<doc.id=3518.b2>
<title> Let the Royal family speak </title>
Morgan Johansson argues, in an article from Upsala Nya Tidning March 3rd 2001, that the King, and all the members of the Royal family, should be more or less controlled in what the say to avoid awkward and difficult situations for the Swedish politicians. He bases this on the agreement in Torekov 1971, where it was decided that Sweden were to remain a Monarchy but the King, or Queen, were to have no political power and only serve as ceremonial persons. A good agreement, according to Morgan Johansson, since the Swedish people may want the King, but practically no one want him to rule the country. I agree that the King should not have any political power, but I do not think it is right to try to limit his statements in political issues even though the Royal family is an exceptional stepping-stone for those who want to turn a debate in some direction. I believe that members of the Royal family should be able to say anything they want and according to the right of free speech, they can. 

Mr Johansson also uses history to give strength to his proposal. He tells us how parliamentary government were introduced in Sweden and how it was put to a difficult test in 1914 when King Gustav V held his courtyard speech attacking the government which ended with the resignation of Prime Minister Karl Staaff. I get the feeling that Morgan Johansson is afraid that something like that could happen. However I cannot even imagine King Carl XVI Gustaf making a speech attacking Göran Persson and if it would happen, it is not likely that Göran Persson would have to resign. You could safely say that times have changed and I do not think Morgan Johansson has to be afraid of the King making Göran Persson resign.

Spurred by King Carl XVI Gustaf's statement that the debate about the mad-cow disease was exaggerated, Morgan Johansson throws out a question whether it is possible to keep the King as a trustworthy symbol for our country if it is obvious that he has chosen a side in a highly controversial matter. I do not see why the King's credibility as a symbol for Sweden would suffer only because he lets the Swedish people know what he thinks in a discussed topic. Should not he, the King of Sweden, be allowed to tell what he believes?

Morgan Johansson also reflects over the year 2000 where there were almost only good things said about Sweden in other countries. You could read about the Holocaust conference and the opening of the bridge over Öresund. One of the negative news was, according to Johansson, created by Queen Silvia when she, in an interview last October, said that she could not understand why Palestinians sent their children out in the streets to throw rocks towards the Israeli police. Johansson says that the Queen's view of the conflict in the Middle East is completely off target and I do not know enough about the conflict to argue with him, but he also says that it was evident that the Queen had picked a side. For me it is not that clear, but what I know of the Queen's engagements is that she is always looking after the children in every situation. If she did take the children's side in that discussion I would not object at all, even though it got big attention in the Arab world. It was, however, unfortunate that there were peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians at that time and that Sweden was leading the discussions. 

I still believe in the right of free speech, even for the Royal family, why should they be an exception? I can very well agree that both the King and Queen may not always make very clever statements, but it is their right to make statements, clever or not, as any other person. If they were not allowed to say anything they wanted it would probably limit their engagements in different areas. Imagine the following scenario; a reporter comes up to the King and asks what he thinks of the current unemployment rate in Sweden. The King, instructed to keep neutral in political questions, answers "No comment" or "I do not know" when he instead would like to have said something like "I think that the government has to do something to lower the unemployment rate". A lot of strange situations could arise if the Royal family was not allowed to comment on political questions. All I can say to Morgan Johansson is: Let the Royal family speak. 


In an article from Upsala Nya Tidning March 3rd 2001 Morgan Johansson, a social democratic member of the Riksdag, argues that the standing committee of the constitution should have power to examine how the head of State is handling his duties. He demonstrates this by showing different examples of members of the Royal family making, according to Mr Johansson, inappropriate comments in the political world. He also backs up his arguments by describing the long and slow process, in which the King's role was reduced to a ceremonial and representative one, towards democracy in Sweden and implies that we cannot let the Royal family gain any sort of political power.
</doc>