Response to interpellation 2023/24:826 on anonymous opinion-forming and Government Offices employees
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M considers that the Government Offices' staff should follow ethical guidelines and demonstrate objectivity 1. 1 M argues that employees must not work with other accounts in the service 1 and that there is no reason to suspect that staff spread hate or disinformation 1 2. 2 M considers that parties have a special responsibility to safeguard openness and that there is no room for anonymous accounts in the political debate 2. 3 M argues that resource-rich parties should not use anonymity to influence the debate 3. 4 S considers that the Sweden Democrats are committing a democratic transgression by using fake accounts to influence the political narrative 4. 4 S argues that these methods are reminiscent of influence campaigns from foreign powers 4. 5 S argues that it is serious that no measures are taken against the Sweden Democrats' working methods 5. 6 S considers it extremely serious when parties run troll factories and use fake accounts to manipulate the political conversation 6. 7 M wants to see a lower degree of polarization and a higher degree of objective political debate 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Lena Hallengren has asked the Prime Minister how he intends to act to ensure that the Government Offices' political staff do not spread hate, threats, or disinformation on social media.
The interpellation has been handed over to me.
The Government Offices operate in accordance with the public administration's fundamental values of democracy, the rule of law, and efficiency. Just as with other government agencies, objectivity and impartiality shall be observed in the operations. This applies to both political and non-political staff.
The Government Offices' activities shall be permeated by the principles that also appear in the policies and ethical guidelines in the agency. They state requirements and expectations for all employees. The ethical guidelines for the Government Offices are based on the assumption that there are legitimate expectations that the Government Offices' employees shall act and behave in such a way that the public feels confidence in them and the work they perform. Another starting point is that it is obvious that the employees, as employees in a leading, norm-setting agency, shall meet high ethical demands. The Government Offices' employees are expected to show integrity and good judgment and have an ethical approach that inspires respect. At the same time, they naturally have freedom of speech, just like everyone else.
Social media is a useful tool for communication regarding the government's work. The Government Offices have a number of social media accounts that are used for the ministers' and the government's communication. The accounts follow clear guidelines regarding transparency concerning the sender and objectivity regarding the content.
Government Offices employees, both political and non-political staff, shall, according to current guidelines, not work with any other social media accounts in the line of duty.
The review that we have also discussed here earlier today gives no reason to suspect that any employee in the Government Offices is engaged in spreading hate, threats, or disinformation on social media.
I also want to take this opportunity, in this context as well, to emphasize that everyone who works politically has a great responsibility to, based on our extensive and constitutionally protected freedom of expression and information, contribute to objectivity and clarity regarding both the message and the sender. This applies regardless of in which forums the debate is conducted, including social media.
Lena Hallengren (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Gunnar Strömmer, for the answer! I submitted this interpellation before the summer break. I did so for the known reason that we then had a revelation from Kalla fakta and TV4 concerning the troll factory, which was also addressed in the previous interpellation debate.
Let me describe why this is so serious and why we cannot let a summer pass - as that would diminish the importance of this troll factory.
During the summer, we have followed news reports of violent riots in the United Kingdom. Much indicates that it is precisely disinformation. With fake accounts on social media, there have been active attempts to create both incitement and chaos in the country, similar to what we experienced regarding, for example, Quran burnings in Sweden.
We have been able to follow the news reporting on the upcoming American presidential election. It is a fact that a foreign power will very likely attempt to influence the election, just as was done in the 2016 election, when, among others, six Russian citizens were indicted. It was revealed, for example, that they had operated a troll factory in Saint Petersburg and created hundreds of fake accounts with disinformation, hate, and threats - all with the aim of dividing and influencing the election result.
We ourselves have recently conducted an EU election where we could see how Russia, both by itself and through European right-wing populist and authoritarian forces, tried to divide Europe with a particular focus on reducing support for Ukraine.
It is also the case that the EU Commission has identified the threat of media manipulation as a democratic problem. As recently as the beginning of May this year, the EU Commission allocated resources specifically to combat disinformation through media manipulation, which refers to the work regarding troll factories.
I say this because it is also here. The second-largest party in Sweden, Sverigedemokraterna, is committing a serious democratic transgression. The investigation shows that Sverigedemokraterna do not just use one but many fake accounts on social media. They do not do this just because it is fun, but they do it with the aim of influencing the political narrative and undermining our democracy.
The method that the Sverigedemokraterna use is reminiscent of the covert influence campaigns that we see and are horrified by from powers such as Russia, Iran, and China and other extreme groups around Europe.
By deliberately misleading with information and spreading hate and threats, the Sweden Democrats contribute to harming our society and to nibbling away at democracy. Just as much as the Sweden Democrats have denied that there is a troll factory—because they do—they have said that they will continue with the same methods. Jimmie Åkesson has, with a fool's persistence, repeated that they will not stop with the way they form opinion and conduct politics. He also calls the troll factory satire and humor. And what is actually an investigation is called an influence operation. Let me just remind you of this!
In his speech to the nation in connection with this, Jimmie Åkesson revealed a worldview that I do not know how to describe, but it is perhaps close to being as crazy as Donald Trump's.
The cold facts revealed concerned employees at the party office. But this also raises questions regarding those who are currently employed at the Government Offices, Sverigedemokraterna employees who also work in the core of the Government Offices, in the coordination office in the Cabinet Office. Therefore, my question is: Has the government conducted a new security clearance for all SD employees in the Government Offices? Can the Minister for Justice ensure that no sensitive information has been transferred?
I read and was told here in the answer that one is not allowed to work with other accounts in the service. When is the service, and how do you know that when the accounts can be fake?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Let me begin with the concrete question regarding employees in the Government Offices and then move on to the broader picture that Lena Hallengren describes!
I would like to begin by repeating that nothing has emerged indicating that the Government Offices' staff have engaged in spreading hate, threats, or disinformation on social media. It is important to say that. I have no objections to the question being asked, but I think it is important that the direct answer to the question is formulated here in the chamber. There is also no room to engage in such activities within the framework of the work at the Government Offices. If anything of that nature were to emerge, by some chance, it would be handled in the usual employment law procedure.
In this context, I would like to repeat that all employees in the Government Offices, regardless of whether they are employed in a political or non-political capacity, are expected to meet high standards of objectivity and impartiality in the performance of their duties. This naturally implies a conduct that commands respect and is ethically justifiable.
I also want to emphasize, of course, that government employees have the same opportunity as others to exercise their freedom of speech. Freedom of speech can be exercised to a large extent without, for that reason, facing labor law consequences. I see that as an indispensable value in our democracy.
When it comes to the broader picture, I agree that we have problems around our free and open society in the form of various actors who, through improper methods and improper information, want to destabilize our country or our society or in different ways promote their interests, not infrequently hostile towards our country.
One of the most terrible campaigns in that school is the disinformation campaign regarding Swedish social services. It has devastating consequences for the cohesion in our society. But it also turned out during the past year that it was fueled by various actors with an interest in destabilizing Sweden. This contributed to a pressure against Sweden that ultimately had very violent consequences, for example through the violence directed against our mission in Iran.
This is something that is completely central to the strategy against violent extremism and terrorism that the government made a decision on as recently as in January last year. We also see a concerning intersection between violent extremism, state actors, and organized crime, in that state actors appear to be willing to recruit perpetrators for their acts of violence in Sweden within the criminal environment. All of this is intended to threaten our free and open society and is something that the government and all relevant authorities take with the utmost seriousness.
Regarding the responsibility of organized and established politics for this, it is my firm opinion – and as has been said, it has been articulated by the Prime Minister in many contexts – that parties sitting in Sweden's Riksdag have a particularly great responsibility to safeguard openness, clarity, and objectivity in the public debate. This means that, in our opinion, there is no place for anonymous accounts in the Swedish political debate. It is something that all parties should reflect upon. I am convinced that those parties that venture to engage in this will be severely punished by the Swedish people.
Lena Hallengren (S)
Mr. Speaker! I would so much like that we could condemn the Sweden Democrats' actions collectively, with stronger words even from the Minister for Justice. Neither the Social Democrats nor the Moderates have any troll factories, and for my knowledge, neither do any of the other parties in the Swedish Riksdag. It is about a large number of both fake and anonymous accounts that spread hate and threats.
I am concerned if it is the case that no measures are being taken without assuming that the employees in the Government Offices have not at all been influenced or inspired or taken impressions of what appear to be the Sweden Democrats' working methods. It is not a question of any single person, but the Sweden Democrats have an information department that deliberately works to spread incorrect information and set new political narratives. How can the Minister for Justice be so sure that false and fake accounts have not been used if no new security clearance has been conducted? Or did I misunderstand – has some new type of control been carried out?
I want to once again emphasize how incredibly serious I think this is. A picture has been given that one perhaps must be able to joke in politics with a bit of satire and humor. I really do not share that view; many people are being subjected to it. The governing parties have a Tidö Agreement where they have regulated the order between themselves, and that possibly makes the governing parties a bit calmer; one should not be subjected to hate and threats, and they have, as I understand it, received some apology. But that is not what the other parties, opinion leaders, journalists, or young people experience. The question is how we are to get more people to feel safe participating in opinion-forming if fake accounts and anonymous accounts are allowed to remain and if the actions and the response to the Sweden Democrats' way of working do not become much sharper.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! I would very much like to have a discussion about how we can conduct a more decent political conversation in this country. There is no doubt that fake accounts and anonymous accounts that engage in spreading messages that are either merely irrelevant or hateful contribute to lowering the level of the political conversation and, in the long run, of course, also jeopardize the trust in the political parties.
If we are going to talk about these issues, I would like, for the sake of the matter, to point out that the picture regarding the climate of conversation in Sweden is undeniably broader. It is not the case that volunteer forces on the right in Swedish politics would in any way be exempt from threats, hate, or aggressive campaigns directed at person or character. Unfortunately, it is an element that we now see in our democracies, also in Sweden. The hate and the threats do not become better or worse based on the sender, but I turn strongly against this regardless of from which side it comes.
I agree that anonymity on accounts is a particularly serious part of this, but even things said in public under transparency can be of such a nature that we should rightly discuss it if we truly want to safeguard a political conversation where many dare to participate and where citizens can endure listening and being involved over time. If we extend the time perspectives, it is, as said, several parties that have committed very gross transgressions on the scale we are now discussing. I was against it then, and I am for precisely the same reasons against what we are now discussing.
Anonymity is an important element in our democracy. This applies, for example, to the secrecy of the ballot and to being able to write a letter to the editor in Örnsköldsviks Allehanda without having to sign with one's own name. I believe everyone understands why it is significant. Anonymity is also a safeguard for those who may be vulnerable or take risks in public discourse. On the other hand, it is another matter that resource-rich political parties in Sweden's Riksdag use anonymity to influence the debate in a certain direction. On that point, I am just as clear now as I was when we discussed these issues during the spring.
If I may conclude by combining the two interpellations that we have discussed on this subject, I would like to return to the fact that the Swedish electoral system is robust. There is no reporting from our authorities, either nationally or at the European level, that clouds the picture regarding the election that lies behind us.
Our authorities are conducting an extraordinarily precise activity in this area when it comes to identifying real threats to our internal security and to our open and free society. I feel very secure with those efforts. I am happy to discuss further how we can take additional measures aimed at pushing back the threats that are real, regardless of whether they come from violent extremism, terrorism, state actors, or organized crime - all in order to safeguard our free and open society.
Lena Hallengren (S)
Mr. Speaker! Let me agree with Gunnar Strömmer that we have a robust electoral system. We will do our utmost to ensure that it continues to be so. But it is challenged when we have parties—the next largest party in the Swedish Riksdag, the largest party in the government base—that operate troll factories and have fake accounts as a method to influence the political conversation. It is not solely a question of abusing the electoral system itself, but about how one manipulates the political conversation.
I think it is extremely serious, and I and the Social Democratic Party are keen that this summer has not meant that anyone has forgotten Kalla fakta's revelation. It was a revelation of something that cannot be compared to anything else that any party has done.
Let me hope that the Sweden Democrats can learn something from this. But not much speaks in favor of that when the party leader Jimmie Åkesson says that one will continue with precisely the same methods as before.
I hope that Gunnar Strömmer is at least half as upset as I am about this. It is very serious. If the Sverigedemokraterna continue to act in that way, I do not feel particularly secure with the election campaign that we will begin and which culminates in an election in two years.
It is important that one does not need to appear by name in an article in a newspaper, in a letter to the editor, or on the internet. But it is not the same thing as being able to have a fake account. For example, using BankID when signing up for an account means that one cannot have as many accounts as one wants. And if one does something illegal, it is possible to trace back and see who it is. But it is not the same thing as everyone having to see who is responsible for the opinions.
I think it is outrageous that Jimmie Åkesson really went on the offensive against everyone and everything that did not buy his worldview or the explanation he himself gave. I think that when Jimmie Åkesson and the Sverigedemokraterna do not want to back down, it becomes even more important that democratic parties and good forces stand firm, that we offer resistance and that we show that there are alternatives.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Lena Hallengren, for the opportunity to discuss these issues today!
I see a number of issues that have become relevant during this year and which I believe are of great importance for discussing the robustness not primarily of the electoral system, but perhaps more of the democratic debate and the democratic conversation moving forward. One of them we have discussed here. I have been very clear about what I think regarding anonymous accounts. And I reiterate a position shared by, for example, the Prime Minister, to whom the question was addressed.
During the year, we have also seen examples of violence affecting political meetings. We have seen that political meetings have been interrupted through activism based on the idea that people should be silent and not be allowed to have an open, direct, and critical exchange of views with one another.
I note that many travel to the USA to follow American debates. I think that is good. But let us perhaps also agree that a good deal of what comes from there is not conducive to the Swedish political debate. The polarization in the political debate is, after all, not driven from only one side.
For my part, I would like to see a lower degree of polarization and a higher degree of objective and straightforward political debate on substantive issues. I believe that is what, over time, will maintain the citizens' interest in the democratic political conversation and which will thereby nurture the free, open and democratic society.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.