Cities’ libraries, museums and theatres do more than provide access to culture. They create spaces where people can encounter different ideas, question assumptions and take part in democratic life. For Karin Dalborg, CEO of Nätverkstan, a Gothenburg-based knowledge centre that supports and develops cultural life, this is an often-overlooked part of democracy.
As she explains, “when we speak about democracy, we often speak in grand terms, like elections, free media, the rule of law, or a robust civil society,” but it is also quietly shaped in cultural institutions.
Start, for instance, as Dalborg does, with a simple image of someone standing in a library, picking up one book, putting it back and choosing another. Nobody asks them to explain what they are looking for or to decide anything yet.
She sees cultural infrastructure, like libraries, as places “where thoughts can take shape before they have to become opinions.” Spaces where people can encounter different ideas and perspectives, and spaces that create the conditions for people to take part in society as activated citizens, not only as individuals.
For Dalborg, that gives cultural professionals in cities a democratic responsibility. Whether they work in a library, museum, arts council or cultural department, their role is fundamentally similar. They are co-creators of the conditions in which citizens take part in democratic life.
That role is often exercised through everyday decisions about strategies, funding and professional judgement. “None of it will make the news,” Dalborg states. “All of it decides what your institution actually becomes.”
Cultural institutions under pressure
With more than 20 years of experience in the cultural sector, Dalborg has worked across public administration, cultural institutions and civil society. At Nätverkstan, she focuses on organisational development, analysis and learning, helping turn cultural policy into practice.
These themes are central to the letter she will address to over 150 urban cultural professionals at the upcoming Eurocities Culture Forum in Gothenburg, which will explore what this democratic responsibility means for cities.
The Forum comes at a time when censorship, disinformation and polarisation are placing growing pressure on open public debate. In this year’s Eurocities Pulse Mayors survey, 36% of mayors identify rule of law backsliding as the biggest threat facing the EU.
Against this backdrop, cities gathering in Gothenburg will examine how they can protect freedom of expression, safeguard cultural rights, engage citizens in deliberative decision-making and contribute to democratic resilience through culture.
Dalborg argues that these pressures are already visible in the everyday work of cities’ cultural institutions. They do not always take the form of dramatic attacks on cultural freedom. More often, they emerge through smaller shifts in what professionals feel able to programme, fund or discuss.
In this landscape, cultural institutions matter more, not less. Their role is not to resolve every disagreement, but to provide space for questions that remain contested.
“Democracy can never be taken for granted,” Dalborg explains. “Democratic shifts rarely happen as one clear break, but more often as a series of small movements.”
Those shifts can quickly turn professional decisions into political controversies. “A single exhibition, a single invited speaker, can turn into a story overnight,” she notes, with choices once seen as matters of professional judgement increasingly treated as political questions.
For cultural professionals in cities, the instinct may sometimes be to avoid controversy. An exhibition attracts criticism, a programme is questioned or a speaker becomes politically contentious. Someone suggests it would be easier to keep a low profile.
“In this landscape, cultural institutions matter more, not less,” Dalborg argues. Their role is not to resolve every disagreement, but to provide space for questions that remain contested. She describes them as places for “what is not yet settled” and for “conversation that doesn’t need to end in agreement”.
That is why Dalborg sees cultural institutions as essential spaces for difficult debate. “If cultural institutions cannot host difficult conversations, where else are they supposed to happen?”
Protecting professional independence
For Dalborg, protecting space for difficult conversations also means protecting the professional independence of those working in cities’ cultural administrations and organisations. Central to this is the arm’s length principle, where “politics sets the framework, the profession decides the content.”
In practice, that distinction can be harder to maintain, particularly at city level, where politicians, officials and cultural institutions work closely together. “The distance between democracy’s actors is short,” Dalborg notes, “and the roles have a way of drifting into one another.”
Clear professional boundaries are therefore essential. Cultural officials need to be able to explain why decisions have been taken, which criteria have been used and how professional judgement has shaped the outcome.
Dalborg explains that this goes beyond administration. Protecting the independence of cultural institutions also means being clear about the difference between objectivity and neutrality.
“Objectivity is not the same as neutrality,” she states. “Objectivity means working from knowledge, describing complexity honestly, and standing steady in your profession even when the questions are contested.”
Neutrality must never become a reason for silence.
Her conclusion is direct: “Neutrality must never become a reason for silence.”
For cultural officials, these questions can be very practical. Am I allowed to say this? Is this too political? Can we invite this artist? Host this event? Dalborg argues that the answer should be guided by professional judgement rather than fear of criticism. “The answer is yes, as long as the decision rests on professional grounds,” she explains.
That does not mean acting without accountability. Decisions still need to be rooted in law, professional standards and the mandate of the institution, but local cultural staff also need the confidence to stand behind them.
Dalborg makes it clear that this confidence does not come from courage alone. “It comes from having colleagues and leadership who back you, and from being able to say, I am acting on our mandate, our legislation, our profession.”
That backing becomes especially important in cases where a citizen questions why public money has funded something they might disagree with, where a politician objects to a speaker, or when a cultural institution considers abandoning a project because it fears criticism.
Democracy needs judgement
Harder still are cases where a new law or political decision conflicts with principles that cultural institutions have a responsibility to protect, including human rights.
In these situations, simply following instructions may not resolve every professional or ethical question. City cultural officials may need to explain the consequences of a decision, raise concerns on professional grounds and consider where the limits of their responsibilities lie.
“History offers painful examples of what happens when people simply follow orders,” Dalborg says. “Lawfulness alone is not always a sufficient compass.”
Democracy needs public servants who think for themselves,” she says. “Not disobedience. Not activism. Judgement.
Her argument is not that cultural professionals should become political activists. Rather, public servants must be able to exercise judgement. “Democracy needs public servants who think for themselves,” she says. “Not disobedience. Not activism. Judgement.”
That distinction lies at the heart of her message. Democracy must be protected through the everyday professional decisions made behind the scenes, inside cities’ cultural institutions and departments, and often far from public attention.
“Most of this happens without drama,” she states. “It happens in the everyday, in what is done, and in what is quietly left undone.”
For the urban cultural professionals gathering in Gothenburg, her message is practical, personal and democratic. Whether they work in a city office or library, their role is not only to manage programmes or administer public funding. It is to protect the spaces where people can encounter ideas, express themselves and take part in public life.
“Because they are not only implementing cultural policy,” Dalborg concludes. “They are co-creators of democracy.” Not necessarily the kind that makes headlines, but “the kind that holds, quietly, whether anyone is watching or not.”
____
Karin Dalborg, CEO of Nätverkstan, will present an introductory reading of her letter ‘Dear Cultural Bureaucrat’ at the Eurocities Culture Forum, in Gothenburg from 30 September to 2 October, focusing on freedom of expression and democracy. Amid the global wave of rising authoritarianism, protecting and promoting freedom of expression, civic engagement and democratic resilience is more crucial than ever.
The forum is a Eurocities members’ only event. If you’re not a member yet, become one.
