The Social Democrats made their worst choice ever since universal suffrage was introduced in Sweden. The election result landed at 28.02 percent of the vote, a drop of 2.31 percentage points from the 2022 election.
Despite S losing many voters, the opposition managed to become bigger than the Tidö government with the narrow margin of 176 against 173 seats. Many voters lost confidence in S with the argument that the party has gone too far to the right. But is it really true, and what should S and above all party leader Magdalena Andersson have done differently?
In recent years, the whole of Europe has been characterized by right-wing populism, not least Sweden. A central issue has been pursuing a hard migration policy, which has completely dominated the Swedish political debate.
From Sweden having a reasonable migration policy, the country switched to an inhumane line after the 2022 election. Many changes to the law were carried out without listening to the criticism of experts - such as the Council of Laws - regarding the consequences this would lead to.
This resulted in the so-called "teenage expulsions" which received a lot of attention at the beginning of this year and led to demonstrations around the country. It became a turning point for the view of the Tidö government's migration policy; innocent young people were punished not because they had committed any crime, but because they turned 18.
Despite this, S went to the polls with a continued "strict migration policy". It is true that they wanted to stop the deportation of teenagers, but otherwise pursued a hard line that other parties to the right did. This did not go down well with voters. Instead of standing for a policy that shows humanity and solidarity, S chose to follow the temporary winds that blow to the right.
This dilemma is not unique to Sweden. In the US, we recently saw in the mid-term elections how the right repeatedly tried to silence progressive candidates by labeling them as "extremists", "socialists" or "communists" as soon as they advocated human rights and strong welfare. But the candidates who dared to go through this storm and stood strong became winners in the end.
They proved that the people can trust a policy if the politician shows that it really believes in its policy. When a left-wing party tries to copy the rhetoric of the right, right-wing voters still turn to the "original", while their own base loses hope. This changes the entire person's view of society and chooses to believe that society will not come to the rescue yet, but you have to manage on your own.
This is where the responsibility rests heavily on Magdalena Andersson. It is no longer enough to drill your head down and hope that power will fall into your lap just because the opponents do away with it. She must step forward and dare to say what policy she actually wants to pursue - from the heart, not from an opinion poll. It is time for her to choose which parties she wants to cooperate with and be in government with. That doesn't mean she should close the door to other options, but she has to choose her own favorites.
The Swedish people demand to know which parties she actually wants to govern with. Should S continue to hesitate and let the Center Party and the Left Party decide over them, or does Andersson dare to put his foot down, gather his team and straight-headedly lead a red-green future?
Refusing to take a stand only creates uncertainty among voters and makes S appear like a party without a compass. This has also created uncertainty among the party members who have organized and fought throughout the election campaign for a change. It is time for the party leadership to take responsibility and dare.
The Social Democrats do not win victories by being a pale copy of their political opponents or being ashamed of their government alternatives. We need more social democrats - and a party leader - who stand up for our politics, and who dare to do it fully.
More about submitters: How to write submitters and replies
