The debate on the legitimacy of citizens and the foundations of democracy

In connection with this autumn's parliamentary elections, parts of the debate have exposed a view of democracy in which the political participation and affiliation of some citizens is presented as less legitimate than that of others. This is done in part with reference to notions that immigration is being deliberately used to change the electorate. In our article (DN Debatt 19/9) we gave several examples of how this discourse has become an increasingly prominent part of political rhetoric.

The debate contains two notions that are also central to the far-right conspiracy theory of population exchange: firstly, the idea that white Europeans constitute a more original people whose status and political influence are threatened by immigration, not least from Muslim groups; partly that these demographic changes are driven by political elites to change the composition of the population and the electorate. The core of this racist logic is that people's political legitimacy and belonging are made dependent on country of birth, religion or ethnic background.

In a representative democracy, political representation is based on the principle that the votes of those entitled to vote carry equal weight, regardless of financial resources, language, religion or ethnicity. Attributing greater legitimacy to the political participation of some citizens than to others is therefore in conflict with the principle of universal and equal suffrage. Ultimately, it is about who are considered full members of the political community.

The reasoning is based on the notion that some citizens' political participation is less legitimate than others because of their background.

Against this background, Kent Ekeroth's (SD) reply clarifies the dividing line that our article drew attention to. He admits that all citizens' votes are legally equal, but at the same time believes that all citizenships are not morally equivalent. In the reply, Ekeroth questions both who has been granted citizenship and the officials at the Migration Agency who made the decisions. People who are already Swedish citizens are portrayed as insufficiently anchored in the country, while officials are made suspicious by references to their foreign background. In addition, he warns that new citizenships can change the electorate "faster than society has time to assimilate new citizens" and that Sweden thereby risks "undermining its self-determination".

We believe that the reasoning is based on the notion that the political participation of some citizens is less legitimate than that of others because of their background and that their influence may in itself constitute a threat to democracy.

Ekeroth's retort illustrates our point: that not all citizens are considered full members of the political community. The difference is that we believe that it is precisely this hierarchical order of citizens that constitutes the democratic problem. That the notion of a more authentic people can be presented so openly today shows how normalized such ideas have become in the political debate.