Christian Democrats, the far-right and anti-Muslim communication in Sweden

The following text is based on my recent article for the green-alternative-liberal paper Tidningen Syre (Newspaper Oxygen)

The Christian Democrats have long opposed liberal and progressive values, particularly during the 1970s. Back then, the party acted as a channel for the "minority community" in "Socialist Sweden," representing voters who considered themselves to be proponents of conservative Christian values. In this way, KD was a party that opposed the increasing secularization of society and the changes advocated by the Social Democrats.

Over the past two decades, KD's politics have changed, and the party has chosen to focus on issues of identification and values in Sweden. During the 2010s, KD's party leader, Ebba Busch, delivered several speeches at Almedalen Week, during which she expressed a negative view of identity politics. She described it as part of a "leftist agenda" that divides society, arguing that a focus on collective identities creates an "us versus them" culture.

Ironically, in recent years, Ebba Busch herself has adopted an identity-political rhetoric that resembles the leftist opponents she previously criticized. Busch has mainly targeted Muslims in her rhetoric, stating, for example, that "Islam must adapt to Swedish values."

Thus, KD, which is formally a party for more spiritual and religious residents, has a party leader who views Islam as a world religion as a general problem. Evaluating an entire group of people based on prejudice and fear is a populist tactic that plays on people's insecurities.
KD's rhetoric about "Swedish values" has several direct and indirect problems.

First of all, values do not have a nationality. Values are personal and individual and change over time. Talking about "Swedish values" as homogeneous and unchangeable is simplified, discriminatory, and incorrect.

In Sweden, as in other countries, values are diverse. Claiming that there is a set of "Swedish values" that everyone must adapt to to fit in is rhetoric that excludes large segments of the population. Research also shows that such rhetoric creates more distrust and disagreement, fostering a sense of "us versus them."

Second, KD's communication could be directed at its own voters. For example, research shows that negative attitudes towards sexual and religious minorities are common among KD's voters.

It is hard to imagine that Ebba Busch would seriously demand that her own voters, for instance, members of the Sweden Democrats (SD), be expelled, stripped of their citizenship, or declared non-Swedes. Imagine a scenario where Ebba Busch approaches Jimmie Åkesson and says, "Hey Jimmie, you have despicable values, so you are not Swedish and must leave the country."

Finally, KD's rhetoric contradicts the values the party claims to promote. KD has long claimed to stand for peace, freedom, and justice. But a rhetoric built on fear, prejudice, and hate is the opposite.

Research also shows that Ebba Busch's rhetoric leads to an increased tendency for undemocratic and authoritarian values in society. For instance, demands for a veil ban can lead to more Muslim women supporting Islamist ideas and feeling less connected to society.
Cooperation with SD reinforces these problems, as SD is a right-wing populist party that advocates a policy built on exclusion and mistrust, particularly against Muslims and immigrants. SD is driven by undemocratic and authoritarian ideas, where demands for conformity and contempt for human rights are central.

SD's policies also have elements of Christian nationalism and opposition to freedom of religion. Shouldn't Ebba Busch also address problems with Christian anti-secularism in Sweden, such as in connection with church elections?

The difference between democracy and populism is that democracy respects individual rights and minority protections, even if the majority votes against them. Populism, on the other hand, strives for majority decisions to override constitutional rights and minority protections.

Instead of promoting an open and inclusive society, KD's rhetoric contributes to polarization and exclusion, harming the community they claim to care about. Therefore, KD should reevaluate its rhetoric and end its cooperation with undemocratic organizations and individuals. Otherwise, the party will continue to promote rhetoric that increases political and social division.

Thanks for reading. Please follow my blog and write your feedback.