Syria and Sweden Case
Introduction
Syria and Sweden are countries that are steeped in history and culture, with abundant natural resources, and vibrant populations. Despite these similarities, Syria and Sweden have different constitutional experiences. The Swedish constitution offers greater protection to democratic and human rights. In contrast, the Syrian constitutional experience reveals a greater emphasis on state control, with a consequential loss to democratic and human rights.
I will provide a brief description of the history and political system of each country, and compare the main provisions of their constitutions which impact on democratic and human rights.
History and Political System of Sweden
Throughout most of Sweden’s history, the absolute monarchy was the institutional form of government. Commencing in the early 1800s, the role of the absolute monarchy began to slowly erode as the function of parliament, the Riksdag, began to increase. With the enactment of the new constitution in 1975, the monarchy lost all but its ceremonial powers (“Sweden,” n.d.). Sweden has evolved into a constitutional monarchy which is “the link between democratically elected elements of government and the monarch as a symbol and head of state” (Cane and Conaghan, n.d., para. 1).
The Swedish constitution provides for a division of functions among the three branches of government. The executive is guided by a prime minister, in consultation with department ministers who are usually chosen from parliamentary representatives. The Riksdag is the legislative branch of government. It is elected every four years. The constitution also permits the selective use of extraordinary elections and referendums. The third branch of government, the judiciary, is independent of outside influences. There are 72 district courts, six appeal courts, and one supreme court. The Swedish constitution