Judging Emergencies in the Aftermath Commissions as a Tool for Systemic Change

Abstract

Responsibility. Accountability. These two concepts seem to take centre stage in the aftermath of emergencies. This article uses these words in a specific context: how Sweden uses commissions to review how authorities at different levels and the government have handled their responsibilities and tasks during an emergency. Over the years, numerous commissions have reviewed and analysed emergencies and other events that have put pressure on the Swedish administrative system. The argument here is that commissions focus on what should happen after an emergency has been handled, i.e., the aftermath. They review decision-making processes, systems, and legislation to improve them. Despite often being initiated during an emergency, they review decisions taken and laws implemented to determine how emergencies could be better regulated or handled in the future. The commissions' reviews are based on government decisions outlining specific tasks or questions for each commission. It is argued here that these commissions are an essential part of how Sweden addresses accountability after an emergency, with the focus on systemic learning and change rather than the personal accountability of decision-makers.