A choice that politicians do not manage

It’s time to make an analysis of the past few day’s political occurrences. I will however try to withhold from using rhetoric that has deviated from substantive issues and ideologies and instead come to focus on direct attacks and emotional moves. That the Swedish political system has broken down in the same way as in the US when George W. Bush for a number of years ago was re-elected, was confirmed at the same moment as Stefan Löfven announced an extra election. As he spoke the words and stated the liability issue as the reason for the decision, it was not just a rejection of the voters’ decision in September but also the dismissal of the entire Swedish democratic system.

This text was supposed to be about the xenophobic winds in Europe, where different parties with this ideology seems to have crept into the decision-making corridors, but after this week’s impotent actions of our elected politicians I changed my focus to attempt an analysis of how it is possible that our politicians, regardless of party affiliation, no longer respects democratic values. Angry voices may claim just the opposite, that Löfvens back juggling to the people is a behavior that underline the basic democratic challenge, but the election results should be respected and the political map be drawn after the verdict. All other actions are irresponsible and prove that they do not trust the people’s decisions or their own ability to resolve the situation and it is on this very shaky foundation the Swede again go to the ballot box March 22, 2015.

Today’s politics has been shaped by prevailing social climate and dictated by the rules of the game instead of trying to change them, which is the source to the current problem and the parliamentary situation. Politicians are no longer the role models we expect and journalism transparent reviews creates distrust that is difficult to manage. By rummaging in every elected officials background, where individual events are highlighted and magnified, media interest has created a skepticism about the entire operations. In this climate every political person is shaped, in this environment the self-esteem and self-confidence that gives us our final opinion about them is redefined. Add to this that in principle all parties backed in voter support when the votes were spread on many more searching opportunity to get into the Swedish parliament.

Was it on this basis that the parties entered into negotiations on cooperation across the block boundary? A diminished confidence and a lowered self-esteem is not a good basis for gathering in new political constellations. Good negotiation and new meetings require that single parties have something to offer so that the other side of the table should meet up with other suggestions. In this way, the Sweden Democrats, according to many the cause of the parliamentary crisis, has built its policies. The Sweden Democrats have their largest electorate in those with poor self-image and low self-esteem. People who quite seriously believe that each refugee or immigrant is a threat to them self and society, who believe that every single person who comes here means one job less for themselves and the job market. Those who convert human suffering into economic terms, and who see cultural development as a threat to the ability to feel Swedish. This reasoning is the base for every xenophobic party’s politics and has been so as long as we can remember. Sweden Democrats underlines this by pointing out that they want the extra election to be a referendum on immigration.

Similarly, the issue of responsibility has been tossed between the parties. No one wants to take responsibility and no one has enough self-awareness to reflect on their own behavior, which is the only parameter that indicates some sort of safety. Safety – a word used repeatedly to try to convince voters that their particular political ideology is the way to happiness. Instead of self-examination, they have highlighted arguments as ”the responsibility for their own voters,” in a parliamentary position where the democratic base just has given clear signals that cooperation is an absolute necessity. If the Sweden Democrats are a serious threat to democracy, a cooperation between the other democratic parties is even more necessary.

In March we the voters again have to take a responsibility we have already taken. Then we took it by choosing a party that then has proven not to respect the democratic basic idea and where the politicians do not respect the outcome we have given them. All have failed in their own way. The Social Democrats and Stefan Löfven by the inability to what should be his strongest trait, negotiation, Alliance parties by their inability to see the seriousness of the situation and to meet and Sweden Democrats who quite seriously believe that 13 percent gives them the right to trap any government that does not sharply cut down migration funding. Every politician’s behavior has really proven that none of them is worthy of renewed trust. Instead voters is forced to renegotiate with themselves to generate new parliamentary results – a choice that not even our elected politicians manage.

Niklas Liiv the 7th of December 2014