Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

Yesterday, the 19^th of September, elections were held in Sweden.  They happen every 4 years and are quite different from elections in the other parts of the world.  One of the biggest differences is that before last night, there were 7 parties, under two alliances which ruled the political landscape.  After last night, an 8^th party, the far right Sweden Democrats is now also a full fledged member of parliament with 5.7% of the national vote and reports of more than 20% in some locations throughout the land.

Sweden’s politics works on a percentage system where the number of seats you gain in parliament is based on the percentage of the votes you get.  You need a minimum of 4% to be in parliament.  The Prime Minister is the leader of the party who gets the most votes in the alliance who gets the most votes.  Confusing?  A little.  To simplify, last night the Moderaterna, Moderates received 30% of the vote, the Social Democrats 30.8%.  The leader of the Moderates remains the PM however, because his alliance received 49.3% of the vote compared to the opposition alliance who received 43.7%.  As you will notice, the winning block did not receive more than 50% and here-in lays the issue that has most Swedes losing sleep and pulling their hair out.

The far right Sweden Democrats, who have a reputation of racism, anti-immigration and a strong nationalistic agenda, gained a foot hold in parliament with 5.7% of the national vote, an increase of 2.8% from the last election.  While a seemingly small number, they can choose to side with either alliance to give an undefeatable majority on the various issues that the government must decide on. Each side has vehemently stated that they will NEVER partner with the SD party, but if the SD decides to support one side or the other, the perception of cooperation will be unavoidable.  It is a sticky situation, made even more sticky by the fact that Fredrik Reinfeldt; the Prime Minister, must now extend an olive branch out to the party of the opposition most likely to work with the alliance in power, the Environmental party.  This much he has already stated, but the initial response from Maria Wetterstrand, the Environmental parties fiery spokesperson has been anything but positive, commenting that, as they have said the entire election, they do not want to be a support party for the Moderates.

How will they govern without a straight majority?  Of course it is still early, merely hours after the final votes were counted, but the uncertainty has already had some impact, sending the Swedish currency down against major currencies around the world.  Uncertainty is an economies biggest nightmare.

What this election will mean to Sweden is something that will unfold over the next few weeks if an amicable, if uncomfortable, agreement can be reached between the alliance and the Environmental party, to years, if the SD party maintains it's king maker position.  Making sense of this election, however, requires taking a look back to see just how much the political landscape has changed here in the last 8 years.

In 2002, the Social Democrats obtained more than 40% of the vote and held the position of power that they had for 65 of the previous 74 years.  The Moderates garnered just 15% of the vote and they looked like what the opposition said they were; a party for the rich.  They were being portrayed as a party who wanted nothing more than to tear down the social network that is Sweden’s foundation.  In Sweden, Moderate was considered far right, and the thinking of supporting a party that was in favor of privatizing some of Sweden’s state owned monopolies such as pharmacies and liquor stores, was akin to Pinocchio playing with a butane torch.

In the next 2 years, the Moderates remade themselves.  Resigned to the fact that Sweden IS a socialist state, and that the vast majority of the people want to keep it that way, they moved more towards the center.  They formed an alliance with 3 other parties who were tired of playing in the Social Democrats shadow and set out to try and win over a population with the idea that free markets and a vibrant economy mixed with private and public contributions would be the best way to maintain the funding for the entitlements they wanted so badly to keep.  With a system filled with bureaucratic waste, decaying infrastructure and an image that people were fraudulently living off the state, the Alliance went to work.  By maintaining that they would not dismantle things, they soothed the people in the country who felt it was difficult to get ahead for those who worked hard and were successful.  They won over people tired of seeing neighbors out of work for years, while they slaved at jobs they hated.  Perhaps most importantly, by changing party leaders to a puppy eyed, bald headed, moderate named Fredrik Reinfeldt; the party got the extreme makeover it so badly needed.  In 2006, based largely on the gains of the Moderates, the support for the Alliance pushed them into the majority.  Reinfeldt became the new Prime Minister, and they quickly went to work on remaking the social system.

Over the next 4 years, most know what happened.  The bottom fell out of the world economy, and Sweden was hit hard.  But, unlike most countries, there was little panic.  An economy well balanced in many areas kept Sweden from being so badly damaged.  While some policies were unpopular, the budget for Sweden kept its debt far below that of most other European countries, its unemployment rate relatively low, and the housing market never saw anything close to a major crash.  All in all, the Swedish economy survived fairly healthily and is now ranked as the second most competitive economy in the world, behind only Switzerland.  The social system was not raped to benefit the rich and the privatization that they have been able to accomplish has not led to a drastic rise in prices as some had predicted.  In all, the average Swede realized that this government did a good job given such dire circumstances, and was able to maintain most; if not all of the entitlements they came to know and love.  Trust that they could provide for the people while growing the flexibility of an economy often stagnating in government regulation was born.  This trust was soon rewarded.

In 2010 the Moderates gained 30% of the vote, their best ever showing and just .8% less than the once mighty Social Democrats and saw what was a 25 point gap just 8 years ago basically disappear.  While obviously and rightfully pleased with their performance, the night was tempered by the gains of the Sweden Democrats, and their appearance in the parliament and possible king maker position.  Lars Ohly, the leader of the Left Party, Sweden’s largest of the most liberal, wouldn’t even go into the same room as Jimmy Åkesson, the leader of the SD.  That Ohly still lives in a world where he feels that everyone should be taken care of by the state, and that businesses and the wealthy are the enemy, did little to dampen his followers’ enthusiasm at the sophomoric snub.  Mona Sahlin, the leader of the Social Democrats declared that there was no winner last night.  The leading alliance did not have a true majority and the SD party had made a significant showing on the national stage.  Playing politics becomes easier after a bitter defeat where you can point the finger at what the other side 'should' be doing, but if the politicians are true to their word about not giving the Sweden Democrats more legitimacy and any power, the solution is unavoidable.

The Social Democrats and the Left party working with the alliance will never happen.  It makes no sense, and a vocal opposition is one of the political forces that helps keep the balance Sweden seems to have found in recent times.  In some kommuns, or counties, around the country, the Environment party has already worked with the Moderates for various reasons.  The national Environmental party needs to shake off the sting of defeat, and decide that yes, they will work with the alliance, not only because it will keep the SD out of any real power position, not only because the Swedish people deserve a stable solid government, but also because of what working with the Alliance can do to forward their cause.

Sweden is a very environmentally conscience country.  The Environmental party is now the third largest in parliament and was one of only two parties from the seven that were previously in parliament to gain votes over 2006.  They have a passionate, if not controversial, spokesperson in Maria Wetterstrand and a deeply engaged support base.  She and Maud Olofsson, the leader of the Center Party would make a good team and an excellent role model for women who want to get involved in politics.  They are both strong, dedicated, intelligent women who fight for what they believe in and the Environment party would do well to have another ally in Olofsson.  In fact, in an effort to stem what many were saying would be huge losses from her party, Olofsson tried to position the Center party as the environmental party of the Alliance.  While this didn’t stop a loss if 1.3%, it was less than the 3% some poles were predicting as little as 2 weeks ago.

Aligning themselves with the enemy, taking the impression of their initial reaction, would give them an air of fairness and of doing what is best for the Swedish people.  If the Tories and Left party in England could form a coalition government, for the good of the land, then certainly Wetterstrand can put aside her differences, which are much smaller than the vastly different ideologies of the two parties in England.  Why their alliance is working is in part because the Tories agreed to work on some issues that were of utmost importance to the Left.  This is what the Environment party should also seek.  If Wetterstrand can see that for the short term good of the people, the long term good of the environment and the overall benefit for her party, she will quickly realize that cooperation does not have to mean subordination, and that she and her party can accomplish exponentially more in the next 4 years by working with the Alliance, and coming to that decision sooner, rather than later.

As for the SD.  Yes, it seems as if there is a slide towards nationalism, anti-immigrant, and racist feelings here in Sweden with this result.  However, what the leaders in Sweden must realize is that something is triggering these feelings in more than 1 out of 20 voters.  The immigration issue is very real here, as it is in many European countries.  Sweden has been very generous in allowing immigrants from less fortunate countries to share in the plethora of benefits that socialist, democratic societies offer, especially in comparison to their old countries.  Its policies, however, have left many feeling that the immigrants do not need to do anything to fit in and can simply live off the welfare state.  If this was part of the reason many Swedes drifted towards the center when confronted with their fellow Swedes doing it, how would they feel when their opinion was that immigrants were coming and doing the same thing?  This is an opinion that the parties, all seven of them, must do something to address in the next 4 years.  Otherwise the SD and other even more dangerous parties who appear more like Nazis than SD will continue to grow in popularity and strength. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, this is the reality the current political machine faces. 

Keeping your head in the sand is not the answer.  That has been proven.  Open debate, candid conversation, listening, and a constructive policy is the way forward.  Let's hope the leaders of Sweden can find a way to make this happen.  For the sake of Sweden, Swedes, and the people not born here but who choose to call this country home.