Logo: to the web site of the Swedish Defence University

Learning from traumatic events: a comparative case study of governmental close protection policies in the aftermath of the murder of Olof Palme and Anna LindhViolent and threatful crimes against politicians are as despicable as any other crime acts against citizen. However, if politicians are targeted solely due to their position – the act can seriously damage the state and central government.

This paper compares reports of government commissions and investigations which were initiated after the murder of Swedish prime minister Olof Palme in 1986 and secretary of state Anna Lindh in 2003. The purpose is to analyse and compare the conclusions and distinguish the main arguments that led to those conclusions and decipher similarities and differences through the lens of Tom Christensen’s instrumental perspective as well as Peter May’s social policy learning theory. The methodological approach of a qualitative method for this study fosters a deeper understanding of the ideological stances. Furthermore, the qualitative approach of conducting interviews with officials in various government positions has allowed for a more nuanced and thoughtful analysis. Together with the commissions and report, the interviews provide a holistic perspective of the two timeframes.

The research question has been posed as follows: When comparing government commissions regarding the close protection of the central government, which essential similarities and differences can be distinguished?

The result suggests that, an ideological change regarding main threats against the central government has taken place. The main policy discussions in the aftermath of the murder of prime minister Olof Palme was terrorism and if it could have been prevented at the time being. One major policy change was the build-up of the Swedish counter-terrorist unit. The main policy discussions in the aftermath of the murder of Anna Lindh was the issue of citizens with severe mental illnesses and how to detect those that pose serious threats to the central government at an earlier stage.

Furthermore, given the conclusions of the commissions and reports, it is possible to determine that ”social policy learning” has occurred as according to Peter May’s theory. However, the study also notes an crucial exception; government officials in need of close protection can henceforth conform the structure of it and determine whether they want it or not.