Prime Minister of Sweden Stefan Lofven and his wife Ulla Lofven walk out to cast their votes in Stockholm, Sweden, Sept. 9, 2018. Shi Tiansheng/ Press Association. All rights reserved.

First I hear the drums. Then red flags and
banners appear at the corner leading up to Kungsgatan, a central street in
Stockholm. A brass orchestra follows, starting to play The Internationale. In the front row of the May 1 demonstration
marches Social Democratic party leader and Swedish prime minister Stefan Löfven,
together with his wife Ulla. Activists follow under red banners. Most messages
on the placards they carry are variations of the official party message:
“Together against uncertainty and fear”. But some demonstrators are also
arguing for a more liberal migration policy after the political leadership´s U-turn
on the issue in 2015.

Soon, the demonstrators have passed by, leaving
the street empty. Already? A sign of a Social Democracy in crisis, in a country
where the party once held power for 44 successive years? This was the narrative
in May, as well as in the run-up to the Swedish elections this Sunday.

International media also reported extensively
on immigration, fear of crime and challenges to the welfare state. This is a
biased picture. Many parts of Swedish society are developing well, and Sweden
is ranked among the top countries when it comes to issues such as quality of
life, gender equality and innovation.

But yes, there are challenges when Sweden is rapidly changing. One reason for the rise of the far-right Sweden Democrats is that
other parties have disregarded such problems for too long. One reason for the rise of the far-right Sweden Democrats is that
other parties have disregarded such problems for too long.

Segregation and income inequality have grown. The
risk of poverty increased drastically in connection with the 2008 financial
crises and cut-backs on social welfare by the former centre-right government.
This is particularly evident in the areas labelled as “especially vulnerable”,
many of them suburbs to major cities.

When Sweden opened its doors for 163,000
asylum seekers in 2015, they often arrived in smaller cities where there were
not enough teachers, social workers and dentists. The result: crowded schools, longer
queues to the dentist, and so on. A number of spectacular shootings in gang
fights over drugs have contributed to feelings of uncertainty, although Sweden
is in general still a safe country.

During the last four years, Sweden´s
population has grown by almost half a million people, quite a lot compared to a
total population of about ten million. The coalition government between Social
Democrats and the Green Party has started to invest more in social welfare and the
integration of immigrants, but too late and too little to fully regain voters´
confidence.

Still, the Social Democrats did not perform as
badly in the elections as opinion polls predicted. Actually, Stefan Löfven´s
party received 28.4% of the votes, a strong result for a Social Democratic
party in government in today´s Europe. Another story needs to be told, as an
alternative to simplified narratives.

A setback for the centre-right

Swedish support for the welfare state is still
strong. The biggest loser in the election is the liberal-conservative Moderate
party. For eight years (2006-2014), party chairman Fredrik Reinfeldt was prime
minister. The centre-right government was based on the four-party Alliance for
Sweden, including Moderates, Liberals, Christian Democrats and the Centre
Party. With Reinfeldt as party chairman, the Moderates were successful, winning
30% of the votes in the 2010 election. Now, new party leader Ulf Kristersson
has to reflect on an election result of only 19.8%.

The Moderates have lost many voters to the
Sweden Democrats. Fredrik Reinfeldts “open your hearts”-policy towards refugees
has lately been much criticised within the party, but apparently the tougher
line taken by Ulf Kristersson has not convinced those who already left for the
Sweden Democrats.

Other centre-right parties fared better. The
Centre Party´s charismatic leader Annie Lööf has been able to combine support
from traditional rural areas with attracting voters in the big cities,
resulting in an increase to 8.6% of votes. Another young party leader, Ebba
Busch Thor, managed to lead her Christian Democratic party to a 6.4% result,
contrary to widespread expectations that the party could fall for the 4%-hurdle
to parliament. One explanation could be the party´s strong stance against
multiculturalism, attracting some voters that would otherwise have gone to the
Sweden Democrats. The Liberals’ result was almost unchanged from the 2014
elections, getting 5.5% of votes.

The success of the Left Party is also worth
noting, reaching 7.9%. While the Social Democratic leadership has been careful
not to antagonise middle-class voters by raising property taxes for example,
the Left Party has attracted voters looking for more classic labour movement
policies. The party leader Jonas Sjöstedt has also had the advantage of not
having to compromise on issues such as migration, while at the same time being
able to promote social reforms through budget cooperation with the government
in Parliament.

In contrast, the Green Party suffered from being
in government and having to agree to tougher migration policy, contrary to
strongly held opinions within the party. This summer´s heat wave brought
climate change to the forefront of the election campaign, and might have saved
the Green Party from leaving Parliament. Now the party has got 4.3% of the votes.

Lessons for centre-left parties

The election result is certainly
a historic low for the Social Democrats, but not as bad as many expected. During
the election campaign, party activists talked to more than 1.5 million voters,
showing that there is still a strong local organisation. Together the red-green
parties haven´t lost that much support since the 2014 elections (then 43.6% now
40.6%)

However, the rise of the
Sweden Democrats has changed the political landscape. For example, there is now
a majority in Parliament for weakening labour laws.

What lessons can be learned
for progressive political parties?

In the elections, the Social
Democrats lost traditional core voters among workers and outside the major
cities. Apparently, hunting middle-class voters in big cities is not enough. As
has been discussed in the European debate, there are certainly limits to Tony
Blair´s “Third Way” policies.

The Swedish example also
shows the risk of austerity policies when not strictly necessary. Since the
financial crises in the 1990s, there has been a strong momentum to reducing
public debt, something Social Democratic governments have been successful in
doing. Now Sweden has an internationally low level of debt, but still Stefan
Löfven´s government kept to a restrictive budget policy in spite of the rapid
growth of population linked to immigration. As the blue-collar trade union
confederation LO has underlined, there is a great need for more investment.

Another lesson is that party
leaderships need to listen more carefully. In the Swedish case as well as
elsewhere, a decrease in party membership has coincided with a rapid growth of
professional political communicators. The views of the grassroots have not
reached party leaderships with sufficient impact, taking a high toll
particularly on the Social Democratic party. There is a great risk in not
describing reality as citizens – in particular workers – see it. 

After losing power in 2006,
the Social Democratic party has changed leaders more frequently than in
previous decades. Intense fights over a new leadership were so destructive for
the party that once there was consensus on Stefan Löfven as party chairman in
2012, internal debate almost ceased in order not to undermine the new leader.
This has contributed to a lack of political and ideological renewal. Internal debate almost ceased in order not to undermine
the new leader. This has contributed to a lack of political and ideological
renewal.

Another, less-discussed factor
is the influence of PR-companies, trying to influence policy without disclosing
their customers. Sweden has correctly been described as naïve for not requiring
transparency and cool-off periods as in other countries. There have been a
number of scandals, for example when the media revealed in 2010 that well-known
Social Democrats were participating in a campaign financed by the Confederation
of Swedish Enterprise to make the party more business-friendly. Such interests
have also aggravated leadership conflicts in the Social Democratic party. One
lesson for centre-left parties is to have strict policies limiting possible
conflicts of interest.

Trade unions and youth civic engagement give hope

Back to May 1 and central Stockholm. My
thoughts are interrupted by new music. Around the same corner down the street
comes the next brass orchestra, followed by more red banners. Probably there were
some practical problems when this part of the demonstration started down from Humlegården
park, hence the break in their progress.

Now there are more people. Trade union
activists, one group after another. Metal workers. Electricians. Pre-school
teachers. Nurses. Construction workers. And so on.

This is an important part of the historical
strength of Swedish Social Democracy, the close link between the party and the
blue-collar trade unions. Even if trade unions are facing similar challenges as
in other countries, membership rates are still high. This is true also for
white-collar workers, an important explanation for the basic consensus in
society on the Swedish welfare model. After the trade union part of the
demonstration, more party activists follow. Not as many as ten or twenty years
ago, but still impressive. Later, in the election campaign, the mobilisation of
trade union activists was crucial for slowing the rise of the Sweden Democrats
and securing support for the Social Democrats.

Another image, one week before the elections. In
a poor suburb of Stockholm, young Swedes with immigrant backgrounds discuss
what it means to vote for the first time. Debate is heated in Rinkeby Civic
Centre (Folkets Hus). Many are worried about racism in Swedish society as well
as about poverty and gang violence.

Jasmin Nassar speaks intensely to the eighty or
so audience, mostly young people like herself. “We shouldn´t be content”, she
says: ”OK, schools grades have become better here in Rinkeby, that´s great. But they are still too low. We should have the same rights as everybody else.” Another young woman,
Fatuma Yussuf, talks about representation: “In high office, there is only one
type of person. Parliament and government must make sure there is more
diversity. Everybody in Sweden should see us.”

Unfortunately, quite a number of Swedish
voters only saw the problems in suburbs like Rinkeby, and not the possibilities.
Already, Swedish health care is dependent on a large share of immigrants in the
workforce. Personally, I have met so many smart and ambitious young people in
places such as Rinkeby. When other countries face demographic challenges with
an ageing population, they can give Sweden competitive advantages.  Personally, I
have met so many smart and ambitious young people in places such as Rinkeby.

So what now?

Final results are due later this week. As it seems today, there is no
clear majority in parliament for any likely government coalition of parties.
Many foresee a long political process, perhaps a stalemate leading to calls in
November for a new election. In that situation, old truths might no longer
hold. As Liberal leader Jan Björklund has stated, then there might actually be
a new government across old fence lines, perhaps bringing together Social
Democrats, Greens, Liberals and the Centre Party. 

In conclusion: Yes, the Swedish story is partly similar
to other parts of Europe. Right-wing populism is on the rise, in this case a
party with neo-Nazi roots. There has been a long-term trend of decline for the
Social Democrats. But there are also differences.

The Swedish model is
challenged, but still very much alive. As
before, there is a broad
consensus on the basic elements of the social welfare system. Trade unions are
still strong. Together with other progressive forces and with better
centre-left policies, they can be a decisive force in reducing support for
right-wing populism.