SHARE
COPY LINK
For members

POLITICS

EXPLAINED: What can the parliament’s inquiry tell us about Sweden’s coronavirus strategy?

The Swedish parliament's Committee on the Constitution is currently questioning ministers, agency directors, and others on the actions they have taken to handle the coronavirus pandemic. The Local takes a look at what is the inquiry about and what might it mean for Sweden's government.

EXPLAINED: What can the parliament's inquiry tell us about Sweden's coronavirus strategy?
Johan Carlson, General Director of the Public Health Agency, flanked by his deputies Karin Tegmark Wisell (right) and Sara Byfors (left). Photo: Janerik Henriksson/TT

What is the Committee on the Constitution? 

The Committee on the Constitution (Konstitutionsutskottet, or KU) is the most powerful committee in the Swedish parliament. As as well as its narrower purpose of safeguarding the Swedish constitution, it is also tasked with examining the Prime Minister’s performance and the government’s handling of important matters. 

The Committee is led by a member of the leading opposition party, with the head currently being Moderate party MP Karin Enström, Minister of Defence from 2012 to 2014. 

The committee has the power to call anyone in Sweden for questioning from the prime minister down. 

What is the remit of its investigation into Sweden’s handling of the pandemic?  

The investigation was launched after Tobias Billström, the parliamentary leader of the Moderate Party at the end of January submitted a formal request which called for the committee to investigate “the government’s actions during the pandemic, with a special focus on the Swedish strategy and the government’s crisis management”. 

In his request he asked for five broad questions to be covered: 

  • Which decisions has the government taken on the Swedish strategy? It is “unclear”, Billström argued, whether the government has itself taken decisions on strategy, or instead, “either intentionally or out of passivity”, delegated decision-making to government agencies.
  • Has the government properly grounded its decisions on factual evidence? Did the government seek to gather alternative views and factual evidence, or did it simply trust the Public Health Agency on the facts, even though, in Billström’s words, “it was clear early on that many of the agency’s analyses differed from the conclusions reached by other experts, both internationally and […] in Sweden”. 
  • Has the government’s communication around the Swedish strategy been correct and sufficiently clear? “Although the Swedish strategy has been described in different ways over time,” Billström wrote, “the government and its agencies have refused to acknowledge this, which risks contributing to increased confusion around the Swedish strategy.” 
  • Has the government’s crisis management and crisis leadership been in accordance with the precautionary principle? “Overall, the government’s crisis management…has been more characterised by a ‘wait and see’ mentality than of employing the precautionary principle,” Billström wrote.  
  • Should the government have had a better ‘constitutional readiness’? With the government only starting work on its temporary pandemic law in August, Billström calls on the committee to look at what action the government took to understand the legal possibilities it had to impose measures to reduce the spread of infection, and what actions it took to understand how to increase those possibilities, as well as to look more generally at the powers given to the government in a crisis. 

What impact could the investigation have? 

This is one of two investigations being carried out into the Swedish coronavirus strategy.

The government gave the Coronavirus Commission, the body set up to investigate the country’s handling of the pandemic, a narrow remit initially, limiting the first phase of its investigation into the handling of the pandemic in the elderly care sector.

This meant that when the committee gave its first report in December, the bigger questions over Sweden’s decision to avoid the lockdowns seen elsewhere were only mentioned in passing. The commission’s second report, due on October 31st, will look into the choice of strategy as one of twelve different subjects. 

With the current inquiry by the KU, the opposition Moderate party has much more control over the questions that can be asked, increasing the possibility that blame will land at the government’s door.

On the other hand, the way parliamentary committees function, with their heavy reliance on calling in key figures for questioning, may make it hard to dig down into sufficient detail to do the government serious damage. 

What has the committee’s chair said about the investigation? 

Enström has said the committee wants to take “an overall approach to the strategy” and said that it would not necessarily end up agreeing with the insinuations made in Billström’s request. 

“It’s important to get answers on who has been taking the decisions and how it’s happened,” she said. “That’s why it’s important to have this investigation. We are pushing onwards and we have no pre-prepared answers in the Committee on the Constitution.” 

What’s come out of the meetings so far? 

In March and April, people who have been questioned include Anders Knape, the chairman of the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions; Harriet Wallberg, Sweden’s former coronavirus testing coordinator; Olivia Wigzell, the General Director of the National Board of Health and Welfare; Johan Carlson, General Director of the Public Health Agency; and Dan Eliasson, the former General Director of the Civil Contingencies Agency. 

Wallberg said that if Sweden had tested extensively in April, as Finland and Denmark did, it might have been possible to identify more infections among care home staff and thereby reduced the number of deaths in elderly care homes. 

Carlson denied that Sweden had changed its strategy and said that his agency had been forced to limit testing to health workers and those hospitalised due to shortages. 

Eliasson said that his agency had warned of equipment shortages already at the start of February, but that its warning had not been heeded, and had pushed for earlier and more extensive action throughout the pandemic. 

Health Minister Lena Hallengren and Home Affairs Minister Mikael Damberg faced questions about whether or not a formal government decision was ever made about Sweden’s overarching pandemic strategy (the answer was no), and the government’s responsibility for the shortage of protective equipment.

What happens next?

Prime Minister Stefan Löfven was to be questioned on April 26th, with the result of the report expected in June. You will be able to watch his hearing online (in Swedish) HERE. It is scheduled to start at 1pm.

Member comments

  1. The inquiry’s two-hour questioning of Johan Carlson, Director-General of the Public Health Agency, is available at: KU-utfrågning med Johan Carlson, generaldirektör för Folkhälsomyndigheten Öppen utfrågning 26 mars 2021 – Riksdagen .

    Two hours of parliamentary-inquiry Swedish might sound a bit heavy-going, but it’s split roughly into four parts which enables you to press the pause button from time to time. Fascinating stuff for those really interested. Carlson rarely wastes his words, and I find it’s always worth listening carefully to what he says.

    One small anecdote: he used an idiomatic expression when talking about whether Sweden had changed its strategy and said “en strid av påvens skägg” – literally “dispute about the Pope’s beard.” The expression apparently means quibbling or hair-splitting. Interesting one. Haven’t heard or seen it before.

    1. P.S. I can’t get the link above to work properly. Copy and paste into your browser and it will take you to a bing.com page where you can then click on the hyperlink to the Riksdagen site with the KU-session.

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.
For members

POLITICS IN SWEDEN

Politics in Sweden: This year’s EU election will be a white-knuckle ride for smaller parties

With as many as three of Sweden's parties at risk of being kicked out of the European parliament, the stakes in this year's European elections are higher perhaps than ever before.

According to the latest polling by Verian for Swedish public broadcaster SVT, one party – the Liberals – is already polling below the formal four percent threshold to enter the European Parliament, but two more, the Christian Democrats and the Centre Party, are worryingly close, with each polling at both 4.5 percent. 

If the poll is right, the Social Democrats are set to be the big winners in the election, gaining two additional seats, while the Left Party and the far-right Sweden Democrats are both in line to gain one additional seat.

But as well as the Liberal Party, the Centre Party, Christian Democrats, and Green Party all set to lose one seat each, but as they each currently have more than one seat, they will nonetheless keep their representation in parliament. 

Tommy Möller, a professor of politics at Stockholm University, told the TT newswire that the two parties likely to be the most worried ahead of election day on June 9th are the Liberals and the Centre Party. 

For the Liberals, it matters partly because it has long seen itself as Sweden's most pro-EU party. At its highpoint 15 years ago, it had three seats in the EU parliament, but it sank to just one in the 2020 European elections.

If the party were now to lose the last of its seats, the leadership of party chairman Johan Persson, Möller argued, would be put into question. 

"This could prompt an internal debate on party leadership," he told the TT newswire. "There's no doubt that if the Liberals, who (...) promote themselves as the most pro-EU party, lost its mandate, it would be a massive blow."  

He said he would also not rule out a leadership challenge against the Centre Party's leader Muharrem Demirok should his party lose both its seats in the EU parliament, given how badly he has struggled as leader to gain any visibility with voters .

"Obviously the Centre Party is fighting an uphill battle in the opinion polls. If it loses its seat, that would obviously add to the lack of confidence in the party leader, which could prompt an internal leadership debate," Möller said. 

For the Christian Democrats, the Verian poll is in some ways encouraging. Thus far the indications are that Folklistan, the party formed by the former Christian Democrat MEP Sara Skyttedal, is far below the 4 percent threshold, with only an estimated 1.5 percent of the vote.

While it is no doubt nibbling away at Christian Democrat support, it has so far not managed to drag the party down to the 4 percent threshold. 

Möller said he did not expect anyone to call for party leader Ebba Busch to stand down, almost regardless of the result.  

"I don't think there will be calls for her resignation, but obviously, the mandate you have as a leader is always linked to how well its going for the party in opinion polls and elections," he said.  

Return of the Greens?

Even though they are projected to lose one of their seats, if the Green Party succeeds in winning 9.5 percent of the vote on June 9th, as the polls suggest, it will still be seen as decent result, showing that the party, which has been struggling in domestic politics, at least does well in the EU elections.

If the party retains its third seat, it will be seen as a resounding victory. 

According to a popularity poll by the Aftonbladet newspaper, the party's lead MEP, Alice Bah Kuhnke, is both the second most popular politician standing in the election and the most unpopular, reflecting just how polarising party has become in Sweden. 

In the poll, 30 percent of respondents said they had high or very high confidence in Bah Kuhnke, second only to the Left Party's candidate and former leader, Jonas Sjöstedt, on 42 percent. But at the same time, 64 percent of respondents said they had "low confidence" in her.  

According to Johan Martinsson, the head of opinion research at Demoskop, who carried out the poll, this should not worry the Greens too much.

"As long as the relevant group of voters have a large amount of confidence, it doesn't really make any difference if you are despised by those who oppose you. It can almost be a good thing as it makes it easier to get attention."

Could the election mark a turnaround for the party, which has voted in two new leaders this year? 

SHOW COMMENTS