Response to interpellation 2025/26:459 on opinion-forming and activism within authorities
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns opinion-forming and activism within authorities. KD argues that state officials generally act professionally 1 2, but that authorities should have a restrictive view on communication activities due to high costs 1. KD emphasizes that the appointment policy has been improved to prevent corruption 1 2 and that the authorities' primary mission is to carry out the government's decisions, not to form opinions 3. KD admits that problems with corruption can occur 2. SD argues that Sweden suffers from institutionalized corruption where S uses state resources for its own purposes 4 5. SD argues that S has created a culture where authorities obstruct the government's reforms 4. SD believes that the power of appointment should be moved to the Riksdag 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Civilministern Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! Josef Fransson has asked me if I agree with the problem description regarding opinion-building and activism within authorities and if, in that case, I am prepared to initiate work to prevent state authorities from engaging in opinion-building activities and activism.
A good administrative culture is fundamentally about ensuring that the public administration is well-functioning and rests on basic democratic principles. To maintain a high level of trust in the public administration, employees in public administration must act in accordance with the laws and principles that govern the administration. This also applies to the handling of cases concerning decisions on support to civil society.
The state's value base serves as guidance for how the authorities handle issues of objectivity and impartiality in their activities. It is important that the authorities work continuously to ensure a good administrative culture that includes the entire operation and all employees. To support the authorities in this work, Statskontoret is tasked with promoting the work for a good administrative culture and working against corruption in the state. They provide support of various kinds, including web-based training.
Furthermore, the government has recently decided on the bill An expanded criminal liability for public officials. In the bill, it is proposed that a new criminal classification, abuse of public office, be introduced into the Penal Code. The government thus ensures that there is an expanded criminal liability for different types of abuse of public office that is not limited to measures taken during the exercise of authority.
According to the Authority Ordinance, authorities shall provide information about the authority's activities. It is important that the authorities' information and communication activities are followed up and regularly reviewed. The Government therefore continuously monitors how the authorities assess the need for information and communication efforts and has tasked 31 authorities to report the costs for this activity as well as how the activity has contributed to the authorities' ability to fulfill their core tasks. It is particularly important that the authorities are transparent with costs and results when it comes to information and communication efforts.
In August 2023, the government commissioned Statskontoret to map and analyze the information and communication activities that government agencies under the government direct towards the public. Statskontoret's review shows that the agencies are well aware of the requirements placed on information and communication activities. According to the review, there are isolated examples of agencies that have fallen short regarding objectivity and impartiality in their information and communication to the public.
It appears from the Instrument of Government that, in decisions regarding state appointments, consideration shall only be given to objective grounds such as merit and skill. Whether the government lives up to this provision in its exercise of the appointing power has been scrutinized by the Committee on the Constitution on several occasions. I can state that the proportion of appointed heads of agencies in Sweden with a political background has varied over time but has remained more or less constant since the change of government in 2006.
KU has also expressed that political background should not be disqualifying in an appointment as long as only objective grounds such as merit and skill are considered in the appointment. Political experience can be an objective ground to take into account, and it may then be valued together with other experiences. In such cases, it is not relevant which political party the person has a background in, but it is then about the fact that he or she has performed tasks in a political and public environment in such a way that it is meritorious for the position to be appointed.
Josef Fransson (SD)
Madam Speaker! I thank Minister for Civil Affairs Erik Slottner for the answer to my interpellation.
I have asked the Minister for Civil Affairs if he agrees that we in Sweden have problems with the fact that both within state agencies and within other social institutions, opinion-forming and activism are being conducted, and if the Minister in that case is prepared to initiate work against this. The Minister mentioned in his answer that we have reintroduced the civil servant's responsibility. This is very good, even though we will surely have reason to return with adjustments to the legislation when we see the outcome.
I experience that the left has succeeded in establishing a culture within many agencies so that even after a change of government, as after the last election, there are agencies that obstruct the new government's reform work. I can mention a very recent example of this. The Swedish Migration Agency seems to have ordered staff to work overtime on weekends to push through as many citizenship cases as possible before the new rules for citizenship come into force on June 6. There will probably be reason to follow up on this.
Madam Speaker! My interpellation primarily concerns what I usually call institutionalized corruption, where political parties, almost always the Social Democrats, can use the state and its public resources for the benefit of their own party.
Through the government's nearly unrestricted appointment power, the Social Democrats have over the years uninhibitedly placed individuals who are loyal to the party as directors-general at larger agencies and state-owned companies that are of importance to the party.
Not least, the authorities can furthermore be used to funnel money to various civil society organizations that one thinks, in one way or another, benefit the Social Democratic Party.
A clear such example was when the former party secretary Carin Jämtin was placed as director general at Sida, where she even in defiance of instructions from the newly appointed government wrote long billion-kronor contracts with, among others, a controversial organization called Forum Civ. The examples are, however, many more, and I perceive that one outsources opinion-building by fertilizing organizations with money that drive issues that one likes.
If we are to look at authorities as such, there is one that I find it strange that it even exists, because it essentially deals with opinion-building, and that is the Gender Equality Authority. For me, it is incomprehensible that a right-wing government does not immediately abolish it. I believe that both I and the minister advocate for gender equality between the sexes – that is not where the problem lies. But I dare say that both I and the minister have a somewhat different view of gender equality than the one that I believe prevails within the walls of the aforementioned authority.
Madam Speaker! I want to ask: Can Minister for Civil Affairs Erik Slottner imagine taking on the work to curb the abuse of power and institutionalized corruption, as I describe it, within the Swedish authorities? A couple of low-hanging fruits should be that the authorities shall not be allowed to engage in precisely political opinion-forming and that they shall also not be allowed to funnel money to civil society organizations that conduct political opinion-forming.
There is much to discuss regarding these issues, but now time is running out.
Civilministern Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! The word activism is, of course, a subjective concept. It lies somewhat in the eye of the beholder what one puts into it and when one oneself thinks activism arises or does not. I naturally cannot guarantee that – when it concerns a quarter of a million state employees – it never occurs that personal preferences and perceptions influence one thing or another decision.
My broad and absolute view is, however, that state officials, on the whole, perform their assignment very professionally and in accordance with the so-called state value base. Sometimes I have a bit of difficulty with the expression, but we call it that. The state value base is based on a number of principles, and impartiality in the performance of duties is one such principle. That is what I expect one as an employee of the state to do, and my view is also that this happens.
I bring this up from time to time, I want to say, with the heads of agencies with whom I have a dialogue and the agencies that I, as Civil Minister, am responsible for, which are quite a few – around 35. We have an agency dialogue, and with certain agencies, this topic occurs more often than with other agencies.
We as a government have also acted and taken a number of decisions to ensure that the principles that apply to state employees are also complied with. It is among other reasons why we have sharpened Statskontorets mandate regarding anti-corruption work and work against the risk of unauthorized influence. We have also, as Josef Fransson is aware of, given a special assignment to evaluate and investigate the costs for and the occurrence of opinion-forming communication activities.
Due to the Swedish National Audit Office's review, we have tasked a number of agencies in the regulatory letter to actually report their communication costs. We believe that agencies should have a restrictive and somewhat restrained view on communication activities. We see that the costs for communication have increased significantly more than the agencies' other costs over time. We view this with some concern, and therefore we want to delve deeper into the agencies reporting their costs for communication.
Some authorities have a clearer communication mandate in their instructions. The Gender Equality Authority is one such authority. It is true that the government has not concluded that that authority should be phased out. I know that there are parties in the Tidö constellation who think this, according to previous decisions – two of these parties are standing here now in the Riksdag's speaker's chair – but the government has not put forward any such proposals. It is, however, perfectly acceptable to pursue them in upcoming budget negotiations, which I hope we will continue to be able to participate in over the next four years.
The Alliance government, during its first term between 2006 and 2010, made a rather radical reorganization of the appointment policy – at that time, it was Mats Odell who was responsible for this. It has also resulted in that it is much more difficult today to routinely appoint heads of agencies based on party affiliation. Today, one actually needs to justify this.
Then one should not say anything other than that political background and experience of being, among other things, a minister can actually be meritorious for certain types of heads of government agencies. The risk that directors-general and other heads of government agencies are appointed based on party affiliation has, however, decreased significantly. This is very good for avoiding the risk of, for example, activism and partisan civil service management.
Josef Fransson (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister for Civil Affairs Erik Slottner!
In Sweden, we have, as mentioned, something that I usually refer to as institutionalized corruption. It is a system where political parties, in particular the Social Democrats, can use the state's and the public's resources for the benefit of their own party.
The Social Democrats' creativity in this area has been great and is referred to in some contexts as the Social Democrats' command heights. Through these command heights, one can furthermore fill the coffers and exercise power. This is particularly useful when the Social Democrats end up in opposition, as is the case right now, when the authorities, I believe, have a clear tendency to obstruct the Tidö cooperation's reform agenda.
Madam Speaker! Under the umbrella of the so-called labor movement, there is a long row of institutions that are more or less known to be part of social democracy. We naturally have LO, with the trade unions Metall, Byggnads, Handel, Kommunal and an additional nine member unions. We have Arbetarnas bildningsförbund, which is the largest educational association and which annually rakes in hundreds of millions in grants, but also PRO, Hyresgästföreningen, Olof Palmes Internationella Center and the former Alotteriet. All these organizations have often received tailor-made legislation to serve the party with money, opinion-forming, and political power.
In addition to this, there is a long row of large companies with connections to precisely the Social Democrats, such as Coop, Riksbyggen, Fonus, Folksam and many more. Professor emeritus Lars Jonung from the School of Economics at Lund University has described this as the Directed Business Complex and that this structure opens up for political corruption, as municipalities that are Directed have used political power to support the aforementioned Companies.
Another major problem that I touched upon in my previous speech is that governments, especially those led by Social Democrats, have to a large extent outsourced the formation of public opinion. This has been done partly to all institutions that fall under the so-called labor movement's umbrella, and partly by scattering tax money over organizations that drive issues that one likes for power-political reasons.
The flows of tax funds are very difficult to oversee, as it is not uncommon for a civil society organization to receive grants from several different public institutions simultaneously. In addition to pure grants, transactions also occur by organizations selling expensive training and certifications to municipalities.
I think overall that it is gloomy that a right-wing government gives walkover in so many of these issues. I mean that this is a form of corruption, institutionalized corruption, where one in practice uses the state and the state power as part of one's own party.
An example of this is that a press chief for LKAB went out and conducted a campaign for wind power. Then one became a bit suspicious and wondered what kind of person goes out and conducts a campaign for wind power that just happens to rhyme very well with the Social Democrats' view on wind power. It turned out to be a former state secretary for just the Social Democrats who had received such a job.
Just this is what I think we who do not belong to the left-wing parties should take action on.
Civilministern Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! It is a bit difficult to put my finger on this. What Josef Fransson says, yes, that can occur. It is not that I stand here and say that we do not have any problems at all with this.
I still want to say that one must distinguish between things. A lot is being mixed up in Fransson's post. On the whole, it is my conviction and my firm opinion that of the quarter million employees we have in the state, the vast majority work very professionally and hold their mandate, which includes among other things being impartial, very highly. They are proud of the mandate they have and want to serve the state, regardless of which government is in power. On the whole, that is how it works.
Historically, the connections that Josef Fransson describes here exist to some extent. Not least at the municipal level, we have seen signs of this.
The appointment policy is one of the issues that we have been critical of regarding the Social Democrats. One of the many reasons why the then Alliance parties won the election in 2006 could actually have been the appointment policy, because people were tired of this and there were absolute elements of corruption. That is why we changed the appointment policy, and today we have a much better functioning order for appointments than we had before 2006.
It is incredibly important that I, as a minister, do not intervene in individual cases. I cannot say that this is a sign of activism and corruption, as we have other systems in place to detect that. On the other hand, it is the government that appoints directors-general and other heads of agencies, and it is very important that we appoint heads who are capable of preventing corruption, undue influence, and so-called agency activism. I mean that we also do that in a good way. We address this in our agency dialogues.
If examples emerge of authorities actively working against the government, it is very serious. In that case, it must be brought to light. Then the minister responsible for that specific authority must take the director-general by the ear, call for a meeting, and ensure that measures are taken. But it must fall on the respective minister to do so for the respective authority, because if this occurs, it is very serious.
We also cannot completely deny the risk of one conspiracy theory or another in this case. There may be business owners or private individuals who are angry about a government decision in cases where the authority has fully followed the law that applies, but the individual does not like the decision. In those instances, various officials are accused of exercising activism, when they have in fact only adhered to the legislation that applies.
It is also important that we politicians enact laws that enable officials in our agencies to make decisions that are reasonable. It falls back on us.
At the local level, it is very important that we have an alert opposition and alert media and journalists who detect when this type of case arises, and that we engage in opinion-building and ensure that we get new political governments if we think we have politicians who are corrupt.
We shall, of course, avoid corruption in our country. Sweden is also one of the world's least corrupt countries, which I am very happy about.
Josef Fransson (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister for Civil Affairs Erik Slottner!
I am fully aware that in my previous post I mixed in a bit from other ministers' portfolios. Unfortunately, it has turned out that there was no minister who had responsibility for all of the Social Democrats' command heights, which I have mentioned. But it is still them I want to talk about a little bit.
What should be done about this then? The appointment power can be further improved, I mean. It would come with a large political cost to appoint various friends and political cronies and use the appointment power as bargaining currency if it were instead the Riksdag that hammered out the decision. If one then comes with nominations from the government, and one probably has a majority here in the chamber, it will still come with a political cost to try to nominate someone who is chosen on grounds other than just merits. That we should move the appointment power to the Riksdag is something that I personally am driving, because it would reduce the scope for corruption all the way out into Agency Sweden.
I also think that we should ensure that civil society does not receive money for opinion-building in the way it happens today. We should be able to legislate on this or give clear instructions. I do not think that authorities should be able to form opinions as freely as they can today – or state-owned companies, for that matter. There should be, or be created, clear instructions and laws to curb this nonsense. This nonsense is serious, and it is well-used by certain parties in this chamber.
Civilministern Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! The primary mission of the authorities is absolutely not to shape public opinion. This should be avoided as long as there is no clear mandate for shaping public opinion in the instructions, which may possibly exist in some authority. Levande historia has such a mandate, and I think, in itself, that they should have it, but with a few exceptions, it is still the case that the authorities should not engage in shaping public opinion. That is not why we have the authorities; the primary mission of the authorities is to ensure that the decisions made by the Riksdag and the Government become a reality out there.
Authorities and officials work on the government's mandate, and that is what I expect and assume they do. In cases where corruption or personal agendas occur among individual officials, it is very important that this comes to the surface. Now we also have new legislation that will increase the possibilities to act purely in criminal law against that type of conduct.
The government has also strengthened the work against corruption and undue influence. We have specifically scrutinized communication costs. We have now tasked a number of agencies to report and justify their communication costs, because we think it is worrying that the expenses for just communication have increased so much more than the expenses for the average operations.
The government is taking action, then. I still lack concrete proposals from Josef Fransson and answers on exactly how we are to achieve what is being insinuated. Moving the appointment power to the Riksdag, I believe, is a bad idea. It would create a lot of layers upon layers and make the entire process very cumbersome and take a very long time.
Let us discuss more proposals! But the work against corruption remains very important even moving forward.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.