The Consequences of Having a Minority Government in Sweden Before the 2014 Elections

After decades of Social Democratic rule, in 2006, the Swedish electorate turned to the Right, empowering the Alliance, a four-party coalition led by Fredrik Reinfeldt’s Moderate Party.

There were several reasons for this surprising move, the most important being an (at least perceived) inability and unwillingness of Göran Persson's Social Democratic government to cope with the increasing unemployment levels (Engström 1). Although the new government aimed to fight unemployment and started the term with a significant economic growth, troubles began appearing.

In 2008, Sweden was hit by the Global financial crisis. Unemployment rose again over 9%, while the country’s GDP dropped by 5%. The Alliance’s strategy of reducing the financing for education programs was seen as a factor that further aggravated the employment issue. All these seriously affected the popularity of Reinfeldt’s Cabinet (Engström 1).

In the meantime, a new militant strategy from the Social Democrats, targeting the working class, had gained some adherence, although not as much as it could have. One of the causes was the perceived dissolution of the Party’s identity, due to the alliance with the Left Party and the Green Party.

This caused the General elections in 2010 to have a mixed result. They were a success for the Moderates, maintaining their second position in the Riksdag. However, their allies lost some seats, enough to prevent a parliamentary majority (Engström 2).

The significant success of the Sweden Democrats, a Nationalist party, further deepened the problem, since none of the two political blocs was willing to cooperate with them. The result is that the new Reinfeldt Cabinet is a minority one, lacking two Riksdag seats (Engström 2-3).

What are the consequences of having a minority government in Sweden?

Description

The situation of a minority government is not new, neither to Sweden nor to the whole Scandinavian region. Actually, for over two thirds of the post-1945 period, the countries in this region were ruled by minority cabinets (Rasch 1).

Like in any parliamentary democracy, the government needs Parliament support or tolerance. Support means a 50%+1 majority, supporting a majority government (either a single-party government, or a coalition one). A minority government derives its legitimacy from legislature tolerance, i.e. support from ruling parties MPs and tolerance from (part of) opposition MPs (Rasch 4).

This is especially true in a parliamentary governing system, such as that in Sweden, where the formation and demise of the cabinet is entirely within the power of the Parliament (the Riksdag, in Sweden). At any time, any parliamentary majority is able to vote the government out of office (Rasch 1).

Currently, there are eight political parties represented in the Riksdag, forming three different blocs.

The Alliance, i.e. the governing coalition, brings together the Moderate Party (Moderata Samlingspartiet, Liberal-Conservative – 107 seats), the Liberal People’s Party (Folkpartiet Liberalerna, Right-Wing Liberal – 24 seats), the Centre Party (Centerpartiet, Liberal – 23 seats) and the Christian Democratic Party (Kristdemokraterna, Centre-Right – 19 seats). Thus, the Alliance, while forming the Cabinet, misses 2 seats to form a majority (the Riksdag has a total of 349 seats).

The main opposition bloc is formed by the Red-Greens: the Swedish Social Democratic Party (Sveriges Socialdemokratiska Arbetareparti, Centre-Left – 112 seats), the Green Party (Miljöpartiet de Gröna – 25 seats) and the Left Party (Vänsterpartiet, Socialist – 19 seats).

The Nationalist, anti-immigration, Right-Wing Swedish Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna) hold 20 seats, forming the other opposition bloc (Sveriges Riksdag).

Analysis

As mentioned above, the high occurrence of minority cabinets and the high frequency of single-party governments are two characteristics of the Scandinavian democracies (Rasch 6-7, Denti). There are two main causes of such evolution: a strong parliamentarian system and negative parliamentarism.

Scandinavian parliaments are often seen as “working parliaments”, with a central place in national politics. Sweden’s unicameral Riksdag not only has the power of appointing the Prime Minister and ousting a government, through a no-confidence vote, but, through the various committees (roughly corresponding to government ministries), it has a much firmer control over the legislative process.

Committee proposals and recommendations have priority over those of the ministries. This is a trend common to most Nordic countries and frequently considered a decline of cabinets’ influence. Rather than just rubber-stamping government decision, parliamentary committees have an active role in controlling and revising government decisions. They also allow a much wider dispersal of the policy-making process, also co-opting the political opposition (Rasch 12-15).

Furthermore, the existence of independent administrative agencies, without direct ministerial control, and that have the responsibility of implementing much of the legislation, has, as an effect, a corrosion of the government’s influence (Denti).

Negative parliamentarism means that, in order to function, the cabinet needs to be tolerated (i.e. not to get the no-confidence vote), but not necessarily supported by a majority. Actually, according to the Swedish Constitution, there is an investiture vote the Prime Minister needs to obtain, but it is rather different from those found in other European democracies: any proposal is accepted, unless it is not rejected by an absolute majority (Rasch 9-10).

Furthermore, the proportional electoral system means that a high number or parties are represented in the legislature. In this case, the process of forming the government is a complex one, requiring intense negotiations, and dealing with opposite interests of joining a cabinet (and, thus, applying the party’s political program) and keeping a still strong position in the opposition (and avoiding various electoral costs).

After all, a strong parliamentarian system means that the influence of opposition groups on decision-making is rather high, due to their participation in parliamentary committees.

Here are the main causes that lead to minority cabinets, according to existing literature (Rasch 8):

• A temporary, caretaker government, during a period of crisis;
• One or more coalition members withdrawing;
• No party or alliance winning the majority of seats after the general elections;
• A party or coalition is a few seats short of a parliamentary majority;
• Extreme parties have a significant share of the parliamentary seats and are not seen reliable to mainstream parties for a government coalition.

The current minority cabinet was formed due to a combination of the two latter causes. The political forces currently represented in the Riksdag are highly polarized due to the two main (Right and Left) blocs, with the Alliance being only two seats short of a majority. In the meantime, the only non-affiliated party, the Swedish Democrats, are considered as an extreme Far-Right party, thus being avoided as a political partner by both blocs.

Since the current polarization of the Riksdag is likely to continue, the situation will also persist, at least until the next general elections, in September 2014. The Social Democrats’ minor partners are not likely to break the Alliance. The Left Party is too far away, from an ideological point of view, from the Centre-Right Bloc. The Green Party, on the other hand, has a negative history with the Alliance, with all the negotiations in 2001-2006, the Moderates and their allies agreeing on several policies contrary to the Greens’ platform (Denti).

So, what are the consequences of having a minority government?

A common prejudice is that minority cabinets are less stable than majority ones. However, at least concerning the Scandinavian case, history shows that such a government can be quite stable, even for a long period. When it comes to policy-making efficiency, it all depends on the ideological gaps dividing the governing coalition and the opposition parties (Rasch 18-19).

A minority government can well pursue any legislative program, it just needs much more persuasion and negotiation with opposition blocs. This can be both an advantage and a disadvantage. It is an advantage, because a much wider consensus is often reached, through government-opposition deals on legislation of national interest.

It is often a disadvantage, because it can hinder various initiatives, due to obstruction from the opposition, but also from the ruling coalition’s own “backbenchers”. Indeed, it is historically proven that a less stable cabinet gives a much higher power of negotiation to its own MPs (Blackburn et al. 14-15).

Even in single-party cabinets, various concessions to individual MPs are necessary, but this becomes even more difficult to handle in a four-party coalition like the Alliance, especially since ideological differences are not negligible.

Finally, the need to gain support from opposition forces may also lead to serious effects, when it comes to the Far-Right. Statistics show that the Swedish Democrats tend to vote for government initiatives, which, to some extent, is natural, due to a smaller ideological distance.

However, this support may come with a cost: ruling coalition parties needing to support radical nationalist agenda. This happened once in Sweden’s history, in 1991-1994 when the Moderate Party-led Bildt cabinet relied on the New Democracy (another Right-wing populist party) votes.

More recently, in Denmark, the parliamentary support for the Centre-Right-wing cabinets from the radical Danish People’s Party decisively influenced the process of policy-making, regarding sensitive subjects like immigration and refugees (Lindberg).

Conclusion

A minority government is not new and it is a logical consequence of the Swedish electoral and parliamentary system and of the current political polarization. As history has already proven, many times in the country’s history, a minority government does not need to be weak or unstable. By proper and wise negotiation, important decisions can be passed, by consensus with opposition forces, which can bring significant benefits to the nation.

However, in this particular case, a minority cabinet requires responsibility from mainstream parties, both from the ruling coalition and from those of the main opposition bloc, in order to limit the extent of political radicalism on key government policies.

Relying on the Far-Right, based on common ideological grounds and vote exchange (from the Alliance), and isolating the pro-government camp and failing to reach consensus, (from the Centre-Left opposition) are susceptible of improving the position of nationalists, with possible internal and international consequences, similar to those occurring in Denmark few years ago.