5. 3 Comparison

In both countries, the 1960s constitute a period of radicalisation and
polarisation between generations. However, the mode in which this was
manifested as well as the outcome was very different.
The Netherlands was going through a far-reaching process of
depillarisation that meant a break with traditional patterns of formal
(and informal) social control. This process, together with the awareness
of the risks of blind compliance with authorities, caused a crisis for the
conservative hierarchical social fabric of Dutch society. The elite that
had been ruling the country for many decades henceforth had to take
notice of action groups. The protest movement did not confine its
actions to criticising established institutions. Instead they established
their own alternative institutions which, as we will see in the next
chapters, would be of the utmost importance for the assistance system
to drug users.
In Sweden, the two most important protest movements, the anti-war
and the New Left, used the well-established repertoire of action
supplemented with some new action techniques. New Left movements
in particular were operating after a hierarchic model. The anti-war
movement focused on international solidarity, not on the fabric of
Swedish society. Furthermore, the movements had a traditional view on
the use of alcohol (and drugs). The traditional relation between the
Swedish population and the Swedish state seemed to have survived the
1960s, a relation that is characterised by O'Dell as the people and the
government closely working together towards a common future with
the state as a benevolent protector (O'Dell 1997: 184). This perception
of the role of the state is in sharp contrast to the Dutch tradition of
distrust of the central state.