Erik Moberg ©:
The Swedish Liberals Lend Support to my Theory
My book “Towards
a Science of States: their Evolution and Properties” contains, among
others, “A theory about democracies of
different kinds” (page 334 ff). One of the kinds is parliamentarism
combined with proportional elections, that is the kind of democracy that characterizes
in particular quite a number of countries in Western Europe, among them Sweden.
As explained in the book this kind of constitutional
order requires, for its proper functioning, political parties which are stable
over time and disciplined, in particular with respect to voting in the
parliament. Usually the parties also live up to these requirements since the
incentives of the party leaderships to form their parties in that way are
strong, and usually their means for doing so are effective as well. The system
is dependent on lists and these lists are not only controlled by the
leaderships but they also severely restrict the possibilities for the
individual list members to advance their own sakes. When they agitate, for
instance in election campaigns, they, almost by necessity, work for their
party, not for themselves.
In Sweden this system was however changed in an
interesting way in 1998. It became possible for voters to support some specific
member on the list of candidates in their constituency by setting a cross in
front of that candidate’s name and thereby enhancing that candidate’s
possibilities to get into the parliament. The lists became in that sense open.
But that, obviously, also meant that the candidates were given possibilities to
agitate for themselves rather than for their parties.
In my book I made this comment (page 346):
“The introduction of open lists in Sweden, making it possible for voters
so support specifically individual candidates, is from this point of view
interesting. Since this may give some members of the legislature a stronger
personal base, and thus make them somewhat less dependent of their party, it
may also lead to some loosening of party discipline. Since the majority behind
the executive in this kind of system often is quite narrow …
this may be a problem. It is surprising how little this has been discussed
in connection with the introduction of open lists."
Now, in September 2016, the Liberals party, since 2014 in opposition, has become hit by an open
internal conflict or crisis which clearly illustrates the problem mentioned. It
all started when the party leader, Jan Björklund, publicly declared that the Swedish
government ought to invite the Sweden
Democrats party, hitherto held in isolation, to political negotiations, and
also that the establishment of new religious free schools should be forbidden. Birgitta Ohlsson, a
member of the parliament with a strong position within the Liberals, protested against both proposals, also publicly, and
thereby the crisis was a fact. A number of influential politicians in the party
gave their support to Birgitta Ohlsson. What
is particularly interesting in this context is that Ohlsson’s
name, in the last elections, was crossed by almost twice as many voters as Björklund’s. She has thus a very strong personal platform,
which adds to Björklund’s problems when trying to
uphold the party discipline. So the hypothesis advanced in my theory is
supported. The fact that the party now–that is in the latest opinion poll–is
supported by only 5.2% of the electorate does not make the party leadership’s problems
easier.
– * –