Buses and Politics

I will in this very first column of this page deal with something that has made me quite a bit upset. Although it concerns only my own community, it is also a universal problem: The problem of politicians running over the citizens.

This particular case concerns a bus, a line called 559. Its route starts here in Upplands-Bro, and goes to Stockholm by way of Rissne, Ulvsunda and the hospital Karolinska Sjukhuset. Recently the politicians of Stockholms Län, the Swedish equivalent of an American state, decided to drop the busline. They had to save money on something, and since Upplands-Bro is about to receive commutertrain-traffic on a quarter of an hour basis, they thought we had to lose something too. So far, we can still keep up with they're reasoning.

What the real problem lies in, is the fact that this bus has a lot of passengers, and doesn't have too many tours each day. It runs to Stockholm in the mornings, and back out in the evenings. It's a smart way for people to travel, especially those who work in Rissne or in Ulvsunda. For them, taking the commuter train will mean up to an hour more time traveling to work, one way! This isn't acceptable. Also, there are buses nearby, for instance in Jakobsberg, the neighbouring town, that don't have anywhere near as many passengers, has roughly the same route, and where the trains already are running on every quarter of an hour. Those buses aren't even considered, not even reducing the number of tours each day, even though they run more often than bus 559.

What upsets me more is the way this decision has been handled. The chair of the Regional Board, Jan Stefansson of the Christian Democratic Party, critizizes the Social Democrats for engaging in "village politics of the worst kind". What has happened is this: There are a few people in the Regional Board who come from Upplands-Bro. They, and a couple of others, protested against the decision. That made Jan Stefansson angry, apparently. I can't help wondering why? I thought the whole point of being an elected representative was to represent the interests of the people you were elected by. That would mean to oppose a decision that makes no sense, and would make the service for a lot of people worse without a real alternative. Either Jan Stefansson doesn't feel this way, or he has really misunderstood the intensions of the Social Democrats.

Well, you have to give them one thing, that this decision has been thoroughly analysed by the beaurocrats - but not until after the decision was actually made! Now, normally, in Sweden anyway, you would first investigate what the consequenses would be if you made a decision, and then you make it based on what the investigation found. In this case, and in others as well I am told, that decisionmaking process isn't followed. I can't help but wonder what goes on in the mind of politicians that use this method.
"Alright, let's have a decision here. We do what we feel, and then initiate an investigation, just so it appears that we actually care."
Does this sound like a good idea to you? It doesn't to me either. So what can we do?

What can we do, that is always the question. The protest is always the first weapon at hand. Never skip that one. If you protest enough, and to the right people, you can make a difference. The problem is to get them to listen to you. The second step is to go to the papers, TV, or any other kind of media. That will put the issue "onto the wallpaper", as we say here, meaning that it will be debated by the politicians, because the people who elect them are discussing it. Good way of gaining votes, but the wrong decision can also cost you votes. Since we have 7 major parties here, and a lot of local ones, there are always alternatives, should you get tired of one.
Lobbying could well be the third step, but that isn't very helpful in issues like this, so the only alternative remaining would probably be a court of law. Most often it won't come to that though. TV and other medias has a surprisingly large effect on politicians. The best thing to do is make your voice heard. They are after all elected by all of us. Even though I didn't have the right to vote in the last election, since I wasn't 18 at the time, I am 18 now, and am a voter, so they're obliged to actually listen to me. Of course, they had to before too, you shall not ignore people just because thay don't have the right to vote, but now I have my vote as a weapon.

I will keep my eyes open in this issue, and my involvement in the affairs of our society will never stop. Where there are things to comment on, and where things go terribly wrong, I will make my voice heard.

Stay tuned, stay focused, and most of all: Stay alert on the issues that affect you.