Response to interpellation 2024/25:139 on cultural canon and national minorities
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the development of a cultural canon and the dialogue with national minorities and the indigenous people. M argues that the government wants an open process where the committee follows directives on dialogue 1 and that the investigation should maintain an arm's length distance from politics 2. M believes that the government is clear about the dialogue 3, that the department has ensured that the committee follows the directives 3 and that it is the government's responsibility to build trust 4. M emphasizes that national minorities are important and that consultation is an important part of the trust-building work 4. S argues that the investigator has acted in violation of the minority law and the Council of Europe's conventions 5 6. S believes that the investigator's statements damage trust 5 7 8.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! [The member] has asked me if I intend to take any general measures in light of the investigator's statements in the media. The question is posed in the context of the meeting that the committee, tasked with producing a Swedish cultural canon, had with representatives for the national minorities.
In the development of a cultural canon, it has been central for the government that the work is carried out in a way that guarantees an arm's length distance from politics. The committee conducts its work independently, but obviously based on the directives that the government has decided upon. The directives include creating an open and inclusive process in the development of a Swedish cultural canon.
It is explicitly stated in the directives that the committee shall have a dialogue with the indigenous people, the Sámi, and the organizations of the other national minorities. I assume that the committee is working in accordance with the directives that the government has decided upon.
The history and culture of the national minorities are a natural part of our common cultural heritage. Influence and participation are central to minority policy, and I see an opportunity to discuss the issue further in the consultations I have with the minority organizations now during the autumn.
Mirja Räihä (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Culture, for the answer! I would perhaps still have liked a slightly more detailed answer.
Two weeks ago, I opened Dagens Nyheter with my morning coffee. I must say that I choked on my coffee, and Kulturkanon became a different kind of Kulturkanon that morning. It is, of course, about the major interview they conducted with the government's investigator.
The Minority Act states with all clarity that the national minorities shall have the opportunity for influence in matters concerning them. A Swedish cultural canon obviously has an impact on all five national minorities. The representatives of the minority groups also have great knowledge of cultures that have long existed in Sweden, so this dialogue is very important.
The Minority Language Act turns 25 next year, and it will be celebrated. Among other things, Dagens Nyheter will have a full supplement in January to commemorate this. It concerns the fact that Sweden ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages 24 years ago.
The government's directive for the cultural canon states that the committee preparing such a canon shall have a dialogue with the indigenous people, the Sámi, and the organizations of the other national minorities. Now, the national minorities were invited to round-table discussions, but the government-appointed investigator informed the representatives then that he is doing this because it is in the directive, not because he wants to himself. He would not have done it otherwise either. Furthermore, he told the group that he was more interested in discussing with intelligent individuals than with representatives for different interests.
He was also not interested in a canon that provides full representativeness to all different groups. But that is not what the minority representatives are looking for either. They are looking for dialogue and perhaps do not need to sit in any expert group or anything of the sort. On the other hand, they have a knowledge of minority cultures that it would have been very important to be able to discuss.
It gets even worse in the long interview that Dagens Nyheter conducted. According to the interview with the investigator, everyone has the same opportunities - from Sami people to stamp collectors or from Tornedalians to bandy enthusiasts. He also believes that minority policy should be abolished and that it all could be shut down. National minorities, according to the investigator, have no special status in relation to other people.
At the same time, the Minister for Culture has said in several debates with me that the government prioritizes minority policy. No matter how you turn and twist this, it is the government that appoints an investigator, and in that way, they also become a representative of the government. One cannot be a completely free soul in their work.
The way the minority groups were now addressed makes many believe that it is the government's view on the minorities that permeates the investigation and that it is that view that appears in the interview. The meeting that the representatives of the minority groups were invited to, however, is not in accordance with either the law or the Council of Europe's convention on the protection of national minorities.
My question to the Minister for Culture – who actually answered in a more detailed manner during the question period than in the interpellation response – is therefore still: Does the Minister intend to take any general measures in light of the investigator's statements in the media? Or has the Minister perhaps already done so?
Kristoffer Lindberg (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Mirja Räihä for a very important interpellation!
When the government and the Sweden Democrats sat down in the fine halls of Tidö Castle to negotiate their policy, one of the parts was the introduction of a cultural canon. The Minister for Culture has since appointed an inquiry. The directive clearly states that the investigator shall have a dialogue with the indigenous people, the Sámi, and the organizations of the other national minorities, just as we heard in the previous contribution. Good so, for in the Minority Act it is stated that national minorities shall be provided with influence in matters concerning them, which one may well say that the preparation and implementation of a state cultural canon does to the highest degree.
Representatives for the Swedish minority groups have now expressed that the meeting with the Minister for Culture's investigator was a great disappointment. They say: "It appeared as a way from the intellectual elite to once again point at us national minorities who did not form enough." These words thus come from representatives for the national minorities after the much-publicized meeting with Minister for Culture Parisa Liljestrand's investigator Lars Trägårdh.
An investigation is a state, albeit temporary, authority. I cannot help but ask: At what other authority, when contacting representatives for the citizens, who are indeed indirectly your principals, would one meet people by saying that one meets them because one is forced to? Would any other authority inform representatives for the national minorities that one is more interested in intelligent individuals than representatives for different interests?
The investigator has later commented on the reactions following the meeting and said: "All this stuff with national minorities should be scrapped at once."
What does the minister say to the Sámi, to the Swedish-speaking Finns, to the Roma, and to the Tornevians? What does the Minister for Culture say to the Jews in Sweden about this statement?
I do not intend to discuss the existence or non-existence of a state cultural canon in this debate. But I note that for those who stand behind the introduction of a state cultural canon, one of the arguments seems to be to precisely increase social cohesion by creating clear common cultural reference frames.
My follow-up question to the Minister for Culture is therefore: Does the Minister for Culture consider that her investigators' actions increase or decrease the conditions for social cohesion in Sweden?
The investigator further states that "minorities are welcome to submit proposals and photographs of a bit of everything." He further says: "I have no preferential treatment for Tornedalians over bandy lovers." Now, I am admittedly a bandy lover myself, but this subject is too serious to be joked away.
The question is: Is this the government's view on the national minorities and the commitments Sweden has pledged itself to through the signing of the Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the Minority Languages Convention?
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! What is the government's position on this? It is a question that both the interpellor and Member Lindberg are asking. It is perfectly clear: It is what is stated in the directives that is the government's view on what a cultural canon should be.
A Swedish cultural canon should be a living and useful tool for education, community, and inclusion. The purpose is to make Swedish culture accessible to more people. I have said that from day one, and I will continue to say it.
Based on this, the government has developed directives, and it is those directives that the committee is now to follow. It is also the case – both the interpellator and Member Lindberg know – that once the government has appointed an inquiry, it is not to interfere with it. That would be political steering at a level that I do not believe either the Moderates or the Social Democrats would appreciate.
That is why it is also important that we continue to safeguard the principle of arm's-length distance, perhaps more in this project than in any other investigation previously, precisely to ensure that the investigation will be a source of knowledge and accessibility for more.
With that said, it appears from the directives that the committee shall create an open and inclusive process in the development of a Swedish cultural canon and have a dialogue with both the indigenous people, the Sámi, as well as other of our national minorities' organizations. It is quite obvious from the reactions of the representatives who were present at the meeting that they perceived that was not the case and that the committee's chairman has expressed himself inappropriately in contact with parts of the national minorities.
Regarding the directives, it is extremely important and central for the government to ensure that the directives are followed in all investigations that are appointed and that are ongoing. Therefore, a meeting has also taken place between my State Secretary and the committee's chairman, where they have discussed the interpretation of the directives. The current perception is that there is a consensus and that we agree on the premises for the work ahead.
Mirja Räihä (S)
Mr. Speaker! It is very good that the minister's State Secretary has had this conversation. However, I have a reflection regarding this. Here, one initiates the relationship with the representatives of the minority groups by saying: I don't really want to talk to you, but I have to. Then the State Secretary has a meeting with the same investigator and says: You have to. How then does the minister believe that any trust will be built up between the investigator and the minority groups? I believe it will be quite difficult.
I know that there are many from the minority groups listening to this debate. They may experience it as if one has now grabbed him by the ear, so now it will be fine. However, the trust is gone.
I myself belong to a minority group. I came here in 1976 as a 17-year-old labor immigrant to Marabou. That was my path to the Riksdag. The Finnish group has been here at least since the 1600s and the forest Finns. There is even a national dish in Värmland, Mr. Speaker, which is Finnish from the start. It is called nävgröt. The Jews have always been here, and naturally the indigenous people, the Sámi and the Roma. The minority groups have a long cultural history in Sweden, much longer than just my minority group's history.
It is the reason why it is felt in the whole heart to be treated in the way one was treated here: I am just as happy to talk with stamp collectors or bandy lovers as with Sami and Tornevians! Here lies my fear.
I know that the minister has received a letter from the minority groups. I hope they have received an answer to it.
I completely agree that one must maintain an arm's-length distance. This debate is not actually about interfering in the investigative work, but about a government's investigator having behaved terribly clumsily towards the groups that were called to this meeting. That is what I am talking about, not about interfering in the investigation. I absolutely do not do that. I safeguard the dialogue that the minority groups are to have and which has now been somewhat shot down.
A continuing question is, of course: How can the Ministry of Culture try to rebuild trust between the investigation and the national minorities? How can one receive tips that there is a Sámi artist who has designed the pink ribbon this year, or that there is a Finnish tango orchestra that has played to full houses for 20 years with as many Swedes as Finns in the audience? The investigator needs to find out such things rather than talking about bandy and stamp collecting. Building trust is important.
Kristoffer Lindberg (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for her clarifications. I believe they are very important.
I assume that the Minister for Culture understands that many people perceive that what the government's investigators express is also what the government stands behind, and that it requires immense clarity from the Minister for Culture to clarify how things actually stand. Part of this is the debate here today.
The Minister for Culture has previously stated that the committee conducts its work independently based on the directives that the government has decided. There is nothing strange about that. That is exactly how it should be, and the Minister for Culture also says that here. But does the minister consider that the way her investigators addressed the national minorities, as well as the attitude towards the national minorities that he has expressed in the media, is in accordance with the directives that the government decided? And when the minister's investigators inform the national minorities that dialogue is not relevant, is that in accordance with the directives that the government decided?
In the aftermath of this, one of the members of the investigation committee, Marlen Eskander, has also left the committee, citing that she feels the interpretation of the assignment has become too subjective. Again: Does the minister believe that the investigator is acting in accordance with the directives that the government has decided? If not, how can the government ensure that this happens in the continued work? Will there be more meetings for the State Secretary to take, or are there other things that can be done to ensure that the directives are followed and that the damage this has caused is repaired?
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! Just as I said in my previous speech, it is quite obvious from the reactions of the national minority organizations that were present at the meeting that the chair did not express themselves respectfully and that the response was such that one did not feel seen. It was a very unpleasant handling.
It is naturally not reasonable for it to be that way, and that is why the government is so clear in the directives that there shall be a dialogue with our minority groups and with the indigenous people, the Sámi, in the development of a canon. It is specifically stated in the directives that this shall occur.
It is clear that I take seriously the criticism that has emerged regarding the committee's compliance with the directives. That is why we from the department's side have chosen to have a meeting to ensure that the committee also continues to work according to the directives that the government has set up, that we are in agreement and that there is a consensus regarding what the directives mean. This has also occurred, and therefore I feel confident right now that the committee will continue to work based on the directives that the government has given for the work of developing a cultural canon.
Mirja Räihä (S)
Mr. Speaker! Marlen Eskander writes in her email to the Ministry of Culture as follows: "This decision has not been easy, but after careful consideration, I believe it is the right step to take. The reason I am leaving the assignment is for principled reasons. One of the greatest challenges, throughout the entire work process, has been the difficulties that arise when the directive from the government has been deviated from."
So, it is not just about what happened, but it is also about the fact that the directives have been deviated from for a longer period. Additionally, a secretary has also left the investigation, and it is very unfortunate that this is happening. Is it the case that the reference to the directive not being followed concerns precisely the treatment of and the lack of dialogue with the minority groups?
Of course, it is the case that a response has been received from the Ministry of Culture stating that they think it is very unfortunate. I can continue to ask, even though the minister has now finally answered questions such as whether conversations have been had with the investigator. Yes, conversations have been had with the investigator; however, it was the State Secretary who had them. But how does one intend to continue building trust between minority groups and the Ministry of Culture? It is, so to speak, a must, because it is still the case that the investigator is, somewhere, a representative appointed by the government. It is the government that appoints the investigator, and it is the government that dismisses an investigator.
I am convinced that there are people following this debate, because this is of very great interest to all those who belong to a national minority group. They are, of course, waiting to receive answers. Is it worthwhile to attend the next meeting when one is called? I actually believe that is the question one asks oneself as a representative for these groups.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! I think, believe, and hope that the interpellator feels that I have been clear in my answers to her questions so far. But I will also answer the final question, that is, how one should build up trust.
It is naturally a task that now lies in the hands of the committee. The Ministry and I have ensured that there is a consensus on what applies when we mean that the committee should follow the directives, and that there is a consensus on what the directives actually mean. But I also believe that this building of continued trust is something that we need to work on, not just from the committee's side when it comes to the development of a canon. That work lies with them, but we as the government naturally also need to build trust. Even in this house, in the Riksdag, it is something one needs to work on continuously, I believe.
Our national minorities are extremely important, and just as the interpellator previously explained, our histories align in a very fine way going back in time. It is something that I believe we all have a responsibility to further inform about, that is to say, it is about our common history.
That is why I also have recurring consultations with all minority organizations to talk about the conditions for the minorities. It is about both how to work forward and about what difficulties and problems people encounter in their everyday lives, as well as how we can best handle them. The consultations are, of course, an extremely important part of the ongoing trust-building work. I look forward to the consultations, which I will actually start as early as this Friday, with one of the minorities.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.