In this essay, I will compare the development as sovereign and democratic states of two of the Nordic countries, Norway and Sweden. But why exactly these neighboring states which seem to be so similar in most respects? The answer is based on different types of nation building that distinguishes two main ways of that process in Norden: One happened in Denmark and Sweden where the state evolved first and then afterwards the nation in it. The other way is just opposite with having the nation exist at first and shaping the state around it – this was the case in Norway, Finland, and Iceland. In order to get a better understanding of the nation building processes, I chose Norway and Sweden, so as to have one representing country for each type of nation building. The beginning of the discussion shall be a historical overview on Sweden and will then continue with Norway, whose history took place quite differently. I will continue with a discussion about the nation building process and finally analyze today’s situation concerning the current state of development, especially the sovereignty of the countries – are they really as sovereign as they seem to outsiders? The essay will finish with a summarizing conclusion.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Definitions
Historical and political outline of Sweden
Historical and political outline of Norway
Nation building process
Democracy and sovereignty
Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This essay aims to analyze and compare the political development of Norway and Sweden as sovereign and democratic nation-states, exploring how their distinct historical paths—specifically regarding nation-building and external influence—have shaped their modern political landscapes and approaches to sovereignty, particularly in relation to the European Union.
- Historical comparison of nation-building processes in Norway and Sweden.
- Application of Stein Rokkan’s thresholds to Nordic political development.
- Evaluation of liberal democracy features within the two states.
- Analysis of national identity formation and cultural preservation.
- Contrast of sovereignty levels through the lens of EU integration and bilateral agreements.
Excerpt from the Book
Historical and political outline of Sweden
Sweden is (together with Denmark) basically the core of the Nordic region and has been independent for a long time. Already in the 11th and 12th century, Sweden was home ruled and began its state formation, which makes it one of the oldest nation states in Europe. It soon became a political player which even turned to a medieval, imperial power across the Nordic countries. All this happened more or less the same way in Denmark and each of the two countries always wanted to be the more powerful one. An example to clarify this is the Great Nordic War from 1709 – 1720, when these states fought for the domination in the area. For several centuries, namely between the 16th and 19th, there were no other independent powers in Norden (Heidar 2004b: 9, 13).
Stein Rokkan, one of the best known political scientists from Scandinavia, developed a theory about the nation building process, which comprises four thresholds that are supposed to integrate the population into politics. According to his theory, all adults within a society have to become an active part of the political system and moreover, a country has to adopt democracy as the form of government. Unless these two factors have become true, the nation building process is not completed yet. The first threshold to be accomplished is legitimacy, so according to Rokkan this means freedom of expression. Universal suffrage is the second one, thus the people has to gain the right to political expression. At the third threshold, it is important to represent the voters in the political institutions in a fair way, which also means that any minorities existing in the particular society have the possibility to send representatives. This system is called the proportional representative electoral system. Now there is one threshold left and that one is just the logical conclusion of the former three: a parliamentary system has to be adopted in order to make the citizens able to influence politics – they have to reach the executive level (Heidar 2004b: 17).
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Outlines the scope of the comparison between Norway and Sweden, identifying the fundamental differences in their nation-building processes.
Definitions: Provides clear conceptual frameworks for essential terms like nation, state, sovereignty, and liberal democracy used throughout the analysis.
Historical and political outline of Sweden: Details Sweden's history as a long-standing independent imperial power and applies Rokkan's thresholds to its political evolution.
Historical and political outline of Norway: Examines Norway’s distinct path involving union with Denmark and Sweden and its subsequent rise to home rule and independence.
Nation building process: Explores the role of cultural identity, the arts, and the defense of national autonomy in forming cohesive societies in both countries.
Democracy and sovereignty: Compares the modern democratic structures of both nations and contrasts their divergent approaches to sovereignty and international integration.
Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, confirming that despite democratic similarities, the two nations differ significantly in their sovereignty and geopolitical positioning.
Keywords
Nordic countries, Norway, Sweden, Nation-building, Sovereignty, Liberal Democracy, Stein Rokkan, National Identity, European Union, EEA, Political Development, Independence, Social Democracy, Storting, Imperialism.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary objective of this work?
The work aims to compare the political development of Norway and Sweden, specifically focusing on how their different histories of nation-building have influenced their modern status as sovereign and democratic states.
Which theoretical framework is utilized to analyze political development?
The author uses Stein Rokkan’s theory of four thresholds (legitimacy, universal suffrage, representation, and parliamentary system) to assess the integration of the population into the political systems of both countries.
How does the author define the difference between Norwegian and Swedish nation-building?
The author notes that in Sweden, the state evolved first, followed by the nation, whereas in Norway, the nation existed first and subsequently shaped the state around it.
What is the central argument regarding sovereignty?
The argument posits that Sweden is currently more sovereign than Norway because, as an EU member, it actively participates in the decision-making processes that define its national laws, whereas Norway, despite its agreements, must follow regulations without having a vote.
What methodology is employed in this research?
The research is a comparative historical and political analysis, drawing on academic literature and established political science theories to contrast the development of two specific Nordic states.
Why are Norway and Sweden the chosen subjects for this study?
They are chosen because they represent the two distinct types of nation-building processes identified in the Nordic region, allowing for a clear comparison between an historically "imperial" state (Sweden) and an historically "predominated" state (Norway).
How does the author assess the status of Norway’s sovereignty within the EEA?
The author concludes that while Norway's sovereignty is technically preserved under international law, it experiences a functional loss because it lacks control over the EU-driven policies it is forced to implement.
What role did the Arts play in the Norwegian nation-building process?
The arts, including the work of composers like Edvard Grieg, served as a crucial vehicle for rescuing and cultivating the "original" national culture, strengthening Norwegian identity against Danish and Swedish dominance.
- Citar trabajo
- Corinna Mailänder (Autor), 2008, The development of sovereign and democratic states. Norway and Sweden, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/277950
