The 2006’s election proved a stinging defeat for the organised workers movement both at a national level, in many county councils and municipalities. All hopes of halting the offensive of the openly bourgeois parties were dashed. Many socialists and radicals now feel great disappointment. Many comrades and fighters in the working class movement are in deep shock. We in Arbetarmakt, Swedish section of the League for the Fifth International, had no such hopes, as far as the Social Democrats, the Left Party or trade union leaders, were concerned. Over the last 12 years, together with the Green Party, they have carried through bourgeois policies, involving painful cuts on many different levels – all to boost Swedish and European capitalism. They prepared the way to their own defeat.
In the elections Arbetarmakt called for a vote for the Social Democrats or the Left Party, at the same time criticising their terrible record in government and their hopeless election platform. We wanted to put them into power again to complete their exposure to the mass of workers who retain illusions in them. In the complete absence of a revolutionary socialist alternative, our purpose was to unite at elections with the workers, youth and women who did not want to see a openly bourgeois government. But simultaneously we called on Social Democratic workers to demand that their parties break with their current bourgeois policies and stop their support for imperialist “war on terror”
Thus disappointment the leaders of these parties have expressed with the results is not ours. The disillusionment of sections of the electorate is perfectly understandable: it is the fault of the leaders themselves. But all fighting workers and youth have all the right to feel betrayed. With some exceptions, the Socialist’s mobilisation within the working class movement was very poor. In many places, as in Stockholm, the Moderates (conservatives) and the People’s Party activists were far more active in leafleting than both the social democrats and the Left Party. At the same time the policies the Socialists fought lacked any radicalism. The dental care reform that premier Göran Persson thought would be enough to win the election was completely sidelined.
The alliance of the openly bourgeois parties instead succeeded in putting themselves forward as those really concerned about unemployment and the young people who are having great difficulties in entering the labour market. The Moderate Party leader Fredrik Reinfeldt and his coalition allies were able to steal one of the classical issues of the labour movement and got enough people to believe that they were the ones who could solve this problem. The so-called leaders of the working class let them do this without offering any solutions themselves. The Social democratic leaders didn’t even seem to care about unemployment.
The lack of answers is a consequence of the bourgeois politics of the social democratic government. This government have not been able to fight unemployment effectively. The jobs that has been created has mainly been the result of a booming economy, not of offensive working class politics. The phenomenon of mass unemployment, deriving from the bitter years in the 1990’s, have left working class areas with deep scars, something the bourgeois alliance were not slow in pointing out. Unemployment has struck particularly hard in the segregated parts of the cities where many immigrants live.
Rosengård, a part of Malmö that has became something of a symbol in the media for their segregation and isolation from the rest of society, which parts of other cities suffer too, is a good example. In some parts of Rosengård unemployment stands at 90 percent. Over 50 percent of the pupils leave primary education without their full grades. Here, according to Save the Children, over 75 percent of children live below the poverty line. One could maybe have expected that the Social Democrats, who have had the leadership of the municipality for many years now, would take these problems seriously and invest the resources necessary to run the municipal service properly, expand integrationist projects, employ more teachers and first and foremost create real jobs for the unemployed. Nothing of this happened.
On the contrary the Social Democratic municipal politicians have always aimed at keeping the restricted budget intact. Shortly after the last elections (in 2002) the Social Democrats together with the Left Party decided on two occasions to close down all activities for the young in Tegelhuset, formerly a youth center. Almost half of the Rosengård population is below 19 years of age. When the budget of Rosengård in 2004 showed negative figures – 23 million krona more jobs where being cut in social services. Projects for pensioners were also closed.
Earlier this year the Social Democrats, pointing to an increase in vandalism, decided to close down the lower secondary part of Hermodsdals school in a municipality close to Malmö. This act was used against the former government’s politics concerning the education system by Lars Leijonborg (the People’s Party leader) in the final debates on public television. Persson had no answer to this. The policy of cut backs have has been the social democratic and Left Party way of dealing with the problems. The former leader of the municipality in Malmö, the Social Democrat Ilmar Reepalu has on several occasions, instead of addressing these social problems, caused by the cuts, instead demanded a “stop to immigration”, a policy which obviously plays into the hands of the more consistent racists organised in the racist -populist Sweden Democrats.
In this context, the demand for 200 000 new jobs in the public sector coming from the Left Party was formulated in a completely abstract and empty way. The party-leader Lars Ohly, from the beginning to the end of the campaign, refused to say anything about how this was to be realised, where to get the money to pay for it. When pressed on this question, the best he could come up with was that the government should aim to reach this goal by 2010.
So, the Persson government has failed to deliver policies that improved life for the working class. On the contrary the policies advocated have been entirely to the advantage of the bosses. Many voters have seen through the empty words. Another scandal is that the government have completely failed to fight for women’s equality. Expectations had actually been quite considerable on this issue. The debate about parental insurance was one of these questions. Social Democratic leaders have been under pressure from the party’s women organisation and the Social Democratic youth movement. But Persson and the leadership in the TUC, was not willing to confront either the limitations in the state budget or the interests of the bosses, Thus they refused to demand full compensation for parents looking after young children. They would not push for an individualised parental insurance where the father is obliged to take as much responsibility as the woman in taking care of the children in their early years.
The inequality in wages between men and women has not been eradicated or even narrowed over the last years. When Peter Eriksson, one of the two Green Party leaders, said that he hoped that an incoming coalition government between the Greens, the Social Democrats and the Left Party, would solve this question once and for all, it was just empty words again. He gave no explanation as to how they would do this. Instead Maud Olofsson, the neo-liberal leader of the bourgeois Center Party, was able to pose as a much more aggressive fighter for women’s rights, demanding laws against discrimination and support for women who wants to start their own business. This says a lot about the electoral debate on this issue.
In combination with the conservative Moderates’ formal acceptance of
collective agreements and the role of the trade unions, this meant that both the social democrats and the Left Party’s arguments appeared to be very abstract and not trustworthy to many voters. The openly bourgeois parties managed to pose as both protectors of the old welfare state and as the ones having a programme that will “add speed to Sweden”.
The only positive outcome of the elections is that Göran Perssons stranglehold over social democracy will be relaxed. However, there is no left alternative in sight, standing for a more radical approach, not to speak of any anti-capitalist and socialist, All the candidates now being discussed in the media – stand for the same policy as Persson, with his adaptation to the neo-liberal policy dominating in the EU and the foreign policy of US imperialism.
Social Democracy, under Persson, has laid the basis for the policies that will now be continued by the bourgeois alliance. Without openly going as far as Tony Blair’s New Labour in endorsing the neo-liberal project, Persson has been in the forefront for the integration of Sweden into the imperialist block that the EU is designed to create.
The Left Party has been torn between different strategic approaches towards social democracy. The right-wing opposition “Crossroad Left” was in favour of a complete eradication of the long-standing left-reformism of the party. The majority of the party on the one hand wish to preserve the role as a left wing critic of Social Democracy, on the other hand want to take responsibility for the politics of the social democratic government.
This is a strategy that will in the long-term only lead to internal conflicts and the absence of a politically independent line. This is being reflected both on a local level as well as in parliament, where the big issues are dealt with. This explains why the Left Party have been happy with softly criticising Persons support for US and British imperialist occupation of Iraq, an occupation that has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and created a situation of permanent warfare in the country. This explains why the Left Party has only cautiously declared its reservations with regards to the government’s acceptance and support for arm deliveries to, and political support for, the settler-state of Israel. The Left Party never took the opportunity to go onto the offensive and used its weight to mobilise the workers movement against this criminal act against all international solidarity with the oppressed. Therefore it was rarely mentioned in the electoral debates.
The price for the lack of an independent political line towards the social democrats, in combination with recent scandals about Lars Ohly’s past Stalinist connections, were a further drop for the Left Party in the vote, from 8.39 per cent in 2002 to 5.85 this year – a loss of over 120 000 votes compared with 2002. The Social Democrats at the same time dropped from 39.85 per cent to 34.99 per cent, losing over 170 000 votes.
The result for parties not reaching the four per cent limit (for representation in parliament) also gives serious reason for concern . The biggest party outside parliament became the racist populist Sweden Democrats with 161,353 votes (2.94 per cent). With over 200 municipal councillors the party increased its representation fourfold. They have also succeeded in getting onto several county councils. The party can thus count on increased state funding. Even though the party did not get into parliament, its advance should not be underestimated. It creates the possibility of a real breakthrough for a party of the same kind as the Danish People’s Party, a party which – were it to get into power – would represent a direct threat to the democratic and social rights of immigrants.
The advance of the Sweden Democrats also increases the confidence of the openly fascist movement which, even though still politically very marginalised, have succeeded in reaching a greater unity between the different groups, creating a militant street-fighting movement ready to confront progressive forces that stand in its way.
On the openly bourgeois side one must also count the Swedish
Pensioners Interest Party, gaining 28 688 votes, the Junelist with 25 772 votes, the Health Care Party with 11 297 votes, the fascist front party the National Democrats, with 3 043 votes, the National Socialist Front with 1 405 votes, the odd party Unity with 2 605 votes and New Future with 1 149 votes.
The only force to the left on this level of support is the Feminist Initiative scoring 37,175 votes (0.68 per cent). Far behind them is the Socialist Justice Party (Swedish section of the Committee for a Workers International, CWI) with 1,075 in parliamentary elections (0.02 per cent), followed by the Stalinist Communist Party gaining 432 votes and finally the Communist League (supporters of Militant, US) with 30 votes. The Pirate Party gained 34,435 votes, but the party is very hard to define politically (it is a one-issue party campaigning for free sharing of information on the Internet) even though it seems to have attracted support from some radical voters. It is likewise hard to define the Unique Party of the television celebrity Linda Rosing, that against all odds managed to convince 216 voters that the party have some form of politics.
The Socialist Justice Party did strengthen its position in Umeå (2,724 votes, 3 mandates) and in Luleå (1 216 votes, also 3 mandates) and gained two new mandates in the municipal of Haninge close to Stockholm. The Socialist Party (Fourth International) gained a seat in Vimmerby and kept the one it had in Köping but failed in Gothenburg where it only gained 526 votes. The Stalinist Communist Party fell back in its few municipal strongholds and also did so in Gothenburg (scoring 2 300 votes).
Bourgeois and even extreme right-wing parties dominate among the small parties and the fact that the National Socialist Front gained more votes than the Socialist Justice Party for parliament should cause socialists to think. The cheering from the left for successes on the municipal level comes in a different light when one compares the situation on the national level. Here, the left outside of the Left Party are at present no alternative of any significance in elections. In this respect the situation in Sweden is different from many other countries, such as in Britain or France, where the left has reached significant electoral successes.
The government now being composed by Reinfeldt have not yet showed its true face. Day by day the reactionary agenda is going to manifest itself despite all the smiles. State owned companies will be privatised, tax deductions for “household services” will be allowed, at the same time as the deduction trade union membership fees will be abolished. Likewise unemployment benefits and other parts of the social insurance system are going to be worse for those being in greatest need of them. The capitalists, the so called “entrepreneurs”, will get tax deductions. Apart from a harder regime in the school system, with grades for behaviour and performance from first class, children and youth are likely to be the ones paying the biggest price when the bourgeois government goes on the offensive.
The question is how long is it going to take before the government takes specific action to get rid of employment protection for young people under 26. The Centre Party has been in the forefront pushing for this, but the other parties in the Alliance (the Moderates, the People’s Party and the Christian Democrats) have not dared to support it openly so far. Once in government this might change.
Those of the voters who where fooled by all the nice talk about all the jobs that will be created through supporting capital will be deeply disappointed. The jobs that are really needed in Sweden are to a large degree to be found in the public sector, in schools, in public health care services and in the caring part of the economy in general. The big companies, with its huge profits, profits not being used for productive investments but only to the benefit of the shareholders, have the resources needed. But the fact is that even the Left Party only seldom speaks about increasing the tax burden on capital. The taxes on companies are in fact one of the lowest in the whole of Europe.
The bourgeois politics of the social democratic government, and the Left Party’s adaptation to it, once again show the need for a truly revolutionary workers party. But in the light of the reformist left’s humiliating defeat and the failure of any radical reformist alternative to Persson, to emerge within it ranks, activists in the workers movement who still voted for either the two bourgeois workers parties must urgently start to ask themselves what kind of party is needed to beat the capitalists – and how it could be built.
For all socialists, radical youth, trade union activists and activists within the women’s movements and environmental movements there are now two tasks:
– We must discuss the political reasons for the defeat, and which way that can lead forward.
– We must arm the working class organisations for the battle that the politics of the newly elected conservative government will provoke. This struggle must not only be defensive one, it must be turned into an offensive to get rid of both the bourgeois government and the capitalist system once and for all.