When the Tailwind Feels a Little Too Good

The southerly wind is as persistent as ever. Soon, we will hoist our sails and head into summer and spring – a period many have longed for, not least the students who this year have set their sights on the Lundakarneval. The temperature is rising and the energy in Lund is fantastic.

Many employees at Lund University are equally eager to hoist their sails and perhaps venture beyond the city. In 2024, the total business travel costs of university employees amounted to approximately 162 million Swedish kronor, covering expenses such as flights, hotels, and trains. More striking, however, is that irregularities were found in 82 percent of the trips reviewed. The most common shortcomings were the absence of clear documentation showing the purpose of the trip, or that bookings had been made outside of procured agreements without a documented justification.

Any solution that actually develops how the current process operates is nowhere to be found. The response instead lands on educating staff and raising awareness of regulations. Concrete measures are proposed: tightened control routines, clearer guidelines and written prior approval has even been considered. But it stopped there. Management today chooses not to introduce written prior approval, citing too great an administrative burden. The verbal agreement therefore lives on, despite the fact that the core of the problem lies in inadequate documentation and the risk of improper use of public funds. 

Finance director at Lund University, Filip Bengtsson, says:

“We first want to maintain the current order but invest in education and information. If it doesn’t work and the shortcomings remain, then we have to take the next step”.

The question is not whether this will become a greater burden over time. The same problems will in all likelihood recur, at which point the question instead becomes what will cost more: hiring someone with proper oversight of administrative matters, or allowing verbal contract arrangements to continue and thereby risking precisely what we have already witnessed – employees “accidentally” travelling at the taxpayers’ expense, or circumventing the procured travel agreement simply to sit facing the direction of travel on a train. In fact, wanting to sit facing the direction of travel was considered an acceptable justification for circumventing what is supposed to be followed, i.e. the contracted travel agency agreement.The opportunity to draw on the university’s young talent, to let them develop a smarter way of approving legitimate travel, is not even raised. Changing things within an institution regarded as one of Sweden’s most tradition-bound is no easy task. 

Soft Winds, Soft Corruption

Our ability to scrutinise our surroundings serves as a cornerstone of our constitutional state. Yet we sometimes fall short. Particularly when it concerns the institutions we appreciate and take for granted.

We do not only hoist sails on our boats. We hoist Swedish flags as midsummer approaches, we hoist expectations ahead of new projects, we hoist trust in the institutions that surround us. What happens, then, when the wind carries them in a direction we did not anticipate?

Sweden, democracy, the rule of law – these are foundations we rarely question. That is, in many ways, wise; they carry a great deal. Yet soft corruption in our society is raised far too seldom. Not the crude, obvious variety, but rather the subtle kind – loyalties, career ambitions, informal ties that break no law but nonetheless undermine trust in the system. That we are all human beings, and that human motivations do not always lend themselves to regulation in a rulebook, is a reality we rarely pause to consider.

Public transparency and investigative journalism are fundamental pillars of a constitutional state. Most media outlets today have drifted toward publishing what is profitable rather than what is necessarily true. This easily goes wrong, as the media shapes opinion around legal proceedings that have not yet been decided. A risk of bias emerges there that few stop to reflect upon. The media bears responsibility. It holds power.

If we go into what was just mentioned, judges and lawyers are people just like the rest of us. To suggest they would not be influenced by what the media writes, or that they would not read the newspapers, is naive. We are malleable, we are fallible. When a prosecutor acts as a media figure rather than as a representative of the law, the result can be that a verdict has already been rendered in the public eye long before the trial has begun. Since no one wishes to lose face, retreating becomes its own ordeal. Why then do prosecutors turn to the media? Because it works. It generates opinion, pressure, and a moral advantage. Objectivity becomes deeply questionable when one has already taken a public stance.

To illustrate this, lawyer Per E. Samuelsson describes it as follows:

“At the outset of criminal cases, the media draws almost all of its information from the police and prosecutors. This causes reporting to be skewed in favour of the prosecution. The defence attorney does not get a word in, either because of confidentiality obligations or because he does not yet know enough about the case. Things level out once the trial begins and the confidentiality restrictions are lifted. By then, however, it is often too late – the mass media have their angle firmly set.”

Being convicted in the “Media Court” is a significant issue and a real consequence of the problem described above. Prejudging guilt and taking public positions can often mean that even an acquittal by the courts leaves a person exhausted by public opinion – convicted in the Media Court regardless.

Although the work of lawyers and judges should be objective and free from external factors, this is a grey area where it is difficult to ensure 100 percent independent influence from the power of the media. This issue is controversial. On the other hand, it is important to emphasize the positive aspects of media reporting on the justice system. They act as reviewers where objective and critical reporting can describe irregularities or poor handling of cases. The presence of the media is also perceived to contribute to a more stringent atmosphere and thus a better outcome because no one wants to appear ill-informed.

Digging deep enough can almost always seem to lead to the same insight: everyone is human. Accepting what cannot be changed is sometimes the only option, despite a sense of injustice. However, where room exists, we must encourage one another to dare to hoist the sails and to question.

Who Holds the Helm When the Storm Comes

“We will continue to scrutinise and control…” seemed to be the solution to the potential problem of private travelling at taxpayers expense.

On the whole, this sometimes appears to be a fairly sound solution to several problems. Yet, based on the examples examined in this article, that solution in the first case about travel expenses for the university may feel cumbersome and blunt. In the second case about soft corruption and Media Court, it can seem almost entirely futile and hard to control. So should we continue to scrutinise and control, or are there situations where it is simply pointless?

Regardless of whether it is the answer or the solution, one thing holds. When we hoist sails toward new times – toward spring, toward projects, toward things in life that involve real change – we all need someone when the storm moves in.

Far too many stand alone when the wind truly picks up. In large-scale contexts where what is being questioned is something one is absolutely not permitted to question, gathering a broader following is difficult. In the smaller, more immediate scale, extraordinary examples exist of what happens when people choose to stand together regardless.

We need one another – whether the wind brings fortune or resistance. These are merely my own selected observations, examples that have interested me and that may provoke a degree of scepticism in you as a reader. That is not the underlying intention. The intention is to shift patterns of thought and to spark further curiosity – perhaps also to serve as a reminder that questioning, where space for it exists, is always worth the effort.

Having someone by your side, in headwind as in tailwind, as we soon hoist our sails and head into spring – that matters more than one might think.

Accepting without questioning can be difficult, yet in certain cases it may nonetheless become the choice, despite a felt sense of injustice. In some situations, a degree of gratitude is warranted – both for having the ability to question at all, and for the responsibility that comes with it. Using that right in ways that undermine appreciation for the fact that Sweden functions more democratically than many other countries is not something to be preferred. Feeling gratitude rather than questioning everything can also be a solution – though whether it is the best one in every situation is something I remain deeply uncertain about, and something each person’s own moral compass must determine.

When the wind takes the helm – exercise the right to question with care.