The Swedish anarchist magazine Brand, established in 1898, has lost its cultural journal funding from the Swedish Arts Council. This decision follows comments made by Alexander Christiansson, cultural policy spokesperson for the Sweden Democrats party, during a parliamentary hearing in November. Christiansson cited Brand as an example of an undemocratic publication that should not receive state funding, sparking a controversy over political influence on cultural funding decisions.
Christiansson celebrated the funding cut on X (formerly Twitter), proclaiming it a ”victory.” This elicited criticism from various quarters, with some accusing him of undermining the principle of arm’s length distance between politics and culture. Dagens ETC’s editor-in-chief, Andreas Gustavsson, questioned when Sweden’s publishers would ”realize they are under attack.” Brand’s editor, Mathias Wåg, acknowledged the seeming correlation between Christiansson’s remarks and the funding cut, while also expressing concern about the perceived politicization of cultural funding.
The Swedish Arts Council firmly denies any political pressure influenced their decision. Ingrid Skare, head of grants for independent art and literature, emphasized that the decision was based solely on a thorough assessment of the application against their criteria. She stated that concerns about the quality of Brand had been raised for several years, culminating in a more negative evaluation this year. While acknowledging Brand’s historical contribution to public debate, Skare maintained the decision was driven by quality concerns and necessary budget reallocations. Many other cultural journals also received reduced funding.
Wåg disputes the Arts Council’s assessment, describing it as vague and subjective. He argues that Brand’s content and editorial direction haven’t changed significantly, suggesting instead that societal perceptions of what constitutes controversial content have shifted. He links the funding cut to a broader trend of decreased support for certain cultural activities, study associations, and media outlets, attributing this to an increasing politicization of culture where funding decisions are based on perceived ideological alignment rather than cultural diversity.
Wåg speculates that Brand’s thematic issue on the Antifascist Action (AFA), a leftist network that has advocated violence against right-wing extremists, might have played a role in the funding decision. This issue, published last year, featured contributions from AFA members and triggered a backlash from right-wing extremist groups. Christiansson specifically referred to Brand’s ”close ties with AFA” during the parliamentary hearing. Despite the Arts Council’s denial, the timing and context of the decision inevitably fuel suspicions of political influence.
Culture Minister Parisa Liljestrand reiterated the principle of arm’s length distance, emphasizing that politicians should not decide which publications receive funding. She stated that the purpose of state grants is to promote diversity, quality, and in-depth analysis within the cultural sector, with freedom of expression and open debate being central tenets. The government currently sees no reason to alter its funding policies. Christiansson, while acknowledging his inability to directly influence the Arts Council’s decisions, defended his right to express his views on which publications should receive state support. He argued that the democracy clause applicable to media support should also extend to cultural journals, citing Brand’s self-identification as anarchist and their coverage of AFA as problematic. He reaffirmed the Sweden Democrats’ policy of withholding state funding from organizations opposing fundamental democratic values.
Despite the setback, Wåg remains optimistic about Brand’s future. The magazine has seen a surge in subscriptions since the controversy began, indicating strong public support. Wåg is exploring collaborative strategies with other cultural journals that have also lost funding, emphasizing a spirit of mutual support within the independent press. While the loss of funding presents a challenge, Brand intends to persevere, demonstrating the resilience of independent media in the face of political pressure and funding cuts. The case highlights the ongoing tension between promoting a diverse cultural landscape and ensuring public funds support organizations aligned with democratic principles.
