it was easy to despair over the recent formation of the government. It was for many tours, took for a long time, came for conflicting information. The kingdom of which used to nominate a new national team on any week ältade leaven in 134 days.
the process itself is natural. Mikael Sandström, the moderate secretary of state under Fredrik Reinfeldt, ruled on Friday’s DN Debate the Swedish constitution, and gave a number of suggestions for the renovation.
Elements of sandström’s recipe is worth taking. But beware of formalism. It is an illusion to believe that if Sweden just write the constitutions properly so all goes smoothly. No one can anticipate all situations, and a constitution, does not provide all the answers how elegant it is articulated.
the constitution does not give all the answers how elegant it is articulated.
the logic of blocs that have arisen in half a century began to crumble when The sweden democrats entered the riksdag in 2010. Since then, Jimmie Åkesson has grown so large that it is today, in principle, there are at least three blocks, with the S and M weakened and with a plethora of smaller parties might. A majority must be sought in a maze.
to partiledningar and members. Some consideration must, in secret, taken to the opinion polls. Dilemmas arise in economic policy, about issues and about values.
If, let us say, the Centre party can never imagine to release a social-democratic prime minister, or for that matter the social democrats can never accept a right-wing government, so it doesn’t matter how the constitution is written. There will be no ministers as long as these ”never” applies.
some priority, some are rejected. Finally was determined the formation of the government of C and L considered it important that the SD did not get any chance to influence government policy. Stefan Löfven became prime minister, with the promise to implement liberal reforms.
even before the election there were only three options, write Sandström: left-middle, right-middle and large coalition between the S and M. It is correct. But politics is not only mathematics. Difficult decisions take time to make and anchor.
Sandström want the president elected in the middle of the term, instead of as now, directly after the elections. He would, therefore, be at the site when regeringspusslet will start to be added. The point is doubtful. The president would be decoupled from the parliament instead of to be a part of it. And what if the voters vote to remove this member?
however, a good idea. Wise is also the point about moving elections to the spring. In the day time, a new government not bring forward a real budget. Not even in 2006, it worked optimally, despite the fact that the Alliance was agreed on most of the time. At the transition of power in 2014, they had red and green, no common plan, and also got the SD in order to trap the hastily hopkomna the budget. Later went M–KD-the budget through before a government had been born.
The fixed terms of office should not be sacred. With the current rules is the option within an opportunity, as the next regular elections can come soon. Parties still learn to remain cautious, to not give the opponent four healthy years. After an extra option should the next re-located to a spring day.
to the DN that the parliament should not be allowed to dismiss a prime minister without having an alternative name. It sounded like a return to the regime that applied up until 2010, and that was after Göran Persson’s notorious ”we reigns on” after förlustvalet 1998. The amendment was in principle correct. Improvements can always make. Perfect it will never be.
