Sweden

In Sweden, Populist Nationalists Won on Policy, but Lost on Politics

Never mind the headlines: Sunday’s election in Sweden was a major setback for the far right. 

The populist-nationalist Sweden Democrats may have seen their percentage of the vote increase from 13 percent in 2014 to just shy of 18 percent this year, but they and many experts anticipated a much higher share; some even predicted that they would become the largest party in the country. 

Such an outcome would have been in keeping with their history of rapid growth, of more than doubling their previous tally in every election since 1998. 

Instead, they posted unexpectedly meager gains, which will do little to strengthen their influence in a deadlocked parliament where all other parties, center-right as well as left, refuse to negotiate with them.

. . . .

In late November 2015, the center-left government, headed by the Social Democrats and the Green Party, initiated restrictions on refugee immigration. 

And the center-right Moderate Party, whose leader just a year before had called on Swedes to “open their hearts” and allow large-scale immigration to continue, called for closed borders.

It was a U-turn on Swedish politics’ definitive issue. 

(American readers looking for a comparison might imagine the Democratic Party ending Social Security, or Republicans annulling the Second Amendment.) 

And its implicit message was bitter for the political establishment. 

The Sweden Democrats had been right: Refugee migration was destabilizing the country.

. . . .

Forced by circumstance, with great reluctance and occasional pain—the Green Party leader sobbed as she announced cuts to refugee migration during a press conference—Sweden’s politicians moved toward a new political consensus. 

The country’s largest parties, the Social Democrats and the Moderates, as well as the center-right Christian Democrats, adopted platforms calling for reduced immigration, and they carried those positions into elections this year.

The parties differed on how much of a reduction they sought and how to achieve it. 

There was enough cross-party agreement, however, to make immigration a somewhat boring topic of debate in this year’s election. 

Immigration was just one subject among many, sharing space with youth unemployment, health care, and gender equality.

In a sense, then, the Sweden Democrats succeeded beyond their wildest dreams: Parties espousing restrictions to immigration received a combined three-quarters of the vote, and ideas once confined to the far right spread into the establishment. 

Yet if the Sweden Democrats won on policy, they lost their political cudgel. 

The far-right party will not have the opportunity to implement its long-desired reductions in immigration, or any other policy for that matter. 

Future border restrictions will be pursued by centrists, and in the eyes of many Swedes, this will mean more thoughtful and compassionate policy.