Don’t stop talking about democracy in the EU

Veronica Stoehrel is a media and communication scholar and a now-retired professor from Halmstad University, Sweden

It is not easy to believe in representative democracy today. When you defend it, you tend to sound like those old-school communists who argued that the Soviet Union’s collapse wasn’t due to communism failing, but rather to it not having been implemented properly. Today, representative democracy is defended in much the same way: there is nothing inherently wrong with it—it is simply not being applied properly. Yet, far too much has gone awry in what we call “democratic” nations. The dominant narrative pits democracy against dictatorship. In reality, however, the situation is more complex, especially when it comes to political freedoms and rights—such as people’s right to think, say, and write whatever they want—and the idea of the equal value of all people. I discuss these two ideas, using Sweden as the primary example, while also drawing connections to the EU and the U.S. when relevant.

Freedom of Speech

Open discussion and debate are vanishing from the traditional public sphere in the Western world. A country like Sweden joined NATO without the people having a say — no debates, no referendum. Sweden also signed a military agreement with the United States that same year, the “Defense Cooperation Agreement.” The agreement grants the United States access to 17 military bases and the right to pre-position military equipment on Swedish territory. Also, U.S. personnel stationed in Sweden under the agreement are generally subject to U.S. criminal law rather than Swedish law. All of this took place without any public debate.

Many nations are part of an EU that no longer resembles what their citizens originally voted for. In 1994, the Swedish people voted primarily for an EU that would improve our trade with other countries, a customs union, and the dream of passport-free travel in Europe. We did not vote for the EU to legislate on asylum policy, the EU’s control of digitalization (which the EU calls “digital security”), or joint geopolitical measures — the very things the EU is doing today. And there is no debate about that either.

It has become impossible to find an opinion piece that challenges the prevailing narratives on the war in Ukraine in Swedish mainstream media. Journalism now functions to preserve the existing system; questioning the prevailing narrative is dismissed as “disinformation.” Globally the mainstream media is controlled by barely ten media conglomerates and they manipulate through the selection of events, the selection of individuals presumed to represent the public, the taking of events out of context, and the choice of words and images. Those who control the media are in a strong position to shape and control the thoughts of the public.

One of the biggest problems with freedom of speech in Sweden and one that poses
a direct threat to democracy — is the prevalence of self-censorship, both among the general public and among journalists in particular. In 2024, a report from Uppsala University was published showing that over 50% of the citizens who responded to a survey, stated that they did not dare to express their opinions on social issues. Social ostracism and stigmatization could be the consequences of saying the “wrong things”. Respondents also stated that they were afraid of losing their jobs. According to the authors of the report, the situation in the U.S. and Germany was similar. In an earlier study conducted by the Crime Victim Compensation Authority in collaboration with researchers at Lund University and Halmstad University in 2021, the figure was as high as 70%. In a doctoral dissertation from the University of Gothenburg in 2024, 3000 Swedish journalists were surveyed. Approximately 39% of them had at some point during the past three years refrained from reporting on a topic, and about 48% stated that they had adapted their reporting due to the personal consequences that might follow upon writing about certain topics.

In addition to this self-censorship, and for the past few years, the European Council has banned the broadcasting of Russian-associated media outlets in the European Union on the grounds that they spread disinformation. As a result, these outlets cannot normally be viewed in Sweden. But Sweden is taking it a step further. SVT (Swedish Television) has a special division called “SVT verifierar”, which, according to themselves, “combines traditional journalism with analysis of images, digital footprints, and open sources to verify information that is being disseminated.” In other words, it is some kind of division that determines what is “true” and what is not. And this is done in the name of democracy.

However, “SVT Verifies” does not apply when mainstream media journalists express their personal opinions. On the SVT website, in August 2025, a journalist wrote about the war in Ukraine: “The root of the conflict, according to Russia, is that Ukraine exists and decides its own future.” But “SVT Verifies” does not bother to check whether, for example, Putin actually said that, or if it is merely a journalist’s opinion.

We see how Brussels is trying to push through laws and regulations designed to control and censor alternative social media platforms—all without any public debate. Yet, the system continues to be labeled “democratic.” The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) took effect in 2024, and its primary stated purpose is to combat illegal and harmful activities on the internet and to limit the spread of “disinformation.” In Sweden, the Swedish Media Authority and the Swedish Consumer Agency are the competent authorities responsible for ensuring compliance with the DSA. The Swedish Media Authority “shall safeguard freedom of expression and work to ensure that many different voices and perspectives are heard in the media landscape.” On paper, it all looks good. But one of the problems is, of course, the concept of “disinformation.” Who has the power to define it? We face the same issue with the proposed UK National Center for Information Defense (2026). It is no coincidence that the DSA and this proposed British agency have emerged at a time when there is a desire to suppress any information that might challenge the prevailing narratives regarding, for example, the war in Ukraine, Israel’s genocide in Palestine, and now also the U.S. war against Iran. These thoughts bring to mind both Orwell’s Ministry of Truth and Humphrey Jennings’ documentary “London Can Take It!”, in which we could hear the omnipotent voice stating, “I am a neutral reporter.”

However, social media in its current form is not a problem-free alternative since it makes no distinction between individuals with genuine expertise in specific fields and those who simply express unchecked hatred—a product of ignorance, a lack of education, or social resentment. Is there anything that can be done about it?

The Idea of the Equal Value of Human Beings

The Western world refers to countries like Russia and China as “dictatorships,” while describing itself as a collection of “democracies.” But if you look at how living standards have risen over the past 20 to 30 years in Russia and China — nations where people generally do not die because they can’t afford medical care (as in the “democratic” United States), and where promising students can attend university for free (as in Russia)—it is hard not to acknowledge that these “dictatorships” must have done something fundamentally right. Conversely, in the democratic West, we see how the gaps between different social groups are widening, with wealth accumulating in the hands of a few, and how this undermines democracy.

According to a 2024 report from the Swedish Fiscal Policy Council, the agency tasked with conducting an independent review of the government’s fiscal policy, inequality in terms of disposable income at the household level (i.e., the money left after paying taxes and receiving any benefits) in Sweden has increased since the 1990s. This is despite the fact that inequality in labor income (gross wages before taxes) has not increased. However, the fact that inequality in earned income has not increased is largely due to the fact that low-income earners have increased the number of hours worked, as social security systems have become less generous over time. Total net worth (i.e., total assets—such as a home, car, stocks, etc.—minus liabilities) has also grown much faster than incomes.

A report released this year by OXFAM Sweden states that the 46 richest people in Sweden own more than nearly 80 percent of the population’s wealth. The same report also cites UBS (Union Bank of Switzerland) and the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). According to data from the FAO 700,000 Swedes live without the ability to eat their fill or consume sufficiently nutritious food. According to the UBS Global Wealth Report 2025, Sweden ranks sixth on the list of countries with the greatest wealth inequality. By comparison, the United States ranks seventh. It is well known that economic inequality leads to political inequality. We can hardly speak of a functioning democracy when part of the population cannot eat their fill and when only a few people have the power to control what we talk about, who is allowed to speak, and how we define the world around us.

When people defend “freedom”, what they are often defending —without even realizing it—is the financial power that breeds injustice. The arms industry profits from making people believe they are in danger, which leads to increased spending on military equipment at the expense of public welfare. The idea of the equal worth of human beings is compromised when access to education and healthcare is determined by one’s financial means.

Democracy versus Dictatorship

Reality seems to suggest that we should stop thinking and speaking in terms of binary opposites when it comes to democracy and dictatorship. But this is, of course, easier said than done. The idea of Western democracy is a necessary myth that also serves to preserve citizens’ sense of identity. But what are theoretical opposites in an ideal and utopian world do not seem to be so in the real world. Both Putin and Xi Jinping were elected. Western leaders claim that Putin won because the election was rigged—that’s what they say about every nation that rejects the EU and the Western way of life. Xi Jinping was elected by congress delegates, following the recommendations of the Communist Party. But are the two American parties truly independent? Hardly. The arms industry and the financial establishment exert influence over both parties’ decisions—as well as their stance toward a country committing genocide. I’m not saying that China and Russia are “democracies” as defined in our part of the world, but in reality, they are not the opposites we perceive them to be. We can rightly ask ourselves: Is it better for financial power to control a country’s politics (as in many democratic countries), or is it better for a country’s politics to be determined by a political ideology? Is there a third alternative?

The Alternative

The alternative? Perhaps a more direct form of democracy, such as the one in Switzerland, where there can be several referendums a year. Not because the people always know what’s best and will vote “correctly,” but because a referendum forces people to talk about and debate the issues being put to a vote. Repeated referendums might also reduce the problem of self-censorship. Of course, referendums do not solve the problem of how capital influences politics and prevailing narratives by means of, for example, funding and lobbying, but if we could begin to discuss various ongoing processes and decisions, at least it would be a step in the right direction.

But no. In democratic Sweden, neither the Right nor the Left wants any referendums. It is not hard to understand why. Debates that challenge prevailing narratives and perhaps call into question the foundation of people’s misleading shared identity—the idea that we are free and that we believe all people are of equal worth—pose a threat to the power elite and to the way democracy itself is portrayed.

_______________________________

KEEP RESISTANCE MEDIA ALIVE IN 2027

To donate please go HERE