It is still fascinating to follow the "spin" during the formation of a government. Seeing how something can turn into truth, even though everyone up until very recently knew that that, that's not true at all.
Just take the claim that the Left must have a seat in a government that the party supports, otherwise their mandate is free – and their voters have received nothing for their vote and are shown no respect. And that it is therefore sick for a party, such as the Center, to have red lines around whether another party should get ministerial posts.
It is not so strange that leftists say this, they want C to move on. But the fact that others repeat it is more remarkable, like Aftonbladet's political commentator Oisín Cantwell, who writes: "Nooshi Dadgostar has started to behave like most other party leaders and makes the most reasonable demand to sit in the government that needs the Left Party's mandate to get a majority."
Or for that matter Simona Mohamsson, who describes C's line as "ridiculous". She herself had red lines against the Sweden Democrats as recently as a year ago! And to be honest, she still has them - against the Social Democrats.
How often has Sweden really had majority governments – that is, governments where all the parties that support it sit in and together they gather 175 seats in the Riksdag – in the last 25 years?
Why then have we had all these minority governments?
Four years, is the answer. It is about the first term of office with Fredrik Reinfeldt.
The rest of the time we have had minority governments with (Persson 2000-2006, Kristersson 2022-2026) or without (Reinfeldt 2010-2014, Löfven/Andersson 2014-2022) agreed majority cooperation in the Riksdag.
Does that mean that a lot of mandates have been free during this time? No: V and MP received large chunks of policy in exchange for their support for S 2002–2006. C and L, among other things, got the defense tax removed through the January agreement. And SD has dictated migration and climate policy for the past four years. Their voters have certainly received value for their votes.
Why then have we had all these minority governments?
Ulf Kristersson used to explain it by saying that in a government you make all decisions together, then you have to stand close to each other.
It's hard enough to get C and V to agree on enough to hammer out a budget. In a government, they must agree on everything.
Göran Persson referred to the same logic, but put the emphasis on what concerns Swedish core interests, which do not change with the majority conditions in the chamber, such as EU membership. V wanted to leave the Union, and therefore could not sit in a government where issues from Brussels are constantly on the agenda.
No one expects the Left Party to release a prime minister without getting anything in return. But getting something back is not the same as being in government; has never been.
The Left Party no longer pursues the issue of a withdrawal. But NATO membership was also opposed by the party. V also does not want to complete the nuclear weapons dialogue with France. And is Nooshi Dadgostar able to fully stand up for the Swedish stance in the Israel-Palestine conflict in front of his voters? Since Sweden is in favor of a two-state solution, you as a Swedish minister must be able to say loudly and clearly that Israel has the right to exist.
If she was prepared to do such a thing, she might have scared off some of the anti-Semitic Hamas huggers flocking to her party.
No one expects the Left Party to release a prime minister without getting anything in return. But getting something back is not the same as being in government; has never been.
Dadgostar can of course make whatever demands she wants to make up with others. But so does C. And there is no reason for others to pretend that her position is the result of some kind of natural law.
Read more:
DN's editorial board: Magdalena Andersson cannot let V slow her down
