The Swedish political landscape is undergoing a significant transformation, centered around the rise of the Sweden Democrats (SD) and the established parties’ responses to their growing influence. Ebba Busch, leader of the Christian Democrats (KD), initially sought to control the narrative surrounding cooperation with SD by making a highly publicized overture to the party. However, KD’s recent decision to formally open the door for SD’s participation in government was made quietly, a stark contrast highlighting the shift from proactive engagement to a reluctant acceptance of SD’s power. This quiet acceptance underscores a failed gamble by those who believed that bringing SD into the mainstream would diminish their influence or moderate their stance.
The initial strategy of engaging with SD was based on two key assumptions: that the party’s popularity would decline once they were part of the established political system, and that they would moderate their rhetoric and policies. Neither of these predictions materialized. Jimmie Åkesson, leader of SD, remains a dominant force on the right, continues to employ controversial tactics, and actively criticizes the other parties within the Tidö coalition (the governing coalition), while firmly demanding ministerial positions within the government. This unwavering stance has put pressure on other parties, including Ebba Busch and Ulf Kristersson, leader of the Moderate Party (M). Kristersson, in particular, has increasingly focused on the perceived instability of the left-leaning opposition as a justification for avoiding a clear stance on SD’s involvement in government.
This evolving dynamic has placed the Liberal Party (L) in a particularly precarious position. Their previous success was partly attributed to a clear opposition to SD’s inclusion in government, a stance that resonated with voters. However, with both KD and M seemingly softening their stance on SD, the Liberals are struggling to maintain their credibility. The party’s internal conflict is evident in the muted response to KD’s recent decision. Rather than Johan Pehrson, the party leader, articulating the Liberal position, the less prominent party secretary, Jakob Olofsgård, was put forward. This highlights the internal struggle within the Liberal party regarding their future relationship with SD.
Pehrson’s own ambivalent attitude towards SD further complicates the situation. His infamous whispered remark to Åkesson, urging him to engage in ”a little more fuss,” and his public statements about the need for constant ”reassessments” of political positions, suggest a lack of conviction. This perceived lack of a firm stance against SD undermines the Liberal party’s claim to be a bulwark against SD’s influence, a claim that was central to their previous electoral success. The party’s internal debate is now focused on how to navigate this increasingly complex political landscape and maintain relevance in the face of shifting alliances and power dynamics.
The Liberals face a significant challenge in the upcoming 2026 election. Their previous strategy of appealing to moderate voters by explicitly rejecting cooperation with SD is now threatened by the changing positions of other parties within the right-wing bloc. If the Liberals wish to retain credibility as a force opposing SD’s inclusion in government, they need to present a united and convincing front. This may require a change in leadership, potentially giving Ebba Busch’s negotiating mandate to someone with a stronger and more consistent track record of opposing SD. The party needs to re-evaluate its strategy and decide whether to compromise its stance on SD for the sake of remaining within the governing coalition or to double down on their opposition and risk being marginalized.
Ultimately, the evolving political landscape in Sweden presents the Liberal party with a difficult choice. They must reconcile their past success, built on opposition to SD, with the current reality, where other right-wing parties are increasingly open to collaboration. Their future success depends on their ability to navigate this complex situation and present a clear and coherent vision to the electorate. The party’s internal debates and Pehrson’s ambiguous stance underscore the challenges they face in maintaining their identity and relevance in a changing political climate. The 2026 elections will be a crucial test of their ability to adapt and remain a viable force in Swedish politics.
