Subscribe
The reasons why political parties gain or lose support in public opinion can be numerous and varied. If parties decline over time, or if they begin to waver regarding which political issues to champion, it may be because they have abandoned their core voters.
Many political parties were originally formed to serve as interest-based parties for specific social groups. Throughout the 20th century, it was common in European democracies for parties to represent, for instance, farmers or industrial workers.
Much has changed in this regard over the last thirty years. Our societies have evolved. The boundaries between different social groups have blurred. The working class is no longer as homogeneous a group as it once was. New demographic groups have emerged. Women now not only possess the right to vote but also participate actively in politics and in broader social life.
Parties founded under specific social and historical conditions may struggle to remain relevant as society changes.
A prime example of this is how traditional labor-oriented parties—such as the Socialist Party in France, the Labor Party in the UK, and the Social Democrats in Sweden—have been challenged and diminished by new, populist right-wing parties. The old labor parties refused to take a stand against large-scale immigration, adopting instead a more idealistic stance centered on upholding the rights of all individuals. Consequently, many male working-class voters—who had supported these parties for a century—shifted their allegiance to the new conservative parties. And this is a good example of how parties that initially defend the interests of a specific social group expand their potential base of stakeholders, thereby distancing themselves from the groups they were originally meant to defend.
All Marxist-inspired parties have held a universal perspective. Initially, the call was for workers from all countries to unite. Over time, however, these humanistic principles expanded to encompass society as a whole—and, ultimately, all people across the globe. Consequently, socialist parties began to advocate for large-scale immigration, even when their original voter base was not particularly enthusiastic about it—or stood to gain nothing from it.
A similar allure may exist for those parties in Europe that have recently gained strength through their opposition to uncontrolled mass immigration.
In the Swedish general election held in September 2026, the Sweden Democrats—a social-conservative party critical of immigration—saw their support decline for the first time in a national parliamentary election. Having secured 20.5 percent of the vote in 2022, they fell back to 17.5 percent.
Part of the reason is that the party has, quite simply, been successful. Emerging from obscurity in 2010 to enter the national parliament, they had grown in every subsequent election. Following the 2022 election, they became part of the governing coalition, successfully implementing much of their migration and justice policy through their partnership with Sweden’s liberal-conservative parties.
Moreover, Sweden has benefited from the policies of the Sweden Democrats. Immigration is now under control, and gang-related crime linked to immigration has been significantly curtailed.
Consequently, it no longer feels as pressing for all the Sweden Democrats’ new voters to continue supporting the party. This is why the party saw a decline compared to the 2022 election.
As a result, a debate has emerged within the party regarding the path forward. Many party members advocate for broadening the party’s profile, arguing that Swedes have grown weary of the focus on immigration. They want parties that offer a more comprehensive policy platform covering the economy, education, healthcare, foreign affairs, and other issues.
The risk here—as pointed out by other party representatives and many voices in conservative media—is that the party might end up alienating its core base.
Many Swedes, particularly ethnic Swedes, are concerned about the presence of Islam in Sweden. They believe that demographic shifts have gone too far. They want a party that remains willing to challenge the establishment and address the issue of migration in an uncompromising—and perhaps uncomfortable—way.
The current party leadership, headed by Jimmie Åkesson, appears hesitant. While the party seeks to broaden its profile, it may also recognize that a successful political party can hardly be a party for everyone. It might, therefore, be better to remain committed to the original core base and continue to define the party primarily through its stance on immigration.