Submitter. Before requirements for members of the Riksdag

If you want to become a doctor, you need a long education and a license. If you want to become a police officer, requirements are placed on, among other things, education, suitability and personal background. To work as a teacher, a relevant education and teacher's license is normally required. If you want to become a taxi driver, you need to meet special requirements for, among other things, a driver's license, knowledge and suitability.

We therefore place high demands on people who will treat our illnesses, teach our children, uphold the law or drive us safely through traffic. It goes without saying, because their decisions and actions affect other people's lives. But what basic requirements do we place on those who are to establish the country's laws and make decisions that affect over ten million people?

A member of the Riksdag does not need to have any special academic education, pass a general knowledge test or demonstrate a certain language level through a formal language test in order to be elected. Nor does he need to present an extract from the debit register or lack payment requirements and payment notes. In practice, this means that anyone who has been convicted of, for example, drug offences, has payment notices, does not know Swedish or does not understand the political establishment can become a Member of Parliament. Isn't that strange?

We require education and special skills from many professions, but when it comes to the people who make decisions about our laws, taxes, healthcare, schools and security, we rely solely on electability.

Democracy is obviously based on the people's right to choose their representatives. But democracy should also entail a responsibility to ensure that the elected can actually carry out their mission and are competent.

A Member of Parliament does not need to know everything. But the person must know Swedish well enough to understand legislative proposals, participate in debates and express themselves clearly. The member must also be able to familiarize himself with complicated social issues, review the facts and understand the consequences of his decisions. If a politician lacks these abilities, on what grounds should we expect that person to represent us responsibly?

This also applies to V member Mohamed Ali. If there is concrete evidence that he lacks the linguistic or subject-wise ability to handle the issues included in his assignment, is subject to demands from the Crown Enforcement Officer or has associated with criminals, it would be reasonable to be able to question his suitability. Criticism must of course be based on what he actually can and does, not on his name or background. If he is not up to the task, he should take responsibility, and the voters and his party should be able to demand change.

It is not about limiting democracy, but about taking it seriously. If we believe that a doctor must be competent to treat our bodies and that a teacher must be able to teach our children, why shouldn't we set reasonable competence requirements for those who make decisions about the future of the entire country?

We need statutory requirements for language ability, basic social knowledge and understanding of the Riksdag mission, as well as a good background and an honorable social life. These requirements should be fair, relevant and equal for all, without becoming tools for political discrimination.

In the end, it is the voters who pay the price when political decisions are made without sufficient knowledge. Being elected is a trust. Being able to carry out the assignment should be a self-evident prerequisite for deserving it.

More about submitters: How to write submitters and replies