Ulf Kristersson has left office, the centre-left has squeezed through the electoral door and Magdalena Andersson is preparing to return to Rosenbad. Sweden has changed government, but it has not necessarily changed direction.
The arithmetic is almost comically Swedish, 176 seats for the centre-left bloc, 173 for the right. A majority so narrow that one might be tempted to measure it with a ruler. Kristersson has accepted the result and resigned, as parliamentary democracy requires. The Social Democrats can celebrate. The champagne may even be poured.
But nobody should confuse an electoral defeat with an ideological defeat. The Sweden Democrats lost seats and slipped from second to third place, their first decline in national support since entering parliament in 2010. That matters. But the more interesting question is what remains after the electoral furniture has been rearranged. For four years, the Sweden Democrats were not simply shouting from the political wilderness. They became central to the governing arrangement, helping define the political vocabulary of Sweden on immigration, crime, integration and national identity.
And political vocabulary has a nasty habit of surviving the government that popularised it. This is the great paradox of the Swedish election. The centre-left has won, but much of the political terrain on which the election was fought had already moved rightwards. Immigration became a problem to be managed rather than primarily a human and social question. Crime became a political currency. Integration was increasingly discussed through the language of obligation, control and punishment. The old Swedish argument about how to build a society was gradually replaced by an argument about whom society should distrust.
Changing the government does not automatically change that atmosphere. There is an even more uncomfortable problem. Far-right politics is no longer dependent upon spectacular electoral victories. It can lose an election and still win something more durable: normality.
This is particularly important among younger Swedes. Political movements become dangerous when they stop looking dangerous. A teenager encountering the Sweden Democrats on a social-media feed does not necessarily encounter their historical baggage, ideological evolution or controversies. He or she encounters a meme, a joke, a furious video about crime, a complaint about taxes and a declaration that politicians have forgotten ordinary people. Politics arrives disguised as entertainment.
The algorithm is wonderfully democratic in the worst possible sense: it does not care whether an idea is wise, humane or historically literate. It cares whether somebody will click.
And young people click. The far right understands this environment rather better than many traditional parties do. It knows that political recruitment does not always begin with a manifesto. It can begin with resentment, humour, irony, masculinity, cultural grievance or the apparently harmless question of why everything used to be better. By the time the political label appears, the emotional architecture may already be built.
That is why Sweden's centre-left victory should not become an excuse for political sleepwalking. Andersson inherits a country in which the traditional parties themselves have spent years arguing over how far to accommodate the anxieties that propelled the far right. If the response to the election is merely to reverse a few policies, restore a few subsidies and declare democracy victorious, the deeper problem will remain untouched.
Democracy is not a four-year cleaning service. It requires schools capable of teaching history rather than merely testing memory. It requires journalism capable of challenging propaganda without turning every controversy into theatre. It requires politicians who can discuss immigration without either romanticising its difficulties or weaponizing them. And it requires young citizens to be given something more substantial than perpetual outrage to believe in.
The Swedish far right may have lost this election. That is a fact. But it has already demonstrated that political influence does not require occupying the prime minister's office. Sometimes all that is required is to make everybody else speak your language.
That is the part Sweden should worry about. Because governments change rather quickly. Political habits do not.
No comments:
Post a Comment