Swedish democracy is not threatened, scholars argue

Frequent alarms about threats to Swedish democracy are a result of an "unfortunate broadening" of the concept of democracy itself, according to political science professors Mikael Persson and Andrej Kokkonen from the University of Gothenburg. They argue that the more elements included in the definition of democracy, the more difficult it becomes to reach a consensus on what it truly means.

"The warnings that Swedish democracy is threatened are now as common as weeds," the scholars write, referencing earlier concerns raised in 2011 about market-oriented reforms potentially undermining youth support for democracy. Despite these past warnings, they assert that Swedish democracy "still stands strong."

“

The many alarms about threats to democracy are an unfortunate broadening of the concept of democracy. The more we include in the concept of democracy, the harder it becomes to agree on it.

Drawing on influential democratic theory, particularly the work of Adam Przeworski, Persson and Kokkonen advocate for a minimalist definition of democracy, often termed electoral or liberal democracy. This perspective emphasizes that democracy does not eliminate conflict but provides a peaceful mechanism for managing it. The core requirement is that losers of elections accept the results, believing they have a chance to win in the future, and perceive the rules of the game as legitimate.

“

If we start from such a view of democracy, it is difficult to argue that Swedish democracy is threatened.

"If we start from such a view of democracy, it is difficult to argue that Swedish democracy is threatened," they state. They point out that general elections in Sweden are conducted with considerable legal certainty, and there is no indication that Swedish politicians would refuse to accept an election loss. While acknowledging that a broader definition might include democratic rights, freedoms, media independence, and a functioning rule of law, they warn against conflating democracy with its content.

"In a democracy, there must be room for different views on, for example, how high taxes should be, how civil society should be financed, and how administration should be organized," the professors explain. They believe that expanding the concept of democracy to encompass its outcomes or content risks undermining the ability to agree on the fundamental principles of democratic governance.

“

In a democracy, there must be room for different views on, for example, how high taxes should be, how civil society should be financed, and how administration should be organized.