Strengthened constitutional preparedness (pending constitutional proposals, etc.)

Åsa Kullgren (S)

Madam Speaker! None of us know what the next major societal crisis will be. We do not know if it will be a new pandemic, a large-scale cyberattack, a prolonged power outage, a natural disaster due to the galloping climate crisis we are in, or something else entirely. What we can be sure of is that our country will be thrown into some form of crisis. We also know that crises often develop rapidly and that this places great demands on society's ability to make decisions.

Is Sweden prepared to make fast, effective, and at the same time legally sound decisions when our society is subjected to severe pressures? Not fully. Our constitution has special rules for war and the threat of war. When it comes to serious peacetime crises, corresponding regulations are lacking. Instead, it is assumed that society functions according to the ordinary decision-making procedures even when the situation is far from normal.

Madam Speaker! What the Chamber is to deal with now is a pending proposal, decided on 3 December last year. And, Madam Speaker, the question that was most debated in connection with the proposal is that the government is proposed to be allowed to issue regulations during serious crises. This is currently lacking. It has functioned nonetheless, but with experience from among others the pandemic, it became clear that the decision-making became far too slow, unclear and insufficient. With today's proposal, we remedy that deficiency with a sound and good constitutional preparedness even in peacetime crises.

There are those who describe the proposal as the government getting more power. That is an overly simplified description. In reality, this is just as much about setting clear boundaries for how the state is allowed to act in a crisis. The alternative is that the state does not act. The alternative is that the government is faced with a very difficult situation without a clear constitutional framework to lean on. That is precisely why the rules are needed. Democracy is tested above all when society is subjected to severe pressure. It is then that there must be clear rules for who is allowed to make decisions under what conditions and how these decisions shall be controlled. That is precisely what the proposal does.

Madam Speaker! There are control mechanisms in this proposal that the Riksdag owns. The Government will not be able to freely enact any regulations whatsoever. In the event of a serious peacetime crisis, the Riksdag shall be able to grant the Government temporary powers to act quickly. This requires very broad support in the Riksdag, where at least three-quarters of those voting must stand behind the proposal. The Riksdag simultaneously retains control and can at any time revoke the powers. The Riksdag is not set aside. In fact, the Riksdag has a central role to play.

The regulations may be valid for a maximum of three months and must be submitted to the Riksdag as soon as possible. If they are not submitted to the Riksdag within one week, they shall cease to be valid. The Government may not affect the constitution, the parliamentary rules of procedure, or the rules for elections to the Riksdag. It is a matter of decisiveness combined with democratic control from the Riksdag. It is an important balance.

Madam Speaker! If we consider that situations may arise where the state needs to act quickly, the rules for this must be decided in advance. They must be democratically anchored, they must be openly reported, and they must be known to citizens and decision-makers. We must not have to rely on unwritten principles or improvised solutions when society is in crisis. It is better to have decided in advance which tools are available and how they may be used. It creates clarity and legal certainty.

Madam Speaker! Fundamentally, this is about responsibility. The government has a responsibility to govern the realm. If Sweden is hit by a serious peacetime crisis, the government must be able to act, but it must do so within clear democratic frameworks. It is precisely that balance that the proposal aims to achieve.

Videoriksdagen.se

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! When we debated the issue of strengthened constitutional preparedness last time, that is, before the first decision, the then chair of the KU, Ida Karkiainen, reminded us that crises do not at all need to have anything to do with war. Since the beginning of the 90s, we have only had the sinking of Estonia, a tsunami, a financial crisis, and a pandemic. If we add to that local events such as severe forest fires and floods, it becomes a number of occasions that we can probably call crises. Therefore, the question in the proposal that specifically concerns the government's ability to issue regulations in a peacetime crisis is not just a hypothetical question. Such a situation or necessity can indeed arise again, with or without warning.

Before the first decision in this matter almost a year ago, in December 2025, all parties except Miljöpartiet agreed that it would be good if the government had this possibility, i.e., that the government in a given situation should be able to restrict civil and political rights. It was therefore only we in Miljöpartiet who said something different: Well, that perhaps is not such a good idea in any case. But the reservation we had was rejected, and the pending constitutional proposal that we are dealing with today is therefore identical to the proposal that the Riksdag decided on in December 2025. Now we are here to confirm the previous decision and thereby finally establish how the constitution shall look in precisely this area.

Madam Speaker! Let me therefore first say that in other matters we have no other opinions than the committee's. This concerns, among other things, the question of the Riksdag's possibilities to convene in times of crisis. It should, for example, be possible to make decisions on digital meetings if security aspects or other reasons suggest that it would be best to do so. It may also, for security reasons or other causes, be better if the Riksdag convenes outside of Stockholm. This obviously belongs to absolute exceptional cases but should nevertheless be seen as a not entirely unthinkable or improbable alternative. We have no deviating opinions on this either. We also have no objections to the rules for the war delegation being updated, including with a larger role for the Speaker.

But that is the proposal regarding the government's possibilities to issue regulations. It could mean restrictions on people's civil liberties and rights. It is not a problem as long as we have trust in the system, but there are examples from other countries where more authoritarian forces have come to power. There, it has happened that the government has taken over parts of what we call the norm-setting power and the judiciary.

In the pending constitutional proposal, the constitutional preparedness regarding legislation during severe crises in peacetime or wartime is addressed. Proposals are presented that make it possible for the Riksdag to, in a serious situation, grant the government special powers to issue regulations. Broad agreement shall be required for this, in that three-quarters of those voting in the Riksdag must vote in favor for such powers to be granted. But "if it is obvious that the Riksdag's decision cannot be awaited," the government itself shall be able to make such an activation decision.

Madam Speaker! I do not, therefore, stand behind the part of the constitutional proposal concerning Chapter 16, Sections 3 and 4 of the Instrument of Government. It is the part that implies that the government would be given the same opportunities as the Riksdag to introduce rules on limitations of civil liberties or in the field of civil law without either activation decisions being made by the Riksdag or the rules being approved by the Riksdag in advance.

Miljöpartiet has seen several major risks with the proposal, above all that it entails that the government in some cases shall be able to make activation decisions that open up for emergency legislation and simultaneously decide on new legislation that has not been prepared before and that this shall be approved in retrospect by the Riksdag.

Even though the submission of new rules must go from the government to the Riksdag within a week, a parliamentary minority will be able to extend the preparation. Ultimately, the government's new regulations may therefore come into force in a full month if a committee initiative for a law repealing the regulations cannot be presented before then.

There is also no particular barrier against measures being repeated, identically or in a similar form, even if they were to be overturned by the Riksdag. Within a month, very serious consequences for individuals and companies can manage to arise. Not even if the Riksdag immediately dismissed the government would the measures automatically cease to be in force.

We mean that what is central here is that the authority to introduce limitations on freedoms and rights or limitations in the field of civil law should remain with the Riksdag. The Riksdag already has the ability and tools today to quickly handle unforeseen situations. It is an objection we have repeated since the investigation was conducted which formed the basis for the bill that is now the pending constitutional proposal.

I want to emphasize once again that I and Miljöpartiet stand behind the other parts of the proposal. But against the background of the great weight I place on the objection against the government being given the opportunity to introduce restrictions without any activation decision from the Riksdag or support in law, and because of the fact that the pending proposal can only be adopted or rejected in its entirety, I consider that it should be rejected.

I therefore move for approval of the reservation.

Videoriksdagen.se

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! I am particularly pleased that it is the first deputy speaker Johanna Haraldsson who is presiding today.

We are now considering the report KU6, which concerns strengthening Sweden's constitutional preparedness. This proposal means that the Riksdag and the government will have better conditions to fulfill their duties and make necessary decisions during war, the threat of war, or crisis.

We Moderates stand behind this proposal because we see the importance of democracy functioning even when society is subjected to extreme pressures.

History teaches us that institutions that do not prepare for war or crisis risk failing when they are needed most. We live in a time where Europe's security order has changed fundamentally. Russia's aggression against Ukraine, increased cyber threats, sabotage against critical infrastructure, and the experiences from the pandemic have shown that even stable democracies like Sweden must have preparedness for situations that previously appeared unlikely.

It is not enough, as my Social Democratic colleague noted, to have strong institutions in everyday life. We must also ensure that they function under the most difficult conditions one can imagine. That is precisely what this constitutional proposal is about.

Firstly, the Riksdag's possibilities to convene and make decisions are strengthened. In a democracy, it is crucial that the people's primary representatives can continue their work even if the country is in a serious crisis. Democracy must never be put on pause because the circumstances are difficult. On the contrary, it is then needed most. Through these changes, we ensure that the Riksdag can continue to exercise its legislative and controlling function even under extraordinary conditions.

Secondly, Madam Speaker, the rules for the war delegation are being developed. The war delegation is an important part of our constitutional preparedness and must be able to step in if the Riksdag cannot fulfill its duties in the usual way during war or the threat of war. The proposal does not mean that this order is changed fundamentally but that it is modernized – which can sometimes be good – and above all, clarified. The Speaker's role is adapted and clarified in certain parts. The distribution of responsibility becomes clearer, and the parliamentary legitimacy is strengthened. All of this constitutes wise and well-motivated changes that we Moderates welcome.

Thirdly, Madam Speaker, an order is introduced for serious peacetime crisis situations. Sweden has long had rules for war and the threat of war. But we have lacked a clear constitutional framework for situations that are not war but still require very rapid decisions from the state. The proposal means that the Riksdag, with a qualified majority, can grant the government special powers to handle such a situation while the democratic safeguards remain strong. The Riksdag decides on the powers, and there are sharp time limits after the government has made a decision. The Riksdag can at any time revoke the granted powers. It is therefore about creating necessary capacity for action under continued democratic control.

Madam Speaker! There is also a broader perspective that is important to highlight. Sweden's system of government, Swedish society, and the Swedish sense of community are built on trust in institutions and in each other. Here, Sweden distinguishes itself in a very positive way compared to other countries in the world.

Our citizens must know that the state functions, that democracy functions, and that the basic institutions endure even when society is subjected to severe pressures.

Madam Speaker! Here we need to mention an institution that is in a class of its own and which enjoys a uniquely high level of trust in all segments of society. Even groups such as those that are sometimes described somewhat condescendingly as angry young men, who feel low or no trust in authorities in general, have high trust in a certain institution. And which one is it, Madam Speaker? Yes, it is, as my colleagues in the Committee on the Constitution know, the monarchy and the royal family.

Our thousand-year-old monarchy is an institution that stands above the Riksdag and the daily – sometimes contentious – politics. When governments are replaced, when parliamentary majorities change and when society undergoes crises, the head of state remains as a unifying symbol for the nation and for all of us who live, live, and work here. Politicians come and go, but the thousand-year-old Swedish monarchy endures.

The monarchy and the royal family are among the best things about Sweden – without this, Sweden would not have been Sweden. The monarchy and the royal family make Sweden greater in the world than the country actually is.

In summary, Madam Speaker, it is important that our entire constitutional system functions even under extraordinary conditions. The defense of Sweden's democracy is not just about protecting individual political institutions. It is about safeguarding the entire constitutional order that has served our country well for a long time. I am speaking of the Riksdag, the government, the courts, and the monarchy, each in its role.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

Videoriksdagen.se

David Höglund Velasquez (V)

Madam Speaker! Constitutional laws should not be changed easily. They should not be designed for today's political conflicts or for today's governments. They must also function when society is subjected to severe pressures and when we are faced with crises that we perhaps cannot even imagine today. Therefore, I welcome the bill on strengthened constitutional preparedness.

What I believe most citizens will think of when we talk about this is the corona pandemic. It showed that there are deficiencies in our constitutional preparedness and how we handle peacetime crises. During the corona pandemic, the Riksdag and the government succeeded in managing the situation – democracy functioned. We saw, however, that many decisions needed to be made under strong time pressure. We saw that the normal distribution of responsibility between the government and the Riksdag was put under pressure. We also saw that there is a lack of clear rules for how serious peacetime crises should be handled. It is that deficiency that this bill seeks to rectify.

Madam Speaker! We have had rules for war and the threat of war for a long time, but today's threat picture looks a bit different. Cyberattacks, sabotage, extensive disruptions in essential societal functions, or other extraordinary events can also require rapid decisions in peacetime.

Today we also have an extensive debate on AI. I belong to the generation that grew up watching Terminator, The Matrix, I, Robot and other dystopian films and programs on TV. In the 90s and 00s, this was science fiction, but today it is a reality that we cannot completely ignore. My examples are somewhat exaggerated, but regardless of what crises the future challenges us with, democracy must be able to function.

Madam Speaker! There is, of course, criticism of this proposal. Some of the criticism concerns the fact that power is being shifted from the Riksdag to the government, and I have great respect for that concern. I maintain, however, that it does not fully reflect what the bill actually contains.

It is not the government itself that takes these powers, but it is the Riksdag that decides on them. The Riksdag determines the frameworks and can revoke the decisions at any time. The key, therefore, remains with the Riksdag, and that is a decisive difference. The proposal is not based on setting aside democracy. The proposal is based on democracy deciding in advance which rules shall apply when society is subjected to exceptional pressures.

Madam Speaker! I also believe it is important to counter the image that is sometimes given that this should be some kind of state of emergency. It is not. The Riksdag remains. The power of oversight remains. The Committee on the Constitution remains. The possibility to motion no confidence in the government remains. The possibility to demand political accountability remains.

This is not an order where the government is placed above the Riksdag. On the contrary, it is about an order where the government, if the Riksdag so decides, can act faster in an exceptional situation while still remaining under parliamentary control. For me, it is a central democratic principle. In a democracy, the government must be able to act when the crisis comes, but it must never be able to act without ultimately being accountable to the Riksdag.

Madam Speaker! For the Left Party, it has been important that this discussion is not only about decisiveness but also about the rule of law. History shows that crises can create a strong pressure on us in politics to make quick decisions. It is quite natural, and for that very reason, we must safeguard the fundamental civil and political rights.

Therefore, we have previously emphasized that the Council for Legislation's role should be reviewed and that there are reasons to discuss how the review of legislation developed under extraordinary circumstances can be strengthened. We still consider this to be an important issue. Strengthening the constitutional preparedness is not in contradiction to safeguarding the rule of law, but on the contrary, they go together. A robust democratic system needs both capacity for action and control mechanisms.

Madam Speaker! One might think that the uncertainty surrounding future crises speaks against this proposal, but I would like to say the opposite. Precisely because we do not know what the next crisis will be, we need clear rules. Precisely because we do not know which governments will be in power in the future, we need clear lines of responsibility. Precisely because democracy must also function under difficult conditions, we need constitutional preparedness.

The core of the bill is, in fact, simple. The Riksdag makes decisions. The Riksdag can revoke decisions. The Riksdag scrutinizes the government. The Riksdag demands accountability. Democracy prevails. Therefore, we in Vänsterpartiet stand behind the bill on strengthened constitutional preparedness.

(Applause)

Videoriksdagen.se

Erik Nygårds (L)

Madam Speaker! I shall begin by saying that I stand behind Mats Green's point that it is pleasant to have a serving Speaker from the Jönköping constituency.

Today we shall make the second decision on a constitutional amendment concerning Sweden's constitutional preparedness in very serious crisis situations. This is a reform that at first glance may appear somewhat technical, but fundamentally it is about a simple question: How do we ensure that Sweden can make necessary decisions when society is subjected to very severe pressures while simultaneously safeguarding democracy, the rule of law, and individual freedom?

For war and the threat of war, Sweden has long had specific rules in the Instrument of Government. For serious peacetime crises that are not war but which can nevertheless put the functions of society under very severe pressure, a corresponding constitutional order has however been lacking. It is this gap that the reform aims to fill.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has lived in peace for over 200 years. Our time has, however, taught us that the dividing line does not only run between peace and war. There are also situations in between – serious peacetime crises that are not war but which can nevertheless put the society's basic functions under severe pressure. For just such situations, there has been a constitutional vacuum. This proposal fills that vacuum.

The pandemic is the clearest example. However, the next major crisis does not have to be a pandemic. In the preparatory works, examples are mentioned such as extensive disruptions in critical infrastructure, serious terrorist attacks, and other events that can quickly threaten important societal functions. Such situations can, if they escalate and we do not act wisely and resolutely, put our society into war or a war-like situation. It is for such situations that a clearer constitutional preparedness is now being proposed.

Madam Speaker! There are a few laws where proportionality almost speaks for itself. The traffic rules are perhaps the clearest example. We accept without major objections that someone else has decided which side of the road we should drive on. The benefit for both the individual and society is so obvious, and the restriction on personal freedom is so limited. Very few wake up one morning with strong indignation over not being allowed to practice left-hand traffic just that day.

But most laws do not fall into that category. They require more difficult trade-offs and that different values are weighed against each other: freedom versus security, privacy versus control, decisiveness versus separation of powers.

That is why politics exists, and because there is not always a clear answer, we have different parties and different ideologies. The strength of democracy does not lie in everyone thinking the same way, but the strength of democracy lies in the fact that all legislative proposals are examined from different perspectives before they become law.

Madam Speaker! For us Liberals, this trial begins at the individual. What powers are granted to the state? How is personal freedom and privacy affected? Are any limitations proportionate in relation to what is to be protected? These are questions that must always be asked when the state is given increased opportunities to intervene, especially when it occurs in the constitution.

But liberalism is not just about limiting power. It is also about creating a society that can actually protect people's freedom when it is exposed to real threats. A society that lacks the ability to handle a serious crisis also finds it difficult to protect people's opportunity to live free and independent lives. Therefore, we need both freedom and capacity for action as well as strong rights and functioning institutions.

Madam Speaker! I believe there is also a value in looking at this with a bit of kitchen-table realism. For most people, it is not about a chapter in the Instrument of Government but about much more everyday issues. Does the healthcare system work? Do the payment systems work? Is there electricity in the socket? Can the children go to school? Can people get to work?

When society is exposed to a serious crisis, people expect the state to act. But they also expect that power is scrutinized, that there are barriers, that there is control, and that extraordinary powers are not used longer or more extensively than the situation requires. It is this balance that this bill seeks to achieve.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I want to say that perhaps the most important protection for democracy is not written in any paragraph. It exists within the citizens themselves. In a country with free media, strong public education, a high level of education, and citizens who are used to asking questions, it becomes harder to abuse power. Enlightened and engaged citizens are in themselves a part of our constitutional protection. They sometimes accept necessary measures when the situation requires it. But they also demand that the measures are proportionate, temporary, and capable of being scrutinized. It is a healthy attitude, a strength for democracy and, I would like to argue, a very liberal thought.

With that, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

Videoriksdagen.se