| Summary: | The purpose of this master thesis is to understand how political culture was negotiated during times of extreme external conditions, through the example of the parliamentary debates during the famine years 1726–1727. The result is based on the parliamentary protocols of 1726–1727 under the Age of Freedom. To answer the purpose of this study, four questions have been constructed. How was the crop failure and its consequences described? During the summer of 1726 Sweden was struck by a severe famine as a result of a poor harvest. The livestock were weakened and the farms had fallen into destitute. The peasants had to gather roots, bark, and moss to survive. Even the nobility described their own cultural habits and assets as being threatened and damaged. The local community felt that they could not live up to the demands made by the central power. What solutions did the local community propose or demand from the central power to tackle the consequences of the crop failure? The high taxation and lack of money, together with a strictly regulated trade, made the peasants feel forsaken, especially compared to other groups. The main strategies to gain the central powers approval was to show submission, refer to the law and try to compromise. But, when the central power did not respond to the peasants demands they threatened to leave their political duties. If the peasants had left, the entire political system could have collapsed. With what arguments did the central power respond to these problems? The central power feared that if they allowed the peasants to trade to a greater extent, they would perhaps engage in trade rather than in agriculture. They also feared an increased risk of fraud if the market opened up for a more mobile trade, which reflected the suspicion of a lack of morality among the peasants. The lack of trust was also an excuse to exclude the peasants from the Secret committee. The political distribution of power was considered by the peasants to be a political failure. Without the insight into the Secret committee, the peasants could not use economic arguments in the debate. How can the debate about crop failure and famine be understood as an example of political culture? Instead of the peasantry protesting with rebellion against the central powers levies, the Riksdag can be regarded as a safety valve, where the central power and the local society could find middle ground. If the demands of the local community did not collide with other groups' interests, then there was a good chance of getting temporary reliefs or increased freedom of trade.
|
|---|
