Civil society, religious communities and popular education

Jonas Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today, the Culture Committee's report on civil society, religious communities, and folk education is being debated. I will therefore account for the Sweden Democrats' position regarding the issues addressed in the report. I would first like to move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

Both for Sweden as a whole and for the individual human being, civil society is very significant. It is a positive force that creates meaning in everyday life and which contributes with community, education, culture, physical activity and much more. This we know very well.

Civil society must not be taken for granted by politics, because the decisions we make affect the conditions under which civil society operates. For the Sverigedemokraterna, it is central that politics provides good conditions for civil society to develop while we safeguard civil society's independence. Civil society must not become so dependent on the state that it risks becoming the public sector's extended arm.

I mean that such a development gained momentum during previous red-green governments. Then political decisions were made that caused major problems, for example when it comes to immigration policy, which one then wanted civil society to fix.

Madam Speaker! Since the 2022 election, order and clarity have been in focus for the Sweden Democrats and the government when it comes to the policy for civil society, including folkbildningen and religious communities. During the mandate period, we have clearly acted for increased control and follow-up regarding state grants distributed to civil society.

It is for the benefit of civil society that we have regained control over the grant flows. The mismanagement of civil society policy that occurred under the red-green government led to money being sprayed in all possible directions, including to Islamists, criminals, fraudsters, and so on. This damaged the trust for the state's policy for civil society in the eyes of the general public.

This mandate period has been a journey to restore confidence in civil society policy. When the red-greens were in power, tens of millions of kronor were distributed annually to the Islamist study association Ibn Rushd and to the Islamic Shia Association in Sweden, which is connected to the Iran-linked Imam Ali Islamic Center in Järfälla. During this mandate period, the grants to both of these organizations have been withdrawn. There was a grant freeze for the Islamists.

When the red-greens were in power, the policy for student unions was characterized by both media headlines and agency reports of cheating and trickery with taxpayers' money, this at a level one hardly thought was possible. During this mandate period, we do not see that type of reporting in the same way. Our investments in control and follow-up are making a difference.

The Sweden Democrats and the government have done a lot during the mandate period for order and clarity in civil society policy. Shortly after the election, we ensured that the guidelines for the Folkbildningsrådet (National Council for Adult Education) were tightened. We submitted additional directives to the Folkbildningsutredningen (Adult Education Inquiry) which have resulted in us receiving decision-making bases that address the conflict of interest situation that exists because study associations are, on one hand, involved in and monitor the Folkbildningsrådet, and on the other hand, are recipients of state grants from the same organization. We have also introduced stricter and uniform democratic conditions for state grants to civil society, and we see that this is starting to have an effect, for example, regarding the Iran-linked Islamist activity in Järfälla that I mentioned earlier.

The Sweden Democrats are closely following the implementation of the new democratic conditions. Should it turn out that there is a need, we stand ready to act for further tightening.

An important piece of news from Sverigedemokraterna and the government that came at the end of 2025 is that the new, tightened democratic conditions that the Riksdag has decided on during the mandate period are now being implemented for the folk education sector. The democratic conditions also apply not only to study associations and folk high schools but also to their partners. The decision from Sverigedemokraterna and the government also includes requirements that one must openly report which partners one has.

That it must be openly reported who one cooperates with and that the democratic conditions also cover the next level is absolutely crucial for us to take control that the state grant goes to the right things, not least because just cooperation with organizations in the next level is an important part of what the actors in folk education are much involved with. This ensures that any problems can be detected at an earlier stage so that we can avoid cleaning up as much in hindsight.

The lack of transparency and the protected workshop that has previously prevailed at some study associations has been a major problem that has allowed tax money to end up in the pockets of extremists and other villains.

Madam Speaker! During the mandate period, we have therefore taken further steps for requirements and transparency, control and follow-up. By taking control of the grant flows, we safeguard the taxpayers' money and in this way the trust for civil society policy.

During the 2022–2026 mandate, the policy for civil society has gained momentum in the right direction. Sverigedemokraterna constantly monitors the development to ensure that we stay on course. Should misfortune strike and we get a red-green government this autumn, there is a risk that much of the good work for civil society will be shot down. The same applies, of course, to a long line of other policy areas.

Let us see to it that we do not end up there after the autumn election!

In this speech, Pia Trollehjelm (SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Civil society with the association life, popular education, and culture is an ecosystem that holds society together. It makes people strong through engagement, help, and support when someone needs it and is in many ways the foundation for our society, for cohesion, and for democracy.

Naturally, the public sector needs to be involved through us in politics and support with funding but also in other ways. We need to build infrastructures with premises and organizers but also provide moral support and show confidence. When this works, this ecosystem grows.

But if the public sector withdraws, lowers budget items, destroys infrastructure and casts suspicion on associations, aid organizations and study associations, just as we heard a moment ago, the ecosystem is loosened. The fine threads and roots in the mycorrhiza are separated from one another, and just as in nature, an ecosystem that has collapsed takes a long time to build up again. It is unfortunately exactly what is happening right now with the Tidö parties' governance of Sweden and Swedish civil society.

It makes me worried. Report after report shows that it is in the weakest parts of the countryside and in small towns that we have the losers of the Tidö policy. When community life collapses and when perhaps the only community center and meeting place closes, important parts of Sweden also collapse.

Wounds and divides are being created between different groups and different parts of the country, divides between those who are born here and those who move here, divides between those who have much in the form of wealth and income and those with lower incomes. Here, community life, culture, and civil society play a decisive role in healing and bringing together. But what we see now is unfortunately a journey towards an increasingly divided Sweden.

This is a development that we must reverse. Miljöpartiet will go to the election this autumn on strengthening civil society. We want to see a civil society boost. In our shadow budgets this mandate period, we have allocated just over a billion beyond the government's budget for that boost. We want to invest in association life, youth organizations, folkbildning, the voluntary sector, religious communities, and sports. It is a prioritization we make in economically tough times. It is an investment in people, for a long-term sustainable, democratic, and resilient society and for preparedness in times of war and crisis in our surrounding world.

Our initiatives are about facilitating long-term planning and operations, supporting the infrastructure of association life, and making it easier for all the country's enthusiasts to reach out with cultural events and association activities throughout the country. We want initiatives for integration, health, and children's and young people's leisure time to be made possible.

We reject the leisure card and use those funds significantly more effectively so that they reach the associations and the children instead of getting stuck in the authorities' bureaucracy and administration.

The administration of associations needs to be simplified. Today, it is far too difficult, for example, to open a bank account, especially for small associations and associations with youth on the board. It is a democratic deficit that in practice prevents associations from operating. There is a Danish model that we should look at in order to legislate associations' right to a payment account.

Passionate individuals and people working voluntarily also struggle with complicated applications. The state grants need to become easier to apply for. We want to transition to more long-term operational support and fewer short-term project grants. But for that, trust is required, not mistrust.

We want to level the differences between sports and the rest of the leader-led civil society when it comes to social security contributions. The exemptions in the Social Security Contributions Act that apply to Riksidrottsförbundet's organizations should also apply to, for example, youth organizations.

These ways of facilitating and encouraging rather than creating additional thresholds, obstacles, mistrust and controls are included in the Green Party's civil society boost together with the extra billion.

Madam Speaker! During the current parliamentary term, the Tidö government has reduced support for student unions by half a billion. I believe that has sunk in for most people now. We have not yet seen the full consequence of this policy. It continues. But activities, rehearsal rooms, association premises, and circle leaders are disappearing across the entire country. We know that there is a membership decision within the Sweden Democrats to continue the cuts and stop all state support to student unions. This will therefore become a reality if the Tidö parties are allowed to continue for another four years.

The contempt for education, the fear of strong individuals, and the resistance to a strong, cohesive, and resilient society is what governs the Tidö policy. The Green Party thinks differently. We want to go in the opposite direction. We want to strengthen individuals, strengthen society, and build democracy. In our shadow budget, we have put back the entire sum, half a billion, to the study associations and an additional 100 million to the folk high schools because we know how important the collective public education is and has been for building up and strengthening Swedish society for more than 150 years.

We want to implement the proposals from the Folkbildningsutredningen. We believe in the self-governance model. We believe that the balance between trust and control that the investigator Christer Nylander presented is reasonable and good for strengthening folkbildningen moving forward. We believe in lifelong learning and in education.

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs a strong civil society with a vibrant association life, religious communities, a strong folk education, and a strong cultural life. For that, a new government is required this autumn – a government with Miljöpartiet.

I move for approval of reservation 3 in the committee report, which primarily concerns the funding of civil society organizations.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! We live in a time that tests society's strength, not only economically but also socially and in terms of values. In this situation, it becomes clear how crucial civil society, popular education, and religious communities are for building a secure, inclusive, and democratic Sweden. During the mandate period, the Government has taken important steps to strengthen exactly this.

The government prioritizes a vibrant and engaged civil society. Through increased investments in sports and association life, more opportunities are created for children and young people to find community, develop, and feel a sense of belonging. Association life is often the first place where young people learn to take responsibility, cooperate, and practice democratic values in reality. These investments are therefore not just leisure investments or civil society investments. They are also preventive measures for a stronger society where democratic and free ideals offer alternatives and function as a counterforce against crime and extremism.

The Government invests 100 million kronor annually during the mandate period in a permanent initiative to strengthen civil society. The Government also invests 100 million annually during the mandate period to enable and strengthen sports and leisure activities in vulnerable areas. The Government also invests almost half a billion during the mandate period on more sports halls in Sweden. Through the leisure card, 800 million kronor is invested every year to enable association life, sports, and culture for children and young people.

Madam Speaker! Last year, almost 350,000 leisure cards were granted nationally in Sweden. Of these, 40,000 leisure cards were specifically targeted at children in economically disadvantaged families, where the leisure card also had a higher amount limit. In my constituency, Stockholm City, 28,000 leisure cards were granted last year. I think it is fantastic. The leisure card can only be used for activities for children and young people. It is only theirs.

In total during the mandate period, the government invests over 5 billion kronor broadly in civil society, association life, and sports.

The government has made difficult but necessary prioritizations regarding adult education. Reduced grants do not mean that its importance is undervalued. The aim is to ensure quality and transparency and that resources are used in the right way. Adult education remains a central part of Swedish society, but reforms and efficiencies are also important to strengthen its long-term legitimacy and trust. The government continues to invest 4 billion annually in adult education. I think that is the ultimate example that the area is prioritized and valuable.

Madam Speaker! Another important dimension of the government's work is the fight against involuntary loneliness. In our modern and digitized society, where many lead increasingly individualized lives, people risk falling outside of the community. Here, civil society, popular education, sports, association life, and religious communities play a decisive role. By supporting meeting places, local initiatives, and social activities, the government contributes to breaking isolation and creating new contexts where people can feel belonging and meaning. This work is also strengthened through concrete economic investments.

Through assignments and targeted funds to Socialstyrelsen and Folkhälsomyndigheten, the government has enabled interventions that map the consequences of loneliness, spread knowledge, and support local actors in their work. These authorities function as important hubs to ensure that the interventions are knowledge-based, accurate, and long-term sustainable.

Almost 1 billion kronor is being invested during the mandate period on various measures to combat involuntary loneliness. It is good and prioritized, but it is required that the work continues over a longer period. It also requires cross-party cooperation so that we can tackle the problems together.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to religious communities and security, the government has shown decisiveness during the mandate period. The work against Islamism and other forms of extremism is crucial to protecting our democratic values. It is not about limiting freedom of religion, but about clearly standing up against forces that want to exploit religion to undermine democracy or spread hatred and violence.

It is gratifying, Madam Speaker, that we now have clear democratic conditions in place that set fundamental frameworks and requirements for which values a religious community may not exceed in order to share in our common tax funds.

In Sweden, freedom of religion and freedom of expression must stand strong. In Sweden, we must have a high ceiling, and we must also tolerate that people have opinions that we ourselves do not share. But it is not part of freedom of religion that extremists, separatists, and Islamists, with their opinions, automatically get to share our common resources.

Religious communities receive up to 100 million kronor in state support annually in the government's budget. In addition to this, we in Sweden have the favorable opportunity for the communities themselves to collect fees from their members via the tax certificate. This strengthens the Swedish religious communities' ability to operate, and it makes Sweden stand out in comparison with other countries.

Madam Speaker! This shall continue, but just as civil society in general must stand on its own feet, the religious communities must also stand on their own feet. The level of public support we have today is probably reasonable, but the communities must also realize that it is a privilege and not a right. Swedish taxpayers who are not members of a religious community, who do not share religious values or do not want to be a part of these movements, should not be burdened with the financing of them. The primary responsibility for the communities' financing must lie with the communities themselves, their members, and voluntary donations.

Madam Speaker! I, along with the war in Iran and the Iranian people's brave struggle against the theocratic and Islamist regime, the spotlight has once again been turned towards the issue of religious extremism. Swedes with Iranian roots who in many cases fled or moved to Sweden for a safer life are forced here in many cases to face their oppressors again. This occurs in the form of both the extensive persecution that takes place in and from the Iranian regime's embassy in Stockholm, and Islamist sympathizers in Sweden who have come here as a consequence of the irresponsible and uncontrolled immigration over the years.

The clearest example of this is the Imam Ali Islamic Center in Järfälla, which gathers supporters of the Iranian regime and Islamists. As an effect of the government's policy, the authority for support to religious communities stopped the financial contribution to the center in 2025. They were required to pay back over half a million, and the chief imam was deported from Sweden. The moderate-led government's democratic conditions had a clear effect, and the democratic society stood up for its values.

Madam Speaker! Many of us empathize with and support the Iranian people's struggle for freedom and democracy. It is very heartening and a message of strength for Sweden and democratic society that we have politicians from several parties who together clearly stand up against the oppression of the Iranian people and the religious oppression that we see in both Iran and Sweden.

Culture Minister Parisa Liljestrand, Climate Minister Romina Pourmokhtari, Social Democrats Ardalan Shekarabi and Azadeh Rojhan, Sweden Democrat Nima Gholam Ali Pour and Moderate Arin Karapet are some examples of this. Thank you! Thank you for your clear voice and your strong stance in these times! There are many of us who wholeheartedly stand behind you.

In view of this, it is pleasing that a ban on foreign funding of religious communities is now being investigated, which is part of the Tidö Agreement.

Madam Speaker! During the mandate period, the government has also clearly and powerfully taken the fight against the growing antisemitism in Sweden. Work against antisemitism has been intensified and the protection for Swedish Jews has been strengthened. Through targeted measures for security but also education and memorial work, the government shows that Jewish life in Sweden shall also continue to be able to flourish in safety and freedom for many years to come.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Manhammar (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the member for his speech, even though I do not agree with everything. What particularly caused me to react was what was raised regarding folkbildning.

I am about to give my own slightly longer speech on popular education. There is much to say about it. Popular education is something fantastic. It uplifts people, makes people grow, and gives us all new opportunities. It is fantastic that it exists in the world, and it is fantastic that it also gets to take responsibility for a large part of Swedish society and gets to give us new chances.

But when the Member of Parliament for the Moderaterna mentions that they have made necessary prioritizations in the field of adult education, I must react, Madam Speaker. Indeed, half a billion has been cut within the field of adult education. From what I can see around the country and the reports coming from study associations and folk high schools, these priorities have not been necessary. On the contrary, they have dismantled much fine activity that has existed all over the country.

This week, a new report was released showing that a fifth or perhaps even a quarter of the activities of the study associations have disappeared in many parts of the country. The activities that have disappeared may have many times been the last organized context in a small town or in a village.

The cuts hit hardest where society has been weakest and where the need has been greatest. Those who have lost the opportunity for study circles are many times functionally diverse, elderly people living alone in the countryside, and those who stand far from the labor market. I strongly oppose the idea that these should be necessary priorities in a time when all people should rather be given even more opportunities.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Manhammar, for the question!

Yes, politics is about prioritizing, and the government continues to prioritize 4 billion annually for folkbildningen. There have been cuts and reduced grants, which I was clear about in my speech. I also explained the reason for the reduced grants. Again, it is about prioritizing in politics.

The government also continues to prioritize folkbildning with 4 billion kronor per year. One cannot say anything else about that. But the government also prioritizes, in addition to this, 5 billion extra in other initiatives that I mentioned earlier. It will be 100 million kronor annually in permanent support to civil society and 100 million kronor annually to strengthen sports and association life for young people in vulnerable areas. Furthermore, it has become half a billion during the mandate period for more sports halls so that more can have access to movement and sports. 800 million has also been allocated annually to the leisure card so that children and young people can participate in culture, sports, and association life to a greater extent than they have been able to do previously.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Manhammar (S)

Madam Speaker! It hurts the heart to hear the words from the Moderate Party's representative in this case. It is terrible to hear that one thinks these are necessary priorities.

All over the country, for example within Synskadades Riksförbund – I have been in contact with many representatives from there, many of whom are themselves functionally diverse – one can no longer maintain the activities one has had because they cost quite a lot. It has therefore often been this activity that has been cut back on first when it comes to folk education. Many elderly and lonely people in the countryside no longer have anywhere to meet, educate themselves, or for that matter, meet other people.

Many businesses have shut down. We have all been able to hear about this in the media. We have been able to meet people who have come here and told us about it. We have seen the rehearsal space crisis all over the country – rehearsal space after rehearsal space has closed, and many artists who make up Sweden's music scene are now in revolt against just this.

These are the priorities this government considers necessary while one, as everyone in this country knows, is now lowering the tax significantly for those who have the most money. You are lowering the tax by billions for those who already have the most money. And then you cut back when it comes to the weakest in society.

I think this is very sad. It hurts my heart to see that it is such a future that this government is trying to work for. Popular education is something fine that can make it so that we all get the opportunity to develop and that all people always get a new chance, Madam Speaker.

It is sad to see. It hurts the heart, and I hope that this government thinks again or that it loses the election.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! To begin with: I will never apologize for the government's tax cuts – that we are lowering taxes for hard-working Swedes who in turn contribute to growth and job creation. But that is another debate.

I otherwise do not quite agree with the member's description of reality. I want to be clear that 4 billion annually has continued to be directed towards popular education. There have also been reinforcements specifically for the folk high schools.

Since then, the government has prioritized children and young people during this mandate period – that is the fact. The investments of over 5 billion annually that I described in my previous speech are an effect of those priorities.

I cannot ask the member any question now, but I can ask a rhetorical question to the Social Democrats and all the critics in this debate: How many of the 40,000 children in socially and economically disadvantaged families who have received an enhanced leisure card during 2025 do you want to take the leisure card from if you win the election?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Carl Nordblom, for your committed speech!

The chairman used a fairly large part of the speaking time to talk about the leisure card. In my speech earlier, I problematized the leisure card, and we in Miljöpartiet were against it. We think that those funds, 800 million kronor, could be used in a much more effective way.

I think the evaluations of the first half of the year quite clearly show that we were right. A very large part of the money gets stuck in the state bureaucracy – with agencies and in their administration. For every krona that has been distributed to the children and families, more than a krona has gone to creating and maintaining registers at Försäkringskassan and E-hälsomyndigheten. Does the member think that is well-spent money?

The committee members use the figures in, for example, their own municipality, Stockholm, where I am also registered. Approximately 28,000 cards were issued. That sounds good, but if one considers that only 15,600 of those cards could be used, the figure becomes significantly lower. The government had expected a usage rate between 65 and 70 percent in the first year. But if one looks at how many actually used the card, one sees that the figure is as low as 18 percent. Among those who really need this card, those who receive 2,000 kronor, the usage rate is 10 percent of the children. This is not a successful reform.

There are certainly growing pains, so the figures will surely improve a bit. But right now, nothing indicates that it will become radically much better moving forward.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe one should be cautious about evaluating such a large investment and reform as the leisure card after the short time it has been in force.

Member of Parliament Berglund and I can absolutely have a discussion about efficiency and bureaucracy. It is good and important, not only within this but within many political areas. But when it comes to an initiative like the leisure card, just as it does when it comes to the granting of grants to civil society in general and to folk education, it is also important to be extremely careful in the design so that the money does not disappear into the pockets of actors who exploit the system. We have seen that in other parts of civil society, and therefore I think it is good and sound that one has a clear control at this stage – which perhaps makes it a bit more bureaucratic in the beginning.

The chairman also raised examples regarding the leisure card's effectiveness. He mentioned himself that the leisure card has now been in effect for half a year or so. We must absolutely evaluate this when the leisure card has been in effect for a longer period.

But it cannot be avoided, Madam Speaker, that 350,000 leisure cards were granted in 2025, of which 40,000 were for economically disadvantaged children. In the City of Stockholm, 28,000 children and young people have therefore been able to collect their leisure card. Then it may be that it has not been possible to use it in all places; there are limitations because we have a control and a thoroughness regarding where it can be used. But when 28,000 children in the City of Stockholm have collected their leisure card and a certain number have been able to use it, one cannot say that it is not possible to use.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Instead of saying that 350,000 cards have been issued, perhaps one should say that 207,000 have been used, which corresponds to 18 percent. That the money should not end up in the wrong pockets, with those who cheat, I think is obvious. But instead, they end up in the state bureaucracy. I do not think that is particularly good either.

The problem for the associations and the cultural schools is that we have queues. We have bottlenecks in the system. We have too few leaders. We do not have places for sports. We have too few cultural school teachers. I personally visited a cultural school in Söderköping last week, a municipality governed by, among others, the Moderaterna, where it had been cut by 1 million kronor on the cultural school. They have gotten rid of almost two entire positions in a staff that originally had nine to ten positions, and they have queues to the cultural school.

It is here that one must shift into a higher gear – cut the queues and help the associations broaden their recruitment. When staff who administer the leisure card themselves evaluate this, we see very clearly that the leisure card has gone to children living in large cities and who have highly educated parents; it concerns the upper and middle class. The broadening of association life that we would like to see has not been achieved with the leisure card. Instead, it is those who already participated in association life who have collected the leisure card and now have received a small discount of 500 kronor per year. It is also a fairly small proportion that have received the higher grant.

We need to support the associations in broadening recruitment with completely different resources. If these resources had instead gone to the association life, they could have been utilized much better by the children and parents in the families where association life is truly needed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! The leisure card is therefore for all children in Sweden. It does not matter whether one lives in the countryside or in a large city or which social class one belongs to. The Member wants to highlight that this has significance for those who utilize the card. Children should, in my opinion, not be categorized into these ideological and political groupings. All children in Sweden shall have the right to the leisure card. That is also what is happening now.

Then perhaps it is as the member says, that there has become an increased bureaucracy. He says that the money ends up in state bureaucracy instead of out in the operations. But in such a large and expensive initiative as this, I think there is a value in us having control and accuracy at the beginning. We would rather see a bit more bureaucracy and paperwork at the start – it sounds strange for me as a Moderate to say this – so that one has control that the money goes where it is supposed to rather than being exploited by criminal extremists, which we have seen other examples of in civil society.

The member also points out that investments in sports are needed and that we must strengthen the voluntary sector. I thought I was quite clear in my speech that this is exactly what is happening. Over 5 billion is being invested in the voluntary sector and in sports. Half a billion during the mandate period is being invested in more sports halls, which I believe the member highlighted. 100 million annually and 400 million during the entire mandate period is being invested so that children in vulnerable areas who perhaps do not have a tradition of sports and voluntary life in the same way as in inner cities or other parts of society can have access to this. I think these are major investments that the government is making. It is over 5 billion.

I know the member has mentioned that Miljöpartiet, in its reservation, wants a civil society boost of, I believe, 1 billion. What we are investing is more than that.

It becomes a bit strange in the debate when one finds small details to criticize. One finds reduced grants specifically for folkbildningen, which is then elevated to some kind of standard for the government's entire civil society policy. But one does not see and does not want to acknowledge the large investments that the government is making in other areas – I have spoken about the 5 billion – instead, for political reasons, one wants to limit oneself to the few cuts that are occurring.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Manhammar (S)

Madam Speaker! Dear viewers and all of you here in the chamber! We live in a time when much is changing rapidly. The pace is high, and all too often the openness and understanding that our conversations would need is lacking. Imagine if all meeting places between people could be characterized by just this: time, consideration, and a will to understand one another!

Popular education, which this debate is among other things about, shows the way. It creates places where people get to grow, where people meet and understand each other. That is what popular education does.

Madam Speaker! Education is fundamentally about something very simple and also very beautiful. It is about being seen, getting a chance, and getting to grow together with others. One participant at a folk high school expressed it like this: "We have been given a second chance." Another participant said: "We are seen for who we are." A third one told: "The folk high school gave me hope that everything will work out."

Another person described how a study circle became the first context where she dared to take up space. ”It was there I started to believe in myself,” she said. Another person I met, who came to Sweden with her children from war-torn Syria, told me: ”I would never have been where I am today without the study association. It was there I got the language but also the way into society.”

Madam Speaker! This is popular education. This happens every day in classrooms, in study circle rooms, in cultural workshops and in small groups across the country. It is not always visible in headlines, but it makes a difference in people's lives. It is precisely for that reason that the cuts we are now seeing are so serious.

During this parliamentary term, the support for student unions has decreased significantly. About one-third, i.e., 500 million kronor, has been removed. At the same time, the folk high schools have not received the adjustment required to meet the increased costs. The consequences are clear.

Studieförbunden shows in its own report that a fifth of all activities has already disappeared. At the same time, we see how the folk high schools have begun to be closed down in several places. It is happening fast – faster than one could ever have believed.

Behind the figures, there are also changes in reality. It is about clubs that no longer start, businesses that are shut down, and meeting places that disappear. In some cases, the very last organized context in a locality, in a village, or in a neighborhood disappears.

The cuts do not hit everywhere equally, but they hit hardest where the need is greatest, in areas where education is one of the few open doors. This hits hard against vulnerable groups and against persons with functional variations. It hits hard against smaller municipalities and economically weak areas. It also hits very hard against the countryside.

Madam Speaker! When we see how study premises are closing and how businesses are withdrawing from parts of the country, then we know what it means. It means that fewer people will receive support to move forward. Fewer will learn the language, and fewer will find a sense of belonging. It means that people are not being reached. It means more loneliness, and it means fewer paths forward. It is both spiritual and cultural paths that are disappearing, but it is also about economic paths for society.

Madam Speaker! We also see the consequences in culture in many ways. One of the clearest examples is that rehearsal rooms all over the country are disappearing right now. Thousands of young people now stand without a place to create, to play, and to meet. It is easy to underestimate this, but many of our greatest artists started just there, in a rehearsal room, in a study circle, in a community.

Madam Speaker! For many people, not least in the countryside, the opportunity to participate in folk education is not a complement – it is, as the saying goes, the only thing there is. It is there that one encounters culture. It is there that one gets to participate. It is there that one gets to be a part of something larger. It is there that one gets to grow. In that sense, folk education is also a part of our common welfare. When those opportunities disappear, it is not just an activity that disappears. Then a part of what holds our society together also disappears.

Madam Speaker! Folkbildning contributes to people getting into work. It strengthens the language for those who are new to Sweden. It is there when the traditional school system is not sufficient for everyone. Folkbildning trains youth leaders, social pedagogues, teaching assistants – masses of professions that our society needs more of.

Popular education strengthens democracy. It builds trust and creates encounters between people who otherwise would never have met. It has a decisive role in our time's great challenges.

Folkbildningen plays an important role in the work against loneliness, where people need community. We all need that. It plays a decisive role in the work against segregation and injustices, because folkbildningen opens paths into society for everyone. It plays a decisive role in the climate transition where we all need more knowledge, understanding, and commitment.

Madam Speaker! Popular education is not an activity in the margins. It is an obvious part of the solution to society's problems, as I just mentioned. That is precisely why it is so serious to see how it is decreasing in scope. I also want to say this: I do not believe that any human being wants other people to have fewer opportunities. I believe that we all share a fundamental will that people should be allowed to grow, live their lives, and find their place in society. But then we all also need to dare to see the consequences of the decisions we make in this chamber and also in municipalities and regions.

Madam Speaker! Popular education is ultimately about opportunities. It is about people being able to take the next step. When a circle disappears, an opportunity also disappears. When a folk high school place disappears, a way forward also disappears. In a time like ours, we cannot afford this.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats believe that the direction needs to be different. Popular education needs stable and long-term conditions. Study associations shall exist throughout the country, and so too shall the folk high schools, and the conditions for them to continue their important work must be the best. Popular education shall not exist for the sake of any system but for the sake of the people.

Madam Speaker! I hereby move for the approval of reservation 12.

Thank you, all of you who have listened! To meet is one of the finest things we have.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jonas Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Magnus Manhammar is involved in issues regarding popular education, so I intend to take the opportunity to ask a couple of questions now that I have the chance in the debate.

I have debated these issues with Magnus Manhammar before and noted that the Social Democrats have a very intimate bond with one of the study associations: ABF, the study association that receives by far the most grants from the state. It is about hundreds of millions of kronor that they receive. At the same time, one has these intimate bonds. And it is not just on some kind of general organizational level historically speaking, but the Social Democrats even have current members of Parliament who also hold leading positions in ABF.

My question to Magnus Manhammar is therefore: Is it really appropriate to do it in this way – to sit and lobby for hundreds of millions of kronor for an operation where one is oneself the chairman and holds a leading position? Is it some kind of Social Democratic variant of circular economy?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Manhammar (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question.

It doesn't really become serious with these types of questions. It also becomes very thoughtless, and unfortunately, it is not the first time it has become thoughtless in the debate with representatives for Sverigedemokraterna.

In Sweden, we have democracy. It was founded by a number of different movements that introduced democracy into this country, which we should be proud of. It was not least the temperance movement and the labor movement, but it was also the movement for folk education in Sweden that ensured we got democracy, that we got freedom of association, that we got political parties and that we got a rural movement, a Christian movement and various other religious movements. It has created a multitude of associations. It can be about sports clubs, political associations, religious associations and interest groups. That is what civil society and democracy in Sweden is. If one does not know that, one has probably not opened a history book.

The labor movement was therefore a part of what formed democracy in Sweden, and it is clear that an educational association probably had a connection to the Social Democrats then and has it today as well. Just as the other study associations have connections to different popular movements and different parties, so do the Social Democrats. It is nothing strange.

If we want to wish away the parties from Sweden, perhaps we will no longer have any democracy. It seems a bit strange. But in fascist states and states that are dictatorships or authoritarian, they do not have so many parties, instead, there it is only one party that rules. In our country, I hope however that we will continue to have democracy.

It is not strange that associations with freedom of association can have links to different political parties. If it were forbidden, we would have no democracy. I hope that we can try to have a more serious discussion about what civil society and democracy are and how we can strengthen it, and see that parties, associations, and interests do not need to stand against each other, but that all interests are needed in this bustle that is our democracy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jonas Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I can begin by saying that it is an extremely serious issue. I stand here in the Swedish Parliament and raise this because I believe it is important.

I believe that part of the rather heightened rhetoric that one hears from the red-green side is rooted in the fact that one has these special interests and special interests in a study association which also happens to be that which receives by far the most state subsidies.

It has been possible to see it on the debate pages, where the Social Democrats have been out campaigning during this spring. Among other things, in Jönköpings-Posten, a debate article was written where, as both a Member of Parliament and chairman of ABF Sydöstra, one lobbied for more grants for their own operations.

I actually think it is very serious that one acts in this way. There is a damn situation in this that is extremely obvious, and I think: In what way does this differ from if one had a corresponding case when it comes to the business sector, if one had a person who sits as a member of Parliament and lobbies for more grants to the industry that they themselves work in? It is precisely the same thing, actually.

I want to ask Magnus Manhammar if he does not see that relationship here and that there is an inappropriateness in this. Does this differ from the corresponding case that I just mentioned?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Manhammar (S)

Mr. Speaker! What differs is that in the business world, it is money that people try to earn, and it can become corruption through that. In civil society and folkbildning, it is a non-profit commitment, where one does not earn money but commits to making it better for others, for one's fellow human beings, and to strengthen democracy and faith in human rights. It is a non-profit commitment.

It would be pleasant if the Sweden Democrats could also think that voluntary commitment can be important. I know that there are Sweden Democrats who do. There are people in all parties who do. It would be pleasant and wonderful if the Sweden Democrats, instead of being surprised that people from other political parties engage in civil society, in associations and in educational federations, could imagine engaging in civil society and in educational federations and also contribute to strengthening human rights and democracy.

I have with me a heart from my daughter to remember why I am here in the Riksdag and who we are fighting for. What is the truth in the Swedish Riksdag is that our democracy is relatively threatened today. Our democracy has become weaker, both research in Sweden and international research state – even the Swedish democracy. It is not only the American democracy that has become weaker.

It depends on that one makes these cuts on civil society and targets different associations. The current government but also the Sverigedemokraterna target associations that stand up for human rights and for people's right to express themselves.

We have a danger to democracy, and the question I received in this discussion is a way to once again try to discredit those who stand up for democracy and who engage in civil society and in popular education.

I have been to many ABF courses. I cannot remember receiving a single krona at any time. It is rather that one has taken time away from one's family and from one's life in general to engage voluntarily in study associations. I have been in many different study associations and many different associations. I also sit on many association boards today, because it is important even outside of politics. I hope that the Sverigedemokraterna can also imagine starting to do that.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

Every year, the state allocates over 20 billion to civil society organizations. This concerns groups and activities where people cooperate for common interests, values, or goals. It is non-profit associations such as sports clubs and cultural associations, and organizations such as the Red Cross, Erikshjälpen, and Save the Children. Study associations are also included here, and of course, religious communities. It is people who engage voluntarily together without the state intervening and directing, and without the activity being governed by profit interests.

What I find most fascinating are the volunteers, those who are called volunteers, who step up for other people without any thought of profit for themselves. But I believe they have found the key to a rich life. They also show the rest of us the way to how one becomes true and whole. Therefore, civil society is so important when it comes to creating context and meaning for people.

Before I came to the Riksdag in 2010, I worked for ten years in Göteborgs Räddningsmission. I was employed and received a salary for my work, but in the operation for addicts, the homeless, and the poorest of the poor, I saw volunteers show up every morning because they saw a value in helping others.

Civil society strengthens democracy, gives people the opportunity to influence, creates community and social support, and helps during crises and needs.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the funding of civil society, it coincides with the support for religious communities.

The new democratic conditions for state support to religious communities and civil society are fundamental to the contexts in which grants shall be paid out. When it comes to religious communities, the idea is that public money should only go to activities that have at least 2,500 served members and that, above all, respect basic democratic values.

The democratic conditions generally mean that an organization respects all people's equal value, follows laws and accepts democratic rules of the game, does not incite violence, threats or hate, does not discriminate based on gender, religion or ethnicity, and works in an open and democratic manner. The purpose of the democratic conditions is primarily to protect democracy and prevent extremist or undemocratic groups from receiving money.

When it comes to religious communities, there has been, and certainly still is, a concern regarding the registration of members. It can also be tricky if the level of the grant is based on the number of registered members. It could be unfair for a community such as the Pentecostal movement, for example, which has over 80,000 members, if the registered number amounted to 20,000. In the submitted proposal – I express it simplified – an auditor shall certify the number of members. It can probably turn out well, but the concern is there. Two Christian Democrats motion in this report that they want to review this so that the communities do not receive an all too large administrative burden.

Mr. Speaker! Since January 13 of this year, the state's democratic conditions also apply to state grants to folk high schools and study associations. It is the Folkbildningsrådet that decides on this. There are eight study associations in Sweden, which together have over 600,000 participants – that is quite fantastic and very important. We know that study associations are about community, health, democracy, personal development, values, and what we have also heard others speak about here: the sense of coherence. According to the psychologist Aaron Antonovsky, it is, at least from a purely human perspective, the meaning of life to have a sense of having a coherence and a task.

The state grants to the study associations amount to 1.5 billion per year and to the folk high schools 2.5 billion. As we have heard here earlier, it is therefore 4 billion; that is a lot of money. In addition, 567 million come from the participants in the study associations. From the Kristdemokraterna side, I would like to see these grants return to the level they previously had, which I believe is possible in the future. The ambition from my party is, in any case, to try to work so that the study associations get back the opportunity they had previously.

We also know, however, that there are different reasons why this has been reduced. We know that there have been deficiencies in reporting and control and that fraud has occurred regarding reporting to the authority. It has not functioned as well as it should have, and that is one of the reasons for the reductions.

It is also the case in the state budget that defense cost 40 billion five or six years ago and now costs 140 billion, and it is believed that it will become 180 billion going forward.

I think that the organization Studieförbunden i samverkan has made good efforts in highlighting better control and clearer reporting, and they have also incorporated this matter of increased digital development.

We must also note that it is actually three parties that share this responsibility. It is the state, the regions and the municipalities. Previously, municipalities and regions accounted for 45 percent of the grants, but that has gone down to 30 percent. There are therefore several sides to this that may explain the vulnerability that has affected study associations in recent times.

I want to conclude by saying that we Christian Democrats believe in the enormous importance of civil society and in the very important function of the study associations and the folk high schools in society for people's well-being, for their health and for the sense of coherence and community that is fundamental to this society. Let us safeguard civil society – not least the study associations and the folk high schools!

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Mr. Speaker! Today's report concerns major areas that the Left Party holds in high regard: popular education, the conditions for religious communities, and more overarching civil society issues. I am therefore a little worried that I might perhaps exceed my speaking time a bit – we shall see how it goes.

We have significant reinforcements in our shadow budget for precisely these areas. We have around 900 million more for folkbildningen, for example. The Swedish civil society organizations are very important building blocks in our democracy and need good conditions to operate. Unfortunately, the consensus that has existed regarding the need for a strong civil society seems to have disappeared. Instead of being seen as an asset for society, many who are involved feel that political representatives in municipalities, regions, and at the national level treat them with suspicion and even see them as a threat to democracy.

Many of the cuts that have occurred during this parliamentary term regarding civil society are clearly ideologically motivated. It is the peace movement, the environmental movement, the ethnic organizations, cooperatives and consumer organizations that have been sidelined, and I think we have just heard what the suspicion from Sverigedemokraterna sounds like.

One can, as an observer, get the impression that we here in the Riksdag give money directly to individual organizations that we like or represent. That is, of course, not the case. It is authorities and authority-like organizations, such as the Folkbildningsrådet, that distribute money to the individual organizations based on criteria and goals that we have agreed upon through majority decisions here in the Riksdag.

Naturally, the organizations that have the most extensive activities usually receive the most money. It could be the Swedish Football Association within sports or ABF within adult education. It is nothing strange and nothing shady, I just want to say.

But, Mr. Speaker, we see that it is not just about pure cuts. Also, the lack of increased economic support as well as laws and regulations are putting spokes in the wheels for associations today.

Vänsterpartiet wants that authorities and elected officials receive increased knowledge about the function and importance of civil society and that we also analyze what the effects will be for different types of organizations in society when making decisions. Voluntary work contributes very important efforts that we as a society actually cannot afford to lose. Yet, many organizations have difficulty even being able to open a bank account or rent a premises. For persons with disabilities, regulations for travel services and escorting, as well as Försäkringskassan's assessments, constitute obstacles to becoming part of association life in various ways. This must be understood and addressed promptly.

In addition to these tangible problems, there is the issue of hate and threats against those who engage in political issues. It is particularly difficult today for representatives of children's and youth organizations, for people who are racialized, and for hbtqi persons.

When it comes to the field of non-formal education, we believe it is important that the self-governance model is preserved and that there continues to be an arm's-length distance between non-formal education and politics. It has been a recurring theme during this parliamentary term that representatives for the government parties and SD have ridiculed and questioned the content and utility of courses within both higher education as well as folk high schools and study associations.

Is the alternative to today's free folk education perhaps minister-approved course catalogs? That would be devastating. For us in Vänsterpartiet, it is central that free and voluntary are still the guiding principles for folk education. Politicians should not govern the content of study circles, cultural meetings, or other types of courses.

There is also reason to direct strong criticism towards the government's large cuts in the area. The folk high schools should have been allowed to keep the reinforcement that was added during the pandemic. There is also a continued great need for educational places; we see that far too many young people do not pass their upper secondary school grades, and we also see a very high unemployment rate right now.

We mean that, in addition to the increase in the number of places, a substantial increase in the compensation per participant is also needed. We see, in fact, that the compensation lags behind and that it, for example, complicates the recruitment of teachers, because it has not been included in the state initiative Lärarlyftet. It also results in poorer opportunities for extra help for the many participants within the folk high schools who have great support needs.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to touch upon the cuts that have occurred in the activities of the study associations. Representatives of the opposition have directed criticism towards this in a very good way here earlier, but I also want to take the opportunity to do so.

I think it is particularly unfortunate with all the physical meeting places that have had to close. It concerns many music venues and rehearsal rooms that have been forced to close, and there are many study circles that now will not take place. Even collaborations with other organizations need to be postponed. This affects the entire association life and affects people all over the country who want to learn together with others, but the effects are most palpable in smaller towns and in rural areas where meeting places, cultural offerings and association life are dependent on just the study associations.

In addition to study associations, I want to highlight other types of local community organizations, such as Folkets Hus och Parker, Bygdegårdarnas Riksförbund, and Våra Gårdar, which contribute strongly to ensuring that we have places to meet all around our country. They also need good conditions.

Research shows that meeting places constitute a kind of social infrastructure where cohesion can arise. It is important for countering, for example, polarization in a society. Civil society's ability to create these meetings therefore also becomes an important piece of the puzzle in the creation of a democratic state with high trust between citizens and a sense of belonging.

If we do not work actively to create conditions for meetings between people with different backgrounds, different thoughts, and different ideologies, it will also be difficult to create understanding. In such a situation, we risk having contradictions in our society – and in the worst case, also threats and hate against minorities. Today, prejudices, racism, and threats against ideological opponents spread quickly, especially online. It is even encouraged by algorithms on the major social media platforms.

In the report we are debating today, there is a proposal from Vänsterpartiet regarding society's responsibility to specifically work against racism and hate crimes, and I intend to conclude by looking a little closer at these issues from the perspective of our motion, Mr. Speaker.

The national minorities have historically been subject to marginalization, discrimination, and racism – even from the state. Today, prejudices remain that affect the national minorities both at a group level and as individuals. The Council of Europe's advisory committee already highlighted in 2023 how the increasingly polarized political discourse seems to strike against persons who belong to national minorities, particularly those who belong to the Jewish, Roma, and Sámi groups.

This week, the Institute for Human Rights presented its annual report, and one area of focus was precisely the normalization of racism. The Institute wants to highlight a number of risk areas that we need to address.

It is, among other things, about racist rhetoric being established in public discourse and becoming part of everyday language. Racism is normalized, which risks limiting people's actual ability to exercise their freedoms and rights. Children and young people are particularly vulnerable in schools and digital environments, where racist language use is becoming increasingly common.

It is also noted that hate crimes are rarely reported and that few reports lead to prosecution. It is noted that the police and courts have difficulty perceiving racist motives and that it is rarely investigated. A lack of trust in the police and the justice system also means that fewer people report, which hinders the individual's right to redress. It turns out that only 5 percent of the reported hate crimes that were registered in 2022 and handled until May 2025, when the measurement was made, were resolved – only 5 percent! Nearly half of the cases were dropped before or after an investigation was initiated. In that case, it is not strange that the interest in reporting decreases.

It is actually the case that the UN has its eyes on Sweden in these matters and demands that the government takes this seriously. The racist rhetoric, the racist actions, and the hate crimes must be stopped, and it is demanded that measures are put in place in the area. The government has produced an action plan, which is commendable, but we believe that more concrete actions would be needed. For example, targeted missions to the police would be needed.

We in Vänsterpartiet regret that the resources for measures for specifically the national minorities have decreased during the mandate period and that all national support to ethnic organizations has been removed. The possibility of organizing is indeed very important for vulnerable groups, both so that people can draw support and strength from one another and so that they can more easily make their voices heard towards, for example, the government or us in the Riksdag.

A proposal that the UN highlights and that the Left Party has also submitted a motion on is that so-called equality data should be compiled, so that it becomes clear how people with different backgrounds are treated in Sweden. This is in place in other countries.

We have also noted that the Crime Prevention Council highlights another form of reporting tool that exists today in Ireland. We see that it would be a valuable complement to the reports of hate crimes that reach Swedish authorities, precisely based on what I mentioned earlier about many, for example, having low trust in the police.

Such a reporting tool would give us a better picture of the occurrence of and the different expressions of racism, which has been successful in Ireland. There, a group of civil society organizations have received help and financial support from the government to develop a reporting tool for racist incidents where victims and witnesses can report incidents anonymously.

We think that one should ensure that such a thing is put in place here in Sweden. This concerns my reservation 5, which I hereby move for approval.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! There are social functions that are clearly visible in our society, such as the police, healthcare, and schools. Then there is that which is not always as clear in its contours, but which people across the entire country build together, evening after evening and year after year.

It is the community center that is kept open by someone who perhaps doesn't really have the time. It is the religious community that organizes activities, support, and fellowship long before the public sector manages to get there. It is also the folk high school teacher who sees a student that no one else has seen. It is civil society – that network that we perhaps do not always talk about, but when it is missing, we notice it immediately.

Mr. Speaker! In a time when much is moving quickly – the security situation, technology, the climate of debate – Sweden needs a social structure that is not only robust but also human. That is where the strength of civil society lies: It is built of relationships, of trust, and of volunteerism. For that very reason, politics must be long-term – not passive, but long-term. We need to have clear principles, we shall safeguard democracy, and we shall have order in the grant systems, but we must never replace trust. Civil society's value does not come from the state but from people's own will to contribute.

For us liberals, this is fundamental. A strong society is not built from above, but it is built between people. Therefore, it is important that civil society has stable conditions.

The government has, over the recent years, taken several steps in the right direction, not only to provide civil society with a stable foundation but also to create clear rules of the game. This applies, for example, to the work with the new democracy requirement, which is introduced in all grant regulations to ensure that public funds go to activities that uphold fundamental freedoms and rights.

It also concerns the work against loneliness, where civil society plays a crucial role. The Public Health Agency is now leading a national strategy and distributing funds to organizations that contribute to community and social inclusion. Municipalities are simultaneously receiving support to develop their interventions for, for example, the elderly. Here, the state, civil society, and the municipalities complement each other, just as it should be.

Within folkbildningen, the government has prioritized several parts that give people new opportunities. This concerns language education for foreign-born individuals and education for persons with disabilities. These are initiatives that make education accessible where it would otherwise risk being lacking.

Mr. Speaker! When the elderly become lonely, it is usually an association that calls first. When people get stuck in a state of dependency, it is often a non-profit organization that opens the door. When newcomers try to orient themselves in a new country, it is often a language café, a course, or a study circle that provides the first real sense of belonging. When someone leaves school with a sense of failure behind them, it is the folk high school that strengthens self-esteem, creates hope, and gives a sense of not being alone.

It is these meetings that build communities – they are not strategies on paper, but they happen in reality. Our role as politicians is to facilitate these meetings and to create stable conditions and prerequisites for long-term perspective. Our role is never to micro-manage away that which makes civil society strong: the freedom, the creativity, and the local.

Mr. Speaker! Folkbildningen is unique. It is a form of education that does not begin with requirements but with people's will to learn. It is a place for people who need a new start or a new language. It is also a place where one is allowed to ask, try, think out loud and do over.

Sweden needs more paths into knowledge. We need more opportunities for adults who may not have ended up in the right place from the start. We need more educational opportunities that make people actually dare to start over, without requirements for perfection. Therefore, the policy needs to be persistent. Popular education should not have to be tossed between different ideological positions. It should have stable conditions to be able to develop in its time.

Mr. Speaker! The future of Sweden is not only decided by the big decisions we make in this chamber, but it is also decided by all the small decisions made every day when people choose to engage, support someone else, or learn something new together.

We began in that which is not always visible but which is often there – in the association hall, in the study circle or in the small community – and which makes Sweden hold together. That is why civil society and folk education play such a large role. A society where people engage for one another is a more open, freer and more humane society.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

In this speech, Carl Nordblom (M) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Catarina Deremar (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the Center Party's reservation 6 in the report.

Civil society, religious communities, and folk education are all important parts of our Swedish society and our community. Lately, I have had the privilege of meeting a large number of organizations belonging to civil society. What is it that drives them and makes them choose to engage in their spare time? It is to do something common together with others that is of benefit to both the individual and society as a whole. That is what we must safeguard and facilitate.

In many debates here in the Riksdag, it has shown how differently we in the political parties view civil society and perhaps above all, the student unions. For the Center Party, it is important that Sweden has a strong civil society. We also need to lift up the voluntary forces and show trust.

We are, however, moving in the direction of more controls and more complicated rules. This should, of course, be handled in a correct manner; I do not advocate cheating at any single point.

We need to facilitate for the association life to, for example, as several speakers have pointed out, obtain a regular bank account. It is strange that such a simple part as obtaining a bank account, which at the same time can be so hindering for the association life, is not resolved. We have known this for a long time, and many speakers before me have raised it. It is strange that this has not been rectified.

Not least for youth organizations, this is extra complicated. I believe that all of us in the Culture Committee who have met youth organizations have received the message that we should ensure it becomes easier for the voluntary sector to obtain a bank account, so that amounts that are often small but important for the association to function can be handled in a secure way.

Mr. Speaker! Civil society contributes to the highest degree to breaking loneliness; not least do the study associations. There, one learns something new together with others and shares one's own knowledge. The Centre Party places great value on free and voluntary education, which we benefit from throughout our lives. Therefore, I believe it is wrong to make the reduction that the government has made on study associations.

Centerpartiet sees the importance of a strong civil society. It is also a preventive measure, not least among young people. Civil society is the key in the preventive work. Unfortunately, the debate is almost always only about the crimes and the punishments. All too rarely do we talk about how we should prevent crime, so it was very pleasing to hear Carl Nordblom in his contribution earlier today speak about how civil society is an important part of the preventive work. It is almost the first time I hear it from any of the majority parties, so I note it carefully. I also heard Roland Utbult's ambition to restore the grant to the study associations. I was therefore, despite everything, in a slightly good mood during this debate.

Mr. Speaker! Without civil society, Sweden would become a dull and silent society; we know that. To invest in civil society is to build Sweden strong. Sweden can do more.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Mr. Speaker! When we discuss civil society, we are actually discussing something even greater, namely the trust in our society. Trust is the glue that holds a democracy together. It makes people accept that others think differently. It also makes us believe that collective decisions can actually be wiser than the decisions we make individually.

Trust between people does not arise by itself, however. It is built in the encounter between people. It is built when people gather in an association, in a study association, or in a local community hall. It is built when people organize themselves around issues they care about and together try to change society. That is where democracy derives its strength. That is also why civil society is so crucial.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has a long tradition of popular movements. Associations, study associations, cooperatives, and voluntary organizations have built our society from the bottom up. It is through these movements that people have learned democracy in practice. They have met, discussed, and sometimes disagreed, but they have nevertheless continued the conversation. That is how trust is created. Without trust, democracy does not function.

Mr. Speaker! The school also has an important democratic mission. A good way to make democracy come alive is when students get to meet young people who are politically active in, for example, youth organizations. Unfortunately, many youth organizations today testify to how difficult it is to visit schools. The regulatory framework that was introduced to create clarity has, in practice, led to many schools instead interpreting the rules so narrowly that youth organizations are only allowed in for individual debates or larger events. This risks limiting the democratic conversation in the school and reducing the students' opportunity to meet young people who are politically engaged.

We Social Democrats believe that the presence of youth organizations in schools should be encouraged, not restricted. The regulatory framework therefore needs to be reviewed so that all students, regardless of where in the country they live, are given the opportunity to meet politically engaged young people and take part in a living democratic education.

Mr. Speaker! The school's democratic mission and the role of civil society are even more important today when we see how democracy is being pushed back. The democratic progress made during the 20th century is now being rolled back in many parts of the world. This rarely happens through dramatic decisions. No, often this serious development occurs quietly by the space for civil society shrinking, organizations finding it harder to operate, and critical voices being questioned. These changes may each appear limited, but together they are dangerous.

That is why we must also be attentive to the shifts occurring here at home, because here too, democracy is in decline. The Social Democrats view with great concern how civil society organizations are being pushed back through both political cuts and an increasingly governing and suspicious attitude from the government and its coalition parties. It is not solely about reduced resources, but about a conscious shift in civil society's role in our society.

Representatives for the Sweden Democrats have on repeated occasions questioned the allocation of public funds to organizations that express criticism of the government's policies. That type of political influence on independent organizations is deeply problematic in a democracy. Not least during today's debate, we have heard precisely such an attitude.

Mr. Speaker! That is precisely why we Social Democrats believe that civil society must be given long-term conditions. The funding of civil society organizations is not just a budget issue. It is also a democracy issue. Organizations that build community, strengthen people's participation, and give people the opportunity to organize themselves need stable conditions. They should also be prioritized in the work against segregation and polarization because they create the encounters that hold society together.

We Social Democrats want to strengthen civil society as a democratic force, as a welfare actor, and as a place where commitment, trust, and organizing can grow. We want to promote people's opportunity to engage and influence their life situation and society at large. We also want to strengthen civil society's role as a voice bearer and democratic engine throughout the country and deepen and spread knowledge about civil society's importance, especially among authorities and decision-makers.

The distinct character of civil society must be protected. Organizations that are not profit-driven and do not operate based on market logic should not be squeezed into commercial regulatory frameworks. We view with concern that authorities are increasingly treating non-profit associations as if they were companies, with increased requirements for reporting, VAT, procurement, and administration that lack a basis in the reality of civil society. As mentioned from the rostrum earlier, it is beyond criticism that it should be so difficult to open a bank account, change authorized signatories, or sign up for a subscription. It is a complication that affects civil society's activities far more than we think.

That is why we want to develop national guidelines for how authorities should apply laws and regulations with respect for the civil society's special character. At the same time, regulations must protect against abuse and not be able to be exploited by unserious or undemocratic actors.

Mr. Speaker! Democracy is not something we once built and can now take for granted. Democracy is built every day in meetings between people – in community halls, in study circles, in sports clubs and in youth organizations, yes, in civil society organizations all around our country. When people meet, trust grows, and when trust grows, democracy is strengthened. Therefore, a strong civil society is not just good for society; it is absolutely crucial for the future of democracy.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jonas Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In today's debate, I have heard a lot about trust and that one should have trust in civil society. I would, of course, wish that we could have that in all situations, and many organizations in the country have truly earned this trust. But things have also happened politically that have damaged the confidence in how state subsidies are managed. Not least, the Social Democrats are responsible for this because previous governments have given money to Islamists, cheats, and fraudsters. Just harping on about trust without seeing reality and one's own responsibility does not hold.

I continue from where I left off in the previous exchange: the Social Democrats' relationship with ABF. In cultural policy, there is often talk about an arm's length distance. I believe the parties interpret this somewhat differently, as I have heard quite many different definitions depending on party affiliation. How do the Social Democrats intend to maintain an arm's length distance when the party's members of parliament decide on state subsidies to ABF while those same members of parliament hold high positions in ABF and govern its activities? That is not an arm's length distance.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Mr. Speaker! I regret that it seems completely impossible for the SD member to hold two thoughts in their head at the same time.

One can have confidence in civil society and at the same time say that clear regulatory frameworks are required for civil society to be able to fulfill the criteria set for receiving state grants. That is what the democratic conditions are for. They were established during the time we held government power. We appointed an inquiry to obtain clearer criteria for what is required to receive state funds. The democratic conditions are now in place, which means that organizations and associations that do not live up to the criteria that are in line with democratic principles shall not be able to receive state funds from MUCF, the Folkbildningsrådet, and others.

So, it is about both having trust in civil society's will to do good and having regulations that make it difficult to abuse the system. We Social Democrats can hold two thoughts in our heads at the same time.

So, at arm's length distance. Jonas Andersson has sat in the Culture Committee for quite a long time and should know that no money is distributed directly from the Riksdag to the activities. This goes via authorities, which make assessments, review how activities fulfill the criteria, and subsequently distribute money. When it comes to ABF, they get their money from the Folkbildningsrådet.

If we are now to play with the idea of benefiting oneself: The Tidö parties have in the Riksdag made decisions to lower the tax for those who earn the most. That money goes straight into our pockets, because we Members of Parliament are high-income earners. The Tidö parties have made large tax cuts that disadvantage the majority of Sweden's population. Has Johan Andersson been involved in deciding on them to benefit himself?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jonas Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe I hit a sore point regarding the relationship between ABF and the Social Democrats.

Some Social Democrats in the Riksdag sit in double chairs. They are, that is, in district chair positions in ABF and are at the same time members of Parliament and decide on money for their own organizations. What becomes so strange is that they then also say that one should have trust in civil society.

I think, as I have said, that many organizations deserve this trust, but I do not think that the fact that we have decision-makers who sit here and make decisions about hundreds of millions of kronor for their own organizations deserves any trust. It is my absolute opinion that this damned situation damages trust in the state's civil society policy.

Would it not have been better for the trust in civil society if we had avoided this and did not have Social Democrats who sit in double roles, in both ABF and the Riksdag? I believe it would have been much better for civil society.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that Jonas Andersson would have thought it would have been much better for his view on how democracy should function if none of us had had any commitment.

The fact is that everyone sitting here inside has a voluntary commitment, for example in their own parties. Furthermore, I promise that several here inside are also members of various organizations out there that work with completely different things than directly party-political. Shall we all stop being engaged and caring about these issues when we come here?

There are people sitting here in the chamber who have their own businesses and who submit motions on how these businesses can benefit. This applies, for example, to cultural schools. Is that not an incorrect way to act? No, it is not. The fact is that we are all engaged in various issues even outside of this chamber, and we stand up for this freedom of association.

It is not we in this chamber who distribute money; it is the authorities that distribute money. We establish which guidelines shall apply for how the money is to be distributed.

This is actually not a sore point, but rather the opposite. I am incredibly proud that the labor movement has been involved and contributed to several different movements, for example the folk education movement, having grown. I believe that many other parties in here are also proud of that. We have Medborgarskolan, Vuxenskolan and many other different associations that have sprung from our various movements. We should be proud of that, and we should see them as an important part of our democracy and nothing else.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anne-Li Sjölund (C)

Mr. Speaker! When one stands here in the chamber, politics can sometimes sound like something quite technical: budget items, reports, and reservations.

If we are to be honest, what we are debating today, namely the Culture Committee's report on civil society, is about something else entirely.

It is about life between the decisions – what happens after school, in the evening, and during the weekend. It is about someone opening a door and saying: Come in, you are welcome here! It is civil society, and it is the popular education. And it is truly the fabric that holds Sweden together.

Every thread in this social fabric is a human being and an action. It is the sports leader who stands there on a rainy Tuesday. It is the study circle leader who welcomes someone saying their first words in Swedish. It is the choir leader who makes generations sing together. They do not just build activities, they weave cohesion. This fabric is not just beautiful; it is crucial for our country's strength.

The political scientist Robert Putnam showed that strong associations create trust between people. Where that trust is high, democracy also functions better. Research from WHO shows that participation in culture strengthens our mental health and counteracts loneliness. Other studies show how sports and outdoor life build public health and community. Culture is therefore not just entertainment; it is cohesion. Sports are not just exercise; they are community. Popular education is not just a course; it is a way into society.

Mr. Speaker! Much is being said about preparedness right now. People talk about stocks, plans, and structures. But there is also another kind of preparedness, and that is the one that cannot be stored on shelves. It is the one that exists between people. It is the soft preparedness, the one that holds us together when the world chafes, when anxiety increases, and when loneliness grows. Then they are there: the sports leaders, the study circle leaders, the choir leaders, and the scouts. They do not just build an activity, they weave cohesion.

The research is clear: where people meet, trust grows, and where trust is strong, democracy functions. This is not a soft policy but a society-sustaining force.

That is exactly why it is so serious when the government and the Sweden Democrats have chosen to deliberately pull threads out of this fabric. That is precisely what is happening. When the government carries out cuts on popular education, it is not just numbers, but it is threads that are breaking.

For every million that is withdrawn, the same thing happens across the entire country. Local branches are forced to scale back, staff are laid off, and operations that have sometimes existed for decades disappear. It is the rehearsal room where young musicians' dreams fall silent. It is the language circle that was the first path into the Swedish community. It is the open meeting place for the elderly that is now turning off the lights. It is hundreds of small, local initiatives that can no longer afford the rent.

This is not just a matter of trimming some edges. It is to actively weaken the fabric that carries our society, and a fabric with sparse threads and large holes breaks when it is subjected to pressure.

Mr. Speaker! The Center Party's policy is the exact opposite. We believe in people's ability to take responsibility together, not so that the state shall do less, but so that people can do more. But if civil society is to continue to be Sweden's strongest force, we must provide it with the right conditions, and after what I have heard here in the chamber today, it still feels as if we here in this house are quite in agreement on that matter.

We want to see stable, long-term operating grants instead of short-term project money. We want less hassle. Association life needs security to be able to plan and not a constant hunt for the next temporary grant and more complicated forms.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is not only built in here. It is built in community centers and sports halls, in study circles and choirs, and out in nature and on hiking trails. It is built where people meet. We who come from the countryside know that. When the shop closes and the distances are long, it is often the association that keeps the area alive.

Let us be clear. We do not intend to stand by and watch as the social fabric is torn apart. We want to strengthen it. We want to tie new threads and repair those that have broken. We want to empower the thousands of volunteer leaders who every day weave our Sweden stronger. That is how we build a Sweden that truly holds together. Sweden can do more.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)