Stockholm in June 1976

On the occasion of the royal wedding June 19, 1976 many representatives of the world press have arrived in Sweden with a query:

How can an advanced, modern, democratic people with strong socialist leanings support something so archaic as a monarchy?

Sifo — Sweden’s leading public opinion poll did a special survey to illuminate this issue. The survey was done in May 1976. Personal interviews here conducted with a probability sample of 1000 Swedes, representing a cross-section of the population between 18 and 70 years of age. Here follows the report written by Sifo researchers Karin Busch and Hans L Zetterberg. You are free to use it as you please.

In a recent revamping of the Swedish constitution the king was stripped of all remaining political power. Thus, he can no longer appoint a prime minister after the resignation of a government. That lost vestige of royal power is now exercised by the speaker of the Riksdag. The king now pays taxes like any citizen except on his expense account and on the income of a 150 year old trust fund held by the Government. Furthermore, the new constitution is written so that, by changing a few key sentences, the country could become a republic. This would probably have happened if Carl Gustaf had not survived into adulthood. For Sweden is separated from a republican constitution "only by the stroke of a pen" to use Olof Palme’s words. His party, the Social Democrats, has had the introduction of the republic on every platform since the first one in 1897. But the Social Democrats have not carried out this program in spite of the fact that they have held the government for 44 years. They have had more important things to do in the government. And after stripping the king of any power or privilege that might be offensive to an egalitarian, democratic spirit, the pressure to turn the kingdom into a republic is less than ever.

The Swedes were asked by the Sifo poll in May 1976: "In the long run, do you think monarchy or republic is best for Sweden?"

To understand this solid attitude of support for the monarchy one must both look at history and at the needs of a modern people.

No Swedish king has interfered with the democratic process since the great grandfather of the present king made an unsuccessful try in 1914 during World War I. His successor, Gustaf VI Adolf, the grandfather of the present king, was an immensely learned and dedicated man who took a genuine interest in all aspects of cultural, economic and social life. He lived to be 91. There was not a trace of scandal, misuse of position, or public errors in his conduct as a king. He consistently bowed to the power of the Riksdag and the elected government and always avoided any kind of personal diplomacy in foreign affairs.

The outstanding record of Gustaf VI Adolf made it natural for Swedish opinion to preserve the kingdom. When the former king lay at his death bed, a poll question was asked: "Do you feel we should keep the monarchy and let the crown prince be king, or should we have a republic when the old king is dead?" A broad majority, 75 per cent, said that they wanted the crown prince to carry on, including 71 per cent of the Social Democrats. (This question has not previously been published.)

The key reason for the continued support for the kingdom cannot be sought in history but resides amongst us. A cue is given in the following two questions asked by Sifo: "What would you pay most attention to: a statement about the future delivered by the prime minister or a statement about the future delivered by the king?" And "Which do you think would be most festive: a visit to your community by the prime minister or a visit by the king?" The Swedes answered these two questions in a most interesting and illuminating way: Most Swedes would listen more to the prime minister’s statement about the future.

Even outside his own party the prime minister would get more listeners than the king in what he says about the future. For after all, the prime minister is the executive leader of the nation.

But the pattern of answers is reversed when we ask about who brings most festivity with a visit:

Even the PMs own party members, the Social Democrats, feel that a visit from the king is more festive. For the king is the expressive leader of the nation.

Each nation needs both types of leadership. In the established republics such as France and the United States the president carries both the roles of executive and expressive leader. Sweden has made a clean break between the two and given the roles to two separate persons. In this way, the king and the democratically elected leader not merely co-exist but actually complement one another. Each meets a need of the notion.

Do the Swedes approve of this way of arranging things? They are quite satisfied, it seems. "How do you feel about our present system that a prime minister heads the affairs of the nation, and that a king handles representative duties and is a symbol for the nation? Is it a good or bad division of labor?"

In regard to the monarchy, the modern Swedes have preserved something old, changed it to suit their needs, and adopted it for the future. It is like so many other things of modern Swedish design: inspired by tradition, yet highly functional and smart, and likely to have a long future usefulness.

A differentiation between executive and expressive tasks occur often in human life. In the 1940s an American social psychologist, Fred Bales, found that in most every group there emerges after a few meetings one person as the chief task leader and another person as the one who takes care of the good fellowship and group morale. And his colleague, sociologist Talcott Parsons, found the duality between the instrumental and the expressive at the bottom of every social system. Actually, already in the early part of the century, German sociologist Max Weber had found it necessary to separate what he called rational and affective pursuits in much the some way. And in a way this has always been known as witnessed by our common distinction between skill and emotion, head and heart, etc.

Some roles in society, such as that of the singer, the cheer leader, the mother involve more expressive activities than others. To the more expressive roles belongs also that of the hostess. She shall make everyone feel welcome, relax tensions, create an atmosphere of comfort or celebration.

Gone are the days when a king must marry into aristocracy or royalty. The main requirement for a king with an expressive role is rather to find a partner in this role. This becomes apparent when the Swedes answer the poll question: "Are you for or against that the king marries Silvia Sommerlath?" The question was asked in January and May 1976.

In January the romance was known only through gossip. In May the engagement had occurred. If we discard those who do not express an opinion we find that the vote for Silvia was 19 against 1 in January, and after the engagement the figures became 70 against 1. You may safely conclude that the Swedes are delighted with the choice of bride.

For the foreseeable future Sweden will remain a kingdom. The danger to the monarchy are chiefly two:

1. The royal couple could find their role too demanding and resign. An abdication could be brought about if they feel that mass media and the public make the role unbearable. To be king and queen in Sweden is a regular job. Like all jobs it should end in privacy after the official duties are over and it must be interrupted by vacations. Without respect for such elementary requirements the monarchy is vulnerable.
2. The expressive role of the royalty could be misused or exploited by reactionary circles who encourage the court to overstep its boundaries and move into the realm of politics and executive power. This would quickly raise the demand for a republican constitution. In other words, to survive the royal family must be protected from the most ardent royalists.

The original wording of the questions cited in this newsletter is as follows:

Detta är Sifos standardfråga om monarki-republik som regelbundet upprepas. Massmedia bör vara på sin vakt mot opinionsundersökningar om stödet för monarkin som ej använder denna formulering och ej använder besöksintervjuer och sannolikhetsurval. Genom att ställa frågan på annat sätt kan man se ett falskt intryck att opinionen svängt.