The cooperation within the Tidö Agreement, the Swedish political pact between the governing coalition and the Sweden Democrats (SD), has exceeded expectations, largely due to the SD’s pragmatic approach. The agreement partners now share common ground not only on law and order and migration policy, but also on defense and security. They have demonstrated a surprising ability to compromise on key issues like energy and climate policy, as well as symbolically charged issues like mandatory reporting requirements. Furthermore, the SD has shifted noticeably to the right on economic policy, narrowing the gap between the Tidö parties on taxes, welfare benefits, and the size of government to a negligible difference compared to historical divisions within the traditional center-right alliance. While Jimmie Åkesson’s reaction to media revelations highlighted the persistent populist tendencies within the SD, the party’s overall commitment to responsible governance, both in terms of policy achievements and the stability of the governing coalition, is noteworthy. This contrasts sharply with the often-criticized behavior of the Center and Liberal parties during the previous Januariavtalet agreement.
The Tidö Agreement’s unique structure, granting significant influence to a party formally outside the government, has presented potential challenges. However, the SD has largely resisted the temptation to act as an opposition party, promoting accountability and transparency for voters. This stands in stark contrast to the less transparent dynamics of the previous Januariavtalet agreement. The current arrangement simplifies the process of holding political actors responsible for their actions. The success of the Tidö collaboration suggests a likely scenario where the same four parties seek re-election in 2026, potentially resolving the lingering question of full SD government participation after the election. However, the focus on SD’s formal role in government risks overshadowing a more critical question: the long-term vision of this ideological coalition.
Looking ahead to the 2026 election, simply reiterating the necessity of cooperation to solve societal problems won’t suffice. The previous center-right government’s second term (2010-2014) serves as a cautionary tale, demonstrating how a lack of a renewed political program can lead to stagnation. A successful long-term partnership must address fundamental differences in each party’s vision for society. Ideology, therefore, becomes more important than specific policy points. Currently, some ideological convergence is apparent, with the Moderate and Christian Democrat parties emphasizing their conservative leanings, while the SD increasingly frames its social conservatism within a libertarian context.
Despite these convergences, a fundamental difference remains: the concept of the nation. The SD’s core ideology is built on a narrowly defined nationalism. Their stance on the EU, NATO, immigration, and multiculturalism stems from a view where the Swedish state and the Swedish nation are inseparable. The nation is the natural community, and the state is its tool and expression. Their ultimate goal is a sovereign, homogenous nation-state, unified by shared language, culture, history, and values. While the SD has softened some of its rhetoric over time, removing explicitly racist language and adopting the concept of ”open Swedishness” which theoretically allows for assimilation, the underlying exclusionary nationalism persists.
This exclusionary nationalism manifests in the concept of ”remigration,” essentially signaling that certain Swedish citizens don’t truly belong, and in the view that citizenship should be reserved for those with ”genuine love” for the country. It is also evident in their rhetoric targeting specific demographics, particularly the Muslim population. Criticizing the SD’s nationalism is not about denying the existence of a Swedish nation or its importance. It is about scrutinizing a collectivist worldview historically alien to the individualistic Swedish center-right. The SD envisions a society where state and nation are intertwined, a close-knit community based on shared identity and high barriers to entry. This contrasts sharply with the traditional center-right’s emphasis on the separation of state and society, individual liberty, and openness to the world.
For the Swedish center-right, preserving this anti-collectivist heritage is more critical than the specific form of parliamentary cooperation with the SD. The long-term success of any coalition depends on addressing these fundamental differences and articulating a shared vision for the future. While pragmatic cooperation on policy is essential, a sustainable partnership requires a deeper engagement with ideological principles. The question of whether the SD will formally join the government may dominate the political discourse, but the core issue remains the ideological direction of this new political alignment and its implications for the future of Swedish society.
Ultimately, the challenge for the center-right is to reconcile the practical benefits of collaboration with the SD with the fundamental differences in their long-term visions. The 2026 election will not simply be about who governs, but about what kind of society Sweden aspires to be. The debate surrounding the SD’s role in government must not overshadow the more fundamental discussion of shared values, national identity, and the long-term trajectory of the Swedish nation. Protecting the individualistic, open, and anti-collectivist traditions of the Swedish center-right is crucial, regardless of the specific parliamentary arrangements. This is the true test of the Tidö collaboration and its potential impact on the future of Swedish politics.
