Stratagems adopted by democratic leaders to try to insinuate, or anchor, a preferred course of action into the larger collective will have a variety of repercussions. Beyond the apparent success of the venture itself, the long-term integrity of the democratic fabric may be at stake if simmering rancour and discontent is left unheeded. These questions would seem particularly pertinent when studying the national side of the evolution of the European Union. The periodic shunting of competencies to European institutions is highly complex, so much so that popular legitimacy for the momentous changes is in effect something of an ephemeral commodity. The referendum, with its unique potential to determine the prevailing vox populi, has from time to time been employed to offset these problems, and lend continued credence to the relinquishment of sovereign power. The political entities that will be the powerhouses in this contest for the hearts and minds of the public are, inevitably, national political parties. They, too, are likely to pay whatever political price will be exacted as a consequence of this unusual form of battle – including the exposition and potential widening of internal rifts. Noticing a dearth of investigative tools that can help us unravel these processes, the author develops a structured framework of analysis specifically designed to "parse" strategic or tactical action, with the aim to gauge likely party-democratic fallout. She makes a first-level distinction between "convincing" strategies (basically conceptualised as compatible with deli¬berative-democratic tenets), and "persuading" strategies (closely associated with a subset of negotiation theory principles focusing on strategic action). While both strategies may lead to the desired short-term outcome – where leadership preferences are duly propagated – a convince/persuade analysis is shown to yield improved understanding of the concomitant, longer-term effects. The author studies the Swedish Social Democratic Party's internal handling of the debates leading up to two pivotal referenda – the EU membership referendum of 1994, and the EMU referendum of 2003. Reviewing a wealth of secondary sources and conducting more than 40 interviews with high-level party officials and other centrally positioned actors (representing both sides of the two issue divides), she is provided with a unique material, which is parsed through the framework (which at this point also proves to be a sound analytical instrument). The study is primarily qualitative in nature, but an entire chapter is devoted to a complementing quantitative analysis where an existing Discourse Quality Index (DQI) is used to determine the level of deliberation prevalent in four party congresses (two preceding the EU referendum; two preceding the EMU referendum). One "convince" sub-dimension, respect, proved to be the one most easily affected by external events, not to mention deadline imposed by the referendum. The qualitative analysis revealed a generally higher level of justification (another "convince" sub-dimension) in the EMU case than in the EU case, and the reverse was true for the respect dimension. In both instances, the party leadership acted to pacify [persuade] the debate, notably by prohibiting government ministers from being active in the respective no-campaigns. A preliminary hypothesis that "deliberative space" shrinks as the final deadline looms was in part corroborated, as turned out to be valid for the respect dimension.
This study takes as its point of departure the theorizing on citizenship and globalization. Today it is common to discuss a "flexible" citizenship beyond the paradigm of the nationstate, which, besides its legal aspects of rights and obligations, also includes identification with and participation in various communities, primarily political ones. "Politics", in this context, is considered to be constituted on the micro-level, discursively between individuals (e.g. Laclau and Mouffe 1985). The aim of the study is to, through the study of collective meaning making, contribute to the theory building about citizenship and globalization. The study consists of three cases, each of which attracted much media attention, with varying degrees of proximity and distance. The construction of political community, on various levels on the globalization scale (subnational, national, transnational) within the collective meaning making, is studied. The aim of the study also includes the analysis of the discursive resources that are used for the making of meaning. "External" discourses such as media messages and interpersonal communication are analyzed as well as "internal" ones: e.g. values, norms, identifications and experiences. In addition, the study aims at localizing the construction of meaning and community within the structural context , and relating it to current structures of power. The thesis is concluded with a suggestion of how to relate the discursive construction of political identity to deliberative democracy theory. The empirical material is collected by means of focus-groups interviews, including 2–5 people, with a total of 133 respondents. The transcribed material is analyzed by means of critical discourse analysis, CDA. The study identifies two different types of identity constructions: processes of nationalization, where the experienced Swedish identity and community function normatively in the making of meaning, and processes of subnationalization, among those groups that somehow felt excluded from and mistreated by the national (Swedish) environment. The thesis concludes that the collective making of meaning within an assumed national community contains ideological elements and works to a large extent in the service of power. However, the subnationally compressed communities create meaning in an oppositional manner, compared with the nationalized community and in relation to structures of power. Active citizenship is thus best located in conflict, among groups that experience exclusion and oppression in different situations (Mouffe 1995b). If this is right, the focus must shift from consensus to communication, efforts to open up discursive bridges between the hegemonic community and dissident voices should be made (c.f. Aronowitz 1995). An important space for transgressing communication is of course the media. However, the study shows that the media must deal with some problems before they are ready to serve as discursive bridges, for instance the tendency to make the factual antagonisms subordinate to homogenizing emotional reporting. In addition, there seems to exist a need for the political institutions to move beyond the paradigm of the nation-state, and find other frameworks for the democratic processes, not least at the subnational level. Thus, instead of discussing either a global or a national citizenship one could, with Habermas (2001), reflect on a postnational citizenship relating to the reflexive transformation of national civic sovereignty into subnational and supranational citizenship.
Society and Identity- Developments and Challenges in Swedish Youth Politics in the 1990´s. There are many ways to describe and value young people's interest and engagement in politics. While some defend extraparliamentarian activism as an important road to political engagement, others stress the need for young people to become familiar with the political system. These two contradictory views express a common concern for the importance of involving the young in the political process – this is an issue that the system has to deal with. Should the established political system affirm the youths' active participation and desire to make a change? Is it possible to do this without a loss of respect for democracy? Is it possible to develop democracy without changing it radically Behind these questions, lies the deeper question about how the established democratic system, in practice in the state and municipalities, handle a) the political involvement of youths and b) the transmission of democratic values to new generations. Furthermore, these questions are based on the fundamental assumption that a democratic culture can only be communicated and upheld through processes of political socialization, where norms, knowledge and values are passed on from one generation to the next. In order for this particular kind of communication to succeed, it is crucial that people see their citizenship in a democratic society as an important part of their identity. One of the main functions of the democratic political system is to create and uphold identities and attitudes that are intimately connected to the system itself. Therefore, the political institutions are central actors in the communication process of political socialization. Communication is a paradoxical concept. It is a human activity that everyone is involved in, but few can define unambiguously. Professor James Carey, who analyses the concept in Communication as culture, essays on media and society (1989), introduced the idea of communication as ritual. Although broad in meaning, this definition highlights communication as central in the construction of both society and identity. Society exists and works through the communication between people and because we learn the codes of interaction that exist in the societal context: But, whatever the details of the production and reproduction of social life, it is through communication, through the intergraded relations of symbols and social structure, that societies, or at least those with we are most familiar, are created, maintained, and transformed. In this dissertation, the notion that communication is pivotal in the formation of both society and identities, is fundamental. Communication is the core of democratic development and the passing on of democratic values from one generation to the next. Political socialization is a question of communication processes. Objective and research questions The objective of this dissertation is to investigate how the main actors in the Swedish political system; the state and the municipalities, deal with processes of society- and identity formation. This is achieved through an analysis of the perspectives on political socialization that are expressed by these actors in youth politics in the 1990's. Three main research questions are central in this dissertation: Do the state and the municipalities understand their role in the process of political socialization as mainly hierachical or interactive? How is the role of the youth construed by these actors? Are they seen as active or passive in the process of political socialization? Do these actors regard political socialization chiefly as a matter of continuation or as development? Over the years, political socialization research has generated different views on the youth, democracy development and the political system. Early research tended to regard the youth as a passive group in a hierarchical political system that acted mainly on behalf of it's own preservation. This perspective saw political socialization as a matter of teaching the young to assimilate to the existing political system. Later research has shown that the process is more interactive than was previously thought: youths are influenced, but at the same time they also influence others. This shift in perspective raises questions of how the political system construes the process of political socialization, it's own role in this process, the role the youth and ultimately; how democracy best can be developed. Conclusion The findings of the different studies in this dissertation show an overwhelmingly hierarchical construal of political socialization by the state and the municipalities. The idea of interactivity and development, advocated by later research, is only visible in some of the municipalities. Furthermore, youths are considered as having some political awareness, but this awareness needs to be cultivated through teaching. Therefore, youths are seen as passive receivers in the communicative process of political socialization – and not as active participants. At the same time, –on a rhetorical level–both the state and the municipalities express an ambition to create possibilities for youths to take responsibility and to find their own organizational solutions for political engagement. However, this dissertation also shows that this ambition is nowhere matched by any willingness to change the existing system, if that is what is required in order for the youth to develop own organizational solutions. The state regards the process of political socialization from a perspective of continuation and conservation. Youths are therefore mainly seen as a problem until they have reached a level of political awareness that allows them to function within the existing political system. The municipalities wants to get involved in the political socialization of youths through their "youth-councils", but it is obvious that the main perspective is one of socialization into the existing political system. In order to be able to participate and have influence on decision-making, youths have to learn the form and the language required by the existing political system. It is not, according to the municipalities, the system that needs to change. The state and the municipalities consider youths as mouldable object that also have the ability to participate and shape society. When the states and municipalities' assumptions about the youth's political interests and enthusiasm do not correlate to the youth's, the process of identity-formation becomes paradoxical. A hierarchical system meets young people who do not want to interact with the system. A system aimed at its own continuation and preservation of the existing order, that mainly aims to teach youths to fit into the system, will meet youths who want to create new forms of organizations. Therefore, when the state and municipalities in the ambition of socializing youths into the political system, shut the door to real participation and influence that would mean actual change and development, it is perhaps not so surprising that some youths canalize their political commitment through extraparliamentary activism. On a rhetorical level everyone applauds ideas of development of the political system. But in reality, the state and the municipalities regard this development as challenging when the suggested changes threatens the established order.
