Background: The Social Democratic Party has seen a downwards trend in popularity the last 20 years, and hasn’t been in power in Sweden since 2006.
During the party convention in April 2013, an internal fight arose inside the party regarding one simple question: should welfare entrepreneurs be allowed to make profit from tax revenues?
In the aftermath of the 90’s crisis, Sweden became the second country in the world to allow private companies to run publicly financed schools (the first country being Chile under Pinochet). It was said that desperate times required desperate measures, and the following decades were characterized by privatizations in several other fields within the welfare state.
One of the most lively ongoing debates in Sweden is regarding profit and welfare (“vinst i välfärden”). Should it be allowed for private companies to make profit from our welfare institutions? The public opinion speaks for itself: 60% of the voters are opposed to the idea and only 20% like it. This has, however, not stopped the Social Democratic Party from wavering on the matter.
During our convention in April 2013, the question about private welfare profit became one of the major conflicts within the party. The party executive committee had, surprisingly, proposed for the convention to allow private welfare profits, but instead regulate it to demand higher quality standards. The question divided the community into two sides. One loyal to the party executive committee and one that wanted to forbid welfare profits regardless of what the executive committee had to say.
A central figure in the struggle for a prohibition of welfare profits is Daniel Suhonen. Daniel is the former editor in chief for the social democratic ideological journal Tiden (“the Time”) and one of the founders of the left-wing think tank Katalys. His comment on the proposition to allow profits, but to regulate the welfare was:
“The politicians [in the Social Democrats] are proposing quality criteria, proper staffing and transparency. That’s like telling an alcoholic to stop his/her drinking without taking his/her key to the liquor cabinet.” [2]
meaning that regulations would only target the symptoms: quality degradations, not the cause: welfare profits.
Daniel Suhonen caused a lot of controversy when he accused the industry for intervening in the Social Democrats’ decision about profits in the welfare via political double agents [3]. He particularly targeted two Social Democratic ex-politicians, Widar Andersson and Stefan Stern, for lobbying for welfare profits. Both were employed in the private welfare industry at the time. Widar Andersson replied by calling Suhonen a conspirator [4].
Suhonen might have been right, as Stefan Stern received a top job at Investor a couple of weeks after the convent [5]. Investor is one of Sweden’s largest companies (it’s by the way owning 11% of the Nasdaq exchange [6]), and one of the major players in the private welfare sector.
Göran Greider, another social democratic intellectual, called the welfare profiteers “non-risk capitalists”, meaning that business based on income from tax money is a waterproof way to make money, as tax money will keep on rolling in no matter how bad the business idea is[7].
Jan Guillou, a left wing author and journalist famous for the disclosure of Informationsbyrån (an espionage unit within the Social Democratic Party), shared Greiders ideas. He wrote the following in a column back in 2011:
“These venture capitalists (Swedish: riskkapitalister) are capitalists that don’t take any risk. They are living on foolproof income sources: guaranteed tax payment and deterioration of the welfare.”
His ideas were heavily backed up by Caremaskandalen, the Carema scandal, 2011. Carema is one of the giants among the private welfare companies. Back in 2011, routine inspections showed that they had systematized the manipulation of staffing reports, and an inside source told that Carema couldn’t guarantee the patient safety due to the lack of staff [8]. In the mean time, several managers received million-dollar bonuses due to their ability to cut costs [9].
The party convention decided to adopt a compromise. The welfare profits were to be “heavily limited”. Both sides felt like winners on their way home from the convention. However, both allies of the Social Democrats; the Green Party and the Left Party decided to pursue a complete prohibition of welfare profits.
The leader of the Left Party, Jonas Sjöstedt, has said that “We are the only party that are truly opposed to welfare profits” [10]. He argues that welfare profits will be one of the most important issues in the parliament election 2014, and that the voters who are disappointed with the Social Democrats decision should vote for the Left Party.
The privatizations in the welfare sector cannot be reversed overnight. But the social democratic movement has a responsibility to uphold a fair quality for everyone who is in need of our welfare. The left is pushing for a harder tone against welfare profiteers, something that might win core voters from the Social Democrats. The election 2014 might become a well needed wake-up call for the Social Democrats and a warning of what happens when we forget our history.
Text: Håkan Bernhardsson.
1. http://www.som.gu.se/digitalAssets/1453/1453798_3-lennart-nilssonv–lf–rd.pdf
2. http://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/article16450349.ab
3. http://www.dn.se/debatt/politikens-dubbelagenter-hot-mot-demokratins-karna/
4. http://www.dn.se/debatt/daniel-suhonen-trampar-pa-i-konspirationstrasket/
5. http://www.svd.se/naringsliv/stefan-stern-till-investor_8116752.svd
6. http://www.svd.se/naringsliv/investor-okar-i-nasdaq_6395461.svd
7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckrVqRFI2NU
8. http://www.dn.se/Stories/stories-sthlm/vardskandalen-pa-koppargarden
9. http://www.expressen.se/ekonomi/hemliga-bonusar-i-kritiserat-vardbolag/
10. http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=5521698
The Democratic Socialist 