I don’t have a lot of time for politicians nowadays. I have lived too long, and seen the world change too much in ways I do not like. No wonder that politicians make no attempt to reach out to the senior generation. They know that we have seen too much.
Once upon a time, back in the days when I voted, I considered myself to be on the right of centre, as politics is painted. Now there is so little difference – a difference of degree and not of character – between left and right, that there is nothing to be gained by changing side. And since I am still tainted by the old ideologies, from the time when politicians still had ideologies, I can still say that I belong on the right of centre.
The trouble is that politicians of both sides, but particularly of the right, have sold assets and government functions which should never have been sold, to their friends in commerce and industry, naturally without reserving to themselves the right of exercising proper control and this has resulted in what one would expect, and what one sees in the classic case of the railways although the situation is the same everywhere where assets have been privatised. Maintenance is kept to a minimum, since every pound or dollar or krona spent on maintenance is a pound or dollar or krona less in profits. Equipment is used past its best by date, to save the expense of new equipment. Personnel are reduced until the ones remaining go on their knees in a futile chase to try and maintain some semblance of pride in the job they are supposed to do.
So the chaos that has arisen in Sweden recently is no surprise, and in fact displays in a way which it will be difficult for politicians to disguise, just what is wrong with our political system. Thirteen percent of the voting populace voted for the extreme right wing Sweden Democrats, who can be compared to, say, UKIP in the UK, or Marine le Penn’s party in France. Other countries have their extreme right wing. It is the only place where there is growth.
Both right wing and left wing in Sweden have stated publicly that they will not deal with the Sweden Democrats, whose party is seen as racist and intolerant. This is almost the only statement which can be considered to be ideological in any of the other parties’ manifestos. And from the beginning of the pre-election campaign, which must be seen to have been in 2013, the potential leader from the left, social democrat Stefan Löven, has said that he is willing to talk to the right wing Alliance party, and its potential leader, Moderate Fredrik Rheinfeldt. It must be said that the right wing Alliance also said that they were willing to talk across the Berlin Wall of left-right politics.
When the votes were counted, the Sweden Democrats had 13 per cent, and the so-called left had fractionally more of the remaining 87 percent than the so-called right, but neither side had a majority. Stefan Löven was selected to try and build a workable government, accepted the Greens as a part of his government, did deals with the Left party to keep them off his back, but had, of course, no majority. Once more he approached the Alliance to try to persuade them to support his government, or at least not to destroy it, but the Alliance members were sour at losing the election, and refused. It might have been a tactically better move by Löven to try to speak directly to the Moderates, but the Alliance appeared so unreasonably tightly bonded that this was not a realistic option. Certainly in all television interviews with the four Alliance leaders, there was no trace of give in their statements.
And now comes the really silly part. One group has been given the mandate of parliament to rule the country, but three budget proposals are prepared, two of which are superfluous. The other two groups have not been given a mandate to rule. What are they doing presenting budgets? They can have their views on the government budget proposal, and a wish to discuss these views, but there should only be one budget proposal, divided into different government functions, in sufficient detail that a single item can be taken out for discussion and compromise. To be sure, the Alliance, together with the Sweden Democrats, can, by joining forces, vote down every item in the government’s budget, but this is doing what everyone says they do not want to do – give the Sweden Democrats the deciding role. And there are, of course, many things in the government’s budget against which the Alliance can have no objections. Most of a country’s budget comprises items which are fixed by law, or were decided upon by the Alliance with the tacit approval of the Social Democrats in the previous mandate period.
The result of this play school was that the Social Democrats and the Greens form a government for which the Alliance and the Sweden Democrats have voted them the Alliance’s budget. After this defeat in parliament Löven once more approached the Alliance in an attempt to reach a compromise, but again was given the cold shoulder. So he exercised one of the choices available to him and called for a new election in late March, leaving the country with no effective government for six months, instead of three.
Now, I’m in the “lucky” position of not having a vote in this coming election. I’m still (after 25 years in the country) a foreigner, and thus ineligible to vote in parliamentary elections. I say lucky, because I do not know how I would vote. The intransigence of the Alliance disgusts me, the racism of the Sweden Democrats revolts me, and I don’t see myself as belonging to the left wing.
However, let’s look at the numbers. 13% to the Sweden Democrats, 87% to remaining parties, of which the left wing has a slight majority. Let’s say 44% to the right wing’s 43%. Neither of them needs so very much to gain a majority. I’m tired of the current right wing mantra of selling off the crown jewels and imposing austerity on all except the very wealthy.
Stefan Löven is not a traditional politician. He has never until now been a member of parliament. He has held high office in the union movement. And his thinking on the process of politics has been closer to the common sense of the man in the street, and more remote from the reality-fleeing of normal politicians. He seems not yet to have completely forgotten that he is there to represent the people, and not himself or his party. He has impressed me with his thinking. He is the closest we have to a politician with an ideology.
To my surprise, I think I might have been tempted to vote Social Democrat. Not because I have become a Social Democrat, but because their leader is not a politician. The world has had enough of politicians.