Why do banks and other actors punish good initiatives?

February 15, 2021



Sweden is facing a new decade with new challenges. Covid-19 is still holding society in its grip and in a little more than a year it will be elections again. In politics, strange things happen and established messages throw their heads. The pandemic has already cleared away many jobs and thrown ordinary people and employers into crisis. Uncertainty and fear of the future and of each other are spreading more and more. Xenophobia, which has already characterized the last ten years, continues to grow. It never seems to have been as polarized as it is now. Still, some institutions, such as banks, choose to punish those who try to do something about it. Why?

Polarization is a fact, just as it is a fact that mainstream society cannot do much to reduce it. On the contrary, some try to gain political points on it in many cases. Groups of different religions, cultures or ethnicities do not meet and suspicion of each other grows on all sides, and is increasingly expressed in acts of physical violence, such as attacks on mosques, churches or synagogues or their representatives. The media reports on it and politicians and officials promise action. But what measures? The fact remains that it is civil society that makes up most of the practical work and takes most of the burden off of trying to bring about real change. Organizations or initiatives that build bridges between different groups, Muslims and Jews, Christians and Muslims, and try to find common solutions to problems within the communities of these groups, who are honest about who they are have healthy relationships with politicians and who are trusted partners to turn to to when you smell smoke from somewhere. But sadly, this is not in the interest of certain actors, such as some banks, who, on what acts with politically or activist-motivated actions, punish these organizations. Why? What is their right?

Either they are driven by politically motivated decisions or by political activism on the part of individual bank officials. But this is against the rules of how a bank should work. You do not take action against legal organizations, even if you may not share their societal ambitions, as if there was something wrong with them. It is inadequate thought and action to punish the few actors who can actually work practically for peace, harmony and understanding between groups in society. How do banks benefit from more polarization? Or more uncertainty? In the light of the facts, punitive measures on non-existent grounds appear to be particularly problematic in our time. Enter into dialogue, rethink, show understanding.

Read in Swedish: