Page:The Constitution of Sweden (2016).pdf/10



If a state is to function effectively, its citizens need to agree on the rules of the game. If these are observed, decisions are perceived to be legitimate. The rule of law is a precondition for legal security and the durability of the form of government. This has applied in Sweden throughout the ages. Ever since the time of the Uppland Law in the late 13th century, the rule has been ‘Land shall with Law be built’.

It is natural that the basic rules about how political decisions shall be taken should be assembled in a document or statute. Virtually every country has such a document, often known as a constitution: in Sweden the term is fundamental law. There are exceptions, however, of which Britain is the best known. The British rules of the game are to be found in separate acts of parliament and in unwritten law, that is to say, in practice.

In most countries statutes are assembled in a single document. Sweden, however, has four fundamental laws: the Instrument of Government (IG), the Act of Succession (AS), the Freedom of the Press Act (FPA), and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression (FLFE). The central provisions are contained in the Instrument of Government, and this corresponds most closely to the constitutions of other countries.

It is necessary, then, to agree on the rules of the game. When the present Instrument of Government was adopted, it was also widely felt that broad support was desirable on the most fundamental questions. Almost every country has constitutional rules designed to encourage such broad support. Amending the Constitution calls for a more complex, and frequently a more difficult, procedure than amending an ordinary act of law, for example approval by two Parliaments with a general election intervening, a qualified majority in Parliament, a referendum requiring a certain minimum level of support for the proposal or some combination of these conditions. The idea behind these rules which prescribe a more complex, or at least a more protracted procedure, is that a proposed amendment should have broad support if it is to be adopted, that time for reflection is necessary, and that it is reasonable for the people to have an opportunity to express their views, either in an election or through a referendum. Constitutional change should be ‘hedged about with onerous formalities, necessary to deter ill-considered experiments and forestall hasty decisions’, as the 1809 Committee on the Constitution put it.

The rules in a constitution specify the bodies which take decisions, that is to say, the people through their elected representatives in Parliament or through a referendum, the Head of State, the Government, the judiciary, and the administrative authorities. They also specify how these bodies are formed and how functions are distributed among them. These basic rules of the game create the conditions that give legitimacy to Rh