Foreign-born citizens have every right to vote in their own interests
A Swedish citizen born abroad has every right to look at a government's record, consider what it means for their family and vote to remove it. They owe no party their gratitude, no minister their silence and no losing politician an explanation for belonging to the electorate.
That elementary democratic principle has become necessary to defend after the Tidö bloc's defeat. As DailySweden reported, Jimmie Åkesson accused the Social Democrats and Left Party of mobilising “Islamist voters”. Earlier, his party colleague Kent Ekeroth described voters as “röstboskap från utlandet”, Sveriges Radio reported. The phrase literally means “voting livestock from abroad”.
The contempt lies in the noun. Livestock are owned, managed and moved for somebody else's benefit. Calling citizens livestock invites us to imagine people incapable of reaching political conclusions themselves. Their judgment disappears; only the supposed handler remains. It is dehumanising language because it replaces thinking human beings with animals to be herded.
Adding “from abroad” makes the exclusion sharper. These are citizens exercising a Swedish democratic right, yet their origin is invoked to make them sound like an outside presence. The racism lies in that hierarchy of belonging: some citizens are accepted as political actors, while others remain foreigners whose participation requires suspicion. Electoral defeat has plainly not ended this language within the Tidö camp.
Consider how ordinary voting in one's own interests is. A homeowner may prefer lower taxes, a pensioner better care, a worker stronger employment protection. A citizen who believes a party's policies threaten their family or its rhetoric demeans them can make an equally rational calculation. They may also vote from solidarity, conviction or concern for somebody else. None of these reasons requires permission from the party they reject.
Foreign-born citizens have different incomes, faiths, experiences and political beliefs. Defending their agency means accepting their freedom to support the right as well as the left. Their votes do not become more legitimate when they please us. Nor can anybody read an individual's motives from birthplace, surname or a neighbourhood's election result.
Sweden's voting rules require parliamentary voters to be Swedish citizens, at least 18 on election day, and currently or previously registered as living in Sweden. There is no lesser ballot for a naturalised citizen. Casting a ballot is an exercise of judgment. Its democratic standing does not depend on how long a family has been Swedish.
Parties are entitled to examine organised campaigning, challenge religious authoritarianism and investigate evidence of intimidation. Every voter deserves protection from coercion. But persuading eligible citizens to participate is ordinary democratic work. An allegation of improper influence needs evidence about conduct; a label attached to a religious group supplies none. Being Muslim does not establish support for Islamist politics.
Åkesson's explanation to SVT also included SD supporters moving to parties outside parliament. A serious account of defeat must examine political choices across the electorate. Singling out citizens with migrant backgrounds allows a losing party to evade the more uncomfortable question of what it offered them.
The other Tidö parties should reject this language unequivocally. Equal citizenship cannot survive as a principle defended only when the count is favourable. Politicians who want these citizens' votes must persuade them, accept their independence and respect their right to say no. A party can lose an election. It has no democratic claim to a different people.
DailySweden
DailySweden's desk of editors, reporters, researchers and investigative journalists. We bring readers factual, truthful and objective reporting on the issues that matter to them.
Contact the editorial desk ›
