Authored by Sven Valerio via The Mises Institute,
Vice President JD Vance gave a powerful speech at the Munich Security Conference, criticizing recent developments in Europe, particularly in relation to freedom of expression, migration, and democracy. He called attention to the annulled election in Romania and the exclusion of the German party AFD from public discourse by the political establishment. Sweden was also singled out, specifically mentioning the suspended sentence of a man convicted of “hate speech” for burning the Koran—a sentence that came shortly after the man’s friend, who was involved in the act, was killed for his beliefs.
Vance’s speech highlighted important issues, but it’s crucial to recognize that Sweden’s hate speech law is just one aspect of the broader “Swedish system” and its democratic deficiencies.
Let me offer a more comprehensive view for an international audience.
In Sweden, the political landscape is dominated by established parties, with no real preferential voting system in place.
Elections in Sweden do not provide a level playing field for political power. The major parties have exploited the system to give themselves significant advantages, especially in terms of financing. Six out of the eight parliamentary parties rely heavily on public funding. The leading center-right party, currently holding the prime minister’s office, receives 70% of its income from taxpayer-funded support, a higher percentage than even the Social Democrats. In total, political parties in Sweden receive nearly 1 billion SEK in direct public support, with additional funds allocated to party-affiliated organizations. This would be equivalent to over 6 billion dollars in the US.
If you think that the media in Sweden is free and independent, think again.
Swedish media receives 1 billion SEK in annual support, equivalent to around 3 billion dollars in the US when adjusted for population size. The leading conservative newspaper in Stockholm, Svenska Dagbladet, benefits from taxpayer funding equivalent to 98 million dollars in the US.
Public service media in Sweden has a total budget of 9.1 billion SEK for a population of 10.5 million.
For comparison, imagine the US having government-controlled media with a budget of 27 billion tax dollars.
Additionally, press passes in Sweden are issued by the journalists’ union, and these credentials are necessary to attend government-related events.
Top Swedish politicians rarely face tough questions, creating a political environment where accountability is lacking. Public hearings like those in the US are virtually non-existent in Sweden.
Under these circumstances, it is extremely difficult to promote political alternatives that critique the status quo, whether from the right or the left. And even if one manages to break through, there is another hurdle: in Sweden’s parliament (Riksdag), a party must secure at least 4% of the votes to be allocated seats.
In theory, 13 parties could each receive 3.9% of the vote, collectively representing over 50% of the electorate, yet none would win a seat in the Riksdag.
Swedish schools teach that this system is preferable and that generous public support for political parties and media is necessary to avoid becoming like the United States.
Vance was right to call out European politicians’ use of the term “disinformation.” However, an account like the one above would likely never be published in a major Swedish news outlet.
There are simply no media platforms in Sweden that accept such criticism, even those that I am compelled to financially support.
Loading…