After the drama in Parliament over stricter citizenship requirements, the opposition accuses the government of ”cheating”. At the same time, the government side points out that it was a matter of securing the majority - after two former SD members, so-called ”savages”, went against the line.
The Riksdag voted through stricter requirements for Swedish citizenship by 147-146. The decision means, among other things, longer requirements for time in Sweden, income requirements and requirements for knowledge in Swedish and social studies.
But the road there was a dramatic one, where every vote was crucial in an already tight parliamentary situation.
Widding and Nyberg were decisive
The background to the conflict is that the MPs Elsa Widding and Katja Nyberg, previously elected for the Sweden Democrats, voted with the red-green opposition. They supported a proposal for transitional rules that would have meant that older, more lenient rules would continue to apply to pending applications.
This has been seen as an attempt to effectively weaken the reform before it even came into force. In a situation where the majority was already fragile, their actions had a major impact on the outcome.
Therefore, the set-off was set aside
Against this backdrop, the Sweden Democrats chose to depart from the so-called the offsetting system. The system is an informal agreement whereby parties offset votes against each other in case of absence, so that the balance of power in Parliament does not change.
In practice, the offsetting system works by party group chancelleries planning absences in advance and pairing up members against each other. For example, if a member of the Moderate Party cannot attend a vote, the party contacts another party, often from the opposite side, and agrees that one of their members will also abstain from voting on the same occasion. These two are then considered ”even” against each other, which means that the balance of power in the vote does not change.
Before important votes, detailed lists are drawn up showing exactly which members have been checked off and against whom. In the parliamentary system, these are registered as absent or signed out and do not normally take part in the vote. If a member who has been ticked off shows up and votes anyway, while the other is still absent, the balance is immediately upset - which in a close vote can determine the entire result. As the system is not law but based on voluntary agreements, there is nothing formally preventing a party from breaking a tie, but it is seen as a clear departure from practice.
In this vote, however, two MEPs participated even though they had been checked out, giving the government side an advantage in the vote. As the offsetting system is not statutory, but voluntary, it was formally allowed, but broke with practice.
Sweden Democrat group leader Linda Lindberg explained the decision in a statement to The Local:
- The people have voted for the Time Island majority and as voters we should also be able to expect our policies to become reality, regardless of whether there are a few power-seeking independents taking our seats in the House, She says, Important legislation must take precedence over the influence of independent Members and the offsetting system, which is why I ensured that this particular single vote went through.
Opposition cries ”cheating”
After the vote, the Social Democrats and Greens reacted quickly and with strong language. The Social Democrat group leader Lena Hallengren said she was ”almost at a loss for words”, while the Green Party Annika Hirvonen described the situation as ”extremely serious” and claimed that the result was ”manipulated”.
Demands were made that the vote should be repeated or investigated, and the rhetoric quickly escalated around the legitimacy of the decision being questioned.
At the same time, the use of the term ”electoral fraud” in this context is criticized. The set-off system is voluntary and has been used flexibly by all parties for a long time, which means that accusations of fraud are questioned by several observers.
In addition, the red-green parties have actively fought for several years to keep the SD outside the receipt system.
The reform went through
Despite the protests, the decision stands. The attempt to slow down the reform through transitional rules failed, and the stricter citizenship requirements are introduced as planned.
The crucial point after the drama is clear: when two so-called savages voted against the line, the government side chose to secure the outcome - and won by a single vote.
Although Elsa generally does well in parliament, I think it is wrong in principle that political savages sit in parliament on other parties' seats. The seats should be given to another representative of that party instead.
Then the party whip and politicians being forced to vote along party lines instead of their hearts is another problem