Constitutional matters

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This committee report, Constitutional Issues, can, with a pretentious expression, be said to deal with the foundation of our democracy.

The report is very broad in its character. It covers everything from the introduction of a republic to lobbyists and how the National Audit Office should work. Naturally, it is good if a foundation is broad, but it also makes it completely impossible to treat all the proposals contained here in a single context.

Mr. Speaker! I have chosen to look at four of the questions that are up, not because they are the heaviest or most important, but because they can illustrate the stance one should have in matters that are precisely fundamental and basic.

Let me begin with the question of the republic, Mr. Speaker! It certainly would be a historic decision if we were to make it today. We would most likely write ourselves into the history books. I do not think, however, that we should make that decision, and that is for two reasons.

One thing is that I do not think so. What perceptions we have on the issue of the republic are probably quite clear, each of us, and I do not think it is very easy to find a debate solution on that.

The second thing is that there are few questions where it would be so inappropriate for us to be split into two more or less equal-sized groups, because it is a bit difficult to imagine a situation where a state changes its form of government at four-year intervals. It is a decision that is made once, and then it must be very well anchored. Therefore, it is easy to say no, we cannot stand behind that today – even though I know there are those who are convinced of it and those who, like me, are quite convinced that it is not a good decision.

Mr. Speaker! Another issue that arises here is that of registers of lobbyists. It did become a thing, but that was not the intention.

Let me begin by saying that it is a self-evident matter that we should all strive to listen to opinions. It is, in a sense, the very mission as an elected representative to hear what people say, evaluate it, and have it translated into political positions.

I think that one should listen to everyone. That means I listen to friends and to those I meet for a short time. I listen to associations, interest organizations and companies. The question is where I draw the line for when it becomes a lobbyist. Is it when one thinks something? Then I wouldn't listen to anyone. Is it when one is employed to think something? Where do you draw the line?

This is the problem. It is easy to say that we would like to have a register of lobbyists. It is much harder to define it – perhaps especially when one in political science literature today all more frequently sees that association life has moved from being a glue to build societies, as it was when it arrived about fifty years ago or perhaps a hundred years ago, to more and more becoming interest representation or what we could call lobbying. Precisely because of this, this is an issue that it is dangerous to make decisions on. The definitions make it difficult to know where we land.

Mr. Speaker! The third question concerns what I have seen somewhere here – that the monarchy should be enshrined in the constitution.

I can understand that there are those who think it is good with the euro and those who think it is bad with the euro and want to keep the krona. Even that is an issue where the positions are quite clear.

The question we must ask ourselves is: Should we constitutionalize some perception or viewpoint in an ongoing discussion? Is it not the case that we then almost begin to write constitutions against the poor judgment of the elected representatives? Should the elected representatives not, on the contrary, have the opportunity to own a number of issues?

We can also see that it will change over time. I can easily admit that in the beginning, when I was a youth politician, I was against us joining the European Union. Had it been enshrined in the constitution, it would have been a more difficult process. If it had turned out differently, I cannot judge. In the same way, it is not that long ago that we had a wider spread of opinions regarding Nato membership than we have today.

Therefore, it feels as if everything that is subject to debate should also be able to be owned in the public debate and is thus a poor candidate for constitutional protection.

The last question I want to raise is that which is stated in the report regarding threats against elected officials.

First of all: It is naturally completely unreasonable that one should be subjected to threats for taking on a mission. We should all be able to stand here proudly and say: I do not let myself be threatened into a position. I stand secure in my conviction. On the other hand, I believe that we are all so human that we can admit that if the threat begins to come close, we will probably look out for our own convenience first.

What I actually want to highlight with this is, of course, a fear of the threats but also the fact that it is already illegal to threaten. Therefore, it is difficult to see how we can further strengthen the protection against threats. Would it help if we wrote into the Instrument of Government that one may not threaten elected officials? Would there be more police who can protect elected officials then? Or would we lock ourselves in bunkers and thereby likely reduce openness? It is also a question that must be lived with. Then I understand the concern, and I am the first to sign off on it.

Mr. Speaker! I have described four issues in this report: the one about the historical decision, the one where there is an interpretation problem, the one where we have a current debate, and the one that is hot right now. My conclusion in all four cases is that one can have opinions and understand opinions. We can debate the factual issues, but when it comes to the constitution, it takes quite a lot before it is time to write anything into the constitution. Then it is a slow development that must occur and small steps that must be taken.

Mr. Speaker! Let us see this as an idea bank and an opportunity to investigate! Let us have a lively debate on many of these issues, everything from the current to the long-term, but let us hurry slowly! Let us take it step by step!

It is, of course, the dream statement for a conservative politician: Take it easy now! Wait a little bit! Think about this; do nothing rash! But, Mr. Speaker, that is the conclusion I reach when I now move for the approval of the proposal in the Committee on the Constitution's report number 30 on constitutional matters.

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Mr. Speaker! Constitutional policy is perhaps not something people go around thinking about every day, but for me as a member and chairman of the Committee on the Constitution, it is a constantly present subject. On the other hand, perhaps many wonder how our democracy is doing, the right to make one's voice heard, and the opportunities to influence political decision-making.

The concept of constitution has a broad meaning and includes our laws, ordinances and regulations, as well as how all of this is applied in reality. It is our rules for how and on what grounds Sweden shall be governed.

It is our deeply rooted conviction that the country shall be governed by democracy as a system of government. And democracy shall be popularly anchored. This is expressed, not least in the preamble of our constitution, the Instrument of Government, which states that all public power shall derive from the people.

Who then is the people, from whom all public power shall emanate? A historical look back shows that not everyone has been included. The deep injustice that characterized the power relations of the 1800s was one of the reasons why the labor movement mobilized at the end of the 1800s. The right to vote was reserved at that time for men with high incomes, and thus both male workers and women were excluded from political power.

Our struggle for universal and equal suffrage resulted in a decision in the Riksdag in 1919, and Sweden thus received a redistribution of political power from the elite to the general public. Since then, we have further broadened democratic participation and abolished various so-called suffrage restrictions. This happened most recently not so long ago, in 1989, when the restriction on minors was abolished.

It is part of at least the Social Democrats' conviction that not only a part of society should participate in democracy, but everyone. To then define who constitutes the people is problematic. One risks excluding groups. Sweden has done it before – let us not do it again.

Mr. Speaker! In Section 2 of the Instrument of Government, it is established that the public shall act to ensure that people can achieve participation and equality in society and that children's rights are taken into account. The public shall counteract discrimination of people on the basis of gender, skin color, national or ethnic origin, linguistic or religious affiliation, disability, sexual orientation, age, or other circumstances concerning the individual as a person.

This is a very important paragraph, and I want to say in this context that no child should have to be subjected to what twelve-year-old Murhaf Hamid in Glimåkra was subjected to. In an interview a few weeks ago, the Sverigedemokraterna expressed that we don't actually have huge problems with discrimination and racism in Sweden. The opposite has been proven – again. Murhaf has now sold majblommor for over 3.2 million kronor, which also shows that there is a strong popular resistance against racism in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! Politics must have the power to change society, and thus, accountability must also be able to be demanded. It is not civil servants or courts that should stand in the line of fire in political issues; it is politicians. We differ from some other parties that want to shrink the space for politics' power to change by, among other things, privatizing and selling off public activities. We want to take back democratic control.

One way to do this should be to show in a more transparent way which interests have influenced the decision-making. The possibility of influencing political decisions through dialogue with politicians is, as the previous speaker pointed out, a self-evident part of our democracy. At the same time, economic strength must not become what determines the possibility of influence over political decisions.

That is why we Social Democrats believe that a broad review and mapping of the conditions for lobbying should be carried out. Such a review should include, among other things, a lobbying register and a reporting obligation. I therefore wish to move for approval of reservation 22 under point 18 in the report.

Mr. Speaker! The world's developments show us that we must never take democracy for granted. Democracy measurements from Freedom House show that democracy is on the decline in the world. In the USA, the Capitol was stormed by anti-democratic forces, and in Germany, a coup d'état was planned not so long ago. Despite the fact that Sweden has a deeply rooted democracy, the global development has led to the fact that even we need to review our constitutional policy.

It is easy today to throw our highly esteemed democratic system overboard. Sweden's democracy can be abolished very quickly if things go wrong. This is one of the reasons why a constitutional investigation was commissioned by the previous government. Another thing the investigation looked at was how we can strengthen the independence of the courts in times when courts are being politicized all around the world. A unanimous committee now presented its report in March, where it is proposed, among other things, that constitutional laws should be changed with a qualified and not a simple majority, which is the case today.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats sometimes use an argument about stronger constitutional protection based on a kind of worst-case scenario. We must make it as difficult as possible for anti-democratic forces, should they come to power, to demolish our democracy, and we must therefore include as many things as possible in our constitution.

Mr. Speaker! We will, in the seventh instance, not be able to protect everything that is good and limit or forbid everything we think is bad. A government that governs the realm on the basis of the mandate from the Swedish people will want to achieve its policies. For the parties that consider the policy to be bad, the primary tool, despite everything, may still not be to provide constitutional protection but to shape public opinion so that in the next election, the voters will hold them accountable and provide new majority conditions.

I believe it is right that we strengthen the constitutional protection for the various components of democracy, but I also see concerns. It is easy to yield to the political situation here and now and fall for the belief that the more we protect in the constitution, the safer our democracy is. It is a false sense of security. The strongest protection for our democracy is that there is a broad political majority that wants to safeguard democracy's principles.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to constitutional policy, there are many issues that one does not have time to highlight in an eight-minute speech. We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, we, as stated, request approval only for reservation number 22.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! This report also handles a long series of motions, approximately 80 in number, with different focuses, which will be rejected. That is not to say that the motions would not contain a number of well-founded and motivated proposals, which, for example, my party Kristdemokraterna very well could have stood as signatories of - and in some cases even does. But in the parliamentary world, the parties in the government base negotiate a common policy, where all parties receive consideration for large parts of their proposals but compromise solutions are found in other parts. In some cases, a number of proposals from the parties in the government base are combined into a common position and the individual proposals are rejected. This is said so that our listeners will better understand the somewhat strange procedure of rejecting proposals that one in fact stands behind.

According to the Instrument of Government, one of Sweden's constitutional laws, all public power derives from the people, as previously mentioned. Swedish democracy is based on free formation of opinion and on universal and equal suffrage. It is realized through a representative and parliamentary system of government and through local self-government.

The report begins with an overview of the foundations of parliament, the government, and the head of state - that is, the king, the royal family, the Court State, and the Palace State. It is very educational, so I can recommend that those who are interested read it. For example, it describes what would happen if the royal house were to become extinct. In that case, the Riksdag would elect a regent who shall perform the head of state's duties until further notice. A deputy regent is also elected by the Riksdag. The idea is that the Riksdag shall in this way be given room to take a position on how to proceed for the future regarding the form of government.

We naturally hope that something such will never occur, but it is still reassuring that the scenario is well-considered and that the legislator has a plan that is confirmed and described in the Instrument of Government, a fundamental law. It appears from the report that the then department head commented on the Fundamental Law Committee, SOU 1972:15, by stating that "the preservation of the monarchy was a given starting point in the drafting of a new constitution if the constitution were to receive desirable support in the Riksdag and the government."

Mr. Speaker! Another section of the report concerns the EU cooperation. As a Christian Democrat, I am proud that it was three Christian Democrats who took the first steps toward the founding of what later became the European Union. And it was done on well-known fundamental principles of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, including rights for persons belonging to minorities. These values shall be common for the member states in a society characterized by diversity, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity, and the principle of equality between women and men.

It is good that there is an article in the EU Treaty which states that the Council, under certain circumstances, can determine that there is a clear risk that a member state is disregarding the values I have just listed. It also specifies what measures and steps can then be taken.

There are also the freedoms and rights described as those the EU recognizes every human being has. This concerns freedom of thought, religion, expression, and assembly, the right to a protected private life, and a child's right to protection and care. These are very important values to manage and defend - not only when it concerns us who live here in Sweden, but they must also be applied in our contacts with other countries. Through a number of sanction procedures, one can work to ensure compliance with the rule of law principle in other countries.

This is, as has been said, a very extensive report, and it is not possible to cover everything in a speech like this. But I want to, with these highlights from the report, move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Lars Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 11.

The Sweden Democrats are supporters of parliamentary democracy and advocate that democracy should come closer to the citizens.

An excellent way to achieve this is to introduce an opportunity for eligible citizens to be able to submit citizen proposals through e-petitions. An e-petition means that a citizen can submit a proposal to the Riksdag, roughly like an individual motion, which is then published on a website intended for that purpose. If the proposal gains public approval by obtaining a pre-determined number of signatures, it shall be submitted for consideration in the relevant parliamentary committee. The person who is the author of the proposal is personally responsible for marketing and gaining public approval for their proposal.

The state could advantageously have the primary responsibility for ensuring that a suitable portal for this is available online. A natural second step in such a process is to expand it so that it can also be used for people's initiatives at the municipal level. We propose that it should be investigated whether the state has the possibility to bear part of the cost for people's initiatives at the municipal level.

Furthermore, I wish to dwell for a few minutes on Sweden's sovereignty.

Mr. Speaker! By sovereignty is meant the Swedish state's independence from other states as well as from supra-national and intergovernmental organizations. Sweden has, through its membership in supra-national organizations and global cooperation, shifted parts of its right of self-determination abroad, why there are good reasons to clearly mark that the foundation of Swedish sovereignty should not be delegated outside our country's borders.

The Instrument of Government allows Sweden to delegate decision-making power that does not concern the principles of the constitutional system to the European Union. The current wording does not, however, guarantee that constitutional issues will remain a Swedish matter. From the side of the Court of Justice of the EU, it is considered that EU law has primacy over Swedish constitutional law in all respects.

One of the Sweden Democrats' primary goals within EU policy is that as much self-determination as possible shall remain in and, in some cases, be returned to Sweden. Sweden shall be able to join and, if the Swedish people so desire, leave intergovernmental and supranational cooperation.

It is therefore obvious that provisions regarding which organizations Sweden is a member of or cooperates with should not be mentioned in the constitution unless extremely strong reasons argue for otherwise. In addition to including the self-evident UN membership, it should as a rule suffice with a clarification in the Instrument of Government that Sweden participates in international cooperation in various contexts.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I would like to say a few words about so-called political wilderness.

During the previous parliamentary term, the government relied on a single political wild card to be able to survive both budget and no-confidence votes. The consequence of this power-hungry and ruthless abuse of the Swedish people's trust was that this single wild card – who almost exclusively allowed themselves to be guided by foreign interests – gained an unreasonably large influence on both domestic and foreign policy, to the detriment of the people's will and the reputation of Sweden and democracy both internationally and nationally.

A parliamentary committee should therefore be tasked with reviewing different possibilities to link the mandates more closely to the party groups, so that similar situations are not repeated in the future.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is one of the world's most stable democracies, but we are not immune to changes in our global environment. The ultimate protection lies in a strong popular support for democratic values. To achieve such support, knowledge and understanding of the principles upon which a democracy is built are needed, and here there are alarming tendencies.

A survey from Stiftelsen Rättsfonden and Ungdomsbarometern, where 1,130 students in year 3 of upper secondary school were questioned, recently showed that almost every other student in the survey did not know that independent courts are a requirement to be counted as a liberal democracy.

Democracy must be reclaimed in every generation, and democratic principles must constantly be explained and defended. To further strengthen our democracy, the 2020 Constitutional Committee recently presented a number of important proposals:

qualified majority at the second decision in the Riksdag to change a fundamental law

quorum rules for constitutional amendments

the requirement to obtain an opinion from the Council on Legislation shall be extended to also include constitutional proposals concerning fundamental civil and political rights

the independence of the courts is further strengthened.

Even though we Liberals would have wanted to go further regarding strengthening the independence of the courts and would have gladly seen a court council, the committee's proposals are very welcome. We look forward to taking part in the referral responses and the continued handling.

Mr. Speaker! We who sit in the Riksdag have the privilege of being in this chamber and contributing to the development of our democracy. Just 200 miles from here, brave Ukrainians literally need to fight in order to be able to build up their own democracy. Ukraine's goal is not only to secure its self-determination. The Ukrainian parliamentarians enact laws and implement reforms to bring Ukraine closer to membership in the EU while simultaneously defending themselves against Russia's aggression. They know that alone is not strong - alone is just alone.

The requirements for membership in the EU are and must be set high. The values that the EU cooperation is built on - regarding people's freedom, democracy, equality, the principles of the rule of law and respect for human rights - are fundamental principles that need to be respected throughout the EU. It is central that the residents' rights are guaranteed.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time as Ukraine and several other countries that wish to become members are working very actively to live up to the EU's high requirements, there are, paradoxically, countries that are members which repeatedly show that they do not respect the fundamental values on which membership is based. Therefore, the Liberals have been insistent that the EU should be able to withdraw contributions to countries that violate fundamental democratic values.

The rule of law mechanism, which was established in 2019, is an important tool. But sanctions are also required. Therefore, it was correct for the EU to fine Poland when they established an illegal disciplinary tribunal, and it was a very important decision when the member states stood their ground in December and froze payments of EU funding to Hungary in accordance with the conditionality regulation, which entered into force in 2021.

Sweden has also recently backed the European Commission's call to have the Hungarian LGBTQI laws reviewed by the European Court of Justice. If we are to have high standards for new members, existing members must also respect the values upon which the cooperation is built.

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, we have lived in both democracy and peace for a long time. But many in Sweden have other experiences. When we Members of Parliament visited high school classes and talked about our democracy during the democracy year, we asked the students if they knew what a dictatorship is. Then I sometimes received the answer: Yes, we know; we fled from one to live in a democracy.

We who lack experience of not having lived outside a democracy must help each other to remind one another and others of the importance of and the benefits of democracy. The day we begin to take democracy for granted is the day democracy becomes seriously vulnerable. Our democracy needs to be nurtured, explained, and defended today, tomorrow, and in the future.

Ukraine is now leading the defense of democracy in Europe as they repel Russia at the front. We do this here in the chamber, in the European Parliament, in the classrooms and in the debate by constantly reminding ourselves and others of the important values that are the foundation of a liberal democracy. Both tasks are important, and the goal is the same.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by moving for approval of reservation 38, but I intend to try to mention something about several of the other reservations that Vänsterpartiet has in this report.

About a year ago, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs debated for the last time. It was a very special debate, I can remember even though I did not participate myself. It was only a few weeks after Russia's invasion of and attack on Ukraine. Very many were strongly affected then.

This report includes, as pointed out by previous speakers, large parts of what is our democratic foundation, that which we build our constitutional system on. We also have different proposals for changing and, in some parts, improving the constitution that we have. We all know that the freedoms and rights that we have can never be or be taken for granted. Just a year ago, we were strongly aware of this. One must unfortunately conclude that this is still the case. We also all know that democracy is unfortunately in decline in the world.

During this and previous terms, we have in various ways celebrated and highlighted democracy in Sweden. And Member of Parliament Ida Karkiainen previously preferred the historical development of democracy.

But there is actually a part of our democracy that I consider to rhyme particularly poorly with everything else we have celebrated, namely that there is a position in Sweden that one cannot be elected to but that one is born into. It is unfortunately not particularly modern and not even reasonable, even if the person in question celebrates 50 years on the throne.

Mr. Speaker! Since 2010, there has been a constitutional protection in the Instrument of Government stating that the possibilities for the Sámi people and ethnic, linguistic, and religious minorities to maintain and develop their own cultural and community life shall be promoted. Vänsterpartiet had for a long time championed the issue of precisely a constitutional protection for the national minorities, and we stood behind the current government's proposal. On the other hand, it was some of the referral bodies that commented on the proposal who considered that it was not only the Sámi who should be mentioned in the Instrument of Government but also the other national minorities. Furthermore, a couple of referral bodies suggested that language should be added among those things that the minorities should have the opportunity to maintain and develop. Some referral bodies also argued that it was not satisfactory that the Sámi have a weaker position in Sweden's constitution than in our neighboring countries.

Vänsterpartiet shares that view. We believe that the question of stronger constitutional protection for the national minorities and the indigenous Sami, as well as for our minority languages, needs to be investigated, especially in times like these, when it is clearly being questioned by other parties in the Riksdag.

Mr. Speaker! In recent years, politicians have sold off large parts of our common property. It concerns schools, health centers, pharmacies, apartments, and much more. In several of these cases, the sell-offs have been made at below-market prices. They have simply discounted what was previously ours and what we owned collectively.

Many times these privatizations have occurred far below market prices, and often it has meant that socially beneficial functions have been dismantled. The sell-off of our schools, health centers, and state-owned companies means that democracy decreases because citizens lose influence over the operations. That which has taken several decades for the citizens and for the public sector to build up can be sold off in just a few years. The sell-offs unfortunately become more or less irreversible. It is very difficult to buy back what has been sold off.

A trend in recent years has been that municipalities have used an arrangement based on selling real estate or parts of them to private actors for a lump sum while simultaneously committing to lease back the premises they have just sold – at high prices and with long contracts. The market for so-called community properties has expanded significantly, and during 2020, community properties worth over 5 billion were privatized in Sweden.

One of the most prominent examples is the culture house in Skellefteå, which the municipality sold for just over a billion. Every year, Skellefteå municipality pays almost 45 million in rent to the company it sold to in order to have access to its own culture house. When the lease expires in 50 years, Skellefteå municipality will have paid around 2.2 billion in rent, which is more than double what the municipality sold the culture house for.

Even in Härnösand Municipality, the majority of the premises have been sold off. There, it is noted in hindsight that the disadvantages clearly outweigh the advantages of the sell-offs, and that it was not only a bad financial deal but that one has also become terribly dependent on landlords and is given a very limited space to adapt the properties based on one's needs.

Kommuninvest, the municipalities' own company, so to speak, has produced its own report where they share these conclusions and state that municipalities should own their properties because it becomes both cheaper and better for the citizens if the state, the regions, and the municipalities own their properties.

It is also quite clear that sell-offs of our common property are very poorly received. When Helsingborg Municipality organized a referendum a few years ago on whether to sell off the company Öresundskraft, the result was very clear. The "No" side received 96.37 percent of the votes, and the turnout of 50.06 percent was unusually high. Unfortunately, the turnout in municipal referendums is not always as high as in our general elections.

When other parties want to reduce collective ownership, the Left Party wants to increase it in order to be able to steer social development and what we have jointly built up in the form of assets in state-owned companies, and in order to be able to steer parts of society through them, but also in order to be able to bring more money into our common welfare.

Today, the constitution protects private ownership, but there is a lack of protection for what we own together. We therefore believe that it is necessary to strengthen the right of common ownership and introduce a constitutional protection for common property. We therefore want an investigation to review how a constitutional protection for jointly owned property can be achieved.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! I stand behind the Center Party's all reservations in this report but choose, for the sake of time, to move for approval only of reservation 17 under point 14.

Liberal democracy, the principles of the rule of law, and respect for fundamental human freedoms and rights are the very core of what today's debate here in the chamber is about - how these values are protected and how they can be strengthened here at home in Sweden but also within the framework of our cooperation in the European Union. These values can, in fact, never be taken for granted, as several of today's speakers have pointed out. This is perhaps many of us more aware of today than in a long time after having, for over a year's time at a distance, seen a country in our vicinity be subjected to another country's absolute claims and attacks. I am, of course, referring to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine - which many speakers touched upon and were strongly affected by when this debate was held some years ago - and to Putin's blood-stained hands which, until not too long ago, were shaken by many of the Western world's leaders in the belief that a handshake was a handshake and that what one took in hand implied mutual respect.

But no, the past year has shown how an authoritarian state, Russia, where power, assets, and influence have been concentrated in a very narrow circle, poses a threat not only to the country's own population but also to other people and states. And unfortunately, Russia's war against Ukraine and Putin's absolute exercise of power towards the country's own inhabitants is not the only place here in the world where we have seen a regression of democracy and its institutions over the past year. As the latest annual report from the V-Dem Institute shows, more and more countries in the world are developing in the "wrong" direction, in a more authoritarian direction instead of in a more democratic direction. And an ever larger proportion of the world's population lives today in non-democracies.

Mr. Speaker! That I can stand here in this rostrum today and freely criticize both other states and the own power is truly not everyone's privilege. But just because I and others here have this opportunity, I really want to emphasize the importance of us all being attentive to and acting when we see shifts even here at home - shifts in values regarding everyone's equal right and value. This can, for example, concern a twelve-year-old boy in Skåne who sells daisies, and does so successfully. It is a true success story to see how his commitment helps both him and other vulnerable children. But because of how this boy looks and his origin, he is subjected to hate and threats. This is, of course, unacceptable. And it shows shifts in fundamental values and in how we view other people, and we are all obligated to react against these shifts in order to safeguard the individual's civil and political rights and to safeguard all people's equal value.

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, in recent years we have seen a decline of democracy even within the EU in several of the EU's member states. We have seen how authoritarian parties have advanced their positions. We have seen how political power has, to an ever greater extent, wanted to control free speech through control over the media and over academia. In Hungary and Poland, we have seen how politics has taken an ever greater grip on the judiciary, its composition, powers, and function. And without independent courts, without free media, and without free research, we no longer have a democracy in its true sense.

Recently, EU cooperation has been put to the test by the pandemic, by the energy crisis, and by war in the surrounding area. But the cooperation has shown itself to hold firm even when the wind blows hard. A major reason for this is that EU cooperation is built on common, fundamental values. These include safeguarding the principles of the rule of law. But these values are not eternally given but must be continuously defended. Therefore, there must be consequences for those who deviate from these fundamental values, member states that step back and who abandon the values on which we base our cooperation.

It is naturally a step in the right direction that the EU has withheld payments, most recently to Hungary, when the country has shown such clear deficiencies in relation to the principles of the rule of law. But not enough is being done in this area. The EU must act even more clearly. As soon as a member state violates these principles, it must face tangible consequences.

Centerpartiet wants a so-called democracy lock on the EU budget, so that the EU chokes off funds to member states that do not respect their democratic and rule of law commitments and that do not put a stop to public corruption. And if a member state, despite economic sanctions, continues to violate these fundamental principles, other measures shall be considered, for example, that a member state's decision-making power in the EU be limited.

Mr. Speaker! We live in an uncertain time and in an uncertain world, where we are demonstrably being subjected to actions from other states, malicious actions from states that do not wish us well. This can, for example, occur through cyberattacks but also through infiltration or other influence. Just yesterday, we were informed that a few more Russian citizens, embassy personnel, are being expelled from Sweden. And there are certainly good reasons for this, even if we do not get to know exactly what they are. But we know that Russia is one of the countries that shows particular interest in Sweden. It is therefore important that we here, and our politicians in the various parties, democratically elected by our Swedish voters, ensure that we build up defenses against infiltration and influence by foreign powers. To ensure this, the Center Party wants the government to appoint an inquiry that recommends legislation and other reforms to make the political parties more resilient against external threats.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet is a feminist party that works for everyone's equal rights and opportunities to participate fully in the building of society. We are convinced that differences enrich and that diversity, equity, and gender equality are the foundation for a just society. Together we can create faith in the future and quality of life. And our laws must reflect this and provide the conditions for a just, green, and inclusive development.

We have highlighted some of these prerequisites in our party motion on democracy. We share many of them with others, and some have led to reservations.

One is about the citizens' initiative, which is a direct democratic tool that makes it possible for individuals to submit proposals for societal changes, for example as legislative proposals or referendums. In Sweden, the tool exists at the municipal and regional levels but not at the national level. Different systems with citizens' initiatives exist in several other countries, and there is also a system within the EU where individual citizens are given the same opportunity to urge the European Commission to submit legislative proposals.

Mr. Speaker! The latest power study submitted its final report over 30 years ago. The committee was tasked with deepening the knowledge of the conditions of democracy, the citizens' opportunities to influence, and which factors create the power to shape Sweden.

Today, democracy is affected by increased gaps and polarization in the political debate. Many do not dare to express their opinions on political issues. Many are also prepared to withdraw fundamental democratic freedoms and rights for groups they do not like. Above all, democracy's greatest challenge is that many do not feel included in it.

Hate and threats against elected officials and others who express political opinions also hinder the will and the possibility to engage in order to influence society. In that context, I want to emphasize the necessity of improving and supporting greater equality and diversity in politics. It is, of course, unacceptable that people refrain from participating in public life for fear of threats and hate. Therefore, we want to appoint a new power inquiry, which shall submit proposals on how we build a democracy that represents everyone's interests in the best way.

I also want to mention that we stand behind the proposal submitted by the committee Democracy 100 years ago just barely a year ago, namely that a national democracy function is needed and should be established, with the mandate to increase knowledge about democracy. We also share the committee's assessment of the risk that the resources spent on democracy-strengthening work will not have an impact without a national coordination.

Mr. Speaker! The EU plays a central role in defending democracy and human rights, both within and outside Europe. Sweden should continue to push for the EU to strengthen its work on human rights, both in member states and in relations with other countries, by developing better tools to combat violations of these rights.

We believe that Sweden shall continue to maintain the position that the EU should withdraw support to countries that do not live up to the principles of the rule of law, so that the EU and the member states live up to the values that are the basis for European cooperation: democracy, human freedoms and rights, and the principles of the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker! As the observant members and the rest of the audience know, we were not so pleased that the corruption investigation commissioned by the previous government was simply scrapped by the current one. At the same time, we welcome that the discussions regarding a new, parliamentarilly composed and broader investigation are now taking shape in cooperation between KU and the Minister for Justice and the Ministry. Among other things, we would like to contribute with questions regarding how our political parties are financed and greater transparency when it comes to lobbying activities and which contacts are made.

Mr. Speaker! Most agree that it should be difficult to change constitutional laws. I am concerned by a motion where the Sweden Democrats propose that the Instrument of Government's protection for minorities be phased out and replaced by "a narrative of Sweden as a country and the Swedes as a people. It shall not be possible to question which people are intended in the Instrument of Government's preamble."

In my world - the one I want to be part of building - the possibilities for the Sámi people and our own and other ethnic, linguistic, and religious minorities to maintain and develop their own cultural and community life shall be promoted, not threatened. Our goal is integration, not assimilation.

In that context, the independence of the courts needs to be strengthened, and we would like to see it be constitutionally protected better than it is today. In the same way, it is important to protect public service in such a way that it hinders any potential future shift of power towards an authoritarian direction. We must build in a defense against the changes we do not want to see.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by saying that I naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservations 20 and 24.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 15.)

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