Today the alcohol monopolies in the Nordic countries (Sweden, Finland, Norway) are under strong attack by the European Union. In order to analyze and understand this process of change it is important to look back on the origin of the alcohol restriction systems and monopolies from an historical perspective. This article deals with the making of the Swedish restriction and monopoly system in the early 20th century. The period from January 1914 to August 1920 was characterized by a bitter conflict in political interests over the prohibition issue. More and more organizations entered the struggle about alcohol, while simultaneously the question was increasingly interwoven with the more general change in society and the struggle for democracy and universal suffrage. The political discussion of the time about the question of a general prohibition on alcohol illustrates in a clear, concrete way how the historical development of the political culture influenced the conduct of the political actors. The struggle between the prohibition movement and in particular the interest organizations of the employers and employees in the alcohol industry was a struggle between powerful special interests. The question comes down to how intense conflicts between strong intersts can be resolved in the Swedish political system. We must ascribe decisive significance to the fact that the political actors were influenced by the political culture in which they operated. If we look at the prohibition issue in its societal context, then, the result, according to my overall view, is that the Swedish culture of political consensus - with an emphasis on the employment aspect - had no room for such a radical and controversial solution as prohibition. In a political culture characterized by compromises, political consensus, a holistic view of society, and with the influence of strong, well-organized special interests in the corporative administrative system, the complicated and politically unique Bratt restriction-system was the Swedish solution to the problem of prohibition. It was not politically possible to impose prohibition, which would lead in particular to large-scale unemployment, nor was it politically possible to pursue a liberal alcohol policy dominated by private profit motives. The compromise between the special interests left room for the restriction system, and the employment question must be seen as having been decisive for the attitude towards the prohibition issue and the holistic view of society. It is obvious that the temperance question, like many other social issues, was seen as a state interest in the years around the turn of the century. There has been general talk of the active state, which in the era of organized capitalism increasingly changed character by not being confined solely to the public sphere but also intervening in the private sphere. The temperance question is a distinct example of the increased ambitions of the government in the field of social policy. It is obvious that a restrictive and fiscal alcohol policy requires an intervening state with strong popular support. Therefore it is likely that there is no possibility of maintaining monopolies and restriction systems in the new political culture - with politically weaker nation-states - which is on the way to being created in an integrated Europe. This historical reflection indicates great changes in connection with diminishing influence of the nation-state over alcohol policy in the political arena.
Patterned pogroms: Patronage networks as infrastructure for electoral violence in India and Indonesia
