Is Sweden Being Taken Over By Fascists?
Was 11th September 2022 the Trumpian moment for Sweden? What will the election results mean for the future of Sweden?
In the English-speaking media, there are plenty of comparisons to Trump and Fascism concerning the shocking Swedish parliamentary elections on the 11th September 2022. Writer Umair Haque penned an article titled Is Europe’s Trumpian Moment Arriving, in which he remarks:
Soon enough, something disturbing could take place: it could be the first social democracy to be in the hands of a far right wing government. And by far right, I mean as far as it gets: the “Sweden Democrats” are anything but — they’re a party founded by literal Nazis.
– Umair Haque, British economist and writer
That remark triggered me to write this article. I thought the English-speaking world ought to hear a more Nordic perspective on this election, rather than only seeing it through an Anglo-sphere lens which has been so heavily tinted by the experience of Trump and Brexit.
A free form audio commentary to this article:
Reading Umair can be fun, but one must also accept that he has built his brand around what some call "collapse porn." Most of the well-crafted articles he cranks out are variations on the same theme: This world is going to hell in a hell in a hand basket.
While I am not Swedish, I live in Norway and can relate to Swedish culture and politics because it has so many similarities with Norwegian politics and culture. Both Norway and Sweden have a parliamentary system with proportional representation. English-speaking readers will generally not be familiar with such an election system, as most Anglo-sphere countries have a first-past-the-post electoral system. Without getting into too many details, the end effect is that you end up with numerous parties in parliament rather than 2-3 big parties as seen in the US, UK, and Canada.
From the preliminary results, you can see that there are eight major parties in the Swedish parliament (House of Representatives). Every one of these parties has a corresponding party in Norwegian politics, which helps me as a Norwegian to analyze the results.
As in Norway, these parties will usually join each other in coalitions to form a majority government. The need for parties to cooperate and establish coalitions create a different dynamic in Nordic politics from American and British politics. Seen from an American perspective, it is a bit as if elections and primaries happen at the same time. In primaries, different Republican and Democrat contenders, fight over who will become the nominee, but afterwards they have to kiss and make up, so they can fight together against the opposing parties.
In Nordic politics, elections are a balancing act because on one end you want to attack parties outside the coalition you intend to join. At the same time, you want to be as big as possible within your own coalition, so you get maximum influence. Thus, there is no way around attacking your likely coalition partners. Yet, you cannot attack them too viciously, or you undermine your coalition and the opposing coalition can mock your coalition and tell voters: "Look those guys can never cooperate! It is just chaos over there. They all hate each other."
I am explaining these details for you to understand better what actually awaits Sweden now. No matter what Umair Haque says, Sweden is not about to have a Trumpian moment. A far-right government does not take over Sweden. That the nationalist and social conservative Sweden Democrats got 20.5 percent of the votes is absolutely shocking from a Nordic perspective. Given how many parties we have that is a very high percentage for a single party. In fact, it is the second-largest party in Sweden right now. Only the Social Democrats are larger with 30 percent of the votes. That means the nationalists have knocked out the traditional dominant party on the Swedish right: The Conservatives, who got 19 percent of the vote.
What makes it unprecedented is that no other far-right party has ever got that many votes in any Nordic election, and when party leader Jimmie Åkesson took over as leader, they only won 1 percent of the vote. Admittedly, such as profound change is a bit scary.
But let me calm your nerves down a little. The Sweden Democrats (SD) are an outlier in Swedish politics. They are disliked or distrusted by most other parties. 80 percent of Swedes did not vote on them. Swedish conservatives are nothing like Tories in Britain or Republicans in the US. To Americans, they would probably look more like Democrats. They are not conservative Christians. They don't engage in culture wars. Nor are they flag waving patriots. They are socially liberal, like most Swedish parties. SD is the outlier here. Nor are Swedish conservatives cold-hearted like Tories, eager to cut welfare spending and disparage the poor. Both in Norway and Sweden the political right embrace most of the core principles of social democracy: Such a public health care, free university for all, cheap child care etc.
Unlike the American Republican Party, the Swedish conservatives did not build a brand on being anti-immigration. In fact, the last massive wave of immigrants to Sweden, which has been a major contributor to the Sweden Democrats getting so popular, was championed by conservative leader Fredrik Reinfeldt. During a press conference in the run-up to the 2014 election campaign, Reinfeldt urged the Swedish people to "open their hearts" (Swedish: öppna era hjärtan) to people fleeing wars, stating that he wouldn't promise much in the upcoming campaign considering the costs that the immigration would bring.
Contrary to what Umair Haque alludes to, the right-wing block cannot turn into a far-right government. Most of the other right-wing parties are far more liberal, and together they are the majority in any coalition. You may think that the Swedish Christian Democrats would be akin to religious conservatives in the US, but they are anything but. The party in fact accept current Swedish abortion laws and are not fighting against abortion at all. Nordic Christian parties tend to be of the liberal kind who are focused more on the message of Jesus regarding helping the poor. In my home country Norway, the Christian party is actually against abortion, but they are still not your typical Christian right-wing moralizers. Despite me personally being a die-hard atheist, I found the former leader of the Christian party, Knut Arild Hareide, one of the more sympathetic politicians we have had in Norway. He very much represented the best among Christians. The kind of Christian who is about helping and supporting people rather than pointing fingers and judging.
The current Swedish situation is not a novelty to me. Norway went through a very similar situation in our 2013 election. The Norwegian far-right anti-immigration party, Fremskrittspartiet (Frp) got a record 16.3 percent of the vote and joined a coalition government for the first time in their history. Yet, the whole thing was a big mess because the leader of the Christian party, Knut Arild Hareide, refused to cooperate with them. He refused to join a government with the far-right, as it went against all his values and principles. After all, he led a party for which development aid to poor countries and helping refugees was a core part of their values.
At the time, I was part of the Norwegian Liberal party. I had gone from door to door speaking with voters. They all vocally told us in no uncertain terms: Don't cooperate with Fremskrittspartiet. Swedish Liberals face the same dilemma. Last election they refused to cooperate with the Sweden Democrats and instead handed power to the coalition led by the Social Democrats. Eventually, they did, and that is part of the reason I left the Liberal party and became a Social Democrat.
Here it is worth clarifying a point which may be hard to grasp for American readers: Liberals and Social Democrats are not on the same side in Nordic politics. They are on opposite sides of the isles. They are not buddies. I cannot speak about Swedish Liberals, but Norwegian Liberals certain like to bash Social Democrats and other socialist inspired parties. Social Democrats are in a sense the most right-wing of the left, while Liberals are the most leftist among the right-wing parties. That makes the two parties look very similar superficially, but the ideological foundations are fundamentally different.
Social democrats began as a movement that sought socialism through gradual democratic reforms, instead of the communist approach favoring violent overthrow of the existing system. Over time social democrats, they came to moderate their goal and accept a mixed system combining elements of socialism with capitalism. What people today know as social democracy or the Nordic model.
Yet, social democratic ideology is still very focused on solving problems by working together. Scandinavian Liberals in contrast are more like free market fans who have moderated their enthusiasm for markets and seen a bigger role for the government. Yet, unlike Social Democrats, their core beliefs are not centered on working together but around individual rights and choices. That means, unlike American liberals, they are generally not very union friendly.
Ideologically, Swedish Liberals are very far away from Sweden Democrats (SD). Putting Liberals, Christian Democrats, Conservatives, and Sweden Democrats together in a coalition is akin to trying to get Joe Biden and Donald Trump to form a government together.
According to Swedish news, it seems like the political right are not even going to invite the Sweden Democrats into government. Instead, they will establish a government which will only exists as long as the Sweden Democrats don't vote it down. That is a situation we used to have in Norway. The anti-immigrant party was held outside the ruling right-wing coalition. Conservatives relied on the fact that they assumed the anti-immigrant part would not vote them out, as that would hand power to the Social Democrats. Eventually, the far-right got tired of being kept outside and voted down the Conservative government.
That could happen in Sweden as well. In fact, the leader of the Swedish Social Democrats looks to be to keep the door open for the Liberals. They speculate that the Liberals will dislike the Sweden Democrats enough that they switch sides, handing power to the left. Independent members of parliament with immigrant background have promised to vote down any government with the Swedish Democrats.
In other words, some dramatic Fascist take-over of Sweden is not in the cards. Even if the Sweden Democrats got invited into forming a coalition government, there is a high chance they could get voted out long before the next election is held. How can they be voted out before elections? Representatives for the Liberals may simply switch sides and vote against them, meaning the right-wing coalition will not have enough votes in parliament to constitute a majority ruling coalition.
The Liberals have 16 mandates (seats in parliament). Only two of these mandates need to switch sides for the Social Democrats to be back in power. Theoretically, that could happen at any time during the time a right-wing coalition is in power. If they ever push a too Fascist looking policy, you can bet the Liberals will end that government. While conservatives are more eager to hold on to power and more accepting towards the Sweden Democrats, you can be that they will not tolerate any kind of craziness from the Sweden Democrats.
Here the Norwegian experience may be informative. The Norwegian SD equivalent, Fremskrittspariet (Frp), eventually exited the ruling coalition. They got steamrolled too often, and it started making them look bad in the eyes of their voters. The radical agenda they had wasn't going through, and in a coalition you have to suck up and appear as one unified front. This suited Frp very poorly, as they are used to attacking other parties and complaining about their policies all the time. Suddenly, they were in a position where they could not really go on the attack, but instead had to suck it up and get attacked by their voters.
Radical parties are not used to being in government and making compromise. They have voters who expect radical change and when they cannot deliver that the party will really start to suffer. Frp started getting afraid of their future election results by staying. They had to pull out. The Sweden Democrats in contrast have not even achieved getting into a coalition yet. If they get into a coalition at all they have to survive the Liberals, and should they survive the Liberals by moderating themselves they risk fierce attacks by their voters which may eventually force them to exit the coalition.
Sweden isn't America, where Trump could browbeat Republican representatives to go along with his policies. Jimmie Åkesson in contrast is in no position to intimidate other potential coalition partners into doing his bidding. Any attempt of doing that would get him kicked out of government in seconds.
Sweden Democrats are Not as Radical as You Think
Let me quote Umair Haque again:
And by far right, I mean as far as it gets: the “Sweden Democrats” are anything but — they’re a party founded by literal Nazis.
While I am not fan of either SD or Frp, it is fair to say that this statement is such worn out hyperbole. Countless parties start very radical. The Norwegian social Democratic Party, which has run the country for more than 70 years, started as a revolutionary communist party with plans for armed revolt and revolution. Later, party leader Einar Gerhardsen even traveled to the USSR to celebrate Vladimir Lenin's victory in the Russian Revolution.
In Norwegian history, Einar Gerhardsen, is the big icon. He is seen as the father of the nation. He governed for 17 years and basically established social democracy in Norway. He did this while being a convinced socialist the whole time.
Most Norwegians today look the Labour Party as kind of boring and neutral party, while Gerhardsen is thought of as a down-to-earth pragmatist. There were still new hard core communists. They were active supports of Mao in the 1970s and tried to infiltrate Norwegian unions dominated by social democrats. Yet, even the heirs to these more autocratic communists have today turned into democratic socialists.
The Norwegian right-wing Frp was founded by Anders Lange, an eccentric in Norwegian politics belonging to the populist far-right. He advocated strong reduction or removal of taxes. In the 1930s, he was part of a Norwegian quasi-Fascist movement called Fedrelandslaget. While a member, Anders Lange spoke against "invasion of the jews and the colored races." He encouraged the youth to learn how to shoot. It was a time when right-wing groups started establishing armed militia organizations to fight against the Norwegian labour movement, which is the source of modern Norwegian social democracy. The belief among many around Anders Lange was that socialism and communism was a Jewish conspiracy.
During the war, he was a resistance fighter, against the Nazi occupation of Norway. Yet, after the war, he still championed Apartheid in South Africa and white rule in Rhodesia (present day Zimbabwe). He was very much against sending development aid to Africa and black people, who he said would just waste the money on weapons and war.
Why am I elaborating on Frp? Was I not supposed to talk about the Sweden Democrats? My point is that Frp like SD had a pretty dodgy past. Present day Frp is quite a different party. Likewise, present day SD changed a lot under Jimmie Åkesson. Those who were members in the 1990s are very dissapointed with the new direction. These are the hardcore racists who don't like that SD has become a more palatable party for the Swedish mainstream.
My point isn't to defend either Frp or SD. I don't like what either party stands for. Yet, we should not sink into misery, doom, and gloom thinking the election victory of SD is the first step towards a Fascist takeover and that Sweden will never be the same and social democracy will collapse. Let us not go full Umair Haque. While SD shares a sort of modern polished racism with Frp, they are in other ways considerably different. Frp has political views which look almost a bit libertarian. In fact, they look a bit like the US Republican Party in that they want a smaller state, less taxes, fewer regulations, don't think climate change is a big deal and so on.
SD in contrast is more like a racist, nationalist and socially conservative version of the Swedish social Democratic Party. Their economic policy does not look that different from the social democrats, judging by the party program of the Sweden Democrats. In other words, it doesn't look like SD is aiming for a radical change of Sweden apart from in any politics which involves immigrants: That means immigration policy, crime policy, school policy and welfare policies towards immigrants.
Here we se a potential large conflict within the right-wing block. The immigration politics of SD may find a lot of opposition among other right-wing parties, which in Sweden tend to be socially progressive. And given that their economic policy is at odds with the rest of the right-wing block, which wants lower taxes and deregulation, I cannot see how these parties are going to get along. Both their social and economic policies look too different.
To Conclude
It is far from over in Sweden. 80 percent of Swedes did not vote for the Sweden Democrats. Even if SD gets some amount of power, they are simply not as crazy today as you may have been led to believe. Saying a party started by Neo-Nazis became the second-largest party in Sweden sells countless newspapers, but is a gross misrepresentation of reality.
Personally, I like to remain an optimist. I think the influence of the Sweden Democrats will become minimal because so many in Sweden object to the party, and it would be risky for any party to be seen as catering too eagerly to their wishes. If they did, you can be voters would punish them in the following elections.
For me, the bad developments in Sweden have already been going on for a long time and are not about immigration policy but welfare policies. Sweden may look like a welfare state heaven seen from an American perspective, but in a Nordic context, they are regressing in many areas. It has become increasingly hard for sick people to get aid. I was recently reading an account from Jonas Algers studying Macro Economics at University of Lund, writing about his Swedish mother suffering from incurable cancer. She was close to retirement, and my understanding is that you can in such cases retire earlier. Calling the authorities to get this sorted out took months. One of the bureaucrats she spoke to began speculating on whether she really was "that sick."
In the current Swedish system, bureaucrats can overrule assessments by medical doctors. They have standardized lengths for how long you will be sick from different diseases. If the medical examination shows you are still suffering from cancer, it doesn't matter because the Swedish bureaucracy has decided you are now well. You have been sick for the time allotted to your disease or ailment.
In my native Norway, we have our version of this tearing down of the welfare system. Conservatives know how popular the social democratic welfare system is with voters, so they have come up with the salami method: They cut tiny slices away from the welfare system on regular intervals. Tiny slices, only affecting a small subgroup at a time, so there will not be too big protests.
The strategy has proven very effective. The backlash against the conservatives have been absolutely minimal. They cut down the public health system built up by social democrats, which left Norway vulnerable when COIVD19 hit our shores. Tons of people who were needed just when a major pandemic hit had been fired. They had voted down previous suggestions from social democrats to prepare for potential future pandemics. Yet ironically because the conservatives had not managed to do enough damage to the health care system, Norway managed to pull through the pandemic quite well and the conservatives gained politically on their execution. After all, one could just look at the disaster that unfolded in neighboring Sweden, with many times more people dead. Ironically, many people died in Sweden due to extensive cuts Swedish conservatives had done in retirement homes, which made them ill-equipped to protect the most vulnerable as the pandemic spread.
This is part of the reason I don't see the Sweden Democrats as necessarily some major watershed in Swedish politics. Things have been moving the wrong way for many years already. Social democracy will not be gone any time soon, but it is being chipped away one stone at a time, slowly.
If you enjoy my writing another alternative to Substack is to follow me on Medium, where many of the same articles are posted.
Thanks for this very nice clear piece - very interesting indeed.