Swedish politics

The strange death of social-democratic Sweden

A new sort of Swedish model appeals to the right, not the left

See article

Readers' comments


the doctorate

I would not agree that the "Moderates" are the new Social-Democrats. There are other issues than "how high is the tax"-argument.
Two examples that significantly makes the "Moderates" different from the Swedish model are the privatisation of state owned companies and school politics. During the last 4 years a great deal of the state owned companies have been sold to private investors.
Also the emphasis on "elite" schools and "elite" students are also something that differ the "Moderates" from the "Swedish model".

Stefan Larsson

Tage Sundin (Sep 16), sorry to disappoint you Tage, but the information given in the article is correct. If the Alliance wins on Sunday they will be the first Center/Right government to be re-elected after serving a full term since the war.
You forget that the Fälldin majority government resigned in 1978 and was replaced by the Ullsten minority government which was in office up until the 1979 elections. Thus, the Fälldin government did not serve a full term, although Mr Fälldin did resume office as Prime Minister again after the 1979 elections and until 1982 - when they lost the election.


Can only agree with the majority of the Swedish comments here, that the article misses the target completely. What has happened in Sweden has been a great disaster for SAP (the formal abbreviation for the Swedish Social Democratic Party) but far from the Social Democratic Ideology. Rater the opposite, as both blocks in Sweden now more or less follows it.

And it also misses what is maybe most important for me, a Social Democrat voting for the Alliance, is that most true Swedish Social Democrats pride themselves in being practical, and are quite likely to switch back quite quickly if they think that (S) are more competent to defend and develop the Swedish model again.


What happened in Sweden is similar to that in UK 1997, the parties who moves to the centre get the most votes, the labour party under Blair moved from the left to become more conservative, the conservative party in Sweden moved to the left, the current Moderaterna, has very little in common with the old Högerpartiet,(Conservatives). I agree with the comments that The Economist should be more careful when accepting articles from freelance journalist, it is qiute often nowadays that they publish articles that are putting down everything that isn't pure right wing american politics
Kent, Swede in Cape Town

Ian Gordon

In a democracy you will always have periods when the balance shifts from left to right, or from incumbent to challenger, just look at Japan. South and Central America has gone from right to left.

Balancing social welfare and instilling economic aspirations in the populace is always going to need adjusting from time to time. Mind you the whole concept of left and right needs adjusting. The left gained ground when the working classes were living in squalor.

Perhaps we need to be thinking about adjusting policy between local and international, small businesses and large, community and local government, local government and national government.


This article should be removed and the freelance author blacklisted. It is an embarrassment to the establishment.


Yes I agree with the comments above. Right in Sweden is Left in the US. Social democracy is still thriving and is a great model for everyone to adopt. Scandinavia has the highest standard of living and they pay you to go to college. I would not mind giving up greed and more tax money to a government that can do such wonders.


"Outside of Sweden, the country is mainly known for social democracy and the novels of Stieg Larsson." I suppose the writer of these words never heard of Ingmar Bergman. Sic transit gloria mundi, as they say, but the cinematic master of Stockholm has been dead only a little over three years; is he so thoroughly forgotten so quickly?


"So lets drop the "far-right" label finally "

Yes, let's do so, and call it what it is: the cleaned-up and polished political arm of Swedish neo-Nazi movement.


Any country that can allow one family (the Wallenbergs) to control (sorry, "dominate" is more politically correct) over 30% via INVESTOR AB, SEB Bank and EQT Private Investment Funds in Guernsey can be described as "Social-democratic"


The Swedish model built and promoted by the Social Democrats (S.D.) for decades is not dead in any way. The S.D. party has always promoted a strong Swedish PRIVATELY owned industry.

True socialists anywhere could never have supported such beneficial policies towards industry as the S.D. (as opposed socialists everywhere have admired...).

The Swedish model is one of solidarity in society and is promoted by ALL parties. To fund such expensive policies we need an economy based on industriousness, massive research, strong unions (in the sense that they are part of the process and thus made responsible...) and equality for women and their participation in the economic and political life of the nation).

Two factors in the main are important to explain the present situation, namely:

1) The governments alliance stealing voters from the left by moving policies to the centre.

2) The S.D. party incomprehensible move to work with the Left Party(former communists). This action and subsequent policy changes to the left of the political spectrum has made many people traditionally voting with the S.D. party worried as well as it appears some members of the Green Party. Voila.


Mr Reinfeldt's centre-right Moderate Party is in reality far more socialistic then any where else in the West. So even though Sweden appears to be steering away from a socialistic set-up to a capitalistic one, that is more illusionary than factual.

A more accurate surmise would be to note the Swedes are less sociailists now than five years ago. And the success of the Moderates is partly attributable to timing & partly to luck that the economy is on the up & up again.

Eitherway, Sweden continues to be the most worthy model other EU nations should aspire to imitate & replicate.


So my understanding is that the Economist employs local freelancers, as this article keeps the tradition of Swedish conformist views.

"The far-right Sweden Democrats's" platform is largely, to the best of my knowledge, focused on advocating a responsible immigration policy, investing in law enforcement and making sure that senior citizens, who contributed the most to the Swedish society, are not forgotten about. Add, on top of that, a resistance to the EMU of the European Union, something which clearly separates the Sweden Democrats from any other established Swedish party.

So lets drop the "far-right" label finally and welcome the only alternative to the uniform Swedish political establishment, which currently consists of 7 parties – all supporting the same views in all major and truly important political issues.

David A. Newman

If the right wing party is elected, that should regress Sweden back a decade or so. Then, Swedish voters will come to their senses and re-elect the intellectually enlightened social democratic party. Social first, markets second: intelligent. Markets first, social second: regressive Conservative.

What is more important for evolution?: the human species as a whole (social) or as individuals alone (conservative). Pretty easy answer.


"The first is that voters seem to value competent government above ideology."

And this is it in a nutshell. What do we really care about labels for if the government in control has improved conditions for all long-term? As a US citizen, I am looking for confidence at the top, coupled with leadership. At the moment, we have disarray, that that breeds fear and uncertainty and a void for another regime to move into.

S Thore

In each speach Mr Reinfeldts makes he defends the "Swedish model" and the big welfare state.

How can "the Economist" then say that social democratis Sweden is dead? Its still alive, just with another party in power =).

S Thore

I agree with "david B"

I think the author of this article misses one important thing: The Moderates are in some ways the best protector of "the Swedish model" and has gone towards the center. So the "Swedish model" is still there, and in some ways you could say that the Social Democrats have won. Just that they are not in power, but the welfare state lives big time.

The Moderates have realized that they cant win elections with classic moderate politics, so instead they copy socialdemocratic policy.

david b

The article overlooks one crucial point: The Moderates have succeeded by moving decisively towards the centre (which in an international perspective puts them quite far to the left). For example:
1. The Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, recently said that he was comfortable with the overall tax rates in Sweden. We still have VERY high taxes (#2 in the world after Denmark)
2. The Moderate party says it does not want to get rid of the labour market regulations that go by the name of LAS, which forces companies to hire and fire according to a "last in first out" principle (i.e. unless an employee screws up REAL bad he cannot be fired until everyone who was hired after him has been fired).


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Gun laws: Prayers and pistols
Democracy in America 2 hrs 14 mins ago
Daily chart: Justice on trial
Graphic detail July 11th, 13:40
Technology and fashion: Storming the maisons
Schumpeter July 11th, 10:05
Financial literacy: Back to basics
Free exchange July 11th, 10:01


Products and events



