<doc.id=3013.b2>
 This is an argumentative essay against Morgan Johansson's debate article1 where he asserts that the Monarch and the Royal family should be scrutinised by the committee on the constitution of the Swedish Riksdag. Johansson presents three main arguments; His most important argument is that the constitutional Torekov agreement from 1971 stipulates that the Monarch's duties should be strictly ceremonious and representative but there is no control whether the Monarch, with family, act constitutionally or not. They should be scrutinised just as the Government or the Bank of Sweden. Another argument is that the Swedish people have chosen the Monarchs as their international representatives, but they cannot really represent a whole country if they take sides in controversial issues. Lastly, Johansson argues that Sweden's international reputation is harmed by their statements. As I see it this is certainly not a matter for the committee on the constitution as there are other more important issues to scrutinise. 
In Sweden the Monarch's role is merely representative according to the constitutional agree from 1971; The Torekov agreement. The Monarchy should not play a political role or make important decisions. But we should also keep in mind that half the world is ruled by Monarchies or Dictatorships and to communicate with those countries the Monarch is the only alternative. To send the minister Anna Lindh for instance, that is 'only' a minister and besides a woman can result as offensive and provoking to some of these countries. Many Arabian countries do only have a 'king-to-king' communication and in such cases the Monarch has far greater influence than the constitution would like to recognise. 
Neither can I agree with his last argument as I do not believe that their statements can hurt our international reputation more than we already do ourselves by our behaviour at the holiday resorts. Johansson has used Queen Silvia as an example. She stated in an interview that she was surprised that the Palestinians sent out their children to throw stones at the Israeli police. This arose a great attention in the Arab world. The Queen works actively for children's rights, she has initiated a Childhood Foundation; She supports organisations that work for the improvement of children's rights all over the world and is an Honorary member of "Rädda Barnen" and other similar organisations2. But the Queen also represents the Swedes, and in Sweden we would never allow our children to risk their lives. I believe it is the Queen's obligation to react against all sort of child abuse, as for instance the Palestinian children's involvement in the conflict. As long as there is not a serious divergence from the Swedish public opinion they should have the right to react against and comment on public matters. 
The King's statement that the mad cow debate was exaggerated falls on its own absurdity, but still I do not believe that his statement harms our reputation or that it should influence politically. If anything, he has made a fool of himself.
The committee on the constitution should scrutinise the public sector, they should do something about the political contempt and strengthen the democracy instead of wasting their time on the Monarchs' constitutionality. 
 It is far more important to examine what the politicians do with our tax money, if they really use them to improve our society or if they put it in their own pockets. 
It is also important to check those big international affairs as for instance the South African imbroglio. The committee on the constitution should make sure that the governing and decision-making institutions follow the constitution. There is no reason to spend time and money scrutinising the Monarchs since they do not possess any power.

The arguments Johansson has presented are neither important nor relevant enough to become a task for the committee on the constitution. As long as the Monarchs do not do anything that differs from the Swedish people's will there is no reason why the Monarchs should be scrutinised.
Sweden is a small nation and there are very few opportunities for the Swedish people to express their attitude and therefore the Monarchs should be able to voice it for us as our representatives.
If the committee on the constitution is to scrutinise the Monarchs there should be an amendment to the constitution where the role of the Monarchs is clearly established. 

1 Johansson, Morgan. 2001, Låt KU granska Kungahuset, Dagens Nyheter 23/3-01
2 http://www.royalcourt.se/familjen/drottningen.html, 2001-03-26
</doc>