Alcohol-fueled trips to Germany, secret deals worth hundreds of millions, and items purchased by the municipality that ended up in an employee’s home. The investigative program “Uppdrag granskning”’s survey of 80 municipal scandals shows how few cases are reported to the police—and how even fewer result in indictments.
Swedish municipalities manage approximately 900 billion kronor in revenue each year and are responsible for large parts of citizens’ daily lives. Yet experts in Review mission (UG) both a lack of awareness of the problem and a lack of consequences when suspected irregularities come to light.
Alcohol-fueled trips as million-dollar contracts grew
One of the most extensive cases occurred in Ystad. There, municipal officials were treated to dinners and trips by the security firm Stanley Security, at the same time that the municipality was doing significant business with the company.
The trips included a minibus trip to Germany, where beer, wine, and liquor were purchased. A former administrative director was asked in court why meetings with the supplier had to be held during trips rather than in the office.
Significantly larger sums were involved in these trips. According to UG, the contracts signed by an administrative director were estimated to be worth over 700 million kronor, and several of them were structured to run for eight years.
The municipality is still stuck
The officials who participated in the trips resigned from their jobs, and charges were filed, but all of the defendants were acquitted. According to UG, the district court ruled that the complimentary trips and dinners could not be considered improper benefits.
Afterward, however, the agreements remained in place. Ystad is still struggling to get out of them, and according to the program, 20 million kronor is set aside annually while a legal dispute over the safety equipment is ongoing. Legal fees are reported to have exceeded 11 million.
Raised the alarm about the problems—was forced to leave
At the same time, UG shines a spotlight on what happened to those who began digging into the matter. Two municipal directors who tried to raise the alarm about the problems were forced to resign. The other municipal director and her team had continued to investigate the security contracts and had also uncovered other suspicious municipal contracts. She was then summoned by the politicians and told that the parties would part ways.
”Pure bullying”
After her departure, the municipality’s security department continued its investigation. An anonymous former official states in the program that the work environment became increasingly hostile at the same time and that the security chief was mocked at management team meetings.
– Yes, in some cases it was outright bullying.
The head of security eventually resigned, and after that, the rest of the security team who had been working on the investigations also left. The anonymous official says that he himself did not protest and describes his actions in a self-critical manner.
– That I was cowardly and loyal, and that I protected myself.
Expert Warns Against a Culture of Silence
Former State Attorney General Thomas Forsberg, who has worked at the National Anti-Corruption Unit, highlights the vulnerable situation of whistleblowers. According to him, the systems that are required by law to protect those who blow the whistle do not always work as intended.
– Whistleblowers tend to face adverse consequences when they report irregularities, and the whistleblower systems that are required by law to be in place do not always function as intended. Better and more effective oversight is needed in this area.
Public art was found in a private residence
UG’s investigation extends far beyond Ystad. In Vingåker, purchases of art and antiques made with municipal funds were examined, and several of the items were later identified in real estate listings showing the private residence of a municipal employee.
According to the program, the employee stated that the items had only been borrowed to take home for a house showing. Despite this information, the person had not been warned as of the time of the audit and was still employed.
Politician and supplier at the same time
In another case, three politicians on a technical committee had ties to companies that provided services to the municipality. They represented the Center Party, the Social Democrats, and the Sweden Democrats.
One of them went on to pursue a political career and became a city council member. UG also mentions an ice rink that the city council member allegedly purchased without a democratic decision, after which his family business was contracted to carry out the installation.
OECD Criticizes Sweden
At the same time, the issue has drawn international attention. According to SVT, the OECD has once again criticized Sweden’s ability to combat corruption, pointing to a lack of investigative resources and judicial practices that the organization believes lead to excessive evidentiary requirements.
At the same time, corruption expert Natali Engstam Phalén of the police agency NOA points to Sweden’s self-image as a potential obstacle to identifying these problems:
– To some extent, there is probably a lack of awareness and understanding of the fact that corruption exists here in Sweden as well, based on the perception that we are a country with low levels of corruption.
”Reveals the same thing over and over again”
UG’s review covers 80 municipal scandals. Despite recurring revelations, the editorial staff notes that few of the cases are reported to the police and that even fewer proceed all the way to prosecution.
For journalists covering local governments, the pattern is becoming all too familiar. Following yet another exposé about politicians holding dual roles, a reporter sums up the frustration:
– Sometimes it feels like we’re exposing the same thing over and over again, and nothing ever happens.
I wonder how many billions our corrupt public officials pocket every year. And it’s us taxpayers who foot the bill.
I also think that *Uppdrag granskning* did a good job. However, I had a sense of déjà vu and asked the AI. My opinion is that SVT is doing this to ensure an election victory for the red-green coalition, given that there was such a strong focus on the Moderates.
Here's how I asked:
”Many years ago, the TV program *Uppdrag granskning*, led by Janne Josefsson, conducted interviews at campaign booths using hidden microphones. It is said that this decided the election. What were the questions about, who was interviewed, and who won the election?”
I received this reply:
”Yes—you’re thinking of the highly publicized ”Valstugereportaget” report leading up to the 2002 parliamentary election. It was produced by Janne Josefsson and Lars-Göran Svensson for *Uppdrag granskning*.”.
What did they ask about?
The focus was on immigration, refugee policy, and attitudes toward Muslims and immigrants. The reporter went into the campaign booths and pretended to be critical of immigration or xenophobic to see how party representatives would react when they thought they were talking to a like-minded voter. Over 50 campaign booths in about 30 municipalities were visited.
The questions included, for example:
Why does Sweden take in so many immigrants and refugees?
Should immigration be restricted?
What do you really think about Muslims and immigrants?
Do immigrants receive too much in benefits?
Are there problems with immigration that politicians don't dare to talk about openly?
What was interesting was precisely the difference between what the politicians said in front of the hidden camera and what they said when they were later confronted openly. SVT describes, for example, how a Moderate Party politician made strongly negative remarks about Muslims, their high birth rates, and their exploitation of the welfare system.
Who was exposed?
It was primarily local politicians from the Moderate Party who took center stage, although politicians from several parties were interviewed. Some of the most prominent among them were:
Ulf Björkman, a Moderate Party local politician in Solna. Among other things, he said he had ”had enough” of immigrants after living in Africa. He subsequently resigned from his position on the city council.
Christer Ewe, a Moderate Party city council member in Kristianstad. Among other things, he made derogatory remarks about Muslims and was subsequently expelled from the Moderate Party.
It is important to remember that the report did not show that all politicians were xenophobic. What made it so controversial was that several elected officials, particularly members of the Moderate Party, expressed significantly harsher and more anti-immigration views in that informal setting than what their parties publicly stood for. The Broadcasting Commission later concluded that the program had a legitimate investigative purpose and cleared it of the allegations of bias.
”That decided the election”—is that true?
No, you can't say that for sure. It’s a persistent story, but even Janne Josefsson himself has since downplayed the claim that the report decided the election. He has said that they had no idea what effect the material would have and that they weren’t out to harm any particular party—even though the Moderates were hit hard.
However, there is no doubt that the report influenced the election campaign. It aired just a few days before the election and became a major political and media event. In its subsequent retrospective, SVT states that the report ”ended up influencing the parliamentary election.”.
And who won?
The Social Democrats won the 2002 parliamentary election, with Göran Persson as prime minister.
Among other things, the final results were as follows:
Party Percentage of the Vote Seats
Social Democrats 39.9 % 144
Moderates 15.3 % 55
Liberal Party 13.4 % 48
The Left Party 8.4 % 30
Christian Democrats 9.1 % 33
Center Party 6.2 % 22
Green Party 4.6 % 17
The Social Democrats thus became by far the largest party, while the Moderates had a very poor election and fell from 22.9 % in 1998 to 15.3 % in 2002.
It is precisely this dramatic decline in support for the Moderates that lies behind the myth that Janne Josefsson’s campaign trail report ”decided the election.” But that’s an oversimplification: The Moderates’ collapse had several causes, and it’s impossible to say with scientific certainty how many voters actually switched parties because of the program.
”Incidentally, one rather fascinating detail is that the report not only became a political bombshell during the election campaign but also won the Grand Prize for Journalism for the Reveal of the Year in 2002.”