Suchergebnisse

This article analyses how the Swedish sports movement's democratic processes – and democratic fostering mission – has been described in policies from the late 19th century until the beginning of the 21st century. The strong and long-standing rhetoric of the sports movement as a 'school in democracy' is the background for this analysis. I particularly draw attention to the club level of the sports movement and how democracy has been discussed in that context. The analysis draws on previous research and analyses, including data such as government reports, sport manifest declarations and magazines. Theoretically, I utilise Ahrne and Papakosta's resource mobilization theory, as applied to non-profit membership organizations. One of the article's main findings is that 'democracy' and 'popular movement' were concepts that the leading representatives of the sports movement failed to use in the late-1800s and up until the 1920s. This was related to the fact that many leaders in the Swedish sports movement were of a bourgeois background and were strongly skeptical about parliamentary democracy (including general and equal voting rights, which were implemented in Sweden in 1921). Later on, since the 1970s, there has been an emphasising of the importance of the democratic decision-making processes within the sports movement and its democratic fostering dimensions. In accordance with Ahrne's and Papakosta's resource mobilization theory, my analysis shows that by the early 21st century the sports movement's democratic institutions and processes had become a symbolic asset, and an effective tool in the struggle for Swedish democracy.

In this case study, decision-making processes in the sport club 'IF Stoor' are analysed with a focus on so called voluntary "key actors" and their involvement in formal and informal decision-making processes. The aim of the study is to provide knowledge about how eleven key actors in a large sport club like IF Stoor – with approximately 3,000 members, many organisational levels but relatively few members involved in the formal decision-making bodies – acted and handled democratic claims and at the same time tried to secure the voluntary based sport production. The analysis shows that the key actors were involved continually in the club's two parallel decision-making processes. There were formal decision-making bodies with statutes-directed processes which strengthened the club's organization and economy. There were also informal, spatially indefinite and practice-driven decision-making processes that existed parallel with the formal ones. The informal decision-making processes, which had participatory qualities, involved a large part of the club's about 150 leaders. This applied in particular to the coordinators of the club's 10 sport sections – here labelled as key actors – who acted and functioned as organisational "nodes" in the decision-making processes. These coordinators, but also many other categories of members – especially leaders and athletes (and supportive relatives) – represented, in accordance with Ahrne & Papakosta's organisational theory, 'resources', who occasionally engaged in participatory democratic discussions, negotiations and decisions. A conclusion drawn from this case study is that when informal decision-making processes are included in the analyses, a relatively large number of the club 150 leaders were involved in collective decision-making