Tuesday 18 February 2014

The Swedish establishment's schizophrenia

I have lived ten years in multi-cultural Singapore and I thought I should put down my reflections on the current immigration debate in Sweden. This note is written for people that already have some understanding of Sweden.


The Swedish Prime Minister said when talking to students in 2006: "Initially, Sweden was barbaric. Subsequent development was all coming from abroad" (here). Welcome to the land of the Jante Law. The quotation is taken out of context, but was reported by the largest Swedish quality newspaper. In my view, the statement is symptomatic for the Sweden establishment. It has a very schizophrenic relationship to the Swedish culture.

Describing a culture is difficult, but there is nevertheless no doubt that a country's culture can help or hinder prosperity. Cultures are formed under the influence of climate, geographic location, availability of natural resources, religious practices, and historical events. The Swedish culture has evolved gradually over more than 1,000 years. It is still work in progress, but its origin can be described in the following terms: A large sparsely populated land with great natural resources (i.e. farmland, forests, and mineral deposits) and a population with Lutheran-Christian values (i.e. work hard, don't enjoy earthly pleasures) that has seen peace for over 200 years. After the Second World War, a left-wing government built a social welfare state (e.g. education, health care, social security). The government pressured trade unions and large employers to think about long term prosperity. In 2014, the results of this culture are clearly visible: Economic living standards are high and income differences are low compared to most other countries. Equality between men and women is an important characteristic. There are also negative aspects associated with the culture. For instance many look with suspicion on entrepreneurs, which are seen as breaching the deeply rooted egalitarian ethos. At the same time, most realise that entrepreneurs are good for society, but culturally they just do not fit.

Cultural values change over time and especially after contact with foreign cultures. In the 17th century, around 2,000 Walloons from Belgian emigrated to Sweden and brought with them advanced metallurgy skills. In the 1960s, 400,000 Finnish blue collar workers populated the Swedish factories. These immigrants adjusted to various degrees to the Swedish culture and in the end around 50% returned home. The children of those who stayed on were socialised into the Swedish culture almost completely. Times have changed and it is an empirical fact that many recent immigrants' children have not been socialised into the Swedish culture in a similar way.

Here is the paradox: Most members of the establishment in Sweden are secretly proud of what the Swedish culture has accomplished. However, they are not willing to teach immigrants the Swedish culture. In fact, the establishment seemingly makes it hard for immigrants to be socialised into the Swedish culture. The official view is that Sweden is multicultural and there should be no forced adjustment to the Swedish culture. It is almost as if the elite does not think that the Swedish culture is suitable for other people than white Western Europeans. I think we can blame the Jante Law.

Sweden should teach all immigrants the Swedish culture and make sure most children of immigrants are socialised into the Swedish culture. The Swedish culture is not superior in any absolute sense. There are many other cultures that are generating prosperity and high living standards. However, the only thing Sweden has to offer is the Swedish culture. It has a proven success in delivering prosperity and high living standards. Unfortunately, this means that immigrants have to give up some aspects of their original culture. It is for instance difficult for the average person to master two languages, so the primary language must be Swedish. Such a policy has direct implications. The political parties should propose different programmes to reach the objective. The left might argue for maximum and minimum quotas of children of immigrants in each school class as a method to ensure that social relationships are formed. The right might argue for cancellation of residency permits of immigrants that fail to pass a basic language test after five years as a signal that effort is required. Language is a starting point to learn a foreign culture. If  immigrants only learn broken Swedish, they do not stand a chance in a modern society.

The Swedish culture 50 years from now will be different. Sweden should value foreign influence, but has to be careful with cultures with very different value systems. Gender equality, non-corrupt officials, free heath-care, and small income-differences are deeply held values among Swedes. A large portion also believes in a strict work ethic. These values cannot not be compromised without compromising the culture that made Sweden prosperous. Sweden should let its immigrants learn these values, because they are an essential part of being Swedish. The social contract between ethnic Swedes and immigrants has to be worked out. This is difficult, but would involve an openness of the ethnic Swedes to take on-board useful new values. It would involve an eagerness or at least an acceptance of the immigrants to learn Swedish values. The details should be worked out in a political discourse in the Swedish parliament.

If some immigrants do not want to become culturally Swedish, the Swedish establishment must accept it without succumbing to self-doubt. It is plainly wrong to use a generous welfare state as a bribe to get immigrants to remain in Sweden if they are not interested in or able to adjust to the Swedish culture. Sweden should then part with them as friends. It is still crucial to teach Swedish culture to people that eventually decide to leave Sweden. The Swedish culture has many positive traits and exposing all immigrants to this culture will have a positive influence. The immigrants that return to their country of birth will have a unique experience that will help them improve their own society. The immigrants that stay will have sufficient exposure to the Swedish society to make an unique contribution.

Swedes have a right to be proud of what they have accomplished. I wish the Swedish establishment could be equally proud and forget about the Jante Law. In a future posting I hope to be able to compare Singapore and Sweden. When it comes to a managing a multicultural society, Sweden can learn a lot from Singapore.

No comments:

Post a Comment