The Swedish Farmers’ Association (LRF) Region North recently questioned the impartiality of three civil servants leading an investigation into species protection. This sparked controversy, not because the investigators acted inappropriately, but because one had previously worked for the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation and the other two, current and former judges, had allegedly ruled against landowners in species protection cases. This incident highlights a growing societal problem: the blurring of lines between an individual’s personal history and their professional capacity, fueled by a declining understanding of the Swedish ideal of impartial civil service.
The LRF’s concern, though disavowed by their national organization, reflects a wider trend of distrust in expertise and an increasing inability to separate personal beliefs from professional conduct. This mindset assumes that personal biases inevitably taint professional judgment, making it difficult to accept that civil servants can act objectively, leaving their personal views aside. This skepticism is further amplified in a climate where individual opinions are often given equal weight to scientifically established facts, eroding trust in expert assessments. This incident serves as a microcosm of a larger societal shift where objectivity is increasingly questioned and personal narratives are prioritized.
This blurring of lines extends to the political sphere, where the Tidö parties, the current governing coalition in Sweden, have been accused of attempting to instrumentalize civil servants, selecting individuals based on perceived alignment with their political agenda. This approach undermines the core principle of an impartial civil service, where expertise and objectivity should guide policy recommendations, not political expediency. This raises concerns about the potential for political interference in objective investigations and the erosion of public trust in the integrity of government processes.
The cases of economists John Hassler and Joakim Ruist illustrate the potential pitfalls of this approach. Hassler, known for his skepticism towards Swedish climate policy, was commissioned to conduct a rapid review of green policies. Surprisingly, he delivered strong recommendations for climate action, later expressing disappointment at the government’s slow progress. Similarly, Ruist, whose work on the costs of refugee immigration had been lauded by anti-immigration groups, was tasked with investigating increased repatriation. Contrary to expectations, his thorough investigation found no effective methods to significantly increase emigration and even cautioned against increasing repatriation grants due to potential negative impacts on integration.
These examples demonstrate that even individuals with pre-existing views can and do act professionally when tasked with an objective assessment. Both Hassler and Ruist, despite their prior stances, conducted their investigations with integrity and delivered recommendations based on evidence, not ideology. This underscores the importance of trusting in the professionalism of civil servants and allowing them to perform their duties without undue political pressure or preconceived notions about their biases. The assumption should be that they will act impartially, based on their professional expertise, rather than their personal history.
The controversy surrounding the species protection investigation, coupled with the experiences of Hassler and Ruist, highlights the vital importance of upholding the principle of an impartial civil service. It is crucial to recognize and respect the ability of professionals to separate their personal views from their professional duties. This requires a shift away from the current climate of suspicion and a renewed emphasis on valuing expertise and objectivity. The alternative – a politicized civil service where appointments are based on ideology rather than competence – risks undermining public trust and hindering effective policy-making. The LRF incident, therefore, serves as a stark reminder of the need to defend the integrity of the Swedish civil service and resist the temptation to conflate personal history with professional conduct.
