The Estonia Case: Challenging Sweden's Blind Faith in Government

The Estonia disaster of 1994, in which a Baltic Sea ferry sank and hundreds of people lost their lives, symbolizes a problematic phenomenon in Swedish society: faith in the state. This event has raised deep questions about the limits of trust in state institutions, especially in Sweden, a country known for its strong faith in state institutions.

The immediate reaction to the disaster and the subsequent investigations showed that many Swedes, even those who had lost loved ones, offered little audible resistance to the behavior of their government. This casts a disturbing light on state faith, especially considering that the most intensive investigations into the disaster were not conducted in Sweden but in Germany, which was not directly affected by this catastrophe.

In the video "The sinking - How did Estonia really sink? - in an interview with a journalist, the Swedish government is criticized, particularly the then Prime Minister Karl Bildt. The journalist says that Bildt and his Social Democrat successor Ingvar Carlsson, as well as the heads of government of Finland and Estonia, should stand trial. She accuses them of having prevented a proper investigation into the accident.

One particularly heartbreaking case is that of Swedish citizen Peter Barasinski, who lost his young, pregnant wife in the accident. Barasinski initiated a diving operation to retrieve his wife's body, a promise he had made to her during a romantic walk in her hometown of Upsala. Despite his efforts and the support of a German company, which provided him with a ship and a diving robot, the recovery was unsuccessful. Interestingly, the Poles involved in the operation received a diplomatic note from Sweden, which labeled the diving operation undesirable.

This example shows how the Swedish government treated its own citizens. Barasinski invested his private funds in the operation but received no support from the state. On the contrary, he was criticized in the media, although public opinion later prevailed.

Officials said that diving was not allowed in order not to disturb the peace of the dead. This is in stark contrast to the decision to cover the wreck of Estonia with concrete, which was met with horror and indignation by the bereaved. This decision to treat the wreck as a grave without consulting the bereaved or survivors shows an appalling ignorance and lack of compassion on the part of the Swedish government.

Another notable aspect of the Estonia disaster is the legal situation surrounding the wreck. In particular, the laws governing diving into the wreck raise questions about the freedoms and rights of Swedish citizens. After the disaster, a law was passed prohibiting Swedish citizens from diving to the wreck of Estonia under threat of punishment. This law represents a remarkable restriction of personal freedom.

The official aim of the diving ban is to preserve the tranquillity of the wreck and protect the victims' relatives from possible distress. However, this measure was perceived by many as an unnecessarily strict restriction, especially by those who had direct links to the victims and were seeking personal clarification. The issue of the peace of the dead is undoubtedly sensitive, but the decision to enact such a ban without seeking a broad consensus among the bereaved was seen by many as a sign of ignorance and lack of empathy on the part of the government, which the general public in Sweden seems to have forgotten and not discussed further.

The fact that this law specifically affects Swedes and Finns, while citizens of other countries are not subject to the same restrictions, adds another dimension to the controversy. It raises the question of the extent to which governments should have the right to deny their citizens access to places of historical and personal significance, especially in cases involving the search for truth and closure.

Thus, This legal restriction symbolizes state faith in Sweden and raises fundamental questions about civil rights and state control. It shows how government decisions, which may be made with the aim of protection, can have unintended consequences by undermining citizens' trust in their government and its decisions. In this context, government actions must be transparent, accountable, and sensitive to the needs and rights of all citizens.

These events surrounding the Estonia disaster highlight Sweden's critical problem of state faith. They show that unshakeable faith in the state, even in times of tragedy, can make citizens reluctant to challenge or criticize their government. This highlights the need for a healthy skepticism toward state institutions to maintain a vibrant, accountable, and democratic society. Citizens must be encouraged to ask questions, inform themselves, and actively participate in shaping their community.

But this is exactly what many Swedes find very difficult!

If you're intrigued by my entertaining account of spending a decade in Sweden and want to delve deeper into my experiences, please click the link to discover more about my book.

Book "Ten Years in Sweden"