The highlight of my day is one that will last me for a few weeks. This afternoon when I stepped out onto our front veranda, I saw some movement below the rear one. I looked again and spotted a young wren looking at me while perched on the trelliswork below the floor. It was the first sign I’ve had all summer that the little blighters had survived the ravages of last winter. It tilted its head, cocked its tail and flew off – only to fly back immediately and take another look, just to make sure it wasn’t seeing things. I waved and it flew off again, leaving my heart pitter-pattering.
Bless.
But all that is probably a lot more than you want to hear about my desperate searches for personal fulfilment. For I would be failing in my duty as your correspondent on the spot if I didn’t bring you up-to-date with our political scene.
For the first time since I started this blog, I find myself in the privileged position of being able to report on the Swedish electoral process to the greater life-enhancement of all our avid readers. I would have liked to start by filling you in on what’s going on in the minds of our leaders. Sadly, on closer inspection I find that the minds in question have either taken unauthorised leave of absence or have shrunk to such miniscule proportions as to defy Nano-technology.
So it looks like I’ll have to settle for explaining some of the oddities of the Swedish electoral process and the restricted breadth of opinion its proponents have now to offer.
The first thing to note is that Swedes have very tidy minds and would place efficiency pretty near the top of their wish-lists. So over here we have a fixed-term Parliament and elections every four years to the day. Very handy for your holiday planning, even if these days early voting polling stations are available from a few weeks ahead of the date. Which is (pause for fanfare), the second Sunday in September. Come rain or shine, pretty much. The only thing which might expedite matters is a severe political crisis. This, being Sweden, doesn’t happen very often. In fact the last time was in 1958. (Over pensions. Don’t ask.) In any case, even if an ‘extra’ election is held, this doesn’t obviate the need for an election at the time it should take place in any case. So you can more or less already pencil in the date of elections in Sweden for the next century. Barring nuclear war or accident, I guess. Both of which are rather more likely than the last time we voted.
When we vote, moreover, we vote for three assemblies:
Parliament in Stockholm
The Regional Assemblies
The Municipal Councils
Counterintuitively perhaps, it should be the last of these that is the most significant. Most centrally collected taxes are ‘council taxes’ and disbursed back to the councils. Having said that, there are probably not so many people in a given municipality that could name the party or parties in power, and even fewer the leader of the local council.
The same applies in spades to the regional assemblies. Surveys show that most people have no idea what powers they have and would happily see them abolished.
So rightly or wrongly, it’s the parliamentary election and the resulting government that has by far the highest profile and televisual appeal.
And rightly or wrongly, it’s a little misleading to say you’re voting for a party to rule Sweden.
The electoral system is Proportional Representation. Not in its purest form – few countries have that. In fact, the only one that comes to mind is the Netherlands. Here in Sweden there is a 5% threshold that a party has to achieve to be admitted to the Riksdag. (No, not the Reichstag, you twit.) But still there are usually and at present seven or eight parties that manage that. Meaning that it’s very rare for Sweden to be ruled by a single party. In fact, the last time that happened was 1970. Mostly we get coalitions either by premeditated design or by ad hoc post-election cobbling.
So if you think you’re voting for a party to carry out its ideological manifesto, then you can think again. What you end up with is a pretty sleazy compromise that comes about either by means of a pre-election alliance, or a period of horse-trading (cow-trading in Swedish) afterwards.
As an example of the first you have our present and hopefully outgoing government; of the second our most likely incoming one.
If you look at the bright side of this arrangement, it’s a splendid system for maintaining the status quo. We’ve even had a recent government that was so weak it had to rely on the opposition to even pass a budget. On the other hand, if you’re not that enchanted with the status quo, then you’re pretty buggered.
Or so, you’d think.
For a couple of qualification have to be made. The Social Democratic Party enjoyed a period between 1932 and 1996 where they were so dominant that mainly with or occasionally without help from smaller parties, they were able to put into practice one of the most radical pieces of social engineering in Europe. For better or for worse. Much of it was for the better; a good deal was still for the worse.
For those of you with more short-term memories, however, you need to look no further back than the last four years. Our present government, although an alliance that goes by the name of the Tidö Agreement and consisting of four parties, has also been quite radical. Almost exclusively for the worse.
I can see some of you struggling to stay awake, so it’s probably time to introduce the parties and explain what and who they claim to represent – both in theory and practice.
The party that likes to think it’s calling the shots in the present coalition is called the Moderates – a name designed to go down well with non-boatrockers. They used to be called the Right Party, which gives a better idea of where they’re coming from. They’re led by Ulf Kristersson. The most remarkable thing about Mr Kristersson is that he is remarkably short. The next most remarkable thing about him is that, when he was in high school, he was a promising gymnast. I wouldn’t mention this is it were not for two points of relevance. Point the first: he never lets you forget the fact. Point Two: the talent achieves metaphorical status given the direction he has led his supposedly liberal conservative party in.
In most other places it would also be surprising that he is prime minister at all. The Moderates are not the largest party in Sweden. This is and usually has been the Social Democrats. More oddly, Ulf’s Lot are not even the largest party in government.
This privilege is reserved for the Sweden Democrats, even if formally speaking they are not in government, since they have no ministers. This party is led by Jimmy Åkesson, by most measures the smartest party leader in Sweden. Sverigedemokraterna emerged in the late eighties from a party called Keep Sweden Swedish and a loose grouping of Neo-nazis. At first they were no more than a fringe party that remained faithful to its roots. When Mr Åkesson took over, he dumped some of the more obviously repellent elements of the manifesto and spun others into something on the face of it more acceptable. Eventually they entered Parliament, and eventually the press relaxed its self-imposed restrictions on talking to them.
They remain highly nationalistic and populist. Occasionally the hair dye fades and the SS field-grey roots begin to show. But they have proved remarkably proficient when it comes to restoring the sheen of the coiffure. In order for the other coalition parties to accept them into the alliance, they had to forgo any ministerial posts. But there is little doubt that they have called the shots over the last four years.
The other coalition parties in question are the Liberals and the Christian Democrats.
The Liberal Party called itself the People’s Party for a while before reverting to its original name. And for most of its history the name has fit – both socially and economically. So it probably took more mental gymnastics than any other party for it to argue itself into a coalition effectively led by a group of closet Nazis. At the inception of the Agreement and the subsequent government it was led by Johan Pehrson, who is almost 2 metres tall or almost a foot taller than the PM. Nuff said, he had to go. And was probably quite happy to do so, given that the party was self-destructing.
He was replaced by Simona Mohamsson, born in Germany of Middle Eastern, Muslim parents. Given the Sweden Democrats’ aversion to all things Arab and Muslim, her own political gymnastics exceed even her predecessor’s.
The final party of the alliance is the Christian Democratic Party. It is led by a youngish blondish bombshellish woman called Ebba Busch. She has a winning smile, large breasts and the best one-liners in the Riksdag. Her one-liners, however, are singularly lacking in Christian charity and her attitude towards the truth is considerably more flexible than that recommended by Commando No. 9.
Despite the misleading names and ideological histories of three of the parties, this government has driven a set of policies that fulfil the SD’s manifesto for the past four years. It has sought longer sentences for criminals and sunk the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years, meaning that children that haven’t even graduated to high school will in future be completing their education in prison. They have also instigated a remorseless line against immigrants, removing ‘permanent’ residence from a large number, including juveniles, reduced the availability of asylum and slashed development aid.
If re-elected their policies are projected to become even harsher, with plans to reduce the imprisonable age of offenders to 13 years and remove citizenship from those with immigrant backgrounds. The SD have recently become more openly Islamophobic and have stated their intention to claim ministerial posts, including the top one, if they are returned to power as the largest party in the coalition.
The chances of the alliance being returned to power are fairly small, despite a slight recent resurgence in the polls.
If the alliance fails, its place will most likely be taken by a coalition of some or all of the present four opposition parties.
To wit:
The Social Democrats – known to friend and foe alike as sossarna. The name says where they came from but not where they’re headed. Like many erstwhile left-wing parties in Europe, they have moved with the times. As the Moderates have moved farther right, sossarna have filled the gap they left behind. Which means that they are in favour of restricting immigration and booting out long-term residents, but not quite as many; they are in favour of increasing prison terms, but chiefly for gang members; and they are in favour of reducing the age of criminal responsibility but draw the line (so far) at 14 years. The leader is Magdalena Andersson, who is as charismatic as cold buckwheat porridge.
Way out east lie the Left Party, previously known as the Communists until they decided that was a dirty word. They are also less Left than they used to be, and have got into trouble for harbouring anti-Semites amongst their ranks. In an effort to increase its vote, the party has abandoned its traditional openness to immigration. Nooshi Dadgostar, the party leader, is of Iranian parents. Double shame on you.
The Environmental or Green Party at least stands for what the label says. It remains to be seen how much of that carries into practising what they preach if they enter the next government. Last time they were there, they didn’t. As you might expect, they are nice to the point of sanctimony and so don’t have leaders but two rotating spokespersons.
The Centre Party are thankfully, not so nice. They used be the Agrarian Party, representing the interests of those living in the countryside – that is, the farmers. In the last few decades, they have realised that very few people live in rural areas, apart from those who’ve moved out of towns. So they’ve got a lot more urban in their outlook. They are everything the Liberal Party should be but isn’t – liberal both economically and socially, including in their immigration policy. You don’t have to agree with all they stand for, but you’ve got to admire their consistency. They are a sensible party led by a no-nonsense leader, Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist, if you go for that kind of thing. And if you can remember her name.
I hope you are proud of me. I have been notably restrained in my debut as political correspondent. But let there be no mistake. I loathe and despise the present government, reserving my greatest contempt for the three parties that have ministerial positions. I view with considerable regret the prospect of a future government that most likely will consist of liberal and left-wing parties that have trimmed to the right.
So there you have it. My tight-lipped tightrope walk of a commentary.
I have voted already, even though there are a few days left to the election. I have also shown restraint there, since I have voted only once. My wife may have to vote twice. Not because she is white and unquestionably ethnic Svensk. Rather, there has been an administrative cock-up, where some early voters have had their votes registered twice and some not at all. Voting a second time on the day of days will ensure her preferences finally make it through the system. No doubt, Donald Trump will call foul if the Sweden Democrats lose.
A few weeks ago this looked to be a certainty – the Opposition was way ahead. Recent polling has shown the gap narrowing to a chink.
So I’ll return to this blog same time next week with an update. If I resist the urge to throw myself in front of a train.
Part 2
It’s now the same time next week and the election has been and gone. Sort of. There are still a fair number of postal votes to be counted when PostNord gets round to delivering them to the right address.
And the results of the Swedish jury are:
Well, a few surprises actually. Some pleasant, some less so.
The neo-Nazi Sweden Democrats have lost votes and seats and are no longer the main right-wing party.
Because…
Von Papen’s, sorry Kristerssons’, Moderates have increased theirs.
The Christian Democrats vote also increased slightly. More remarkably, the Liberals not only crossed the threshold for getting into the Riksdag but actually increased their share of the vote.
On the other side of the not-so-great divide, the Social Democrats had their worst result ever but still managed to end up on the winning side, if you can call it that.
Because…
Well, mainly because the Sweden ‘Democrats’ lost so many votes. But also because the Centre Party and the Greens both went up a tad. Along with the Left Party whose share increased more than any other party’s.
So what moral can we draw from this exercise of the People’s Will?
Well, the main one is that you can lose heavily and still be a winner, which is a consolation for all those of us who are battered by the winds of life, fortune and dyspepsia. Two months ago, sossarna were showing 5% more in the polls than they achieved on election day.
In my view, this is down to two factors. Firstly, complacency. Magdalena Andersson appeared to think she didn’t actually have to campaign on a political programme in order to win. In fact, there wasn’t really much of a political programme to campaign on, truth be told. Secondly, what little of a programme that existed was so right-wing that I assume the Left managed to draw off quite a few disillusioned Social Democrat voters.
The happiest people in the room when the results came in were undoubtedly Von Kristersson, and Simona Mohamsson (Liberal) and Noohsi Dadgostar (Left). Kristersson’s elation was no doubt tempered by the fact that his government was now in the minority. Mohamsson was no doubt genuinely happy that her party had survived, but seemed to be under the illusion that this had something to do with her own performance. It was quite clearly attributable to tactical voting. If the Liberals had not met the threshold for entry, their votes would have been distributed to all the other parties according to the proportion of their own share of the vote.
Meanwhile, Nooshi Dadgostar’s will surely be aware that there is absolutely no way that the Left Party will be contributing ministers to the next government.
Because…
Well, mainly because the Social Democrats have refused point blank to entertain the idea. Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they? More to the point, the Centre Party have repeatedly refused to serve in a coalition containing Left ministers. And they tend to be more trusted to mean what they say. Then there’s the historical precedent. The Left Party under its present name or its previous one of the Communist Party, has never sat in government on its own or in coalition in Sweden.
So what’s going to happen?
Quite frankly, I find it difficult to care greatly. But you might do, so here are a few suggested alternatives.
The Left eat shit and accept their usual support role outside a governing coalition of sossarna, Centre and Green.
Or…
They don’t and the other three parties (S, C and Greens) limp through as a minority government, effectively hamstringing any kind of political action for the next four years. Which given the political action we experienced in the previous four years might not be such a bad idea.
Or…
The unthinkable. Or perhaps I mean unspeakable. The Moderates and the Social Democrats eat shit and join together cross the political divide. This is not as outlandish as it appears at first sight. The politics that divides them may be, as I indicated above, reducible to the one year separating the age of children the two parties would like to put in prison. What’s more, both Andersson and Kristersson have already shown a readiness to jettison both their own principles and those of the parties they lead to expediency and personal ambition. So why not again then?
This was in any case, my prediction a year before the election, so I may be biased. But who knows? Such a Grand Coalition has occurred once before – during the Second World War. So now it’s up to you Donald.
TTFN. I’m off out to hunt the wren again.
