Constitutional matters

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Madam Speaker! This report is a summary of ninety motions from the general motion period. These are motions that deal with routines and rules but also our approach to perhaps one of the most important things we have, namely how democracy and the political system in Sweden should function.

It is naturally also a report that is significant. It also has a great breadth, for it is clear that it is difficult to find a very clear consensus between a motion on the King's coronation and the introduction of a republic. All this, both the significance and the breadth, means that there is reason to proceed quite cautiously. There is reason to consider what actually must be regulated in constitutional laws and ordinances and what we perhaps can solve in another way. A certain slowness in the handling is therefore to be preferred when it concerns these matters.

Mr. Speaker, Madam President, I do not intend to speak more about the individual motions but rather speak about the guiding principles.

The first principle I am considering, I support with a quote from Immanuel Kant: In the delimitation, the mastery is seen.

It is a matter of finding exactly what needs to be regulated and what does not, for it is very easy to write rules that the honest are prepared to follow but which are not followed by the dishonest. This implies an increased burden on those who wish to do right.

We have such a discussion regarding lobby registers. I find it very difficult to believe that someone who is out to spread disinformation or who is out to disrupt the political system would spontaneously register in a lobby register or identify themselves as the sender of their works. There is a risk that one, so to speak, regulates for the honest one but misses the point itself.

Madam Speaker! Here we begin to approach what should be the fundamentals of democracy, namely that we should be able to have the open and honest debate rather than finding all the exact formulations. It is when opinions clash against each other and the debate is conducted with an honest will to understand one another that we can learn something new and understand the arguments and thereby move social development forward. Politics should never be gladiatorial games. Politics should be an ongoing conversation about social development. But precisely for that reason, we must also limit how we choose to govern and influence democracy.

Madam President! Is it then completely pointless to say that we need different rules, registers, and ways of registering? No, it is not. There can be a point in ensuring instruments for transparency so that everyone can go in and look and audit how we do things.

At the same time, it is not the registration itself or the task itself that is what is important. What is important is that I dare to take responsibility for my own actions and that we can hold all elected officials, who have a political mandate on behalf of the citizens, accountable. We must ensure that. One should never be able to escape.

For my part, I find it a bit difficult to understand why there are elected politicians or opinion leaders who want to drive opinion without talking about the fact that it is exactly what they are doing and that they are doing it to influence. It becomes somewhat backward when one does it in that way, because what does it mean when one says and tries to introduce something into the debate that one is then not prepared to stand by? It is simply positionless. That is not how a substantive debate is conducted. The debate can, of course, drift over time, but then we have a responsibility to pull it back to the right paths.

Madam Speaker! The final consideration that I think should be included in this report is the question of how much of the right to make decisions should rest on what political scientists call popular sovereignty and how much should be codified in rights legislation and interpreted by courts. Here, it is possible to swing back and forth. I believe we all agree that the debate must be what steers the development in the long term. But in order to be able to have an honest debate, one must also have clearly defined rights and clearly defined ways to handle them.

Madam President! To speak of the principles of regulating with caution, of safeguarding the fundamentals of democracy and open and honest debate, of ensuring that we can have accountability and have an ongoing debate on the balance between popular sovereignty and jurisprudence is a way to summarize the treatment of all the 90 motions. Even though the committee rejects all motions in the report, there are arguments worth raising but which fall on the last of these principles, namely the long-term perspective to respect the significance but also the breadth of the proposals one may have for the development of democracy.

Madam President! To summarize, let me move to approve the committee's proposal in the report KU16 Constitutional Issues.

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

Hans Ekström (S)

Madam President of the Council! The KU is debating KU16 Constitutional Issues today. There, ideas from the various parties in the Riksdag are being addressed.

I see the motions as interesting contributions to a lively debate on how Sweden should be governed. However, we have a long tradition of broad majorities and slow processes regarding the design of the constitution. I believe that is important. Reflection is important when it comes to constitutional laws.

Furthermore, this tradition will be enshrined in the constitution with the new provisions on how the constitution shall be amended, which were originally present in the 2020 constitutional investigation and which the government submitted a bill on last week.

According to the proposals, a two-thirds majority will be required for constitutional amendments in the second decision. We welcome this; we believe it is important in a time when democracy is being challenged in many places around the world. Pending that change, we naturally assume that the Swedish tradition of broad majorities will continue to apply.

An example of preventing a majority from making a change to the constitution concerns public service. There was a clear majority to constitutionally anchor public service, but the majority refrained from proceeding with that issue because the largest opposition party was against such a change.

We Social Democrats have two reservations in the report.

The first concerns the rules on cooling-off periods for ministers and high-ranking civil servants. In 2018, restrictions were introduced for ministers and secretaries of state regarding taking new jobs. The cooling-off committee must approve this. It was an important step to strengthen trust in public activities and avoid conflicts of interest. In 2023, an investigation was presented suggesting that more senior positions should be covered by this regulatory framework. We assume that the government will proceed with the investigation's proposals. That is the first reservation we have.

We also consider, as I have already mentioned, that public service should be written in and constitutionally protected. Public service has an immensely central role in democracy, and it is no coincidence that public service is often attacked by totalitarian forces. We see now, most recently, that the president in the USA is withdrawing the financial support for public service. One can wonder what the purpose behind that is. It is probably not a purpose to strengthen democracy that lies behind the reduced support for public service.

This has become even more important because the previous tradition of broad majorities regarding the financing of public services has been shaken in Sweden. It is a tradition that an agreement is reached on how public service shall be financed during the coming period to secure this during changes of government and other matters. That tradition has unfortunately been broken, and therefore we see the protection of public service in the constitution as more important than ever.

I therefore move for approval of reservation 19 and reservation 32.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam President! All power derives from the people, says the Instrument of Government. The Riksdag is the people's primary representative, and the king or queen who, according to the Act of Succession, represents and holds the throne of Sweden is the head of state.

This arrangement, with a head of state without actual power, is self-evident to us. It did, however, cause great surprise when the Riksdag's steering group for democracy development met Armenian colleagues last week – even more so when it was realized that certain parties had been republican on paper for more than a century and had done nothing to abolish the monarchy, despite having been in power for the greater part of this time. This says something about how strong the monarchy is here in Sweden and what good representatives the royal house is for our country, both nationally and internationally.

Madam President! Since 1 January 1995, Sweden has been a member of the European Union. It is a strength to be part of a larger community where we can negotiate common solutions of a cross-border nature on issues such as international crime or environmentally hazardous substances that spread with water and through the air.

We must remember that the EU began as a peace project, when the three Christian Democratic statesmen Robert Schuman from Luxembourg and France, Konrad Adenauer from Germany, and the Italian Alcide de Gasperi laid the foundation for what began as the Coal and Steel Union and over time developed into the EU. The idea was to intertwine the countries, which had a history of centuries of war and conflicts, through such close trade ties and such free movement that a war or a conflict would harm one's own country at least as much.

Madam President! This has proven to be a successful concept. To date, no EU countries have entered into armed conflict with one another. The EU shall also continue to be a free union in the spirit of the three EU fathers, with democratic accountability and where our fundamental freedoms and rights are protected. The EU's work in standing up for our common Western values and our European lifestyle needs to be strengthened.

It is also good that with our countries' combined demographic and economic weight, we can constitute a party and not a row of larger and smaller nations that can easily be bypassed because it is unfeasible to deliberate with each one individually, according to the principle "To whom do the world's leaders call when they want to talk to Europe?"

However, according to the subsidiarity principle, we need to constantly keep an eye on tendencies to regulate matters in detail that are managed much better at the local level. Typical such issues are pay scales and how the Swedish forests should be managed. Many of the complaints heard here at home linked to the EU are probably, in the name of honesty, rooted in the tendency of Swedish authorities to over-implement. The subsidiarity principle means that decisions should be made at the lowest appropriate level. We shall continue to have a strong subsidiarity review. We shall not delegate issues that conflict with the Swedish constitution to the EU.

We Christian Democrats also want to go even further and have a proposal to make it possible for the Riksdag to issue a so-called red card to the European Commission's proposals. It is a way to safeguard subsidiarity and to stand up for the EU's core mission and our Swedish constitution.

Madam Speaker! Much more could be said about this chapter and the report, but I will content myself with these brief reflections. I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Swedish krona is not just a currency. It is a part of our history and our identity. It is also an identity marker and a symbol of our independence from Brussels and the EU's nameless bureaucrats.

Through the Swedish krona, as far as globalization allows, we are still masters of our own monetary policy. It has had its name for over 150 years, but it also carries something significantly heavier: the Swedes' trust. Through world wars, recessions, recoveries, and global crises, we have had it with us. It has become something we recognize, trust, and can even empathize with.

Everyone who has ever stood at a national day, a sports final, or a match final of any kind and heard the national anthem played understands exactly what I mean. When you stand there and hear the opening notes of Du gamla, du fria, you feel something in your body. It is something more than just words and notes. It is a sense of togetherness with the others in the room and with previous generations. It is a togetherness with the country that one is actually a part of.

The Swedish krona is in its own way an important part of just this feeling. It is a unifying expression of independence, stability and continuity – just like the Swedish flag and the national anthem. It is not just a means of payment but an important part of our culture. It says something about who we are.

That the krona is not mentioned in our constitution is, in our opinion, an oversight. It is simply an omission, and we believe that it is now high time that this is changed. We propose that the Swedish krona be enshrined in the constitution as Sweden's currency. I therefore move for the approval of reservation 25.

We know, in fact, that the question of the euro is not dead. It lies latent in both Swedish and European politics. It would be a mistake to believe that the question will not surface again – perhaps as a crisis argument or with promises of coordination gains. But to introduce the euro would be to give up one of our most powerful tools for economic independence.

Countries that lack their own currency are more vulnerable. We see it quite clearly in Southern Europe. There, there is low growth and high youth unemployment, and there is an inability to adjust the course in connection with a recession. The flexibility Sweden has had with the possibility to adjust interest rates and exchange rates according to domestic needs is part of our economic strength. It would be frankly stupid to voluntarily give up that possibility. To write the krona into the constitution is a way of saying: This is ours. This is us.

The Swedish people said no to the euro already in 2003. It would therefore be logical to acknowledge that by writing this into the constitution and constitutionally protecting the Swedish currency. The need to protect Sweden against the EU federalists has not diminished since the turn of the millennium, but rather the opposite.

Madam President! When we speak of democracy and national self-determination, it is also natural to speak about what responsibility those in power have towards the people. The Sweden Democrats therefore propose that we introduce a so-called oath of office. It is a solemn confirmation from every minister before they assume their mandate that they will serve the country loyally and in accordance with the constitution.

It is not a spectacle. It is a statement. It sends a very clear message that this is not just any mission, but a responsibility that ultimately rests on the people's trust.

In many other democracies, for example Finland, Estonia and several Western European countries, it is already a matter of course that members of the government in one way or another make such a declaration. We think it should be just as much of a matter of course here with us. It would mean a symbolic but also powerful acknowledgment that the one who holds government power also bears a moral responsibility towards the entire Swedish people.

I also want to take the opportunity to emphasize precisely the importance of Swedish citizenship. Today, it is hardly mentioned at all in the constitution, even though it is the very gateway to democracy. Being a citizen in Sweden is not merely a legal status, but it is an expression of belonging. It says something about which community one is a part of and what obligations and rights come with it.

We mean therefore that Swedish citizenship should be given special status in the constitution, not in order to exclude in any way, but to clarify what it actually means to be a part of Swedish democracy. It strengthens the respect for both the citizenship and the values we build our society on.

There is a recurring idea in the proposals I have presented here at the rostrum and in our motions being discussed in the committee report, namely to strengthen the bonds between the Swedish people and the power exercised in its name. We want to see more accountability, greater clarity, and clearer markings of what it means to be a part of Swedish society. In the midst of all this stands the Swedish krona – our currency, our symbol, and our promise of continued independence.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam President! Today we are debating a number of interesting motions on constitutional issues, and the government has recently submitted an important bill to the Riksdag regarding enhanced protection for democracy and the independence of the courts. Soon, a bill will also be submitted regarding strengthening constitutional preparedness during crises.

These proposals from the government will eventually be supplemented by a bill concerning our fundamental freedoms and rights. It concerns a constitutional reform that this country has not seen in a long time.

That such things occur in our day has to do with well-known external and internal threats, but there is also an important domestic political reason why these proposals are being presented now. It concerns a very significant shift in position on constitutional issues by that party – the Social Democrats – which for a long time hindered the possibility of reaching a broad consensus regarding many of the reforms that will now be implemented.

Madam Speaker! The constitutional order established in the 1974 Instrument of Government was the product of a long period of a strong social democratic hegemony of power. It was the time that began in 1932 and in which social democracy was the sun around which all other parties orbited, to use Herbert Tingsten's planetary metaphor.

Under these circumstances, the Social Democrats emphasized the policy's effectiveness and ability to deliver. In Tommy Möller's text in the book En författning i tiden, published last year on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Instrument of Government, it reads: "For the Social Democrats, who have been in government since 1932, it was important to avoid rules of the game that enabled (the bourgeois) opposition to put a spoke in the wheels of the policy that a (social democratic) government wanted to implement."

In other words: The power was theirs, and it would be exploited to the maximum. Therefore, there should be as few constitutional barriers as possible for politics, for example, constitutionally protected individual freedoms and rights, the principle of judicial review, a stronger Council on Legislation, or a qualified majority in the Riksdag to be able to carry out constitutional amendments.

As Olof Palme expressed it in 1976, these "cunning barriers ... against a popular reform work would rather be a danger than a protection." Popular sovereignty – or the will of the people, as another party would say today – should neither be hindered nor delayed, and the separation of powers should be phased out of our political system.

That there could be a conflict between the individual's rights, society's democratic decisions, and the state's power was something that the Social Democrats could not even imagine during this time. The state was good, and the politics wanted the best for everyone. But it was not just any state or politics that would arrange our lives, it was the social democratic state and the social democratic politics.

Madam President! The social democratic hegemony would, however, soon suffer towards its end. The defeat in the 1976 election meant that Sweden was on the way to changing, and the social democratic hold on power was no longer guaranteed.

In the 1980s, large parts of the corporatist elements that characterized our democracy were to go into the grave. The 1991 election confirmed that a new political era had begun: For the first time since the 1928 election, the party received less than 40 percent of the votes. Since then, different government constellations have succeeded one another, and today it is a self-evident fact that other parties can also hold government power in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! It is this change in the Social Democratic Party's power position that both characterizes the constitutional situation Sweden is currently in and explains the clear shift in position that the party has undergone, not least regarding the protection of the constitution from other majority expressions than those that favored Social Democracy. Now, instead, one wants to erect barriers against the previously so all-dominant popular sovereignty and the Palme era's absolute prioritization of political efficacy.

Now, one wants to adopt a more balanced view, where constitutional stability is important. If it concerns, for example, the new requirement that at least two-thirds of the members of the Riksdag must vote for the second, confirming decision to adopt a constitutional amendment after a parliamentary election has been held. This was proposed unanimously by the 2020 Constitutional Committee and is now on the Riksdag's table.

To require a qualified majority for constitutional amendments, especially those amendments concerning our fundamental freedoms and rights, is an old proposal from Folkpartiet and Moderaterna that the Socialdemokrater opposed with all their might. Now, almost half a century later, the Socialdemokrater have finally seen the light. It gladdens us because, as it stands in the Gospel of Luke, "there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who have no need to repent."

The same social democratic reversal applies to the proposal to expand the Council on Legislation's scope of review so that even bills regarding amendments to the chapter of the Instrument of Government concerning our fundamental freedoms and rights shall be covered.

Last but not least, the Constitutional Committee's unanimous proposal to strengthen the independence of the courts should be mentioned.

Madam President! It is about great gains with a development in a liberal and democratic direction, but this should not constitute the final destination for the constitutional journey that Sweden has undertaken since 1974. The Liberals want to proceed with reforming our constitutional laws, particularly in two respects.

The first thing is to strengthen the judicial review institution by establishing a strong constitutional court with broad powers. This is a self-evident matter in most democratic countries.

The second point concerns strengthening the independence of the courts even further than what is currently proposed. In the 2020 Constitutional Committee, the Liberal representative Cecilia Malmström, together with representatives from the Moderates, Christian Democrats, and the Centre Party, submitted a special statement on the need to strengthen the independence of the courts by establishing an independent court council responsible for the central court administration. In that way, the judiciary would be completely freed from its traditional dependence on the government.

A court council would constitute a breakthrough for the principle of separation of powers and a very welcome break with a historical tradition characterized by the courts' dependence on first the monarchy and then the democratic government. Such a change would, together with the establishment of a constitutional court, constitute a strong constitutional safeguard of both the democratic rule of law and our fundamental freedoms and rights.

Madam Speaker! I would like to conclude my contribution by moving to approve the committee's proposal.

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

Hans Ekström (S)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting for an old history teacher to have his democratic mindset as a social democrat questioned by a representative of a bourgeois party. In March 1933, a vote was held in the German Reichstag. Not a single bourgeois member in the German Reichstag voted against. The only speech held against came from the German Social Democrats' party leader Otto Wels, who was naturally affected by the consequences of it.

The Social Democrats' democratic spirit was now questioned. Precisely during the period that Mauricio Rojas mentioned, from 1932 and during the war, democracy in the Nordic countries was secured by a coalition between bourgeois parties and the Social Democrats. It was not just us, it was the Center Party, or the Farmers' League, and us. Therefore, I can become a bit upset.

On the other hand, it is true that we are reconsidering some things. I believe that it is quite useful, and I believe that others may also need to do so from time to time. One can also reflect on the fact that the government is currently presenting proposition after proposition that have been executed as illiberal by the Council on Legislation and referral bodies. How can Mauricio Rojas defend that the government is now undermining fundamental democratic and liberal principles time and again?

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam President! I thank the member for reminding us of what happened in Germany. It was very tragic. That is precisely why Germany has a very strong constitutional court and very powerful barriers against any development that leads towards a concentration of power and an undemocratic government. All democratic parties in Germany support this.

Basically, I gave a description of the Social Democratic policy as it was until the mid-70s. I would very much like the Member of Parliament to somehow remind me of what mistakes I have made. Were you not against the principle of judicial review? Were you not against writing our fundamental freedoms and rights into the constitution? Was it not you who limited the powers of the Council on Legislation? I could bring up more things.

As early as 1938, the bourgeois parties began to present motions to have qualified majorities in order to be able to change, above all, the fundamental principles that apply to our freedoms and rights; I am speaking here about Tingsten's famous investigation. Social Democracy opposed this from 1938 and actually until our day.

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

Hans Ekström (S)

Madam Speaker! History shows that legal regulations can fulfill their functions, but the most important thing for securing democracy is a strong civil society, strong public education, and that society stands strong. Then one can be a bit surprised that a liberal party is currently slaughtering public education, which is one of democracy's strongest bulwarks to protect people and for people to stand strong in an illiberal time. It surprises me. Laws and regulations can be overridden. The strongest thing we have is a strong party system and a strong civil society. It is necessary to protect this, but the current government is making interventions in civil society in area after area. It is a major problem.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam President! I thank the member for the contribution.

The main question I asked was why the Social Democrats changed their view on all these constitutional issues. We can continue to talk about this some other time, but the answer I have given is that it was because you lost the self-evident position of power that you had from 1932 to 1976. As long as the Social Democratic Party safely held power, Madam Speaker, there would therefore be no barriers to politics. Politics would be able to quickly and without problems carry out everything that the Social Democratic Party wanted.

It is no longer the case. Now it is time to erect barriers against everything that the Social Democrats previously wanted – that politics should have momentum, that it should go fast and that no one should delay. I am talking about the Palme era. I have with great interest read Palme's speeches and posts from when the new constitution, with the 1974 Instrument of Government, was discussed. I have also read posts from the Minister of Justice, the unfortunately for some other reason famous Geijer. The separation of powers was to be removed. There were to be no barriers – nothing. Democracy could protect democracy; one did not need special courts that reviewed how power was exercised or if the citizens' rights were threatened.

It is no longer the case, and that is what I am glad about.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for the approval of reservation 34, otherwise there is a risk that I will start thinking about my sins and forget to do it.

Madam President! This report deals with large parts of what constitutes our democratic foundation and the rules of the game for our democratic society. It is also this upon which we build our system of government.

Vänsterpartiet has in the report many proposals to change, improve and strengthen the Swedish constitution. But as previous speakers have pointed out, we in Sweden have a long tradition of trying to find broad agreements when the basic rules of the game are changed.

Sweden is and has long been a stable democracy, but it must be acknowledged that we are not immune to changes in our global environment. The ultimate protection lies in a strong popular support for democratic values. To achieve this, knowledge and understanding of the principles a democracy is built on are needed, as well as awareness of how to go about making one's voice heard and truly influencing political decision-making.

It is important that our democratic system is representative and inclusive. But many people do not feel included and experience that they have little influence on political decisions that affect them. One of the Left Party's proposals in the report is therefore to appoint a new power inquiry that can submit proposals on how we can better build a democracy that represents everyone's interests in the best way and which has a mandate to analyze the distribution of power and influence within different areas and between different groups in Swedish society. This applies not least to persons with disabilities, who generally have lower participation and representation in democratic processes.

Madam Speaker! Democracy must be reclaimed by every generation, and democratic principles must be constantly explained and defended. We must and can never take our freedoms and rights for granted. Unfortunately, democracy is in retreat in the world, and when authoritarian forces gain ground, they usually attack the foundations democracy is built on in different ways. They attack the independent media, the free academies, civil society's space, and the foundations of the justice system.

This year's press freedom index is summarized in the headline "Historic global decline in press freedom." About ten years ago, in 2014, 25 countries in the world were judged to have a good press freedom situation. This year, there are only seven. Less than 1 percent of the world's population lives in a country with good press freedom. The strong Swedish press freedom is therefore an exception. But even Sweden has dropped in the index, and here too there is a concern and experience that certain freedoms and rights are threatened. This is shown, among other things, by the Institute for Human Rights' annual report. This concern is also higher here than in our neighboring countries.

Free and independent media have an important democratic task by reflecting the political debate and scrutinizing those in power. Public service guarantees, through its role, both high-quality and independent news reporting and entertainment that reaches out broadly via, among other things, radio and TV. It also has an important total defense mission.

Public service needs to be strengthened and have a broad mandate and a long-term, independent and stable funding. It should not be possible for politicians to, with quick decisions, curtail public services' opportunities to operate.

Around the world, in recent years, restrictions have been placed on free, independent, and autonomous media and public service. Even in Sweden, public service is being questioned, and proposals are being put forward that the public service mandate should be made narrower.

For me, it is important and urgent to strengthen the independent position that public service has. A constitutional protection would both strengthen the independence and be sustainable over time. We therefore consider it urgent to constitutionally protect public service and its independence. I also believe that parliamentary decisions in matters concerning public service should be made by a qualified majority.

Madam Speaker! What other proposals does the Left Party have? A proposal that we submit to the Riksdag every year concerns the system of government. In Sweden, meritocracy is protected, i.e., a system that implies that merits are valued over relations and social status. These merits can, for example, be different abilities, knowledge, and education. Especially in recruitment and employment, this is usually a factor that is protected. The person who is best suited for the job should also get it. But for the position of head of state, Sweden's highest office, one is not elected, but rather born into it. One is also born into a regulatory framework where the constitution restricts one's freedom of religion and freedom of movement. Furthermore, the government's consent is required before one is allowed to marry. This cannot be classified as anything other than an outdated relic from times when the surname played a decisive role for one's status in society. Equally outdated is that the head of state has immunity from prosecution and that the royal house does not need to account for how the public funds it receives from the taxpayers are used.

Madam Speaker! Corruption, lobbying and revolving doors between the business sector and politics are also a threat to people's trust in the democratic system. During the last 30 years, large parts of our society have been privatized and handed over to the market, which has made many large companies directly dependent on political decisions and good relations with politics. Companies that are dependent on tax money, for example welfare companies and independent school corporations, have all too close ties to certain Riksdag parties.

It is important for democracy that the public has high confidence in ministers and senior officials in the Government Offices. There must not be suspicions that the statements and decisions of ministers are influenced by expectations of future employment in a company or an organization. When people in high positions move from the public sector to the business sector and vice versa, it can lead to conflicts of interest. The question of the need for a regulation of such transitions has been noted by, among others, the Council of Europe's anti-corruption body, GRECO, which recommends that Sweden introduce guidelines to avoid such conflicts of interest.

As a step towards strengthening confidence in public activities and countering conflicts of interest, the Karensnämden was introduced in 2018 with the aim of addressing the revolving doors between politics and the business sector. Today, one can also impose transition restrictions. However, there is no possibility of sanction, and the chairman of the Karensnämden has described the current system as toothless. It is evident that today's regulatory framework is insufficient and needs to be tightened to fulfill its purpose.

Madam President! I shall finally say something about the reservation I have moved for approval. In the constitution, there is a strong protection for private property rights, but corresponding protection is lacking for common property, i.e., that which we own together. Vänsterpartiet believes that the right to common property must be strengthened and that a constitutional protection for common property needs to be introduced at the state, regional, and municipal levels. At best, this would mean that we avoid thoughtless sales of that which is owned by the collective. And who knows? Then we might perhaps avoid reading headlines about district court premises being owned by criminals.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! I stand behind the Center Party's all reservations in the report – we have quite a few – but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservation 13 under point 14.

A couple of days ago, there was a presidential election in one of the EU's member states, Romania – again. The election held there in November last year was actually annulled by the Romanian Constitutional Court following indications that Russia had interfered in it. The person who received the most votes on Sunday but not enough to avoid a second round, which is now pending, is a man named George Simion. He has clearly opposed military support for Ukraine, and he has also expressed himself very skeptically about the EU.

What does this have to do with the subject of today's debate? First and foremost, it is of course about the fact that Sweden is a part of the EU. And in these very restless and uncertain times, with a least unpredictable leader on the other side of the Atlantic, it is clear that we need each other more than ever within the EU. We, the countries that safeguard the rule of law, liberal democracy, and the rules-based world order, must not only stick together, but we also need to strengthen our cooperation as well as the defense of our institutions and values.

These values are not given forever, but they must be continuously defended. Therefore, there must be consequences for those countries in the EU that do not respect the principles of the rule of law and for those member states that abandon the values on which we have based our EU cooperation. Since 2021, there has been a general conditionality mechanism for the protection of the EU's union budget, which means that measures can be taken against the member state that acts against the principles of the rule of law. It was with the help of this mechanism that, for a period of time, funds that Hungary would have received were withheld. Hungary is one of the countries that has constantly received criticism for not living up to the principles of the rule of law.

This order is good but not sufficient. The EU must have muscles to be able to act so that it has tangible consequences as soon as a member state violates the principles of the rule of law. Therefore, Centerpartiet wants a so-called democracy lock on the EU's budget so that the EU chokes off funds to member states that do not respect their democratic and rule-of-law commitments. If a member state, despite economic sanctions, continues to violate the principles of the rule of law, other measures, such as limiting a member state's decision-making power in the EU, shall be considered. This is a way to strengthen the EU and the values our community rests on in these difficult and uncertain times.

Madam President! The presidential election that took place in November in Romania was, as I said just now, overturned by the country's constitutional court. The Romanian intelligence service showed, in fact, that the man who stood as the winner then, the far-right Georgescu, had benefited from an extensive TikTok campaign that resembled Russian influence operations. Around 25,000 TikTok accounts were used to spread messages in favor of Georgescu during the final stage of the election campaign.

Much indicated that the campaign was directed by a state actor. Individuals were recruited and paid to promote a candidate whose profile matched Georgescus. These campaign methods resembled the Russian influence operations that had previously been carried out in Moldova.

Again: What does what is happening in Romania have to do with today's debate? Clearly, the democratic processes of EU countries are being subjected to actions from a foreign power. We know that Russia is not only interested in influencing Moldova and Romania, but of course, they also have an interest in influencing here in Sweden. That is why it is important that we here, and our political parties, ensure that we build up defenses against infiltration and influence from such interests that want to undermine our democracy.

To ensure this, the Centre Party wants the government to appoint an inquiry that recommends legislation and other reforms to make our political parties more resilient against external threats.

Madam President! Furthermore, what happened in Romania last autumn shows how social media and purchased and anonymous accounts can be used to influence public opinion. This can ultimately have a direct impact on the outcome of an election, even one that outwardly appeared to have gone well. What happened in Romania was exactly this: Georgescu won, and the election was subsequently overturned by the court due to this influence.

That we as politicians use social media to influence public opinion is, of course, part of today's political work. But there is a big difference between openly showing who stands behind different types of messages and influence campaigns and spreading messages in secret.

In order for the recipient to be able to evaluate information and make an assessment, transparency is required. In a democracy, voters have the right to know who is behind the messages being spread. It should be obvious to all democratically minded parties that we clash opinions against each other in an open debate, as Ulrik Nilsson emphasized in his opening statement.

Madam Speaker! Last spring, it was revealed through solid journalistic work that anonymous accounts on social media had been used by our own government's coalition partner, Sverigedemokraterna.

Many of us reacted strongly and demanded measures to put a stop to this. We in Centerpartiet, together with Miljöpartiet, submitted a proposal for a committee initiative to the Committee on the Constitution with a demand to review how the use of anonymous accounts in political work could be prohibited. We met great resistance at the beginning, but after some turns, a working group was at least appointed with the goal of producing a code of conduct that all parties can accept and where everyone commits to being transparent in their communication going forward, regardless of where it takes place.

This is, as I just said, fundamental to the democratic rules of the game. I hope, of course, that we can collectively land on a voluntary agreement regarding our rules of the game. But regardless of how the result lands, we in the Center Party believe that further measures are required, and we want to see an investigation in the future tasked with reviewing how a requirement can be designed that all political parties must be transparent as senders in all communication, whether it takes place on social media, in their own channels, or in any other way.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam President! It is now 35 years since a Swedish power study was presented. It was conducted by a research group that since 1985 had been tasked to "deepen the knowledge of the conditions of Swedish democracy, of the citizens' opportunities to influence their living conditions and of the factors that create power to shape tomorrow's Sweden." The report was delivered in 1990.

One of the authors was named Olof Petersson. In the concluding chapter, he takes it upon himself to sketch out some different answers to one of the investigation's questions, namely whether Sweden had come closer to a democratic ideal state. Taken together, the answers gave primarily a gloomy message – based on how the question had been posed – that the country was rather moving away from what was intended. Then one should remember that the 1985 democracy ideal was possibly characterized by partially different factors than what would presumably emerge today.

When I say "presumably," I would like to mention some examples that Petersson took up then, that is, in 1990. Industrial work was described by many as both monotonous and soul-destroying. The criticism of the way the work was organized increased. Many perceived that their knowledge was not being taken into account. Civic powerlessness and a lack of choices within, for example, school and care were highlighted, as well as young people's diminishing or perhaps lacking interest in engaging in popular movements and parties.

As if this were not enough, a flight from the political arenas was also noted, whose role was partly taken over by the media. Furthermore, an increasing number of voters were observed switching parties between elections – imagine that!

The power inquiry was important because it pointed out how power in society was distributed, what changes could be discerned, and how the citizens viewed different areas, such as the opportunities to make their voices heard.

As several have pointed out, however, a great deal has happened since then – not least within our area, where, for example, the concept of lobbying has emerged. It was something less known then, just like revolving doors, corruption, racism, nature and climate crises, and constitutional protection – not to mention Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, which at that time were completely unknown phenomena. Consequently, we did not have the discussion about anonymous accounts that we have today.

It is perhaps not surprising that various proposals for a new power inquiry are raised from time to time. Some of these proposals are submitted with annual regularity during the general motion period. A search on riksdagen.se for motions containing the word maktutredning yields just over a hundred hits.

In summary, regarding the question of a new power inquiry: Many people do not feel included in and experience that they have a low influence on political decisions that affect them personally. We and Vänsterpartiet have a joint reservation with a proposal for a new power inquiry with a mandate to submit proposals on how we build a democracy that represents everyone's interests in the best way. I imagine that such a power inquiry could examine the distribution of power and influence within different areas and between different groups in Swedish society, certainly with the help of other formats for inquiry and analysis than those used between 1985 and 1990.

We need, among other things, to look at forms and routines for involving people in political decisions that directly affect them at the municipal, regional, and state levels. This applies in particular to those who today may have different difficulties participating in these, such as persons with disabilities. We know that these people today have a lower level of participation and representation in the processes.

I can also mention the parliamentary seminar that some of us here are organizing in a couple of weeks, which concerns whether a lowered voting age to 16 would be something to work for. It also falls within these reflections.

Madam Speaker! It was thus 40 years ago that the Power Inquiry was commissioned. An adjacent concept is democracy, and in that regard we have been somewhat more current in that a democracy inquiry was commissioned in 2014 and submitted its report in 2016. Then the committee Democracy was commissioned 100 years before the jubilee in 2021. The year after that came its report, titled Our democracy – worth defending every day.

In recent years, however, we have seen a development towards more and more autocracies, i.e., essentially elected leaders who gradually dismantle or take down democratic functions, sometimes including open and fair elections.

There is, we in Miljöpartiet believe, a need for a national coordination of authorities and other actors who carry out democracy-promoting initiatives – initiatives that are becoming increasingly valuable. We therefore believe that a national democracy function should be established with the mandate to increase knowledge about democracy and to contribute to the coordination of the initiatives of authorities and other actors.

We have therefore, with some persistence, proposed in our budget motions that some existing agency could be given this assignment and that the county administrative boards could be given a complementary assignment to develop the regional initiatives and conditions.

These measures together would aim to create a more equal, inclusive and just society where all people, regardless of background, have equal opportunities and rights.

Speaking of equal opportunities and rights, Madam Speaker, we have a text in the Instrument of Government stating that the public sphere shall counteract discrimination based on gender, skin color, national or ethnic origin, linguistic or religious affiliation, disability, sexual orientation, age, or other circumstances concerning the individual as a person. The ground of discrimination regarding gender identity and expression, which aims to protect trans people, is missing from the list. In our opinion, consideration should be given to making an addition to the provision so that gender identity and expression are also included.

Finally, Madam President, we have the free and independent media, which is a fundamental prerequisite for democracy. They reflect the debate and scrutinize those in power. Public service provides both high-quality and independent news reporting and sometimes also includes entertainment that reaches out broadly in different ways.

We need a strong public service with a broad mandate and long-term, independent and stable funding. It must not be possible for us politicians or others who want to take power over the media to, with quick decisions, curtail public services' opportunities to operate.

Restrictions have been made in many places in the world in recent years. As recently as yesterday, or whenever it was, we heard about cuts in the USA to the public service that still exists there. This only shows that it is extremely important to strengthen the independent position that public service has. A constitutional protection would both secure the independence and make it sustainable over time.

We consider it important to investigate this and that the government should return with proposals that make it possible to grant public service this constitutional protection.

I naturally stand behind all our reservations but have concluded that I shall move for approval only for reservation number 11, which concerns precisely a new power inquiry.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 15.)

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