Confidence has been swept away

When the Catastrophe Commission says that Prime Minister Göran Persson is “ultimately responsible” for the failures in Sweden’s response to last year’s Asian tsunami, these are not empty words. For while many people were shown to have failed, the most conspicuous failure of all was the failure of leadership at the very top.

Persson has said that he takes full responsibility for the government’s failure to react quickly to the disaster that was unfolding for thousands of Swedes in Thailand on December 26th last year.

This is a step in the right direction, but it appears clear that neither he nor any of his ministers are going to resign, despite being on the receiving end of what most commentators agree is the most damning report ever written about a sitting Swedish government.

The report shows that the government had ignored repeated calls for an organisation to be set up to deal with major disasters involving Swedes abroad. It also paints a picture of a rudderless government and civil service unable to comprehend the scale of the disaster with which they were dealing.

The government was rudderless because the two people who should have been giving it direction – Göran Persson and Foreign Minister Laila Freivalds – seemed to be more concerned that their Christmas break should carry on uninterrupted than to get back to work and show some leadership.

For all the justifiable criticism of middle-ranking civil servants, cabinet secretaries and state secretaries, what was sorely needed to get the Swedish rescue effort off the ground was a prime minister leading from the front.

At times of crisis, a leader is needed not for their expertise in disaster relief, but to bang heads together, ask questions and to give a wake up call to those who need to act. This is particularly true for Persson, whose premiership has been marked by a remarkable centralising of decision-making to his own office.

But rather than giving a wake-up call, Göran Persson and Laila Freivalds were caught sleeping. They have repeatedly said that they were not given information by their civil servants. But the first report that a tsunami had hit Thailand came from news agency TT at 5.42 am, which said that many tourists were missing in Phuket.

Given all the information publicly available about the number of flights that go to the Phuket region from Sweden, it doesn’t take a genius to work out that many Swedes could be among the missing tourists.

I remember seeing a similar report in the early morning on the BBC, and my first thought was ‘don’t a lot of Swedes go to Thailand for Christmas?’

Persson and Freivalds should have been asking themselves the same thing, quizzing their civil servants, calling ambassadors, foreign leaders, getting their aides to find information from tour operators.

Yet a full twelve hours later the government was still carrying on with Christmas holidays as usual (and Freivalds was on her way to her now notorious theatre visit), while other much less badly affected countries were sending aid to the crisis area.

There is plenty in this report to suggest that Freivalds, or even Persson, should resign. Persson’s public apology certainly seems utterly insufficient.

But the depressing truth of the matter is that neither will go unless they are pushed out kicking and screaming. The left-wing majority in parliament suggests that if the opposition brings forward a no confidence motion, it will rub salt into existing wounds, but fail to inflict any further damage on Persson.

But it is clear that this episode has deprived Sweden of reasons to have confidence in its leaders.

Discuss this topic!


Editorial: Should suspects keep their privacy?

Foreigners reading Swedish newspapers – including The Local – are often surprised by the way crime is reported here. In particular, the Swedish convention of almost never naming suspects is something that we, as British and American journalists based in Sweden, constantly grapple with.

The names are usually taken out of the reporting by journalists, not by police or the courts. When a case comes to court, we get documents from the court detailing the full names and addresses of the accused, and the names of the victims.

This leads to tortuous constructions, such as “the 33-year old man,” being repeated throughout an article (something that gets worse when a suspect celebrates a birthday between committing the alleged crime and coming to trial – “the 33-year old, who was 32 when he committed the crime”).

The following paragraphs from the press code are particularly important in explaining why journalists tend to refrain from publishing names of suspects:

“Consider carefully the consequences of publishing a name if that can harm people. Refrain from such a publication unless it is obviously in the public interest to publish the name.”

“If a name is not given avoid publishing photos or information on job, age, title nationality, gender or something else that would make identification possible.”

At the moment we have chosen to follow Swedish practice of not publishing this information, although we tend to push this as far in favour of naming the suspects as possible. Therefore, when large parts of the Swedish press were naming ‘Haga Man’, Niklas Lindgren (after he admitted to the attacks), we also started to name him. TT and SVT still aren’t naming him, but this in our view is excessively cautious.

There are plenty of good arguments in favour of naming suspects and convicted prisoners: the basic principle that journalists should provide as much relevant information as possible in an impartial manner being the most significant of these. American journalists visiting Sweden are often particularly insistent that this point should be considered before all others.

A point often used in Britain to justify identifying suspects is that naming someone arrested and charged with a crime removes suspicion from anyone who might have been questioned earlier in the investigation. People’s identities are usually only kept secret when to identify them would risk identifying the victim – in incest or rape cases, for instance.

Another factor to take into consideration is that justice should be conducted as far as possible in the public arena. People are charged and prosecuted in the name of the Swedish people – that justice is seen to be done is important.

On a practical level, people have made the point that naming a suspect on the loose can help police track him down. There is also the advantage that using names and pictures can jog the memories of witnesses.

All this can arguably be done without sensationalizing a case, although the tabloids will inevitably be tempted to do so.

Indeed, in some cases not naming people involved in a case can lead to greater sensationalism. Take the example of the Knutby murders: did referring to Åsa Waldau as ‘the Bride of Christ’, to Helge Fossmo as ‘the Pastor’ and to Sara Svensson as ‘the Nanny’ actually turn a case about the deaths of two women into a soap opera?

In fact, are we looking at the wrong issue? Is it perhaps more worrying that crimes are reported here in every sensational detail (names apart) before they have even reached court. Does this detract from the respect that should be accorded to the judicial process.

The argument against naming the people charged is simple: they are innocent until proven guilty, and mud sticks. Is it in the interests of justice that someone perceived in the public eye to be guilty but found not guilty by the courts should have to live out their lives in fear of reprisals?

A powerful argument, and one that cannot be refuted, except to say that the combined weight of the arguments in favour of naming might balance this out.

Ultimately, though, there is an intrinsic value for newspapers in following the press code, even if this code might sometimes be found wanting. But it might be healthy for the Swedish media to reappraise whether the current rules are really in the public interest.

Discuss this topic