The Centre Party’s false equivalence between V and SD
The Centre Party is entitled to oppose the Left Party's economics. It is entitled to refuse a coalition with it. But presenting the Left Party and the Sweden Democrats as interchangeable dangers is intellectually dishonest. A liberal party should be able to distinguish a dispute about distributing wealth from a politics that makes national belonging conditional on cultural conformity.
In its campaign argument of 9 September, the Centre Party grouped V and SD together as the political extremes and presented a government of the centre as the alternative. It did not call them “equally evil”. Yet the shared label invites voters to treat two different political projects as equivalent obstacles to responsible government. That equivalence needs an argument. Distance from the Centre Party does not supply one.
The Left Party's party programme calls for higher taxation, particularly on large fortunes, property, inheritances and high incomes. Centre Party voters can reasonably fear that such policies would discourage investment, burden businesses or weaken economic freedom. Those objections deserve a serious debate about design, incentives and consequences. They do not establish that redistribution is an assault on anyone's equal human worth.
SD's proposals and public statements make the difference concrete. Åkesson has backed revoking permanent residence, threatening the security on which settled lives depend. Richard Jomshof urged Muslims to stop being Muslims. Åkesson has described demographic change as population replacement, arguing that immigration from culturally distant countries and multiculturalism have made Sweden worse. These are interventions against people's security, religious identity and belonging. They deserve scrutiny as such, rather than reassurance drawn from the party's declarations about itself.
The racial implication of that politics should be confronted. Describing immigration-driven demographic change as national decline casts black and brown communities as a population problem to be corrected. Combined with demands to abandon a faith and withdraw secure residence, it suggests that Sweden becomes better when fewer of these people belong here. That is the exclusionary logic the Centre Party obscures when it places SD alongside a party demanding higher taxes. A tax bill and a threat to your place in society are not equivalent harms.
The Centre Party can defend private enterprise, reject particular V proposals and insist on firm protections against discrimination in any agreement. None of that requires implying that economic disagreement and exclusionary nationalism are the same kind of threat. If its objection is economic, it should defend its economics. If its objection concerns democratic principles, it should identify the breach and explain its standard.
Calling both sides extremes makes the centre sound virtuous before it has demonstrated anything. But moderation is not measured by standing halfway between positions. A party earns liberal credibility by defending freedom and equal standing consistently, including when doing so complicates its coalition strategy.
The Centre Party owes voters that clarity. It need not like the Left Party, accept its budget or offer it ministerial posts. It should stop using V and SD as interchangeable warnings and explain its objections separately. Defending lower taxes is a legitimate political choice. Dressing that preference as proof of moral equivalence diminishes the liberal principles the Centre Party claims to protect.
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 ›
