4K Avh C Eriksson 16.8.06 1 06-08-16, 11.27 Till Farmor
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
”Det borde vara att folket bestämmer” 1 4K Avh C Eriksson 16.8.06 1 06-08-16, 11.27 Till farmor Första delen av bokens titel är ett citat från en av de medverkande i studien, Jennifer 15 år. 2 4K Avh C Eriksson 16.8.06 2 06-08-16, 11.27 Örebro Studies in Political Science 16 Cecilia Eriksson ”Det borde vara att folket bestämmer” En studie av ungdomars föreställningar om demokrati 3 4K Avh C Eriksson 16.8.06 3 06-08-16, 11.27 © Cecilia Eriksson, 2006 Titel: ”Det borde vara att folket bestämmer”. En studie av ungdomars föreställningar om demokrati Utgivare: Universitetsbiblioteket 2006 www.oru.se Skriftserieredaktör: Joanna Jansdotter [email protected] Redaktör: Heinz Merten [email protected] Tryck: DocuSys, V Frölunda 8/2006 issn 1650-1632 isbn 91-7668-491-1 4 4K Avh C Eriksson 16.8.06 4 06-08-16, 11.27 - Abstract This study primarily investigates the conceptions of democracy held by young Swedes: What conceptions can be found? How are these conceptions similar to and different from each other? My main intention is to present nuanced pictures of different ways of viewing and of arguing for and against democracy. Some attention is also paid to pos- sible differences between different youth groups, in terms of age, gender, and socio- economic background. In addition, I will relate the investigation to research concer- ning school and the socialisation that is supposed to take place there. What concepts of democracy do Swedish schools seem to inculcate in students? Theoretical discussions of democracy serve as the framework of the study, and throughout the work democracy is regarded as an ambiguous concept. I have designed an analytical tool by depicting the discussions of democratic theory from three perspectives. The first concerns what democracy is and how the rule of the people should be designed. The second deals with the justifications for democracy, and why it is or is not to be preferred. The third perspective focuses on some crucial matters in discussions of democracy. The empirical material analyzed consists of ten focus group interviews with students in two age categories: 14–15 and 18–19 years old. The groups were composed so that the members would include both genders and a range of socio-economic backgrounds. The main idea of focus group interviews is to take advantage of group-interaction dynamics. Opinions are often formed in interaction with other people, and since con- sideration and reflection are central concerns of this thesis, focus group interviews are thus very suitable. The findings indicate that there is a dominant understanding of democracy. The young people interviewed emphasize that democracy means that everybody has a right to participate in decision making, that, for example, universal suffrage and freedom of speech are necessary features and that democracy in practice connotes an elite/electoral democracy (at the national level) with politicians as the real power holders. Although some features of Sweden’s existing democracy are widely criticized, democracy as a fundamental concept is celebrated. The main justification for this support is that democracy includes everybody. A view of everybody’s equal value is implicit. The critical matters highlighted concern human nature in relation to democratic requirements, how to handle extremist political movements, and the limited possibilities and unequal opportunities for people to participate in the existing democracy. Within this overall picture, somewhat different conceptions can also be detected. Two themes are particularly prominent in the discussions. Without overtly mentioning the word, the young people interviewed strongly emphasize the concept of equality. One line of discussion concerns the participants’ own experiences of being subordinate to adults, another the concept that equality presupposes equal opportunities to influence society. Democracy is also considered to be a human matter. Notably, when speaking of equality and freedom, the interviewees rarely mention these words directly. Mention of political institutions is also lacking from the discussions. Some of the findings can be regarded as reflecting the conceptions of democracy manifested in and passed on by schools. The study may also provide some guidance concerning how to approach social and political issues in the school. Keywords: democracy, democratic theory, conceptions of democracy, democratic opi- nions, youth, citizens, political socialisation, school and democracy, focus groups 5 4K Avh C Eriksson 16.8.06 5 06-08-16, 11.27 6 4K Avh C Eriksson 16.8.06 6 06-08-16, 11.27 Innehåll Förord .......................................................................................... 13 1 Inledning: Om avsikterna med denna studie................................. 17 1.1 Demokrati, väldefinierat och odefinierbart på samma gång ......... 17 1.1.1 Teoretiskt väldiskuterat ....................................................... 18 1.1.2 Empiriskt studerat ............................................................... 19 1.1.3 Ett saknat perspektiv ........................................................... 20 1.2 Medborgerliga föreställningar om demokrati ............................... 21 1.2.1 Behov av kompletterande forskningsmetoder...................... 22 1.2.2 Behov av demokratiteoretisk förankring ............................. 24 1.3 Ett ungdomsperspektiv ................................................................. 25 1.3.1 Samhällsmedborgare med egenvärde ................................... 25 1.3.2 En förespegling om framtiden eller spegling av samtiden? .. 27 1.3.3 De formbara åren och skolan som demokratifostrare ......... 28 1.3.4 Fler statsvetenskapliga perspektiv på ungdomar och skola . 31 1.4 Studiens syfte................................................................................ 33 1.4.1 Bokens upplägg ................................................................... 34 2 Tillvägagångssätt: Om hur studien lagts upp och genomförts ...... 39 2.1 Teoretiskt informerad metodologi. ............................................... 39 2.2 Demokratibegreppet som nav. ...................................................... 40 2.3 Fokusgruppintervjuer. .................................................................. 43 2.3.1 Möjlighet till diskussion och reflektion ............................... 44 2.3.2 Att leda samtal .................................................................... 45 2.3.3 Samtalsstruktur ................................................................... 46 2.3.4 Tio samtal ........................................................................... 47 2.3.5 Deltagarna .......................................................................... 49 2.3.6 Samtalens genomförande..................................................... 52 2.3.7 Efterarbetet ......................................................................... 54 7 4K Avh C Eriksson 16.8.06 7 06-08-16, 11.27 3 Teoretisk ram: Demokratibegreppet i fokus ................................. 59 3.1 Vad är demokrati? ........................................................................ 61 3.1.1 Gränsdragning och grundkrav ............................................ 61 3.1.2 Grundläggande politiska institutioner ................................. 65 3.1.3 Två (tre) ideal för medborgarnas deltagande....................... 67 Elit-/valdemokrati......................................................................... 68 Deltagardemokrati ....................................................................... 70 Exklusive – men också inklusive – deliberativ demokrati ............. 73 3.2 Varför (inte) demokrati? ............................................................... 79 3.2.1 Övertygelse om jämlikhet och kompetens ........................... 79 3.2.2 Konsekvensargument .......................................................... 81 3.2.3 Kritikerna: elitism, pessimism och individualism ................ 83 3.3 Kritiska punkter i demokratidiskussionen .................................... 85 3.3.1 1940-tal: mot bakgrund av demokratiernas undergång ...... 86 Medborgarnas kompetens ............................................................ 86 (O)jämlikhet................................................................................. 87 Majoritetstyranni .......................................................................... 87 Demokrati kontra andra goda värden .......................................... 88 Demokratiskt självförsvar ............................................................ 88 Ineffektivitet ................................................................................. 89 3.3.2 1970-tal: demokrati som form kontra som innehåll............ 89 Demokrati som beslutsmetod – en metod som gynnar det rådande....................................................................... 90 Reella möjligheter att delta krävs ................................................. 90 Ekonomisk jämlikhet – inkluderad i demokratidefinitionen eller förutsättning för demokrati?................................................. 91 Demokratins omfattning .............................................................. 92 Socialism eller demokrati viktigast?.............................................. 92 Behov av en värdegemenskap? ..................................................... 93 Tre konfliktlinjer .......................................................................... 93 3.3.3 1990-tal: nya inre och yttre förutsättningar ........................ 94 Globalisering, demokrati