Giuseppe Sandro Mela.
Il problema attuale della Svezia è molto semplice da esporsi, difficile da capirsi, impossibile da risolversi.
Come Cittadini Contribuenti dell’Unione Europea la situazione svedese è del massimo interesse perché sembrerebbe precorrere quello che dovrebbe accadere in molti altri stati dell’Unione e, verosimilmente, nei centri direzionali dell’Unione Europea stessa.
I partiti tradizionali stanno perdendo costantemente elettorato e non hanno più i numeri per poter formare dei governi ragionevolmente stabili ed omogenei, nemmeno delle grandi coalizioni in surroga.
I movimenti od i partiti identitari, sovranisti, riescono al momento ad ottenere quote di elettorato percentualmente a due cifre: non sono ancora in grado di avere la maggioranza ma possono benissimo condizionare tutto il sistema politico.
In Svezia è successo un fatto nuovo, ancorché aspettato.
Tutti i partiti tradizionali presenti in parlamento si sono coalizzati in una conventio ad excludendum nei confronti del partito Svezia Democratica: l’odio ne confronti di questo partito identitario è arrivato al punto tale da imbarcare il partito di sinistra, chiaramente comunista, a stampella esterna del governo. In altri termini, hanno preferito unirsi a quei comunisti che hanno sulla coscienza oltre cento milioni di morti, per non parlare poi dell’implosione dell’Unione Sovietica, piuttosto che sedersi ad un tavolino e parlare con Svezia Democratica.
Stiamo rivivendo, sia pure in termini differenti, il dramma del “filioque“, e nulla è più sanguinoso e viscerale delle guerre di religione.
Con questo atto, non ci sono in Svezia altre forze politiche reclutabili per sostenere codesto nuovo governo.
* * * * * * *
«Four months after its election, Sweden is finally poised to get a new government. Stefan Lofven is almost certain to remain prime minister, even though his party and its allies failed to win enough votes to be able to govern.»
«The protracted talks — and a similarly tortuous set of negotiations in Latvia — highlight an awkward reality in Europe: increasingly, ruling coalitions don’t stand for anything that voters can easily identify with»
«Lofven, a Social Democrat, has persuaded two Alliance parties, the Center Party and the Liberals, to back his coalition with the Greens.»
«The parliamentary math is precarious: the coalition will rely on the support of the Left Party, the former Communists who backed Lofven’s previous government but initially balked at the new arrangement because it didn’t look leftist enough for them»
«Lofven will govern on the basis of a 16-page document that looks like an untidy compilation of socialist, environmentalist and center-right ideas rather than a detailed and thought-out coalition manifesto. It aims to please everyone with tax cuts, more attention to climate change, better social assistance programs, and a more pragmatic approach to asylum and integration»
«The Netherlands and Germany also went through their longest ever government-formation periods after their most recent elections. Their ruling coalitions are somewhat more cohesive politically, but it’s still hard for the average voter to understand what they stand for. It’s easier to see what they stand against: allowing populist-nationalist parties to come anywhere close to participating in government»
* * * * * * *
Governi strutturalmente deboli e dilacerati da discordie sono quanto di meglio gli identitari sovranisti avrebbero potuto desiderare come controparte. Similmente, gli avversari mossi dall’odio sono molto più facilmente prevedibili ed inconcludenti. L’odio spinge a fare errori che altrimenti si sarebbero potuti evitare.
Ma soprattutto non riusciranno a capire una cosa semplicissima, ossia che i partiti identitari e sovranisti sono la conseguenza di problemi sociali, economici e politici né affrontati né risolti: questi movimenti sono un effetto, non una causa.
Continuare ad ignorare le cause senza cercare di porvi rimedio è il mezzo migliore per alimentare i sentimenti identitari e sovranisti.
I partiti tradizionali proseguiranno quindi a cercare di applicare quelle ideologie che li hanno portati al fallimento, ciechi davanti alla mutata realtà. Non ci si sarebbe potuto aspettare evento più favorevole.
«The new coalition was stitched together with parties that previously failed to agree on key issues like taxation and regulation»
«What unified them was a determination to keep the nationalist party, the Sweden Democrats, from the levers of power.»
«The Sweden Democrats, who won almost one-fifth of the popular vote in the inconclusive Sept. 9 election, say parliament’s actions border on undemocratic.»
«the Social Democratic Party “hasn’t understood anything. They are returning to a policy that will increase immigration even more, the issue that was absolutely the most important during the previous term.”»
«Lofven’s four-party agreement didn’t make many concessions to voters worried about law and order or immigration.»
«You can’t have the exclusion of other parties as your goal, you must have a positive common project that you believe in, …. If the goal is to stop right-wing extremism, then you’ve misunderstood why these populist parties are on the rise»
Non interrompere mai il tuo nemico mentre sta facendo un errore. Questa frase napoleonica è di estrema attualità.
«you’ve misunderstood why these populist parties are on the rise»
Tanto, a maggio si andrà di nuovo a votare.
→ Bloomberg. 2019-01-21. Sweden Got a Government But Faces Struggle With Nationalists
– Lofven voted in as prime minister after months of gridlock
– New administration worked hard to exclude populist party
Sweden has a government after the longest political standoff in the country’s history. If only its struggle with anti-immigration nationalists was over.
The new coalition was stitched together with parties that previously failed to agree on key issues like taxation and regulation. What unified them was a determination to keep the nationalist party, the Sweden Democrats, from the levers of power.
Social Democratic Party leader Stefan Lofven, who on Friday won parliament’s support for a second four-year term as prime minister, says the outcome shows Sweden has prevailed against the populist backlash that has roiled political debate, and policy, in Italy, the U.K., Hungary, Poland, the U.S. and beyond.
“All around the world we are seeing how right-wing extremism is gaining influence,” he said in Stockholm. “An increasing number of governments are becoming dependent on parties with an anti-democratic agenda.” Sweden is “choosing a different path,” Lofven said.
The New Government
– The coalition itself will only comprise the Social Democrats and the Green Party.
– The Center Party and the Liberals, which are breaking away from their traditional partners in the center-right Alliance to join Lofven, will provide the parliamentary support the prime minister needs to stay in power.
– The Left Party has agreed not to topple Lofven — at least not for now — after some last-minute brinkmanship earlier in the week.
– This is Lofven’s second stint in office, after he was elected to a four-year term in 2014.
It remains to be seen whether Lofven will succeed. The Sweden Democrats, who won almost one-fifth of the popular vote in the inconclusive Sept. 9 election, say parliament’s actions border on undemocratic. And polls show that Swedes now have less faith in the politicians representing them.
Jimmie Akesson, who leads the anti-immigration and euroskeptic Sweden Democrats, says the Social Democratic Party “hasn’t understood anything. They are returning to a policy that will increase immigration even more, the issue that was absolutely the most important during the previous term.”
Akesson’s party, which wants to stop Sweden taking in more asylum seekers, gained support as voters reacted to a surge in immigration in the wake of the Syrian refugee crisis. Per capita, Sweden took in more asylum seekers than any other European Union nation in 2015. Polls also indicate that people are concerned about an increase in crime, with extreme examples including a surge in street shootings and mobs setting cars on fire.
That could mean trouble ahead. Lofven’s four-party agreement didn’t make many concessions to voters worried about law and order or immigration.
“To refuse to have anything to do with a group’s elected leaders is a rather universal insult to that group as a whole,” Peter Santesson, head of opinion analysis at Demoskop, a polling institute, wrote in a recent column for the Dagens Samhalle weekly. “One shouldn’t be surprised if bitterness starts to grow in groups that are now treated as impure (roughly a fourth of the electorate),” he wrote.
The Brexit Card
Lofven, a 61-year-old former union leader and welder, says many of the goals of the Sweden Democrats are inhumane. He even used Brexit as a cautionary tale to show how bad things could get if the party gained power.
“We are for free trade,” he said. “We are for staying inside the European Union. The Sweden Democrats want to throw us out of that union and to put Sweden on the same path as Britain.”
Parliament’s vote on Friday ended more than four months of uncertainty in a country usually associated with political stability. A lot was riding on Lofven’s ability to win backing for his government. Had he failed, Sweden would have faced a snap election and an even shakier future.
The Sept. 9 election is likely to have marked a political turning point. The two biggest parties, the Social Democrats and the Moderates, both refused to concede defeat. As the establishment blocs struggled, the Sweden Democrats appeared to emerge as kingmakers.
But the party’s popularity with voters did nothing to change its near pariah status in Sweden’s parliament. Lofven’s four-party pact, which sought to keep from influence not only the Sweden Democrats but also the Left Party, was criticized by the Moderates and the Christian Democrats. Carl Schlyter, a former member of the European Parliament for the Green Party, also voiced serious concerns.
“You can’t have the exclusion of other parties as your goal, you must have a positive common project that you believe in,” he told Swedish Radio on Thursday. If the goal is “to stop right-wing extremism, then you’ve misunderstood why these populist parties are on the rise.” Schlyter is so put out by the choices his party has made that he says he’s leaving in protest.