Sweden, the Crown of the state by Torbjörn LARSSON, Assistant Professor at the Department of Politica! Science of the University of Stockholm. The Head of State is not yet a king without a country but close to it. As Prime Minister Olof Palme said when the new constitution was introduced in 1974 : ''To­ 1 day the introduction of the republic is only a pen stroke away" • According to the new consitution, the Parliament does not have to automatically select a new royal family if the King and all the members of his family should die along with all the other legitimate heirs to the crown. That this should occur is not, very likely, however. To begin with, some precautions have been taken to prevent the royal family from becoming extinct. In 1979, the non-Socialist majority in the parliament decided to drastically change the law of succession, a constitutional law, which 2 had not been changed significantly since 1810 . The amendment gave royal family members of the female sex the same right to the crown. Under the old constitution, only male heirs could claim it. The direct line of succession was maintained, how­ ever. The initiative to change the constitutional law of succession was taken by the non-Socialist parties in Parliament. As was hardly surprising, the Social Democrats and the Communists abstained from voting on this issue, but, perhaps more as­ tonishingly, the King did not seem to be in favor of this change, although he did not voice this opinion until after the birth of his second child, a boy. According to some articles in the press, the King said that he thought the Swedish people were used to having a King on the throne. This was not confirmed, however, by a public opinion poll that clearly showed that a larger proportion of the Swedish people wanted to see the first bom, Crown Princess Victoria, as the next head of state 3 _ Nevertheless, the episode clearly illustrates just how limited the power of the Swedish king is today. More surprising, perhaps, is that this loss of forma! or con­ stitutional power bas not led to any decrease in the popularity of the King. The concept of the king as head of the state is just as strong as it was before, if not even stronger. The issue of changing from a monarchy to a republic is more or less politically dead in Sweden, even though it is and always has been the first (1) SIFO, Opinion research report: 7be kingdom in the polls. June 1976. (2) E. HOLMBERG, e.a., Grundlagarna med tillhörande författningar. Stockholm, 1980, p . 786-798. (3) SIFO, Opinion reserach report: Victoria el/er Carl Philip efter Carl XVI Gustaf Au­ gust 1979. 50 RES PUBLICA item on the Social Democrats' party program. Every year the Communist Party ri­ tually submits a private bill to abolish the monarchy, and every time it is rejected by a large majority of the mp's. Despite these traditional manifestations, the role of the King has not been seriously debated at all lately, contrary to what happened in the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s 4, either in the Parliament or in the mass media. Today, the King is clearly just a symbol, and his politica! obligations are few if not almost non-existent. His formal politica! obligations are reduced to the annual opening of the Swedish Parliament and chairing the Advisory Council for Foreign Affairs and the non-decisive, informative cabinet meetings where the cabinet and the King meet. The gradual stripping of the King of his power took place in two steps. The first one was an agreement in 1969, signed by the non-Socialist parties as well as the Social Democrats to reduce the King's power. One of the consequences of this agreement was the abolition of the King's right to freely dismiss ministers. The new law, which was passed in 1971, stated that, if the Prime Minister wanted to discharge a minister or the Parliament had expressed its lack of support for a mi­ nister through a vote of confidence, the King had to dismiss that person - or the entire cabinet if it was the Prime Minister who lacked support in Parliament. The new law also made it possible for a minister to block a proposal of the King by refusing to countersign the protocol of decision. The King's right to appoint mi­ nisters was maintained but later this was also abolished, as well as all other duties in connection with cabinet formation and governmental decisions. This happened in 1974 when the politica! parties took the second step and agreed on a new com­ promise whereby the monarchy was kept intact and the King remained as head of the state but with predominantly representative du ties 5 • As a special peculiarity, a paragraph was included advancing the age when the King (or the female heir to the throne) would become of age. Previously, the King could become King at the age of 18, but the constitution of 1974 stipulates that he or she has to be 25 years old before this can take place. The road toa constitutional monarchy where the King plays a largely ceremonial role has been long and winding. (4) H. TINGSTEN, Skai/ kungamakten stärkas? Kritik av författningsförslaget. Stock­ holm, 1964, p. 29-71 ; J. TORBACKE, Statschefen och regeringen. In : Att styra riket, re­ geringskansliet 1840-1990. Uddevalla, 1990, p. 62-68. (5) E. HOLMBERG , e.a., op.cit., p. 185-187 ; Government Proposition: 1973 :90 : Ny re­ geringsform och ny riksdagsordning, p. 110-114. SWEDEN 51 1. The historica! background to and development of the House of Bernadotte The roots of the present royal family go back to the beginning of the 19th cen­ tury. In 1809, a peaceful coup d 'état was carried out by some members of the ar­ istocracy : the King was forced to leave the country, and the constitution was re­ vised. A new King was appointed, an uncle of the former one, but he was an old man and had no heirs. If Sweden was to continue being a monarchy, a new "house" bad to be found. After some setbacks a suitable person was found and appointed crown prince, but he died shortly thereafter 6 , and the crown was of­ fered to one of Napoleon's marshals. His name was Jean Baptiste Bernadotte, and he accepted the offer. In 1810, Bernadotte became the successor to the Swedish throne and was adopted by the incumbent King, Karl XIII. Although he was not formally the King during that period of time, he actually ruled the country. In 1818 he officially became the King of Sweden. He took the name Karl xrv Johan and managed to increase his power. Since that day, as shown in the table below, seven men of the Bernadotte family have succeeded one ano­ ther on the Swedish throne. TABLE The House of Bernadotte Name of the King Reign Number of years as King Karl XIII 1809-1818 9 Karl XIV Johan 1818-1844 26 Oscar I 1844-1859 15 Karl XV 1859-1872 13 Oscar Il 1872-1907 35 Gustav V 1907-1950 43 Gustav Vl Adolf 1950-1973 23 Carl XVI Gustav 1973- The constitution of 1809 entrusted a great deal of power to the King. He alone had the right to govern the country. However, on issues concerning the passing of laws, the power was divided between him and the Parliament. Apart from this, there were few other limitations of his power. The Parliament had the right to de­ cide on" all matters relating to taxes without hearing the King, and the courts were to implement the laws without his interference. Even in his capacity as the ruler, the King's powers were limited : before he made any decisions, he had to hear his advisers (the ministers) out. These advisers were collectively responsible to the Parliament for the advice they gave the King, as well as for advice they did not give. The only way the mi- (6) E. HOLMBERG, e.a., op. cit. , p. 787. 52 RES PUBLICA nisters could free themselves from that responsibility was by demanding that it be noted in the protocol that they did not agree with the King. The term " King in Council" was used to describe these formal cabinet meetings when the .King, surrounded by his advisers, made his decisions. The strategy is quite clear. One could not hold the King liable for his decisions, but you could at least try to control the King's behavior through his advisers. In matters concerning foreign affairs and defence, the King could take a freer stand vis-à-vis his advisers, not least because he was the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, a fact that further added to his dominance in the areas of defence and foreign policy. So, with the help of the constitution, a game for three players was constructed . It was to prevail for the rest of the 19th century with numerous conflicts, conflicts between the King and the Parliament, between the King and his advisers, and be­ tween the advisers and the Parliament. However, this system with checks and ba­ lance of power (and not only between the King and the Parliament) soon proved to be very inefficient when in carne to making decisions that would change society more drastically. lt was a political system that promoted the status quo - when the Parliament did agree on something, the King and/or his adviser usually dis­ agreed with the Parliament and vice versa 7 .