| |
| |
September 19, 2006
Analyzing the Swedish Elections
The social democratic
party has been as much of a hegemonic power in Swedish politics for the last
century as the United States has been in post-World War II international
politics. Even though the social democratic power sequence was interrupted twice
by center-right coalition governments, the Thorbjorn Falldin and Ola Ullsten governments
in 1976-1981 and the Carl Bildt government in 1991-1994, the defeat of
September 17 is historic. The social democrats have led Sweden for all but 10 of the past 89 years.
The defeat is historic
since the popular support for the social democratic party is the worst ever,
which has caused the chairman and prime minister for ten years, Goran Persson,
to resign. It is also historic because the social democratic party was defeated
during an economic boom, and because the social democrats were defeated by a
center-right alliance unique in its combined efforts calling for voters’ support
with a shared political program and cooperate election campaigns.
Judging from the news
reports, the political importance of the September 17 elections is quite
enormous. As The
Independent reports, the elections were “a verdict on Sweden’s much-praised social model.” The result of
the elections, and thus the defeat of the social democrats, is called a “political
earthquake” and the AFP calls it
“a major political shake-up.” And Goran Persson made clear that the social
democrats lost the election, but they are “not a beaten party.” The BBC reports Persson
stated that they “will never accept the right’s change of system.”
But the effects of
this change of government should not be exaggerated. Mr. Reinfeldt, the leader
of the largest of the four center-right alliance parties, has gained support
for his moderate party through impelling a major change in the party’s image
and politics. The party, while leading the 1991-1994 government under Carl
Bildt, sought popular support for creating an alternative to the welfare state.
Reinfeldt’s “new moderates” have ironed out the differences between the social
democrats and the opposition.
The moderate party
has, under Reinfeldt’s leadership, changed radically and now embraces many of
the core values and functions of the social democratic welfare state. Whereas
Bildt’s moderate party pushed a systems change through privatizations, lower
taxes, and reduced public sector undertakings, Reinfeldt’s new moderates
promise to fulfill the failed promises of the welfare state rather than change
it.
Many of the much
debated authorities in the Swedish welfare state, such as the central authority
for the labor market, will be kept intact. In the shared political program of
the alliance no real change is advertised. On the contrary, Reinfeldt has
publicly announced that he will not
make any changes of the welfare system. As a matter of fact, many high income
earners may have to face increased taxes as a result of the alliance’s
political agenda.
The systems change is
thus on the margin rather than being a “major shake-up.” Reinfeldt has sought
mandate to administer the existing system, not to change it.
It is interesting to
note that this historic defeat of the social democrats has resulted from one of
the greatest conversions of a party throughout Swedish democratic history.
Reinfeldt and his new moderates have consciously and purposefully tried to get
as close as possible to the social democratic party’s politics in order to gain
power. The election campaign was lined with a number of public announcements of
the moderate party reconsidering core points of its earlier critique of the social
democratic welfare state.
The defeat of Goran
Persson is not a defeat of the Swedish welfare state model, even though Persson
claims the alliance government will effectuate a systems change. It rather
seems to be a defeat of the old and seemingly tired social democratic party and
the win of a new, in many respects identical, social democratic party: the new
moderates.
Even though the social
democratic party suffers its greatest loss ever, it should be noted that it
still enjoys support of 35% of voters and the support for the welfare state it
has created is unanimous in the Swedish Riksdag parliament. Of the represented
seven parties there are none offering or advocating an alternative view. As The
Independent states, Reinfeldt was throughout the election campaign “careful not
to challenge the fundamentals of the welfare state.”
The interesting point
in this election has, it would seem, nothing to do with a systems change. What
is interesting is that the formerly clear-cut opposition party has reconsidered
and now fully embraces the welfare state system, which has caused the middle
ground in Swedish politics to quite radically shift to the left. When the
moderate party shifted to the left, passing a couple of its collaboration
parties in the alliance while doing so, and attracted voters in the political
middle grounds, the center consequently shifted leftwards forcing the social
democrats further left.
Despite this dramatic
change for a political party and Swedish party politics, the result is only a
marginal win for the center-right alliance. The result of the election is in
effect close to an ideological status quo as the September 17 win of the
alliance provides a majority for the four parties of only seven seats out of
the parliament’s total of 349. It would seem voters had no interest in a change
of system or even changing the system, but merely called for a change of people
in government. Perhaps this can be explained by the left appearing to be more
left after the shift of the right towards the left?
Sweden will now and for the following four years be governed by a four-party
center-right alliance led by the moderate party’s Fredrik Reinfeldt. But one
should not wish for a real change in politics.
Subscribe to the PerBylund.com Update! Subscribers receive a short e-mail message every time one of Per Bylund’s columns is published, with a synopsis and link.
Subscribe here: www.PerBylund.com/notifier/?p=subscribe
|
|
|
|
|
|