<p>This is a case study on the functioning of political parties and the aim was to explain “how” and “why” the Swedish social democratic party changed their policies in the Middle East politics. I wanted to explain this process of change by using Angelo Panebianco’s framework for the analysis of political parties. Angelo Panebianco´s hypothesis is that all parties must be viewed as organizations to understand their functions. With time they become more institutionalized and depending on their historic development they will end up as more or less institutionalized. If this change showed that the social democratic party acted as a bureaucratic and institutionalized organization, Panebianco’s organizational theory would explain the change of their Middle East politics. In my case study I have used a qualitative analysis of the content to interpret my material of measuring parties’ institutionalization level as “high” or “low” within the two different areas; organizational dilemmas and the dominant coalition. My conclusion is that the social democratic party has indications both of a “high” institutionalized organization and as a “low” institutionalized organization, still they have a relatively dominant coalition. My study demonstrates that Angelo Panebianco´s organizational theory can not fully explain “how” and “why” the Social democratic party changed their Middle East politics.</p>

Participating in peace support operations has been and remains a significant part of the Swedish defense and security politics. Since the end of the Cold War, the Swedish national defence has been more and more dismantled, in favor of international peace support operations which have become an increasingly important task for the Swedish defence. Why then, is Sweden so engaged in conflicts so far from home? Using two classic theories of international politics, realism and liberalism, this study aims to shed light on arguments from the Swedish parliament on why it is important for Sweden to participate in international peace support operations. After analyzing arguments of the Social Democrat Party, the Moderate Party, the Green Party and the Liberal Party concerning three different peace support operations which Sweden has participated in, the result shows that although both realism and liberalism are influencing the parties’ argumentation, liberalism is the theory which is used more often. Thus, the answer to why Sweden participates in peace support operations is to be found in arguments that clearly express views of liberalism, rather than views of realism.

This is a case study on the functioning of political parties and the aim was to explain “how” and “why” the Swedish social democratic party changed their policies in the Middle East politics. I wanted to explain this process of change by using Angelo Panebianco’s framework for the analysis of political parties. Angelo Panebianco´s hypothesis is that all parties must be viewed as organizations to understand their functions. With time they become more institutionalized and depending on their historic development they will end up as more or less institutionalized. If this change showed that the social democratic party acted as a bureaucratic and institutionalized organization, Panebianco’s organizational theory would explain the change of their Middle East politics. In my case study I have used a qualitative analysis of the content to interpret my material of measuring parties’ institutionalization level as “high” or “low” within the two different areas; organizational dilemmas and the dominant coalition. My conclusion is that the social democratic party has indications both of a “high” institutionalized organization and as a “low” institutionalized organization, still they have a relatively dominant coalition. My study demonstrates that Angelo Panebianco´s organizational theory can not fully explain “how” and “why” the Social democratic party changed their Middle East politics.