Subscribe
The Swedish constitution has some sweeping changes ahead of it, which should worry conservatives. In simple terms, it will become easier for the old parties, particularly the Social Democrats, to veto any proposals to change any of the increasingly obsolete and eternally controversial contents of the Instrument of Government. This has implications for a number of key policy areas, such as immigration, and Sweden’s EU membership. Therefore, it has been frustrating to watch the development unfold with virtually no media attention or public debate. Until just now. The nationalist Sweden Democrats have demanded a referendum on these changes, which is perhaps one of the boldest moves the party has done in many years.
The Swedish constitution and its technicalities
As it stands today, the Parliament of Sweden, the riksdag, can amend the constitution of Sweden over the course of one election cycle; it requires one simple majority vote before a general election, and one simple majority vote after the election. In theory, this allows the amendment proposal to be highlighted and debated so the voters can have their say.
In practice, this never actually happens, and most constitutional amendments happen in a media shadow. It can thus be argued that it is too easy to change the constitution, which since its initial adoption in 1974 has become layered in time-sensitive political trends. Some of these trends have proven to be bad ideas very quickly – such as the amendment that declares Sweden to be a member state of the European Union, which came to be in 2010. This decreases Sweden’s leveraging power over the institutions of the EU, as they are aware that Sweden is constitutionally obligated not to leave the Union.
But the perhaps largest issue that requires a constitutional amendment is the question of Swedish citizenships, and how they can be revoked. Currently, there is no such possibility, which a popular majority and the government want to change, due to the relationship between crime and immigration in Sweden. A stunning number of immigrants with criminal backgrounds are granted Swedish citizenship yearly due to notoriously lax rules, and it presents a security threat to Sweden to not be able to deport them despite their crimes.
Sweden obviously needs a stronger awareness of constitutional issues in its media, and among its political parties. The lack of interest shown in this topic, that has resulted in the constitution of Sweden becoming an eclectic collage, is probably culturally rooted. Sweden has operated mainly by the principle of popular sovereignty, which is also enshrined in the opening of the Instrument of Government itself (“All public power is derived from the people”). This has meant that there has never been a stringency as to if the actions of the government are by the book or not, and most practices by the Swedish government are instead the result of traditions.
Until the “modern” constitution of 1974, Sweden operated under the 1809 Instruments of Government, which, by the book, granted the monarchy significant influence over the day-to-day business of administration. This did not mean that the Kings of Sweden actively exercised this power, however, as that would have been culturally offensive to the Swedes of the 20th century.
The upcoming constitutional reform has a lot of content, but the most significant change is the requirement of a qualified majority of two thirds on an amendment, on the final riksdag vote. In practice, this allows a small part of the political opposition to veto every change, moving Sweden away from popular sovereignty, as it deprives a single majority government of the power to amend the constitution. What Sweden instead will get is a not-so-timeless document, forever petrified by the irreconciliable political differences of the riksdag.
A referendum on the horizon?
The Sweden Democrats is the only party that has criticised this reform. They in particular point out the potential of the Social Democrats, the major party that has shaped most of the current constitution, to block any changes they deem challenge its institutional hegemony. This is the largest party in the riksdag, and consistently in the polls, appropriately representing about a third of the electorate. That is not to say the rest of the left-wing parties don’t have objections to most of the Sweden Democrats’ and the centre-right government’s ambitions.
On the 14th of October, the Sweden Democrats’ leader Jimmie Åkesson hosted a press conference where he announced his party’s formal application for a public referendum to the riksdag. It requires only 10 percent of the parliament’s 349 seats to apply, but a third of the vote to actually see it carried through. This means a number of, presumably centre-right, representatives will have to support the Sweden Democrats’ initiative for a referendum to be held. The Sweden Democrats are part of the governing coalition, but it is no guarantee that the Moderates, the Christian Democrats, or the Liberals will support the call for a referendum. Jimmie Åkesson appealed especially to these parties, as the Swedish right in general has the most to lose when it comes to the constitution being virtually locked for all future.
‘Bourgeois’ stubbornness they can come to regret
What reasons do these parties have to vote no to a referendum? A few, actually, and all of them are about saving face.
To start off with, they voted yes to the constitutional amendment in the first round (of two rounds, the second of which will take place after the election in 2026), which happened earlier in October. Even if they realise now (or already did so from the beginning) that the reform is detrimental to their political goals, it would appear as if they are being directed by the Sweden Democrats if they only now concede the issue to the voters instead. The timing of the Sweden Democrats’ referendum call has been criticised as being irresponsible and violating parliamentary procedures, and this is not something that the Moderates, Christian Democrats, or Liberals want to be associated with.
The second factor that plays into the Sweden Democrats’ isolation on this issue is that the mainstream parties, i.e. non-populist parties, abide by the culture of consensus, especially when it comes to the very large topics. On ‘existential’ issues, it is customary to at least superficially appeal to the necessity of all parties to reach a common understanding, and this approach has characterised for example the Swedish pension system, and the energy politics. The constitution is another such topic where it would be seen as uncouth to polarise, and the traditional ‘bourgeois’ parties that are holding all the cards right now are very unlikely to break this principle for the sake of the Sweden Democrats.
Lastly, it is also worth reflecting on whether the Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Liberals truly are as appalled by the constitutional reform as they could, and according to Sweden Democrats, should be. To many, perhaps most, in these parties, it could speak to reason to ‘protect’ the constitution from temporary majorities, even if that majority is their own. Originally, the qualified majority rule was proposed as a safeguard against populism, with scary examples such as Donald Trump and Viktor Orbán weighing heavily on the minds of the Swedish political elite. A referendum on the amendment mechanism might very well just be another expression of the same type of populism they are looking to disarm, in their view.
The political program of the so-called Tidö government, constituted by the Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Liberals, and supported by the Sweden Democrats, is an ambitious mix of classically liberal and national conservative ideas. It can be carried through in its current form under the current constitutional rules, but the new order would prevent it from developing further. In the interest of the wholly conservative restructuring that Sweden needs in the long term, the government cannot be restricted from making divisive and polarised changes to the constitution. The parties that vote no to the call for a referendum will have a lot to answer for.