Strengthened protection for democracy and the independence of the courts (pending constitutional proposal)

Talla Alkurdi (S)

Madam Speaker! Democracy is not something that can be taken for granted. It must be cherished, nurtured and defended every day.

Today we are debating the most fundamental thing for our democracy: our constitutional laws, the foundation for the rule of law and for our civil rights and freedoms and the protection of these in a world where democratic principles are being challenged.

During the previous parliamentary term, the Riksdag decided to adopt the proposal for a constitutional amendment on strengthened protection for democracy and the independence of the courts. Now we are here to debate whether the amendments should be adopted finally or rejected in their entirety. Let me therefore begin by stating that the Social Democrats consider that the pending proposal should be adopted finally.

Madam Speaker! Let me briefly summarize the constitutional amendment, namely to strengthen Sweden's institutional protection as a democracy and as a rule of law. The proposal primarily means that it shall become more difficult to change the constitutions, as well as that the protection for the independence of the courts and the judges shall be strengthened in the long term.

Striving for broad political consensus for constitutional amendments is a Swedish parliamentary tradition, as the constitutions constitute both the framework and the protection for our democracy and our rule of law, as well as the protection for the individual and for minorities.

When Sweden finds itself in the most serious security policy situation since the Second World War, the institutional protection must also be reviewed. In that case, I believe it is both right and high time that the purpose of our parliamentary tradition of broad consensus regarding constitutional amendments is also enshrined in the constitution.

It is precisely this that the pending constitutional proposal entails – that it shall be required that at least half of the members of the Riksdag vote for a decision to adopt a constitutional proposal as pending and that a qualified majority of at least two-thirds of the members of the Riksdag vote for the second decision to adopt the proposal after parliamentary elections have been held and the proposal has been able to be debated during an election campaign.

The constitutional amendment provides constitutional resilience by creating a better balance between stability for the constitutional laws over time on one hand and the necessary flexibility to enable changes when needed on the other. It is a balancing act that is always important, and it is put to the test in times of unrest.

Madam Speaker! When we witness a world where the principles of the rule of law are bypassed, where the individual's civil liberties and rights are questioned, and where authoritarian forces increasingly challenge democratic principles, we in Sweden need to do our part to strengthen the institutional protection for the country as a democratic state governed by the rule of law.

A fundamental democratic principle is that of the independence of the courts to make decisions based on law and justice without risking political pressure or other undue influence. Regardless of background or political opinion, everyone must be treated equally before the law. It is completely central to the trust in our rule of law and in society's institutions.

The constitutional amendment clarifies the independence of the courts and aims to reduce the risk of political steering of the central court administration. Reducing that risk is to strengthen the principle that we are all equal before the law.

Madam Speaker! There are those who believe that the proposal for a decision on strengthened protection for democracy and the independence of the courts should be rejected. In that case, it is important to repeat that the values we in Sweden take for granted are threatened by authoritarian forces in our surrounding world. When this happens, we must be on our guard. Sweden is not immune, and even our civil liberties need to be constantly reminded of, cherished, and protected.

The Constitution's special decision-making procedure is important. It ensures that changes to our most fundamental democratic rules of the game are based on reflection, broad anchoring, and respect for future generations and the challenges they may face, as well as that we build systems that stand stable even when the wind blows hard. Therefore, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

Videoriksdagen.se

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now we are talking about protection of democracy and constitutional amendments. As we heard in the previous speech, it is required today to change the constitution, simplified a bit, that the Riksdag passes two identical decisions with a general election in between. That procedure has its basis already in the 1809 Constitution and received its modern form in the 1970s.

A majority in the chamber now wants to change this so that it will become more difficult to change the constitution. Henceforth, it will be required that at least half of the members of the Riksdag vote for a decision to adopt a constitutional proposal the first time, and that a qualified majority of at least two-thirds of the members of the Riksdag vote for the decision a second time, after a general election has been held.

I actually do not understand why. The current system with double parliamentary decisions with an intervening election already offers a strong protection for the constitutional laws today. It is an order that has served Sweden well and which ensures that changes can occur with deliberation, with room for societal debate and not least, obviously, with an opportunity for the Swedish people to make their voices heard in a general election.

It has, however, not been entirely impossible to carry out changes that have actually been necessary. The Swedish constitution is both detailed and extensive. It is not the case that it merely lists the requirements for who should be allowed to vote and that everything is then settled. There are a multitude of issues regulated in our constitutions, and some are particularly central to the way Sweden is governed.

A highly topical example right now is how many votes shall be held in the chamber regarding the Speaker's proposal for Prime Minister. Another fundamental example is that elections to the Riksdag shall be held every four years. Even though there is no particular risk that the Riksdag would decide to abolish general elections, there is of course a fairly strong point in that such central parts of the constitution have an extra lock, if one puts it that way.

With the changes being proposed now, there will therefore be a requirement for a qualified majority in a number of different issues regulated in the constitution, for example, the ban on criminal associations, the revocation of citizenship granted on incorrect grounds, or compensation issues for the restriction of private use of land or buildings. It is far from obvious, I think at least, that a minority in this chamber should be able to block and prevent a majority from making decisions in those types of issues.

In the future, there will be necessary, urgent or technical changes supported by a chamber majority but which can, therefore, be blocked by a relatively small minority. The difference between a simple majority and a two-thirds majority corresponds to 58 members, which in turn corresponds to 16–17 percent of the members of the Riksdag.

The proposal we are discussing today thus gives, in practice, a veto to such a small minority of the members of the Riksdag. That it would necessarily strengthen democracy, as the title of the report expresses, I think is far from obvious. It is absolutely possible to reason and argue in the direct opposite direction.

A minority will therefore be able to block necessary future changes to the constitution. In practice, this means that the Riksdag is now freezing the constitution as it looks today, 2026.

Madam Speaker! Today we are therefore going to vote on this proposal for the second time. The first time the proposal was on the table, the Sweden Democrats submitted a follow-up motion that expressed precisely what I am expressing here today.

Today, this proposal is being treated together with a number of issues concerning the independence of the courts. The reason for this is that they were treated in the same investigation. For technical reasons, we are therefore forced to demand a rejection of the whole, even though we stand behind the parts concerning the courts. Regarding this, I cannot be clear enough: There are, therefore, good things in this proposal that the Sverigedemokraterna stand behind 100 percent, but the question of making it more difficult to change the constitution is so important that we are forced to demand a rejection of the whole.

It would have been better if these questions could have been handled separately. Then we could have voted yes to the proposal regarding the judges and no to the unreasonable proposal regarding the establishment of a constitution. Unfortunately, that will not be the case now.

I therefore move for the approval of our reservation.

Videoriksdagen.se

Mats Sander (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we shall make the second and final decision on stronger protection for democracy and the independence of the courts.

The proposal has emerged through extensive parliamentary work. The Government has presented its bill, and now the committee's proposal lies before the Riksdag. It is a proposal that I stand behind.

The Riksdag made the first decision in October last year. Since then, we have had a parliamentary election. The parties have thus had the opportunity to raise the proposed changes with the voters during the election campaign, even if one cannot directly say that it dominated the election campaign. The opportunity has, however, existed, and that is the very idea behind this procedure: that the voters shall have the opportunity to influence who makes the final decision.

Madam Speaker! We have good reason to be proud of our Swedish democracy, our institutions and our independent courts. However, we only need to lift our eyes a little and look around to understand that it cannot always be taken for granted.

The constitutional laws are the rules of the game for democracy. They must apply regardless of who is in government. We can disagree on taxes, welfare, and most things, and we must be able to do so in the future as well. But the rules of the game for democracy must not be able to be changed as easily as ordinary laws.

We have long had a tradition of seeking broad agreements when the constitutional laws are to be changed, and now we want to give that tradition a stronger protection. Today, a simple majority among those who vote at both constitutional decisions is sufficient, with a parliamentary election in between. Furthermore, the decisions can be made by acclamation, i.e., without a vote count. From now on, the first decision shall require at least 175 yes-votes and the second at least 233 yes-votes, with mandatory voting at both decisions. This makes it harder to change the constitution.

As we heard earlier, it simultaneously means that a smaller group of members than before can block a change. It is an objection that, of course, deserves to be taken seriously. We Moderates believe, however, that it is reasonable that the fundamental rules of democracy require broader support than ordinary political decisions. A political majority shall be able to change the policy, but it shall not be able to change the rules of the game on its own.

Madam Speaker! The second major area concerns the courts. The person who has their case examined in court should be able to trust that it is the law and the circumstances that decide, and not what a politician, or for that matter anyone else, would wish.

Sweden already has a strong protection for the independence of the courts. No one is allowed to decide how a court shall rule in an individual case. Now, we are nevertheless strengthening that protection and writing in the independence of the courts in the opening chapter of the Instrument of Government so that it becomes very clear. The central administration of the courts will also receive a board where a majority shall be or have been regular judges. This gives the courts greater influence over their own administration.

Madam Speaker! We also strengthen the protection for the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. The number of justices shall be between 12 and 20 in each court. The Government shall also not be able to appoint new justices without the court itself having requested it. This reduces the risk that a future government will attempt to influence the composition of the courts.

We also strengthen the protection in the appointment of regular judges. The Government shall appoint judges based on proposals from a special body where a majority are or have been regular judges.

The position of the regular judges is also strengthened. Among other things, a future lowering of the retirement age shall not be able to be used to force out already employed judges.

Furthermore, the Council on Legislation shall be given an expanded role in the review of constitutional proposals concerning our fundamental freedoms and rights.

Madam Speaker! This may sound like a series of rather technical changes, but at its core, it is about something very simple: that people should be able to trust that the law applies equally to everyone and that the courts are free from political influence.

Madam Speaker! We will continue to disagree on many political issues. However, we have a common responsibility for the rules of the game of democracy, not only for those of us sitting here today but also for those who come after us. That responsibility requires reflection, objectivity, and respect.

Videoriksdagen.se

Caroline Täljeblad (V)

Madam Speaker! We gather in the chamber today to make decisions on some of the most fundamental issues in our democracy, namely the protection of the constitutional laws and the independence of the courts. By changing how we establish constitutional law, we also establish the practice that we have had for a long time, namely to seek broad agreements in the chamber – precisely because our constitutional law holds a special position and builds a foundation for our country.

The proposal, which Vänsterpartiet stands behind, was preceded by a parliamentary inquiry that was given ample time to turn over and examine how we should or should not review the procedure for constitutional changes and how we could strengthen our courts' independence. It was a unanimous inquiry, something that we in Vänsterpartiet welcomed. Simply having ample time to turn over and examine arguments, listen to one another and compromise across party lines is something that I value highly and that our voters expect of us.

Along the way, we have had to make a trade-off between protecting that which should be permanent and stable and that which should be changeable. I think the trade-off became reasonable: to have two decisions regarding constitutional changes, where the latter decision shall be made with broad support in the form of a qualified majority after the issue has been able to be debated by voters, civil society, academia, and elected representatives in an election campaign.

I would, however, like to pause for a moment, Madam Speaker, and emphasize the responsibility we have here in the chamber to precisely raise these important issues for debate. Democracy is not just about laws and institutions, but also about the opportunity for people to make themselves heard on a level playing field.

In the Novus Demokratirapport 2026, it is noted that Swedish democracy rests on a foundation of strong legitimacy but is simultaneously challenged by a growing mistrust and a perceived distance between citizens and those in power. A large majority of the population believes that democracy is worth defending. At the same time, one in three Swedes perceives that democracy itself is under threat. Widespread ignorance of societal functions is one of the threats, while influence campaigns and disinformation in social media are others.

A recurring theme in the report is the lack of mutual trust between citizens and those in power. A full 60 percent of Swedes experience that politicians lack trust in the voters, and three out of ten believe that today's politicians weaken rather than strengthen democracy. It is a bottom grade.

Madam Speaker! I do not lack confidence in the inhabitants of Sweden – on the contrary. Around me, I see that the will to engage is strong, especially at the local level. It lives in the meeting between people – in our conversations where we listen, test ideas, educate ourselves, disagree, and stand up for what we believe in. When the democratic conversation lives, our collective resilience against disinformation and authoritarian forces grows.

A prerequisite for democratic dialogue is also to counter growing social and economic inequalities, to counter polarization, and to strengthen popular education and culture. The trust capital of democracy in Sweden is strong, but it is not inexhaustible. Trust in democracy requires constant care through transparency, responsiveness, and a genuine trust in the citizens' judgment. In that regard, we as elected representatives have a great responsibility.

Madam Speaker! The democratic system is often described in conclusion as slow and inefficient, and as an elected representative, one risks not getting exactly what one wants every time. One must compromise and perhaps see one's own proposals diluted along the way. Or it is precisely the opposite, that is to say that we succeed in making wiser, more deliberate, and anchored decisions when we have a solid legislative process and are allowed to reflect and let the mill grind.

There is a point to a certain inertia, predictability and stability in our system. The journey leading up to this decision shows exactly that. I move for approval of the proposal in its entirety.

Videoriksdagen.se

Magnus Haara (C)

Madam Speaker! We live in a time when democracy in many parts of the world is being questioned, the fundamental foundations of the rule of law are being eroded, and civil and political rights are being restricted. That is precisely why it is important that we in Sweden remain vigilant.

Strong democracies are not built through temporary political majorities. They are built through strong institutions, clear rules of the game, and a broad respect for the principles of the rule of law. Therefore, today's debate is important, and I move for approval of the Committee on the Constitution's proposal.

Madam Speaker! Today we are addressing some of the most fundamental issues in our democracy: the protection of the constitutional laws and the independence of the courts.

The constitutional laws are not just legal texts, but they are guarantees for the rule of law, for the individual's civil liberties and rights, and for the rules of the game of democracy to hold firm over time. They should protect people not only when everything is functioning, but also on the day when society is tested. Perhaps it is especially important then. The Centre Party and I therefore welcome the proposals that mean it will become more difficult to change a constitutional law.

The requirement for a two-thirds majority in the confirming decision is an important safety mechanism. We know that short-term majorities do not always take long-term consequences into account. By raising the threshold, we ensure that changes only occur when there is broad and long-term support here in Sweden's Riksdag. That is good.

Democracy is more than just majority rule. It is about stability, predictability, and protection for minorities. Through the changes that are now being implemented, we clarify for the citizens that the constitution is something more than a result of political contingencies. It is the very framework for our society.

Madam Speaker! Some have argued that higher requirements make it more difficult to implement reforms. For the Center Party, this is about balancing stability and flexibility. They are two sides of the same democratic coin. Higher requirements for constitutional amendments do not make change impossible. But they require us to seek broader solutions, build trust, and be able to cooperate. I see it as a strength.

When the most fundamental rules of society are to be changed, it should occur with broad anchoring. Those who wish to change the foundations of democracy should also be able to convince more than just their own like-minded individuals.

Madam Speaker! Another important part of the bill and the committee report is the reinforced role for the Council on Legislation. The Centre Party has long emphasized the importance of careful legislation, good preparation, and respect for our rule-of-law institutions. Therefore, I welcome that the Council on Legislation's scope of review is expanded so that opinions shall also be sought in the case of constitutional amendments concerning fundamental civil and political rights. It is good and strengthens the legislative process.

It is also worth noting that the referral bodies have supported this change to a very large extent. When questions concern the citizens' most fundamental rights, we need more scrutiny, not less.

Madam Speaker! Equally important are the parts of the bill that strengthen the independence of the courts and the judges. In a democracy, the courts are not just a part of the justice system. They are the guarantee that the law is applied fairly and impartially. If the independence of the courts is threatened, we risk the citizens' trust. We also risk that the business community's trust in the system is eroded. If people and companies cannot trust that laws are applied fairly and predictably, investments will be withheld, and the risk of corruption increases.

Independent courts are therefore not just a legal issue. They are a prerequisite for an open, free and prosperous society. We welcome the proposals that reduce the risk of political steering of the judiciary, strengthen the judges' position and clarify the courts' independent role in our system of government.

Madam Speaker! It is not enough that the judges are independent on paper. They must also have the practical conditions to carry out their mandate. The protection of the courts' independence is crucial, but independence must also be combined with the ability, opportunities, and resources to deliver justice within a reasonable time.

Madam Speaker! It is important to see this as something greater than a collection of legislative proposals. It is about what kind of Sweden we want to hand over to the next generation. It is about building institutions that function over time, regardless of who holds government power. It is about ensuring that citizens' civil liberties and rights do not become dependent on temporary political majorities. And it is about safeguarding the high level of trust that has been one of Sweden's greatest strengths.

Madam Speaker! This is not a question of political points or short-term gains, but about standing up for the principles that make Sweden just Sweden. Our courts must be able to judge fairly and without political influence. The constitutional laws shall not be able to be changed by temporary majorities. Citizens' civil liberties shall be protected even when the winds of society blow in another direction.

That is why the Centre Party and I stand behind these changes. They strengthen democracy, they strengthen the rule of law, and they strengthen Sweden. I move for approval of the Committee on the Constitution's proposal.

Videoriksdagen.se

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! A strong democracy presupposes free elections but also independent courts and a rule of law that stands strong over time.

The constitutional laws shall protect the rules of the game for democracy. The courts shall guarantee that the law applies equally to everyone and that the administration of justice occurs without political influence. These are two central parts of what we are discussing today: to strengthen the protection for our constitutional laws and to strengthen independent courts.

Madam Speaker! The constitutional laws are fundamental to our democratic system of government. They must not be able to be changed by temporary political majorities or under hasty political conditions. Therefore, it is important that we strengthen the protection and tighten the limitations for the decision-making rules for constitutional amendments.

The proposals involve, among other things, requirements for a qualified majority at the second decision on a constitutional amendment. At least two-thirds of the members of the Riksdag must support the proposal. Requirements are also introduced that at least half of the members of the Riksdag must be in favor of a constitutional proposal for it to be able to be adopted as pending.

We think these are reasonable reinforcements. Constitutional amendments should require broad political consensus as well as anchoring, reflection, and respect for the long-term consequences. We do not know what political majorities will exist in the future. But we have a responsibility to ensure democracy's fundamental rules of the game and that they stand strong regardless of who currently holds power.

Madam Speaker! The second part of the reform concerns the independence of the courts and the autonomy of the administration of justice.

The independence of the courts is not an issue that only concerns judges and lawyers; it concerns every citizen. The person who stands trial, has been subjected to a crime, or has a dispute with an authority must be able to feel security that the matter is examined impartially and independently. The courts' assessment shall be based on law and justice, never on political desires or pressures. Therefore, it is important that we clarify in the Instrument of Government that the administration of justice is exercised by independent courts.

A central part of the reform is also that the central court administration shall be given a more independent position in relation to the government. Domstolsverket shall transition to becoming Domstolsstyrelsen, with a board where a majority of the members shall be or have been judges. This implies a clearer anchoring in the courts' own operations and a greater distance between the political power and the courts' central administration.

Madam Speaker! I also want to tell you about my own experience here because I sit on the Domstolsverket's oversight council. There, both politicians and heads of agencies meet. But this opportunity for influence will subsequently be removed. Through the new organizational form, the oversight council will be phased out, and thus my mandate will cease. This is a natural consequence of the new management form, where the board receives a different and more independent responsibility, without political influence.

The reform also contains other important reinforcements. The position of the courts shall be protected, and the possibilities for authorities under the government to exercise supervision over the courts' judicial activities are limited.

Overall, this is an important step to safeguard the independence of the courts and reduce the risk of improper influence.

At the same time, I want to emphasize that independence should not be confused with secrecy. Oversight, openness, and clear distribution of responsibility are important to maintain the public's trust in the courts. A strong independence must go hand in hand with an operation characterized by transparency and legal certainty.

Madam Speaker! What we are deciding today is ultimately about safeguarding democracy's long-term resilience. We are strengthening the protection of our constitutional laws and ensuring that the courts can fulfill their mandate independently.

For the Christian Democrats, human dignity, the rule of law, and respect for the constitutional state are fundamental values. They must stand strong regardless of political majorities and across generations. This is a responsibility we have to manage.

I therefore move for approval of the Committee on the Constitution's proposal.

Videoriksdagen.se

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! Welcome to KU, the committee where remarks are the exception and where one can almost set the clock by the debates. This does not, however, mean that we do not have different opinions on different issues. I hope to be able to illustrate some of that during this speech.

We have had this discussion once before, in connection with the first vote. As several have pointed out, not much has changed since then – this did not become a major election issue. But we still need to talk about it, and I will start with the courts.

Madam Speaker! In the pending constitutional proposal, there are proposals to strengthen the independence of judges and the courts. This should, of course, be a matter of course. But developments in Europe and elsewhere in the world have made it necessary to strengthen the independence of judges and the courts and reduce the risks of improper pressure, not least from governments and politicians who might want to influence how justice is administered in a country. Such examples exist in other countries, even countries that perhaps have seen themselves as immune to such rather shocking changes to the justice system. We need to protect ourselves against similar influences and potential pressures from the political side.

The European Commission conducted a survey a few years ago on citizens' trust in the judiciary in each respective country. In some countries, trust is increasing, albeit perhaps from low levels. Sweden landed in sixth place. Three out of four inhabitants say they have great trust in the judiciary. It is admittedly a decrease of a couple of percentage points, but still a position at the absolute top. Ahead of us in Sweden were, among others, the judiciaries of Finland and Denmark, for which a full 86 percent expressed trust.

Another study is the one that the Foundation Rättsfonden conducted in Sweden a few years ago, which showed that a large proportion, a full two-thirds, of final-year students in upper secondary school lived in the belief that the government can change judgments. This is somewhat more alarming and could naturally give some people water on their mills, but that is not what I am after. I mean that such a result in itself is a strong reason to carry out the proposed changes. They should not only increase independence factually and formally but also create better confidence in judges and courts. A rule of law is simply unthinkable without a completely independent judiciary.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a representative and parliamentary system of government. It stands in the first paragraph of the Instrument of Government.

That it is representative means, for example, that smaller parties, such as five of us—to be honest, we can still be said to be—can exist in the Riksdag. This contributes to creating a more representative composition in the sense that more people are involved and can be elected. More voices can be heard and broaden debates and discussions – more opinions and broader corridors of opinion, quite simply.

The parliamentary system of government means that the government governs the country but in all cases must be tolerated and approved by the Riksdag. That is also the case in many other countries – our Nordic neighbors are good examples. The representative system of government is considered by research to be stable and lead to well-anchored and high-quality decisions.

The price for this way of governing the country is that it can take a little longer to reach a common understanding, but that inertia can also be seen as an advantage. It provides time for public debate and dialogue and is also considered to give more people a sense of greater justice. All voices count, which in turn creates greater trust.

We want to protect this form of democracy, where all voices count and where even smaller parties have a real chance to be involved in legislation and other processes. A safeguard for that can be a requirement for a qualified majority when it comes to our constitutional laws.

I think it is reasonable that the constitutional laws in the future can only be changed with a broad anchoring among the parties in the Riksdag. This gives the constitutional laws the strength and the protection they should have. This applies especially in a time when politicians and parties all around the world are moving towards ever greater power for their own sake.

A majority is a majority even if it is small. But a small majority is also vulnerable. The voters can reject it in the next election, and the mandate that existed will then be gone. It is then a matter of protecting the state – or us, for that matter – against major changes driven by such small majorities.

Therefore, it is a good proposal to require a qualified majority to finally approve changes to our constitutional laws. Therefore, it is also a good proposal to protect the rule of law by ensuring greater independence for judges and courts. Taken together, this gives us who live here greater security and less anxiety regarding changes, or even deteriorations, for large parts of the population.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

Videoriksdagen.se

Erik Nygårds (L)

Madam Speaker! This is the first time I am participating in the Riksdag's consideration of this constitutional matter.

When the question was debated for the first time, just over a year ago, it was my predecessor Mauricio Rojas who represented the Liberals. I do not even intend to try to measure myself against the academic level that he often maintains in this rostrum, but I can perhaps contribute something else.

I am still relatively new here in the Riksdag. Therefore, I also retain some of that outside perspective that one risks losing quite quickly when one has worked here for a while. When I look at this matter with that perspective, I am struck by the fact that it concerns things that most Swedes actually never think about.

Most people do not go around thinking about how a constitutional amendment is carried out. Most people do not wonder how the position of the courts is regulated. Most people do not discuss qualified majority requirements at the kitchen table. And that is exactly how it should be. If people feel that they need to worry about the fundamental rules of democracy, something has already gone wrong. Our responsibility as elected representatives is to ensure that that worry never needs to arise. People must be able to trust that the foundations of democracy stand firm and that the rules protecting our freedom are not changed through temporary opinions or short-term political fluctuations.

Madam Speaker! At the same time, we of course have another responsibility. When society changes and new issues arise, the legislation must be able to develop in step with the times. Democracy must not be static. Precisely for that reason, we need rules that ensure that the most fundamental rules of the game are not changed too easily. That is why today's decision is so important.

The proposal means, among other things, that a second decision to change the constitution shall as a general rule require the support of at least two-thirds of those voting. The broad anchoring that has long been a political ambition thus also becomes a clearer part of our constitutional protection.

Madam Speaker! People must also be able to trust that if they one day find themselves in a dispute with an authority, a company, or perhaps even the state itself, the matter will be judged according to the law and nothing else.

A free society needs free elections, but a free society also needs independent courts. The courts' task is not to be popular, and they should not be political. Their task is to independently apply the law even when the result does not suit those who currently hold power. Therefore, Madam Speaker, the independence of the courts is not a special interest for lawyers but a fundamental security issue for every citizen.

The now proposed rule changes shift the balance of power from us elected representatives to trained lawyers. Overall, I think the proposed changes are wise and well-considered. Constitutions are not written for days when everything is functioning well. They are written for days when democracy is put to the test. They are written for the future – for those occasions when someone might want to move forward the power of politics at the expense of the rule of law and for those occasions when someone wants to make it easier to change the rules of the game for their own benefit. At that moment, the safeguards must be there.

Today's decision is therefore ultimately about trust – trust in democracy, trust in the rule of law, and trust that no temporary majority can easily change the rules that ultimately protect our civil rights and freedoms.

Madam Speaker! The Liberals move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 11.)

Videoriksdagen.se