In 2023, amid accelerated militarisation, the Swedish government abruptly withdrew its financial support for domestic peace organisations. Felicia Linsér examines the impact on the peace movement of democratic backsliding, marginalisation in public debate, and a diminished relationship with political leadership
'If you want peace, prepare for war' is accepted as a universal truth in many Western liberal societies. That is also the notion to which Sweden subscribed after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Sweden, therefore, broke its 200-year-long non-alignment when it joined NATO, the military alliance. The country also signed a military agreement with the US, allowing it access to 17 military bases in Sweden.
Sweden’s long and rich history with civil society, particularly pacificatory organisations, has undergone significant changes since February 2022, as I document in recent research. My study draws on semi-structured interviews with seven peace organisations that vary in size and public visibility. All remain anonymous for fear of backlash. My findings reveal democratic backsliding on several fronts.
We are against NATO, we have also for decades warned about the Russian authoritarian regime and the war crimes that have been committed, so it has been demanded that something should have been done about it. Sometimes in the debate, it is as if one cannot… be against NATO without the conclusion being that you are for Putin
Anonymous representative from a Swedish peace organisation
I found similar testimonies from almost all the organisations interviewed; evidence that criticising Sweden’s military policies on Ukraine invites backlash. Despite publicly advocating for Ukrainian sovereignty and rejecting Russia’s brutal warfare, detractors claim peace organisations are simply running Putin’s errands. This clearly undermines deliberative processes.
The political sociologist Yagil Levy has outlined the necessary criteria for deliberative debate on defence and military policies. One important criterion is that dominant discourses should not impede political opposition. But the organisations I interviewed suggest that supporting Ukrainian sovereignty through military means dictates the public debate. Either you support Ukraine with military means, or you are Putin’s useful idiot.
If we have written one debate article, there may be criticism directed at the editorial teams for including this
Anonymous representative from a Swedish peace organisation
One more of Levy’s criteria is that alternative policies to military action must be available in public debate. Yet the organisations' testimonies portray a very different reality. Articles in mainstream media that present both sides of the debate attract public criticism. This makes media outlets reluctant to publish such content. The result is that peace organisations must rely on their own communication platforms to present their side of the debate.
Another outcome of the rapid militarisation is that television debates and media coverage are disproportionately weighted toward military solutions. The organisations cite instances in which seven or eight defence-sector representatives appeared, yet only one advocated for peace without military means. This shrunken media space indicates that mainstream media are reluctant to present alternative policies to military ones.
My research also investigates the conditions under which the withdrawal of financial support for peace organisations operates, on the premise that civil society organisations are crucial to deliberative democracy.
Mark E. Warren argues that there are three pillars by which a robust civil society contributes to a more democratic society: developmental effects, political autonomy, and institutional influence. For Sweden's peace organisations, a changed public debate climate and the withdrawal of resources have obstructed their operations.
I had to let go of 75% of the employees from one day to the next. We were about nine people, and now there are probably 3.5 maybe? We can no longer take care of all those we could before, such as volunteers, in our activities. So everything has kind of been forced to shrink
Anonymous representative from a Swedish peace organisation
This statement reflects many peace organisations' experiences since Sweden's accelerated militarisation. Reduced activities significantly undermine organisations’ capacity to develop citizens’ ability to engage in decision-making and form autonomous judgments. Political autonomy is also under threat. The withdrawal of funding has dismantled the social infrastructure these organisations provide for citizens to try out ideas and form opinions.
Personnel and resource cuts undermine the Swedish peace movement’s ability to provide forums for non-military engagement. More broadly, they diminish the role of civil society organisations in fostering a more democratic society, reducing citizens' opportunities to influence institutions and the state.
The Swedish government's dismantling of civil society organisations, the removal of power resources and actors, and the shrinking of public debate space result in a less democratic Sweden. Applying these insights to the volatile geopolitical situation in Europe and to the increasing distrust of the US's NATO defence in Sweden, we can draw two conclusions.
First, to hold institutions and those in power accountable, we need to strengthen civil society during periods of global authoritarianism.
Second, the democratic functions of non-governmental organisations, especially the pacificatory ones, extend beyond upholding pluralism and deliberation. Jan Teorell et al’s extensive quantitative research on under-investigated factors that sustain democratic peace concludes that pacificatory organisations exert a strong influence on maintaining it.
In short, if you want peace, whether or not you believe that military rearmament is the path, that should not impede civil society’s role in upholding crucial democratic functions.
