• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Politics Swedish politics

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
11,202
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Sweden just had an election. The results are interesting.


Sweden is an outlier in that it has a history of being extremely woke, extremely pro-feminist and extremely pro workers rights etc. Relatively... Sweden is extreme. So a beacon of leftist and progressive values. It's also has a history of a decent economy and a high standard of living. So we're also doing something right.

But the latest election has a worrying development.

The Sweden Democrats got 21% of the votes. This is a nationalist political party founded by SS volunteer to Nazi Germany. These were straight up Nazis until 2005 when they got a new leader who decided to clean up their image, insisting that Nazism is something of the past. He BTW has been caught on camera with a Nazi brownshirt at a Sweden Democrat rally. Charming guy. Sweden has proportional representation. This party is now Sweden's second biggest political party. Sweden's biggest party, Socialdemokraterna (mainstream left centre socialist party, like labour) got 32% of the votes.

The Sweden Democrats is an extreme party. They're not a normal mainstream party. They're deeply conservative and reactionary.


My interpretation is that Sweden traditionally has been run by middle-class urbanites centered in Stockholm. Swedish media (mostly state run) was also centered in Stockholm. Sweden has traditionally an extremely Stockholm-centric political environment. By controlling the media (ie all communication between citizens) this fairly small social group could effectively control an entire nation. The Swedish left-right dichotomy was only the left right values of these middle-class urbanites.

The rise of the Sweden democrats is entirely parallel to the rise of the Internet and Internet literacy. I think Swedish culture is at heart highly moralistic, conservative and collectivistic. With the Internet all these rural conservatives have managed to get their voices heard. I think that this is the ONLY major political party that represents the values of non-urban working class Stockholmers.

Today my Swedish Stockholmer middle-class urbanite friends are in hysterics whining about how Sweden democrats are a threat to democracy. Me personally I see this in the exact opposite way. Now finally democracy is working in Sweden. Don't get me wrong... I think Sweden Democrats truly are Nazis, and a horrible political party. But them getting 21% of the votes is not undemocratic. Up until now conservative voices in Sweden have been suppressed.

Lot's of Swede's are worried about polarization and a country that will be ripped apart. I don't see that at all. I see a regime change. These guys will take over. None of the other parties represent all of the Swedes. These guys do. Without a monopoly on media, the old guard don't have a chance.

There's another worrying development.

A newly formed political party called "Nyans" took 0,5% of the votes. That's extremely high for a very recently formed party. Based on its politicians this is an Islamist political party. While their party has a standard conservative Swedish image, their politicians have been caught making anti-semitic, homophobic and generally Islamist statements. Worth noting is that Sweden has become the unofficial headquarters for the Muslim Brotherhood of Europe. Probably for the world. This is their squeaky clean front:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Council_of_Sweden

But nobody is fooled. This is the Muslim Brotherhood.

The party Nyans has close ties to the Muslim Council of Sweden.


Sweden now has 500 000 Muslims. Or 5% of the population.

Compare that with the numbers of Christians. It's very hard to calculate numbers of Christians in Sweden since membership in the church of Sweden gives you practical benefits. 60% of all Swedes are members of the Church of Sweden, while 80% of Swedes say they reject all forms of religion. 10% say they sometimes attend church services.

While a lot of the Swedish Muslims are liberal. A lot of them aren't. When Swedish Muslims answer surveys on how religious they are a vast majority say they're conservative Muslims. All evidence suggest that what they say and do are quite different. Lots of the Swedish Muslims who say they are conservative Muslims obviously fuck and drink like any Swede. So again... hard to calculate what these survey numbers mean.

I think Sweden is about to become a standard central European country. Deeply conservative, collectivistic with high social control. But I don't think it'll be less democratic. I think, for the first time ever, we're about to get a government that truly represents the will of the Swedish people. No matter how much I dislike the Sweden Democrats, there's no way I can, with good conscience, say that this development is undemocratic.

Lucky for me I now live in Denmark. Where liberal values are still going strong.
 
SD are no different from Germany's AfD or France's RN. Cultural ideas don't know borders and it seems almost every country has their own nationalist revival party with an anti-immigration and anti-EU platform, as well as more or less veiled connections to far right nutters.

One of Sweden's problems IMHO is the bloc politics. Even though the election system is proportional, all parties have traditionally belonged to either left-wing or right-wing bloc, and whichever bloc got the most votes would form the government. But Sweden Democrats was a spoiler, because neither left or right wing parties wanted to have anything to do with them. That made forming the government harder, because the traditional blocs could not get majority by themselves, and had to cut some weird deals. Now the conservatives at least seem to have mellowed on the idea of cooperation with SD.

Denmark is probably working better because it doesn't have the artificial left/right dichotomy. Danish governments don't usually have a majority in the parliament, but form majorities on an issue-by-issue basis. And danish social democrats have co-opted many of the more sensible policies of the nationalistic ultra-right wing parties, thereby depriving them of oxygen.
 
Trying to wrap my head around 20% party, which seems like it’s a good idea to have a voice, compared with “able to drive the direction of the country,” which is not something that the other 80% support.

It feels like the right thing to have all voices heard, and utterly the wrong thing to have a minority governing.
 
Trying to wrap my head around 20% party, which seems like it’s a good idea to have a voice, compared with “able to drive the direction of the country,” which is not something that the other 80% support.

It feels like the right thing to have all voices heard, and utterly the wrong thing to have a minority governing.
Oh, I don't know, it seemed to me the SCOTUS didn't work too badly back in the days when there was a 4-4 left/right standoff so Anthony Kennedy got to make all the decisions.

The Social Democrats could fix this lickety-split if they'd get over feeling entitled by their historic dominance and/or their being the biggest party, and accept a junior role in a coalition government. It's probably too much to expect the Moderates to trust them as a substitute for the Sweden Democrats' support since they can be expected to throw their weight around. But if the leftist parties swallowed their pride and offered the PM-ship to the Liberals they might peel them off the rightist bloc -- the Liberals are evidently already pretty conflicted about cooperating with SD. It would be weird to have the last-place party win, but why shouldn't a minority govern when the majority is evenly divided?
 
In our extreme interpretation of democracy if enough people vote for him we will get Trump again.

The question is whther or not such a form of democracy can survive. Right now I don't think so. Allowing extreme diversity even self destructive oppressive views leads to tical instability, as we see here in the USA. An armed assault on te capitol.
 
Trying to wrap my head around 20% party, which seems like it’s a good idea to have a voice, compared with “able to drive the direction of the country,” which is not something that the other 80% support.

It feels like the right thing to have all voices heard, and utterly the wrong thing to have a minority governing.
"Minority government" in context of Denmark or Sweden doesn't mean that it can overrule the majority. In parliamentary systems, the separation of the branches of government between legislature and executive is pretty weak. In practice, all it means is that the minority party or coalition can appoint ministers, but if they act against the majority, they'll be sacked, and they can't do anything unless there is an ad-hoc coalition to back it up.

Besides, it's not like "majority" in America ever really governs anyway. The president may come from one party, but his administration is appointed by him, and not by the unanimous will of the republican or democratic party, let alone their respective voters. A minority, that happens to be a majority within a majority within a majority can have disproportional impact.

But anyway. I find it fascinating how systems that are very similar on paper, like Denmark, Sweden, and Finland, can have such very different outcomes just due to differences in political culture. To simplify, let's say an abstract situation where party A gets 41% of the parliament, party B 39%, and party C 20%. Roughly speaking the results would be:

Denmark: Party A forms minority government, gains support from B and C on issue-by-issue basis.

Finland: Any combination of A+B, A+C, or even B+C can form the government. Party A gets to try forming the coalition first.

Sweden: Deadlock, unless party C is part of the same bloc with A or B. This is what's happening now with SD, which was previously shunned by both blocs, but now is being courted by the Moderates.
 
Back
Top Bottom