The Swedish party system was long one of the most stable in the western world. At the 1921 election to the Riksdag, or Parliament, when universal suffrage applied for the first time, five parties captured seats. Not until the 1988 election was this quintet—Social Democrats, Communists, Moderates (Conservatives), Liberals and Centrists—joined by a newcomer in the form of the Green Party, which in turn paved the way for two new parties, the Christian Democrats and New Democracy, in the 1991 election.

The stability of Swedish parliamentary politics was due to the balance between the two party blocs: the socialist and the nonsocialist. The results of the past three parliamentary elections indicate that the party system has lost some of its previous stability; new party constellations are likely to arise.

Abroad, Sweden is known for having had the longest period of social democratic rule anywhere. The Social Democratic Party had an unbroken run in office from 1932 to 1976 (apart from a three- month interregnum in 1936), then returned to power in 1982 and lost power again in the 1991 election, only to regain it in the 1994 election.

The birth of the original parties
Liberals and Conservatives
The Swedish party system had its beginnings in the two-chamber Parliament that in 1866 replaced the Parliament of four estates previously governing the country. At that time, however, real power was increasingly in the hands of free coalitions and groupings. In the 1880s, industrialization and the attendant urbanization of the population together fuelled the first political splits, those between rural conservatism and urban radicalism.

Sweden never had a clear-cut, implacable division between a conservative and a liberal party. While the Danish and Norwegian peasantry upheld the liberal opposition, Swedish peasants to a great extent became the grass-roots of conservatism, joining the industrial bourgeoisie, the civil service, the nobility and the military. The formation of liberal parties in Sweden took place amongst the free tradesmen and craftsmen of the cities, supported in the countryside by small farmers and rural craftsmen with the encouragement of the free-church and temperance movements. Today's liberal and conservative parties were born in 1902 and 1904, respectively.

Social Democrats
The third force in Swedish politics, which soon became the largest, was the labour movement. The trade unions provided the popular base on which the Social Democratic Party was formed in 1889. Almost from the start, Swedish social democracy modelled itself ideologically on German Marxist social democracy rather than Franco-British utopian socialism. But unlike their German brothers, the Swedish Social Democrats established ties with temperance lodges, and at times even with nonorthodox churches out in the countryside. As a result, Swedish social democracy also gained a good deal of sympathy in rural areas. But, to continue the comparison with Germany, the absence of antisocialist legislation of the Bismarckian kind was an even more important reason for the success of the Swedish Social Democrats' efforts to build up the party. They were facing a state executive ready to compromise and whose continuous concessions to Liberals and Social Democrats on such issues as the franchise helped to blunt labour radicalism.

Communists
The social democratic youth movement as well as party intellectuals took a dim view of the political pragmatism that led to a more moderate stance on ideological questions of principle. Via participation in the campaign of protest against the First World War, in which Sweden was neutral, and inspired by the Russian Revolution of 1917, this group broke away to form the Communist Party, officially recognized as such by the Third International in 1921.

Agrarians
As late as the turn of the century, every second Swede was living off the soil. To a certain extent, the farmers' traditionally good access to political channels had impeded the emergence of a radical peasantry in Sweden. The farmers had made up one of the estates in the pre-1866 Parliament, and in dealing with local affairs they had been able to take advantage of the considerable authority that rested with the municipalities. But with the growth of industrialization the farmers found it increasingly difficult to make themselves heard, e.g. in the conservative camp. In 1910, the official year of birth of what was to become the Centre Party, farmers' representatives began to break away from other parties. In 1922, the party emerged in its present form under the name of the Agrarian Party.

Grounds for political conflict
In Sweden, as elsewhere in Europe, the party system “froze” in the 1920s into a form that expressed the main political divisions in society. However, the confrontation between right and left, between the nonsocialist and the socialist blocs, never paralyzed Swedish democracy. In the wake of the economic crisis of the 1930s, the social democratic and agrarian parties in the Nordic countries came to terms and formed “red-and-green” coalitions. The foundations were laid for the modern welfare state.

The 1988 election changed the political landscape. A new party— the Greens—won seats in Parliament. This was the first time since 1917 that a new party had done this on its own power. What had happened?

Those who had followed the evolution of Swedish society in recent decades were not so surprised. The percentage of the labour force employed in agriculture had continued to decline and stands at about 2–3% today. Another factor has been de-industrialization: numerous Swedish shipyards, mines, steel mills and textile factories have shut down. Manufacturing accounts for a shrinking proportion of all employees. Yet unemployment was not a major problem during this period of structural change. The public sector absorbed hundreds of thousands of people in the 1970s and 80s. Because most of these were women, by the early 90s Sweden reported the world's highest female labour force participation rate. In short, Sweden had rapidly left behind the industrial society and was well on its way toward becoming a post-industrial or knowledge-based society.

Along what conflict lines will future political battles be fought? Will post-material values, rather than ideologies, control the political agenda in the form of new parties and new voting behaviour? In recent decades, the established parties have lost ground among the electorate. This is clear from the decline in class- based voting and party identification, accompanied by a growing mistrust of the political system in general and parties in particular. Issues-based voting is supplanting class-based voting in Swedish politics, as evidenced by the ascendance of such new parties as the Greens and the Christian Democrats since 1988.

The formal structure of the party system
In Sweden, existing parties can—at the expense of outside political interests—preserve and strengthen elements of the system that favour the status quo.

One such conserving element is the electoral law. As elections are held simultaneously (since 1994, every four years) to Parliament, county councils and municipal councils, election campaigns are national affairs and this makes it difficult for small, local parties with nationwide ambitions to catch the attention of the media. Although this remains true, certain changes have occurred in recent years. Two new parties—the Green Party and New Democracy— attracted heavy media attention before winning seats in Parliament.

Another factor that discourages individuals or party factions from upsetting the established parties with sudden initiatives or challenges is the postal vote (absentee ballot). One can vote by post as much as a month before election day and the polling slip usually carries only the party labels.

State party subsidies reinforce the structure of the party system. In principle, they are divided up in accordance with a party's share of the vote. For the fiscal year 1994/95, a total of SEK 127.2 million was allocated.

The press subsidies, which primarily go to daily newspapers and which amounted to SEK 487 million of state money in the fiscal year 1994/95, must also be taken into account as the Swedish press historically has close ties to the political parties. These subsidies ease the pressure on the party organizations' funds.

The ideological struggle among the parties
Swedish parties identify fairly strongly with basic ideological values. However, none of them slavishly insists on the validity of the original theories, especially when it comes to applying the writings of Mill, Smith, Marx and others to a modern welfare state. But even today there remains a clear dividing line between the socialist and nonsocialist parties. While the Left Party and the Social Democrats stress the need to extend democratic rule to embrace the economy as well, the nonsocialist parties make a point of stating that democracy can only be preserved in a market economy.

The Social Democrats: back in power
The Social Democratic Party regained power after three years in opposition. Following its disastrous performance in 1991, the party bounced back. Speculations in the wake of the 1991 election that the Social Democrats would never again attract more than 40% of the electorate soon proved false. The party's soul-searching after the 1991 disaster soon faded when public opinion surveys showed voter support climbing above the 50% mark as the recession deepened and unemployment climbed to record levels. While failing to achieve their own electoral majority in the 1994 election, they managed to attract 45.3% of the vote.

For both historical and economic reasons, the party has made combatting unemployment its top priority. Success in this area will, of course, help reduce the government budget deficit and Sweden's record-setting national debt. However, these objectives cannot be achieved without reforms in the social welfare system and membership in the European Union, the Social Democrats have argued.

The November 1994 referendum on EU membership—in which the Swedes said Yes by a margin of more than 5%—divided the Social Democrats in more than one respect. Blue-collar workers voted largely against membership, while white-collar employees voted in favour. About 70% in northern Sweden voted No, while the southern half of Sweden (especially the three largest urban areas: Stockholm, Göteborg and Malmö) voted Yes. The Social Democratic leadership's decision not to mobilize the party organization in the referendum campaign was perhaps wise, given the need to avoid fragmenting the party.

The Liberal Party: laissez-faire or social liberal?
Since its successful election showing in 1985, the Liberal Party has continuously lost support. With only 7.2% of the votes in 1994, the party had lost half its electoral base in less than ten years. Its decision in the spring of 1991 to join forces with the Moderates in backing an economic policy manifesto called “New Start for Sweden” was of little help. By 1994 unemployment had reached its worst level in 60 years.

Even before the election, Bengt Westerberg declared that he would step down as chairman if the Liberals lost ground. Soon after the election, he resigned. The party's problems remain, however, and it is unclear what strategy it will choose. It can either tilt toward a modernized version of 19th century laissez-faire liberalism—and struggle constantly for survival against the much larger Moderate Party—or it can shift its orientation back towards some kind of left- leaning “social” liberalism.

The Centre Party: agrarian or environmentalist?
The Centre is looking more and more like what it used to be: an agrarian party. Its triumphs in the 1970s debate in favour of “green society”, and against nuclear power, when the party attracted as much as one fourth of the electorate, are distant memories. The party has lost support at every parliamentary election since 1976, attracting a mere 7.7% of the 1994 vote.

Its problem is not merely a somewhat diffuse ideology. The Centre Party is also internally divided into two “factions”. One is an agricultural wing grouped around the Federation of Swedish Farmers (LRF). The other is the environmentalist wing, rooted in the party's Youth League. This split became apparent during the recent national debate on a proposed bridge and tunnel connecting Sweden and Denmark. Party Chairman Olof Johansson, who was also Environment Minister, resigned from the government when it was about to give its final approval to the bridge. As the EU referendum loomed closer, the split in the party became visible once again. The LRF wing was clearly in favour of EU membership, while the other wing was opposed. In this situation, the party leadership chose to keep a very low profile during the referendum campaign.

The Christian Democrats: a socially conservative party
By winning parliamentary seats in 1991 after 30 years in the political wilderness, the Christian Democrats suddenly became part of a nonsocialist government coalition with three other parties. By adopting a “don't rock the boat” policy in the government, the party saw its influence there fade and nearly ended up being voted out of the national legislature entirely. By attracting 4.1% of the votes in the 1994 election (down from 7.1% in 1991), however, it barely held on to its parliamentary representation.

Despite their low profile in the four-party government, the Christian Democrats were successful in two of their core issues. They pushed through a child care allowance for parents who stayed home with their children aged 1-3, and they were able to insert language in the national compulsory school (grade 1-9) curriculum stating that its instruction rested on a Christian foundation. (The new Social Democratic government quickly abolished the child care allowance.)

The party became deeply split during the EU referendum campaign. Its leaders gave their unqualified support for Swedish membership in the EU, but a majority of Christian Democratic supporters voted against EU membership.

The Left Party: Sweden's public-sector party?
For years, the future of the Left Party in Swedish politics seemed to be hanging by a delicate thread. This was because of the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. Opinion polls during most of the 1991-94 parliamentary session indicated that the party did not have enough voter support to survive in Parliament. Yet in the 1994 election it attracted 6.2% of the vote.

The party can attribute its strong showing in the 1994 election to “Comrade 4%”. In other words, Social Democratic sympathizers who wanted to make sure there would be a Social Democratic government voted for the Left Party in order to keep it in Parliament, knowing that traditionally, it always supports a Social Democratic government. Another important factor behind the party's election showing was its anti-EU stance.

The party's current strategy is based on seeking support among broad categories of people working in the public sector. In recent years, public agencies have been subjected to cutbacks and experiments aimed at introducing more market-like mechanisms. This has created unemployment and a sense of insecurity among public employees.

The Moderate Party: laissez-faire liberalism, Swedish style The Moderate Party set the tone of the 1991-94 coalition government. With twice as much voter support as any of the three other coalition parties—Centre, Liberals and Christian Democrats—it also took over the ministerial posts in its traditional core subjects: defence, foreign policy, industry and commerce, justice, schools and higher education. The Moderates pursued their policies rather successfully, but one outcome was that they overshadowed their smaller coalition partners.

The party pursued a consistent defence of laissez-faire economic liberalism and gave the government a pronounced neoconservative tilt, symbolizing a “paradigm shift” in Sweden. The government sold state-owned companies in the stock market, pushed through a tougher crime policy and introduced market-like mechanisms in public administration, for example in the university and college system. As a consequence, the Moderate Party gained ground in the 1994 parliamentary election, attracting 22.4% of the vote compared to 21.9% in 1991. This success, though modest, was unusual for a party that had been in power during the depths of a lengthy recession.

The election outcome also indicates that the Moderates face an important dilemma. While they can continue to pursue a neoconservative strategy and pick up support at the expense of the other nonsocialist parties, this will make it very difficult for them to return to power in the foreseeable future.

The Green Party: in from the cold
After three years outside Parliament, the Green Party managed to capture seats there again, albeit with somewhat less voter support (5.0%) than when it made its debut in 1988. The party's strong anti- EU stance over the years also enabled it to attract votes from a broad political spectrum. During 1991-94 the Greens established a more professional party organization, which improved their credibility. Another factor behind the Green Party's return to Parliament was that at an early stage, it declared its support for the chairman of the Social Democratic Party as prime minister, i.e. it backed the Swedish political left. This was in contrast with earlier declarations that it would not take sides in the left-right dimension of Swedish politics.

The parties meet the voters
Parliament, which since 1971 consists of a single chamber, has 349 members. The election system is based on proportional representation. The parties' share of the vote is directly translated into seats in the various elected assemblies at national and local levels. Two factors prevent strict proportionality. There is a quota rule to keep out very small parties, as it is feared their presence would make it difficult to form strong governments. To enter Parliament, a party must get at least 4% of the national vote or at least 12% of the vote in any one electoral district. The other factor limiting proportionality is the division of the country into regional electoral districts in such a way that a parliamentary seat “costs” more votes in the city of Stockholm than in, say, the Gotland electoral district, where the population is much smaller. This system is motivated by a desire to have a more even geographical spread of MPs.

All Swedish citizens who have reached the age of 18 are entitled to vote in general elections. The franchise is extended to foreign nationals for the county council and municipal elections on condition that they have resided in Sweden for at least three years prior to the election date. Similar rules apply with regard to the eligibility of election candidates.

Voter turnout in Sweden is traditionally very high, about 90%, which is roughly 10% higher than in any comparable West European country. At the most recent parliamentary elections in 1991 and 1994, turnout was about 86%.

The parties in Parliament
Changes of government are comparatively rare in Sweden. Since 1945, only four parliamentary elections have led to the immediate departure of the government in office. But parliamentarism has not always been such a peaceable affair.

The principle of parliamentarism, whereby a government stands or falls according to whether or not it enjoys parliamentary confidence, was written into the Constitution as late as 1975. In practice, however, the Swedish monarchy relinquished its involvement in power-broking back in 1917 when the Social Democrats and Liberals entered into coalition. Sweden was then ruled by weak minority governments of brief duration up until the “red-and-green” Cabinet of 1936 linking the Social Democrats and the Agrarians.

The system of parliamentary government operated with only five parties in Parliament until the late 1980s. One indication that the Swedish Parliament is becoming more “Europeanized” is the growing number of parties with seats there; another is more frequent changes of government between the socialist and nonsocialist blocs in recent decades.

The Social Democratic government that took power after the September 1994 election is a minority government. This means that the party must seek support from at least one of the other six parties in order to get its policies approved in Parliament. But on the other hand, the six opposition parties must achieve unanimity in order to bring down the government. This should be regarded as extremely unlikely, since it is very difficult to imagine any issue that could create a coalition of the Left Party, Greens and all four nonsocialist parties against the government.

Summary
As a result of the September 18 parliamentary election, the Social Democrats regained power after three years in opposition. Following its disastrous showing in 1991, with only 37.7% of the vote, the party turned in one of its best election performances since the Second World War: 45.3%. The Left Party scored its highest result since 1948, receiving 6.2% of all votes. On top of this victory of the left in Swedish politics, the Green Party returned to Parliament after a three-year absence, by attracting 5.0% of the vote. The party must be classified as part of the leftist bloc, because before the election it declared its support for the Social Democratic Party chairman as prime minister and also advocated redistribution policies close to those of the socialist parties.

The leftward shift in the 1994 election was accompanied by major setbacks for most of the parties in the nonsocialist coalition government. All the nonsocialist parties except the Moderates showed large declines in voter support. The right-wing populist party New Democracy (Ny Demokrati, NYD), torn by internal schisms, received only 1.2% of the vote and vanished from Parliament after only three years of existence. The collapse of the nonsocialist government and the powerful leftist tide in the 1994 election can be attributed to the deep recession and the related increase in unemployment.

The Social Democrats formed a minority government, but a relatively strong one, since all six other parties in Parliament must join forces in order to bring it down. There is very little likelihood that such a “coalition” could arise. This means that the Social Democrats will presumably be able to rule Sweden until the next election in 1998.

On November 13, less than six weeks after the Social Democrats took power, a national referendum on membership in the European Union took place. It ended in a relatively clear Yes vote, 52.3%, with 46.8% opposed. The Yes side included the entire political establishment, the media and the business community. Their victory was due to concern about the economy, the national debt, employment and interest rates and the very skillful tactics of the prime minister. He had chosen not to use the Social Democratic Party apparatus to pursue pro-EU propaganda, since he knew that a very large percentage of his own party members were against joining the EU. In addition, he had brought two known opponents of Swedish EU membership into his government.

Nevertheless, one effect of the EU referendum was to split the country's largest — and governing — party right down the middle. Half its supporters voted Yes, while the other half voted No. Similar splits affected the Centre and Christian Democrats.

Present party labels of the seven parties represented in Parliament
Moderata Samlingspartiet, M
Moderate Party (formerly Conservative)

Folkpartiet Liberalerna, FP
Liberal Party

Centerpartiet, C
Centre Party (formerly Agrarian)

Kristdemokraterna, KD
Christian Democratic Party

Miljöpartiet de Gröna, MP
Green Party

Socialdemokratiska Arbetarepartiet, S
Social Democratic Party

Vänsterpartiet, V
Left Party (formerly Left Party Communists)

The parliamentary parties' positions of principle on economic and general policy (according to current party programmes)

Moderate Party
Even a society with a market economy naturally requires public authority to guarantee legal and social security, military defence, health and social services, education, etc. The public sector must not, however, be allowed to grow to the extent that it poses a threat to the free economy. A free society presupposes a free economy. Lack of economic freedom leads to suppression of freedom in other areas as well. Not all market economies are democracies, but all democracies are nations with a free economic system.

Liberal Party
Liberalism's economic system is a socially oriented market economy. No system other than the market economy has been able to combine successfully with political democracy and personal freedom. However, a market economy has built-in mechanisms which, if allowed free rein, can lead to concentration of power, economic gulfs and over-exploitation of the environment. Therefore, a social-liberal policy means that the State, via the political process, draws up general frameworks for the economy within which companies and individuals may act freely.

Centre Party
An economy based on free enterprise, competition, and individual and co-operative ownership offers the best opportunities for continued economic progress and a decentralized decision-making process. Concentration of power and the formation of cartels and monopolies are discouraged. Economic policy is geared to encourage diversity and the decentralization of power and to promote small-scale technology. Widespread ownership, personal initiative, the creation of new enterprises and the development of small and medium-sized businesses are encouraged.

Christian Democratic Party
Supports policies that defend human dignity and the struggle for universal liberty, show solidarity with the weak and oppressed, and promote responsible stewardship of global resources. The party stands for a Christian philosophy that assigns an absolute value to human beings while calling on them to accept heavy and binding responsibility. Greater support for homes and families is the most effective way to reduce youth problems, alcoholism, criminality and other social problems. The right to life, which is a fundamental human right, should apply from the beginning of life until its end. Society should work actively to prevent abortions.

Green Party
The Green Party's basic vision is of a society in ecological balance with nature. This implies that the economy must be subordinated to the ecological system; an economy based on ecocycles must be introduced, meaning that finite natural resources will not be exhausted and natural assets will not be consumed faster than they are renewed. Democracy must be strengthened by expanding the principle of free access to public documents, by holding parliamentary and local elections in different years, by limiting political officeholders to a maximum of three terms, and by prohibiting them from simultaneously serving in more than one position at the parliamentary, county council and municipal levels.

Social Democratic Party
To the Social Democratic Party, the demand for economic democracy is as self-evident as the demand for political democracy. Social democracy is opposed to an order of things that entitles ownership to wield power over people. It resists all attempts to concentrate power in the hands of the few. It seeks to bring the direction of production and the distribution of the fruits of production under democratic control. The aim is to make all citizens equal partners in the task of administering and augmenting the community's productive resources.

Left Party
The party seeks to organize socialists, communists and others prepared to support its policies. The party is to work for a classless society and its central theme is satisfaction of the basic needs of all. A radical labour movement, a capable environment movement and a resolute women's movement can together reverse the course of development in our country—and offer the hope of a better world free from oppression and over-exploitation of man and nature.

The first election to the European Parliament
In Sweden’s first election to the European Parliament in September 1995, voter turnout was a mere 41.3%. This sent a shock through the political system. Such a low turnout had not been recorded since the introduction of political democracy. What had happened?

The voters were acting like the politicians by not attaching as much importance to the EU election as to a regular parliamentary election. The political parties had devoted far smaller resources to this election than to an ordinary parliamentary one. Many of their candidates for MEP were relatively unknown to the voters. Another possible reason for the low turnout was that this was the first time that the Swedes could also vote for individual candidates. The new system was designed in such a way that a given candidate had to attract the support of at least 5% of a party’s total voters in order to gain a higher ranking on its election list. In practice, this meant that it was very difficult for voters to move candidates up the list. Nevertheless, about 50% of all voters took the opportunity to single out individuals on the list.

Interpreting the low turnout as a threat to democracy is an exaggeration. Other EU countries also have lower turnouts in European Parliament elections than in national parliamentary elections.

The Swedish electorate’s skeptical attitude toward the EU was expressed not only by the large number who stayed home on election day. Anti-EU parties, as well as individuals representing other parties who had actively opposed EU membership, were also elected to the European Parliament. Sweden’s 22 seats were evenly divided between EU supporters and opponents (11–11).

The two parties that had opposed EU membership in 1994, the Greens and the Left, were the big winners in September 1995. They attracted about one third of all voters. Compared to the 1994 parliamentary elections, the Green Party more than tripled its percentage, while the Left party doubled its support. The three parties that had been completely split during the November 1994 EU referendum—the Social Democrats, Centre and Christian Democrats—were only partially successful in maintaining their unity during the campaign for the European Parliament election. The Social Democrats attracted only 28.0% of the votes; this represented their worst election result since universal male suffrage was introduced in 1911. Furthermore, most Social Democratic voters chose the party list topped by a critic of the EU. The Christian Democrats dropped below the 4% threshold, thus ending up with no MEP’s. The Centre Party survived relatively unscathed, losing only half a percentage point compared to the 1994 parliamentary election. The party had resolved its split by offering two lists—one with pro-EU representatives and one with anti-EU ones. Widespread skepticism about the EU even affected Sweden’s two most pro-EU parties. The Moderates, who have always projected a very EU-friendly image, only managed to improve their outcome slightly compared to the parliamentary election. The Liberals, the party most clearly in favour of a future federal Europe, suffered their worst election outcome ever, attracting only 4.8% of the vote.

Published by the Swedish Institute, October 1996