Political scientist on the SD dispute: "Åkesson wants to clean up in front of his own door"

The internal battle between ethno-nationalists and cultural nationalists that has been going on in and around SD lately has prompted leader Jimmie Åkesson to remind the party's program of principles. It clearly states that even those born abroad can become Swedes and on that journey SD representatives must accompany:

"Otherwise you have to step off, or be kicked out," writes Åkesson on Expressen Debatt.

Ann-Cathrine Jungar, professor of political science at Södertörn University, describes this line of conflict as old and can be traced back to the earliest days of nationalism and racial biology in the 19th century.

According to her, the contradiction between ethnonationalism and cultural nationalism is nothing new within SD either, but something that has always existed in the party, but usually it is latent and less manifest.

- The ambition has been to make the party more clean after entering the Riksdag. Then some have been to downplay this essential nationalism and instead say "no, you can become Swedish". Swedishness shouldn't be based on having ancestors here since Hedenhös, says Ann-Cathrine Jungar.

She believes that the parliamentary situation with Speaker's rounds and probing missions can come into play.

- We have an ongoing government formation. So the situation may also mean that now you really have to show where you stand. One has wedged a foot in the door of the government and then comes this debate which may damage that position. For that reason, Åkesson probably wants to clean in front of his own door.

During the current definition battle, the SD leaders Mattias Karlsson and Richard Jomshof stood in each corner of the ring, where Karlsson was responsible for the formulation of the principle program. Both belong to SD's group of old men, "the gang of four" with Björn Söder and Jimmie Åkesson, where some observers see a crack.

- In addition to Jomshof, there are others in the party with a similar opinion and who have also expressed themselves in that way in social media. The Youth Association has also taken a more radical position in recent years, even on ethno-nationalism, says Ann-Cathrine Jungar.

Whether this internal quarrel can affect others' view of SD's ability to govern is not likely for the time being, according to her.

She takes migration policy as the main example. It was one of the main arguments for isolating SD once upon a time, but now all parties, except V and MP, have to varying degrees moved towards a more restrictive line. With the Tidö collaboration, she believes, it is clear that it is not possible to say that you cannot cooperate with them.

- If you have a cross-block government, you have to cooperate with SD. The party has a strategically important position and then it can take the turns much more. After all, SD has not been de-radicalized during this term in matters of the heart, rather moved the positions forward and compromised on less important issues, says Ann-Cathrine Jungar.

Compromises are something that some SD representatives think the party has devoted too much to, and Åkesson addresses them in his debate article: "But what have you achieved? Not a damned bit." The seriousness of the threat of exclusion, apparently aimed at Jomshof and others, is difficult to assess.

- A party always has to navigate and position itself, but then to say what the party leaders really believe and think deep down, no one can know. If you are a pragmatist who wants to have influence and sit in the government, then you have to act so that you are accepted by the other parties and get the voters' votes, says Ann-Cathrine Jungar.

- Previously, the party leadership tolerated extreme statements from Jomshof and others with words such as "no, it was not appropriate". Now he thought it was time to put his foot down.