SSF's letter to the Prime Minister
for a new regional division of Sweden
Prime Minister
Ingvar Carlsson
The Government of Sweden
103 33 Stockholm
c.c. Coordinating Minister Jan Nygren
Copy to:
- Party Leader Maria Leissner, Folkpartiet
- Party Leader Carl Bildt, Moderaterna
- Party Leader Olof Johansson, Centern
- Party Leader Alf Svensson, Kds
- Party Leader Birger Schlaug, Miljöpartiet
- Party Leader Gudrun Schyman, Vänsterpartiet
- Styrelsen i "Skånestyrelsen"
- Managing Director Sten Bengtsson, Sydsvenska Handelskammern
Marieholm 3 January 1996
Re. Regional Division Commission's report "Regional framtid" SOU 1995:27 about a regional division of Sweden.
Regionberedningen's (the Regional Division Commission) (RB) proposal "Regional framtid" has so many short-comings and flaws that it must be rejected for the following four reasons:
- The criteria for delimitation are so limited and ill-defined that it excludes a full range of cultural, political, geographic, economic, social, and environmental considerations.
- The proposal is too conceptually narrow in terms of geographic logicalities and must be
reconsidered according to Sweden's geographic situation within Europe since the regional
relations to Europe has not been evaluated in RB's report.
- Mechanisms must be in place for full participation of affected communities in the
decision-making process before any work on boundary delimitations proceeds.
- The "Regional framtid" is not consistent with European Union policy including Article 3B
of the Maastricht Treaty which supports a Union built on the principle of subsidiarity and
general EU structures for the regions.
1. Criteria for Demarcations
RB has not discussed the basic criteria for regional delimitations in its report. Instead it has limited the discussion to the issue of the efficiency of the public sector. This narrow approach is not acceptable by international standards. In other parts of the world delimitation of provinces included ten criteria:
- historical boundaries;
- administrative considerations;
- the need to rationalise existing structures;
- costs;
- the need to minimise inconvenience to people;
- the need to minimise the dislocation of services;
- demographic considerations;
- economic viability;
- development potential; and
- cultural and language realities.
In nearly all countries involved in territorial restructuring, the discussion of criteria is preceded by a definition of terms. This is not included in the RB report. It is particularly lax in not explaining what is meant by a "region". A term that is used throughout the report is completely undefined. In one case it may refer to an economically functional region and in other cases mean a homogenous region, a cultural region, an administrative region, a judicial region, and so on. Such conceptual confusions dominate the report. The lack of clearly defined terms makes the report appears completely unprofessional.
The debate in Sweden about the territorial division illustrates that the basic criteria for the
division process is both muddled and poorly defined. Which considerations should form the
basis for the territorial division? Which criteria are of importance? Is the solution to slice
away the most affluent parts of the neighbours, i.e. to change the borders, instead of
cooperating across them? RB is not discussing the very basis of delimitation processes -
criteria - in its report.
1.1 The following are two criteria which SSF is particularly concerned to have included:
CultureA common history in a region is the most important social factor bonding people together. It creates the feeling of identity that is psychologically indispensable to feelings of self-worth, belonging, and community. If the future regions are to constitute sound and stable communities they must be built as far as possible upon already existing culture.
In Sweden, the feeling of belonging to a region or a province is still very strong, despite years of assimilationist policies. This clearly indicates its significance and why all assaults on culture should be avoided. The regional division project could become the instrument for casting aside the failed Jacobin approach to state nation-building and help to cultivate an appreciation for the cultural diversity of Europeans. With such a policy, Sweden is likely to discover that good cultural policy is good economic policy and good politics since strong identities create motivation, reduce conflict and crime, build self-worth, and promote distinctive areas and landscapes that attract tourists.
The general lack of knowledge of history and centuries of "nation-building" propaganda in Sweden (based on out-date policies derived from Eighteenth Century concepts such as Jacobinism) has, in many parts of the country, created considerable identity problems. This is probably the reason why RB has not dared taking up the debate on the cultural and historic regional backgrounds in an open and revealing atmosphere. RB's proposal is characterised by its lack of insights on the historic, linguistic and cultural background patterns and lack of knowledge of the European policies on culture. Cultural impoverishment will be the consequence of this, which is contradictory to the principles of both Human Rights and the European Union [see section 4 below].
Sweden's centralist approach to cultural diversity is well illustrated by the proposal to separately address the provinces of Skåne and West Sweden. Coordinating Minister Jan Nygren in mass media stated that the Government has the intention of creating an administrative region (län) consisting solely of the province of Skåne on 1 January 1997. The Government intends to commence a trial period of redistribution of a limited political authority between the state authorities and a new political organisation in the region of the Skåne province. We are very critical to this proposal. The proposed southern region in Sweden is an example of how RB is attempting to create new regions without taking account of cultural and historic considerations.
RB is disregarding that Scania - Skåne, Halland and Blekinge - have a common history dating back as far as to the beginning of the last millennium. About the year 380 the first king who address himself as Rex Scaniæ shows up. The oldest law in the Nordic territory - the Scanian Law - entails all of the region Scania. About the year 1000 the borders towards Småland were marked with border boulders - borders which have never been changed (with the exception of the Hyltebruk adjustment in the 1970s).
In the year 1103 the Pope confirms the old region "Terra Scaniæ" - Scania - by creating a diocese with the residence located to the Scanian city of Lund. The diocese included all of the Scanian provinces - Skåne, Halland, Blekinge and Bornholm. The four parts of Scania has subsequently never been separated and has always constituted one entity. It is difficult to imagine that any state in Europe today would get the idea splitting such an old region into smaller pieces. Sweden is totally out of tune with the European understanding of culture.
The Environment
Conserving environmental resources will be one of the most important factors in
the future. A logical geographical division will mean that the society will have established a
better ecological base. A society with the ambition to utilise its resources optimally must
adapt to its geographic conditions. All artificial borders and illogic organisational structures
means a waste of resources.
It is obvious that the environment has everything to gain from having the decisions transferred from state to regional political organs. It is likely that peoples in general will be more careful with the environment when it concerns their own home district. It is, on the other hand, advantageous that some environmental decisions are moved to super-regional levels since some problems are not stopped by state borders. The most effective engagement by people in the society on environmental and economising issues is achieved if the region has a common base as regards to culture, history and industry. RB is not sufficiently discussing these issues in its report.
In a world becoming more and more culturally homogenised, it is absolutely necessary that people and regions are allowed to maintain their historic and cultural individualities. Cultural identities are, although slowly changing, as important as biological diversity - the biotopes. Ecological and cultural diversity forms the basis both for life and for the human societies and these two patterns often concur.
SSF is of the opinion that the Government must reject RB's proposal of a new regional
division in Sweden since it does not sufficiently discuss the environmentsal aspets nor take
into consideration the historic and cultural realities in the country.
2. Geographic Logic
The delimitation process must from the beginning consider all of Sweden with due
consideration for its role within Europe. Europe is now moving towards a situation were the
borders will be determined by the needs and requirements of people and institutions - the
Logic of the Geography. Every proposal for future territorial units must support the basic
structures and requirements of trade, industrial sector, and logical points of communication
and articulation with the rest of Europe.
A major problem for the industrial sector and the labour market is the concentration of
industry and the public sector activities in Stockholm. It is the kind of problem the regional
policy of the EU is trying to solve through the structural funds investments. The unfavourable
regioanl development in the industry and employment have not been considered in the RB
report. The very important opinions by the representatives from the industry have been
disregarded. RB is demonstrating a lack of understanding for the requirements of the
industrial sector.
3. Mechanisms for Increased Participation into the Decision-Making Process
RB's proposal does not provide mechanisms for increased community participation in the
decision-making process. Instead the proposal reallocates or redistributes already existing
regional authorities. It is, as we know, the lack of political powers in the regions which have
created the existing regional structural problems we see today. The constitutional base for a
positive development in these fields requires a fully inclusive decision making process.
The democratic and political authority relations between the various political levels must be clarified before a decision on a regional division is taken. There are many reason why the regional division process must be debated with a greater public participation. Firstly, greater consideration must also be given the basic cultural and historical patterns in Sweden. Provincial boundaries are best delimited in accordance with existing cultural areas. In the case of South Africa's recent provincial demarcations, as one example, conflicts arose wherever boundaries crossed cultural and traditional areas. Globally, many conflicts leading to instability and even the breakup of states (e.g., Eritrea, Yugoslavia) has resulted from the imposition of centralised structures upon localities that lacked mechanisms for regional participating in the decision-making process.
SSF share some of the opinions of RB presented in its proposal "Regional framtid". RB states that the present political situation in the region is characterised by unclear lines of authorities and that the public sector has become out-dated and, in many areas, inefficient. SSF also share the opinion of the RB that the there is a lack of coordination between the different regional organs - Local Authorities (kommuner), County Councils (landsting) and State County Administrations (länsstyrelser). The present political organisation, RB is noting, has its shortcomings - the citizens' chances of affecting the politics and demand political accountability is reduced. SSF agrees with RB's analyses. SSF also supports RB's proposal to reconstruct the County Councils (landsting) from being pure health and medical institutions to institutions with wider responsibilities.
The lost alternative
RB was given the mission by the Government to evaluate three regional constitutional
alternatives:
- a continued state responsibility for regional development
- Local Councils (communes - kommuner) in cooperation
- a regional democratic autonomy
4. The Principle of Subsidiarity and EU Regional Policy
Political decisions must, in the future, be taken closer to the people and in accordance with
their self-determined communities and cultural associations. The subsidiarity principle means
that the political decisions are to be taken att the lowest possible efficient levels, as near the
people as possible. The regional policies of the EU will require four political decision levels -
i.e. also a regional level. This is particularly important for states with diverse geographic,
historic, cultural and industrial background. RB disregards in its report the EU-based principle
of subsidiarity. The fact that the political subsidiarity between the state and the region is not
at all considered by RB, a new form of "democratic deficiency" will be generated and this
gives the RB report additional weakness.Primarily two institutions structure the regional policy of the European Union. One is the NUTS Classification System and the other is the Committee of Regions. NUTS forms the basis for the analyses for regional financial support and other regional activities. In the Committee of Regions the politics of certain predetermined areas of the EU are intended to be debated and promoted.
The European Union, as an institution, has a distinct regional base and is moving towards more autonomous regions. The regions had a strong position in the creation of the EU's regional policies. It is therefore very strange that RB totally ignored the European perspective in its report "Regional framtid". It makes the report very unprofessional and prejudicial.
Nor does the report mention that Sweden and the EU Commission have already agreed to divide Sweden into eight NUTS 2 regions, the so called "Basic regions". RB have not included the EU perspective in its considerations which, naturally, makes the RB report unrealistic.
The cultural sector must be given greater possibilities to influence the regional division process than has been the case in the RB regional division process. The need for a regional cultural identity to exist is an important factor in the emerging Europe. RB has not paid any attention to this in its report. Industry and commerce have not been given sufficient considerations in the report in order to use it as a basis for a decision on a regional division in Sweden. We are simply also puzzled as to why RB has chosen not include the EU perspective in its findings. Why, one may ask, do RB and the Government want two regional divisions? One for EU purposes - the so called NUTS 2 division "Southern Sweden" consisting of Skåne and Blekinge and another one for domestic purposes - the region "Skåne" as mentioned by the Coordination Minister Jan Nygren?
It is futile to analyze the present developments in Europe without also taking the Human Rights aspects into consideration. The regional division debate should consider the part of the Human Rights which deals with the future for human cultures and the right to respect and dignity for peoples. It is impossible to comprehend that the EU, with the Maastricht Treaty as the latest building block, could develop the way it has without consideration to these rights.
It is no longer acceptable that cultural rights are ignored when major structural changes in the society are made. During the last few years an intensive activity is taking place in the Council of Europe in order to further protect the rights of minorities and specific ethnical groups or peoples. Among other things, the creation of certain mechanisms within the Council of Europe to protect national minority groups are discussed. To these groups must also be added distinctive regional cultures which have not yet been recognised by state authorities. It can be said, in short, that the Human Rights adhered to by institutions like the Council of Europe concerns the right to own language, history, cultural identity of each group and the right to the territory inherited by indigenous groups from their ancestors.
SSF's appeal
The borders of EU's basic units, the regions, are often coherent with the cultural borders. EU
will therefore create new possibilities for the regions, to allow them to look after their own
interests through their own political organs. RB must therefore - like the EU - include the
Human Rights into its discussions on the regional division in Sweden. This has not been
done, which must be considered to be very serious both on a democratic and humanitarian
perspective.
Based on these insights on the human cultural rights, SSF appeals to the Government that it should not take such decisions in the question of the regional division in Sweden so that the world community will be led to believe that Sweden neglects to take due consideration to human rights. SSF find support in this appeal in the Resolution nr 004 of the Fourth General Assembly of the UNPO - Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation in the Hague 24 January 1995 (attached).
An alternative
SSF attaches its proposal of a modern regional division of Sweden, "Sweden 12", based on
the fundamental cultural and historical pattern in Sweden as well as the logic of geography
and economic patterns. SSF's proposal better corresponds with the principles of the human
cultural rights and the basic regional political structures of the European Union.
- The UNPO resolution nr 004/95
- A historic geopolitical map over Sweden
signed
Stiftelsen Skånsk Framtid
- The General Secretary UNPO - Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation, Haag
- The General Secretary FUEV - Federal Union for European Nations, Flensborg
- Secretary General - European Free Alliance, Brussels
- Member of the Commission Bruce Millan, the European Union, Brussels