the Reluctance to even try a different government than a socialist undermine the trust in and respect for democracy in our country. The inability to form or even consider reasonable regeringsalternativ that has characterised the last three months recalls that democracy threats do not always come from its enemies, but also from those who believe themselves to be its representatives more than others.

Want to protect democracy you should do it through democracy and the parliamentary system’s methods, by voting down the policy you dislike, not by relativizing different riksdagsledamöters importance. In the frenzy to prevent The sweden democrats negotiated the other parties after the elections in 2014 away the importance of the riksdag consists of 349 members, no more, no less.

It is based on fear of the world rather than pride in our country. They are so afraid of the world to strangers, membership in the EU and cooperation with Nato will be a threat and not an asset.

The main problem with The sweden democrats is not migration as such, but their fundamental view on immigrants and refugees. The relativises the value of people in a time when many want to let the identity go before individual and let the power go before the right of the individual. In these questions, they find themselves in the minority and will be voted down in parliament.

The main problem with The sweden democrats is not migration as such, but their fundamental view on immigrants and refugees. The relativises the value of people in a time when many want to let the identity go before individual and let the power go before the right of the individual.

In a democracy, not parties proportionate influence, but it is the majority view. It follows, therefore, that there is no reason to in the name of democracy to exclude the sweden democrats, or any other party, voters from the influence of the issues where they constitute a part of a majority. A majority want a new government, lower taxes, increased defence spending, the fight against crime and free enterprise. Do you turn them out from the opportunity to be part of a majority, you give democracy a damage, not a service.

In this way, a minority, under the influence of the positions that has been supported by less than one-tenth of the voters, get to govern with the majority good memory.

foreign policy, this had implications, inter alia, in a for Europe unique hostile policy towards the Middle east’s only democracy and a försonligare line against its brutal dictatorships. The campaign for a seat in the Security council was marked by a softness against the hard-line dictatorships that have not even been presented to the riksdag. The inability to manage foreign policy in a balanced way were combined with an inability to deal with the security breakdown in the transport agency as well as direct irresponsible decision concerning the responsibility for and management of emergency preparedness.

The economic policy was driven, as a consequence of the left party decisive influence, in the midst of an economic boom in an expansive direction with the rapidly growing public expenditure. It has created a situation where the next crisis will hit us hard at the same time as the red-green cartel’s reluctance to reform has weakened the impetus for growth and now gives Sweden lower per capita growth than other countries. The decisions of the anti-capitalist populism has helped to fuel Sweden’s largest bank, and several entrepreneurial companies out of the country.

Even those who disapprove of this policy had to admit that it had been in order if the policy had the support of a majority of the Swedish people and thus had the parliamentary support, but this was not the case. The people had chosen anything other than what they got. It is fully consistent with the constitution of the parties to do so, but it breaks against the democratic idea that voters in a general election to have their policies examined if it can collect the majority, instead of their choices is rejected.

Now, this will be a departure from democracy, given more serious when the two allianspartier not even want to try on a alliansregering can be formed. It means that you do not let The sweden democrats show their cards if they prefer a alliansregering or if they want to accept a Löfven-led government. Had SD voted no to a government with the Alliance of four parties, it would have been a important detail, not least to their constituents.

the Centre party and the Liberals deprived by saying no to a four-party government and then vote no to a alliansregering with two parties – the voters the possibility to choose between the two options which has its base in the Swedish society’s fundamental values in common. It weakens the policy to the centre and strengthens the outer edges of which are in conflict with the common values on which our society is built on.

It is easy to understand if voters become easily cynical face of politics if the Liberals and the Centre party seriously believe that they would rather see that the social democrats are implementing the Centre party and the Liberal politics than they themselves do it, by the fear that this policy will have the support of a party whose values they otherwise dislike. It is a degrading signal about their own inability to rule. What they say is that they are not even capable of giving their constituents an alternative to the social democratic governing of the country.

That means in the short term and under the current political conditions that they give up on the idea that, in the context of our society’s fundamental values must be a regeringsalternativ to the social democrats. The sounds thus policy centre implode as a base for the options voters can choose between. Thus makes the other and the dark forces to option for those who want a change of government and policies.

the Ruling to the voters is that the election is not about who will govern Sweden, just about the political direction that a socialist government should have. It is embedded in political contempt and to drive people into the arms of populismens forces.

if you Do not do democracy a disservice how much you think to protect it. Furthermore, to neglect the real world requirements and the responsibility to address the problems our society suffers from for the benefit of the political game does not counteract extremism. It provides the rather than extremism the extra oxygen it needs in order to become a real threat to our society.