Kjell-Olof Feldt, the former Swedish Finance Minister under Olof Palme, has garnered an unusual level of posthumous praise from across the political spectrum. From Ingvar Carlsson, his former prime ministerial colleague, to the Moderata Ungdomsförbundet (MUF), the youth wing of the Moderate Party, and even the free-market think tank Timbro, accolades have poured in, highlighting Feldt’s significant contributions to Swedish economic policy. This surprising unity in commemorating Feldt raises the question of what other political figure could elicit such widespread respect in today’s polarized climate. The consensus seems to be that Feldt was a political giant, a reformer who prioritized the long-term health of the nation over partisan politics. This broad acknowledgment contrasts sharply with the often contentious nature of his career and the strong reactions he provoked during his time in office.
Feldt’s legacy revolves around his commitment to economic liberalization, even within a social democratic government. He championed deregulation of the credit markets and advocated for lower marginal tax rates at a time when many in his party and the labor unions were pushing for increased state control of the economy. This willingness to go against the grain and implement policies he believed were in the best interest of the country, even when unpopular within his own ranks, is a key aspect of his remembered legacy. This independent streak is precisely what many commentators find lacking in today’s political landscape, dominated by what they perceive as “flock politics,” where party loyalty often trumps independent thought and bold action. His actions during a crucial period in Sweden’s economic history, where the country faced significant challenges, are now viewed as pivotal and courageous.
While Feldt was often a controversial figure during his time in office, the passage of time has seemingly softened the edges of his political persona. Göran Persson, who later became Prime Minister, expressed distrust of Feldt’s economic views in his memoirs. Ingvar Carlsson, while praising Feldt’s collaborative spirit after his death, likely held a different perspective in 1991 when Feldt’s revealing book about life within the government disrupted the election campaign. For many moderates, Feldt was initially seen as the antagonist who orchestrated a tax deal with other parties, leading to Gösta Bohman’s resignation. However, these controversies now appear less significant in the face of his overall contributions, highlighting the shifting nature of political perception over time.
The current political climate in Sweden, and indeed globally, serves as a sharp contrast to Feldt’s independent approach. The article argues that contemporary politicians lack the courage to make difficult choices, preferring instead to adhere to party lines and avoid potentially unpopular decisions. Examples are cited, including the current government’s backtracking on climate goals, and the reluctance of both the current and previous prime ministers to address the difficult trade-offs required to increase defense spending in light of the changing geopolitical landscape. The author questions the unwillingness to prioritize and make tough decisions, arguing that this avoidance leads to a lack of innovation and ultimately, a detrimental impact on society. The article paints a picture of a political environment where difficult conversations are avoided, and crucial decisions are made without adequate debate or consideration of long-term consequences.
Feldt’s approach to policy-making, as described by Gunnar Wetterberg, who worked alongside him, further emphasizes his unique qualities. He fostered an environment of independent inquiry within his ministry, encouraged open debate among his staff, and valued expertise over political expediency. He was described as a creative thinker, constantly searching for innovative solutions rather than simply echoing prevailing opinions. This intellectual curiosity and dedication to problem-solving, the article suggests, are qualities rarely seen in modern politicians, who are often perceived as more focused on career advancement and maintaining party unity than on genuine policy development.
The outpouring of respect for Feldt after his death, therefore, can be interpreted as more than mere post-mortem courtesy. It signifies a longing for a different kind of political leadership, one characterized by independent thinking, a willingness to make difficult choices, and a commitment to long-term solutions over short-term political gains. The article suggests that the widespread praise for Feldt is a reflection of the current political climate, a yearning for leaders who prioritize the greater good over partisan interests and who are not afraid to challenge conventional wisdom in pursuit of effective policy. The celebration of Feldt’s legacy, therefore, is a reminder of a different era in Swedish politics and a call for a return to a more courageous and innovative approach to governance.
