The liberals' historical paradox: When the ideas win but the party shrinks

Calculated, ridiculed... During the entire past mandate period, the Liberals have been below the four percent threshold in opinion polls and were considered to have already been kicked out of the Riksdag. Of course, it didn't work out that way. Few may have missed Sunday evening's expressions of joy at the Liberals' election vigil, despite the rather modest numbers from a historical perspective.

But in a longer perspective, the Liberals still stand out as Sweden's most successful party, if you compare the intentions that existed when the party was founded with the results that have been achieved. Today's Swedish society is most similar to the visions that the Liberals harbored at the turn of the last century. The original utopias of the other parties lie in ruins: the Social Democrats have abandoned the idea of ​​socialization, the Left Party the dream of a revolution, the Moderates the notion of a plutocracy, the Center the ideas of the primacy of modern economy.

130 years ago, liberal politicians united in the fight for parliamentarism and universal suffrage. The program was embodied by party leader Karl Staaff, who pushed through the reforms together with the Social Democrats. Which question should be pursued next? In 1918 there was confusion in the victorious Liberal camp. Many placed their hope in the sobriety issue, but that turned out to be a mistake. The party split on the issue of liquor prohibition and from being a majority party the liberal forces split into two small parties.

But a new era of greatness awaited with the breakthrough of social liberalism. A change of generations and ideas took place and the two liberal phalanxes were reunited in the People's Party, whose leading name soon became Bertil Ohlin. As a national economist, Ohlin was positively disposed to the full employment policy that the Social Democrats launched in the 1930s and which formed the core of welfare policy. The old anti-state ideology was abandoned and the state was assigned responsibility for people's living standards and employment. The policy would be "social".

At the same time, the market and freedom from government direction were emphasized as the basis for the prosperity that was also the prerequisite for the financing of welfare. The policy would be "liberal". Social liberalism soon became widely embraced, even by the Social Democrats who wanted to "save capitalism" rather than "abolish" it and by the right-wing, which at the end of the Second World War gave up its opposition to the government's full employment policy.

A third wave of liberal vitality has washed over us in the last half century. The "strong society" that the Social Democrats built in the post-war period began to be criticized for bureaucracy, suffocating high tax policies, tyranny, inertia and collectivism. But now it was no longer just the Liberals who stood for the liberal ideas. The criticism was pursued with at least the same force by the Moderates. Even the Social Democrats changed policy after a brief relapse into half-hearted socialist wage-earner fund romance. Decentralization and deregulation became the new guiding stars and the market in many respects also set an example for government authorities.

It can be said that while the Liberals were bathing, their clothes were stolen by others and the party appeared naked

As a party, the Liberals thus ended up in a dangerous situation. They were no longer alone in reaping the benefits of the popularity of liberal ideas as in the parliamentary elections of 1917 and 1948. Other parties took advantage of the tailwind. It can be said that while the Liberals were bathing, their clothes were stolen by others and the party appeared naked. Liberalism "won too much". The question was seriously asked whether the Liberals were even needed anymore. The party became small and for decades dangerously close to the four percent barrier, not because the program was unpopular but on the contrary because it was too popular – among other parties.

For Simona Mohamsson, it is a personal triumph that the Liberals managed to stay in the Riksdag this time too, against all odds. For a political scientist, it is satisfying to note that her tireless pedagogy on the conditions of cooperation policy has obviously hit home.

On the one hand, there is certainly a big difference in terms of values ​​between the Liberals and the Sweden Democrats. But in a coalition this is allowed. Yes, that is the very idea of ​​a coalition. If there were no differences in values, no coalition was needed, but you could have a single party.

On the other hand, politics is not only about championing good values. It is also important to get something done and then it is not enough, in Mohamsson's words, to sit with your arms crossed and preach never-so-good values. The responsible question is whether the price in the form of concessions will be too high. Here, as you know, the sentences diverge. Well-known defectors such as Bengt Westerberg and Birgitta Ohlsson apparently think that their old party weighed down too much.

The Social Democrats chose a different strategy. Instead of being clear about who they wanted to work with or what policies they wanted to pursue, they chose to be dark in the belief that public dissatisfaction with the government would bring them to power without having to show the cards. It failed. The party made its worst choice ever. That a loser probably gets to form a government belongs to the paradoxes of minority parliamentarism. And even the election's other losers, the Sweden Democrats, continue to exert great influence. Its shadow falls on the parties' ability to build coalitions.

The question remains, however, whether the price the Liberals paid for cooperation with the Sweden Democrats was actually too high. It is now the case that the Liberals do not, out of sheer relief at having managed to remain in the Riksdag, simply breathe a sigh of relief and settle down. In the continued resistance within the bourgeois cooperation against all kinds of authoritarian ideas, it is a strength to be able to draw strength from the liberal tradition of ideas that left its mark on our country for so long.