Sweden has a reputation of being one of the most (class and) gender equal countries in the World. But that has not always been the case. According to general knowledge of most Swedes, all adult women gained their voting rights in the 1919 constitutional amendment, which they could apply in the 1921 general election. Since this is the most common message in both education and massmedia, it may imply that all men had had those rights for a long time — which, of course, is not true.
Fact is, men received the same rights just one year ahead, i.e. in 1918. But not even that is absolutely correct, since it turned out that mens’ voting rights were more restricted due to special requirements. Moreover, it would take until 1937 until prisoners (i.e. mostly men) got voting rights. The question of voting rights thus seems more complex than is most often presented to the broader public.
To put the question of gender equality into a historical and contextual perspective on this matter (for a change), let us review the history of voting rights in Sweden.
The 1800s
In 1866, the Parliament of Estates was dissolved and replaced by a bicameral Parliament. Still, in the end of the century, only a fraction of the population had voting rights (to the second chamber), since the rights were restricted to men who was 21+ years old and who had
- an annaul income of at least 800 rix, or
- estates tax-valued to at least 1 000 rix, or
- an agricultural property lease, valued to a certain amount, and had
- payed tax for at least 10 years.
Due to these requirements, only some 20 % of the adult male population had voting rights in 1866. Also legally aged, but still unmarried or widdowed, women and also companies could participate in the municipal election from 1862 if they fulfilled the requirements. Moreover, there were equal voting rights to the second chamber, but in the municipal election the number of votes per voter were based on taxed income — thus a pretty skewed system of suffrage power. In 1868, a restriction of unequal votepower was therefore introduced in the cities — maximum 100 votes per voter, or 2 % of the total votes. Although, no such restrictions were introduced on the countryside, where the vast majority still lived.
The ground of the voting system design was to cater high tax-payers, so they in higher degree could influence what the taxes were aimed for. Another motive was to strive for society stability, since it was assumed that too big a difference in economical resources vs political responsibility could be a potential danger. But the design also resulted in loss of voting rights in times of economical crises. Therefore the short-term political and economical power was tightly connected.
The 1900s
In the beginning of the 20th century, there was a lively debate regarding the issue of voting rights in Sweden due to a suffrage movement. In 1908, about 60 % of the male population had voting rights, mostly due to increased wages. In 1901 a restriction of unequal voting power was also introduced in countryside areas (like in the cities 33 years before) in the municipal election — a maximum of 5 000 votes per voter, or 10 % of the total votes, which still was quite a skewed system of power.
One important cause to the suffrage movement was the introduction of compulsary military service in 1901 for men. Of course it seemed quite unfair having the obligation to risk ones life for the country, while not having the most basic democratic rights. Those rights were constituted during 1907–09, with equal votes to the second chamber but a 40-grade income scale in the municipal elections, while the voting age was raised to 24 years. Moreover, there were still some requirements: completed military service, and tax being payed both to the state and the municipality during three years before the election. Also married women received voting rights in the municipality election (besides unmarried and widdowed women since before) — while the income requirement was fulfilled. Companies lost their voting rights, while prisoneHow to adequately Show Up as an INFJ… or as anyone?rs and those in poorhouses were also excluded. The constitutional amendments were ratified in 1909, and applied to the second chamber election in 1911. Although the new system gave voting rights to a majority of the productive male population, still some 283 000 men were not allowed to vote.
Finally, in 1918 universal and equal suffrage in municipality elections was introduced for men. The year after, 1919, universal and equal suffrage was introduced for both gender to both second chamber and municipality elections. Voting age was set to 23 years, and still there were requirements of tax being payed during at least one of three years before the election. Moreover, bankruptcy was a cause for exclusion, and so was declared legally incompetence, long periods of poorhouse support, and legal condemnation. Thus, fulfilling the tax requirements all adult women could apply their recently received voting rights on the second chamber election in 1921. Meanwhile, all adult men also had the same rights, but with the exception of the still added military service requirement.
Athough the new requirements were easing the old ones, about 4 % of the adult population had no voting rights — predominantly men due to the military service requirement or tax-payment. In some cities, though, about 25 % of the men were excluded. Successively, the requirements were repealed: completed military service in 1922, in 1937 prisoners (i.e. mostly men) got voting rights, and so did those with poorhouse support in 1945. That year also the bancryptcy (i.e. mostly men) exclusion was repealed. Finally, in 1989 all Swedes from the legal age of 18 recieved voting rights as the concept of legally incompentence was abolished.
Discussion and conclusion
Womens’ political history is not just a “darkshadowed” one
Of course, this short layman summary of the suffrage development in Sweden does not include all aspects that may have occurred. Neither does it contain facts about the historical and contextual state of affairs before 1866, but it seems that women did participate in the general elections during at least the first half of the 18th century. Eventually though, they successively lost those rights in 1772. [2] Thus, it would take almost 150 years to fully regain them. But obviously, the history of women’s participation in political elections was not as a “darkshadowed story” as may be assumed from all the attention being drawn to the circumstances in 1919 and 1921!
The matter of social class – tax “givers” and “receivers”
Moreover, in contrast to the womens’ suffrage rights development, it is quite hard to find any detailed texts addressing mens’ ditto. Perhaps it is not very far-fetched then to assume that all men had the same rights through all the ages. Which of course is not true even in rather modern times — as being noted above. It has striked us during the research on this topic that the suffrage rights have changed from time to time, including and excluding different groups in the society and skewing the number of votes per voter — generally favouring certain socioeconomical (family)units and their power. Intuitively, perhaps this sheds some light upon why married women were still incapacitated until 1921 as they married [4] — which would cause husbands from predominantly wealthy families to gain even more economical and political power, instead of sharing it with their spouses? May we here hence the social class ladder (of some few men) as being the main oppressive force on both men and women, rather than gender? For sure the rationale of politically empowering (through taxes) economical “givers” while the “receivers” were left powerless, was at hand — which also may have reflected the rationale for gender roles within marriages. So, why would the male providers let their receiving spouses vote, when other receivers in the society were denied?
Disposable males and worried times paved the way for women (mostly)
As a coincident, “the disposable males” theme popped up right in front of our eyes during the research on this topic. As mens’ rights activivists like e.g. Dr Warren Farrell, Paul Elam and Karen Straughan have pointed out many times before, the matter of disposable males are so ingrained to most of us that we do not even think about it. Nevertheless, it seems like it played an important role for the development of mens’ suffrage in Sweden after the introduction in 1901 of the compulsary military service for all men — although it took 17 years before they were offered… yet another bribe to die in 1918. A matter of fact that the womens’ suffrage movement probably could take advantage on, claiming equal rights with men… while suppressing the added men-only obligation. Of course, such unfairness could not last long, hence the requirement was withdrawn in 1922… although the compulsory military service as such remained for men only until 2010, when it was partly removed. In 2017 it was reintroduced for about 4 000 males and females each year, the mostly fit ones selected from a draft of 13 000. [4] We assume women will not be in majority… but let us save that for another article.
But it may also have been a reflection of the revolutionary years around and after World War I. In 1917 the Russian Revolution was at hand, in 1918 Sweden’s former union-partner (for 700 years) Finland was drawn into civil war, and in Germany the November Revolution broke out. Probably there were some worries also in Sweden at the time, on which the Government had to act wisely and rightfully. A situation that may have served both Swedish men and women.
Bli den förste att kommentera