibly that it was a slow peaceful process. In the early 1800ths we had Charles XIV John, an authoritarian king of bourgeoisi background, who worked intensely and charismatically to make Sweden a peacefully trading land with stable economy. His sons were successively detached from power, and in the same process democratic freedoms increased, the Swedish Riksdag of the Estates reluctantly, with much debate, replaced itself with the Riksdag, and more and more democratic rights were added till 1921, the womens suffrage was added, and Sweden can be considered fully democratic. Not older than that! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 18:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Said, that is ... I changed it, of course, to fulfill a less ethnocentric, more modest and NPOV tone. Being a swede, I cannot stand Swedes boast around with some mysticist explanations on why Swedes are so üeberphantastique. I know they aren't. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 09:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for putting together this article, Rursus et al. So as a non-Swede who has lived in Sweden and studies Swedish politics for a living, can I say something non-mystical about Sweden? This head characterization: "Sweden has a typical Western European history of democracy, beginning with the old Viking age Ting electing kings, ending with a regular royal power in the 14th century, that in periods became more or less democratic depending on the general European trends. The current democratic regime is a product of a stable development of successively added democratic institutions introduced during the 19th century up to 1921..." No political history of Sweden that I have ever read indicates that 1) Sweden's history of democracy can informatively be described as "typical" of other Western European countries. What about the wealthy farmer parliamentarians and their alliances with the imported kings? Modesty is all well and good, but it's also useful for people to know the historically-specific parts. 2) "The general European trends" is too broad a lens, and you must remember that many readers of Wikipedia won't be familiar with those trends enough to evaluate for themselves how validly broad the brushstrokes are here. 3) "Stable development of of successively added democratic institutions" in Sweden at the end of the 19th century? I don't understand how that can be asserted. Compared to 21st century Africa? And even if it were true, then it wouldn't follow typical Western European history of democratic development (that little intervening struggle between liberals, socialists/communists & Absolutist monarchs?) I mean this with plenty of respect for the work here, and I understand the drive to demystify Sweden, but still, it strikes me that the lead description in this article tries to over-normalize not only Sweden but political development in Europe as a whole. Blanche Poubelle (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The government section of the "Outline of Sweden" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.
When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.
Please check that this country's outline is not in error.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist .