LEADER • The closer we get to election day, the less Swedish politicians seem to want to talk about why we should vote for them. Instead, more and more effort is devoted to explaining why, under no circumstances, we should vote for their opponents. The negative campaigning that Sweden once viewed as a deterrent American phenomenon has now become everyday reality here as well. Democracy is worse off because of it. An election ethics system with an election ethics council could be the solution.

The Swedish election campaign has more than occasionally turned into a sandbox. Distrust, out-of-context quotes, strawmen, and maximally malicious interpretations of political opponents’ statements follow one after another.

On top of that come attempts to associate entire parties with extreme individuals and opinions through more or less far-fetched associations. A party is no longer just wrong. Ideally, it’s dangerous, suspicious, or morally reprehensible.

ALSO READ: Dagerlind: SVT Engages in Greta-Washing

This year’s campaign has seen notable amounts of this from the left-green side directed toward the blue and yellow parties. But the phenomenon exists in the opposite direction as well, and the problem is larger than just a question of who is currently throwing the most mud at whom. It’s about what we are doing to the democratic campaign process.

The American Import

The concept of ‘negative campaigning’ comes from the USA, where campaign strategies for a long time have mainly focused on making the opponent unelectable rather than making oneself attractive.

For a long time, there seemed to be a wide belief in Sweden that this was an aspect of American politics we should not import. Yet that’s exactly what we’ve done. And not infrequently, we’ve gone “all in”, to borrow another American phrase.

The method is effective. Choose the most unfavorable possible interpretation of what the opponent is saying. Omit the disclaimers. Attribute motives to him or her that they themselves do not claim. Find a peripheral representative who has made a foolish statement and make that person representative of the entire party.

And if you find compromising material, there’s no reason to publish it in April if it can be saved for September, a few weeks before the election. We have also seen examples of this in the current campaign.

Politically profiled organizations make “revelations” about their ideological opponents at a time when the impact will be maximally damaging for the afflicted. Traditional media join in, and within a day, a story can dominate the news flow and overshadow important policy issues.

Exposés can of course be journalistically relevant. But sometimes the timing is at least as interesting to examine as the content. More often than not nowadays, it is also a part of the negative campaigning.

More Information – Worse-Informed Voters

The problem is not primarily that the tone becomes unpleasant. Politics has never been a tea party and it shouldn’t be. The big problem is instead that negative campaigning turns the election campaign into the opposite of what it should be – instead of helping voters make as informed a decision as possible on election day, it confuses and misleads them, making them disillusioned.

The low level also risks undermining trust in the entire democratic system and its representatives. If the Social Democrats have to explain the Sweden Democrats’ policies, there is a clear incentive to describe them as unfavorably as possible, and one low point after another is reached. The same holds true when SD describes S.

No prestigious car dealer would be tasked to neutrally present the competitor’s model. Yet we spend much of the election campaign doing the equivalent. If I want to know what the Social Democrats will do, I should primarily listen to the Social Democrats. If I want to know what the Sweden Democrats stand for, I should listen to the Sweden Democrats. Not the other way around.

Of course, journalists, political opponents, and others should be able to review proposals, calculate their costs, point out contradictions, and ask tough questions. But that’s something different from vulgarizing and brutalizing the political analysis, constructing a dumber or nastier version of the opponent’s policies and then arguing against it.

We have now ended up in the paradoxical situation where voters are bombarded with more politics than ever, but become less, not more, informed. And informed voters are the cornerstone of democracy.

If Parties Could Only Speak About Themselves

So let’s play with a radical thought. What if negative campaigning were forbidden during the last two months of the campaign? No ads about how terrible Sweden will be if the opponent wins. No campaign videos explaining what another party “really” wants. No press conferences whose sole purpose is to cast suspicion on competitors.

Just say what you want to do. Tell which taxes your party wants. What migration policy you want to implement. How you want to fight crime. How much money the party wants to spend on healthcare, defense, and schools, and where that money should come from.

For many of today’s campaign strategists, it would probably feel like stepping into a boxing ring with hands tied behind their backs. For voters, on the contrary, it might feel like for the first time in a long time actually learning what the parties themselves want.

The State Should Not Be an Opinion Police

Of course, such a ban would hardly be possible to implement – and probably shouldn’t be either. Sweden has strong freedom of expression and of the press for good reasons. The state should not set up an authority that, during an election campaign, decides what criticism of the government or opposition can be presented.

Moreover, political criticism is a necessary part of democracy. An opposition that cannot criticize the government is not a real opposition. An editorial page that cannot criticize parties and politicians is not a real editorial page. But between state censorship and today’s verbal Wild West, there’s quite a large gray area.

Swedish media have long had a voluntary media-ethics system. It is not based on the state banning bad journalism but on serious media jointly accepting certain rules of the game and agreeing to scrutiny when they break them. It’s called self-regulation. Why shouldn’t politics do something similar?

An Election Ethics System with an Election Ethics Council

Parliamentary parties could agree on a voluntary code of conduct for the election campaign and establish an independent review body. We could call it an election ethics system and an election ethics council.

It would not decide which policies are right or wrong. Rather, it could review, for instance, deliberately misleading portrayals of opponents’ proposals, manipulated quotes, obvious strawmen, and campaign materials where a party is attributed positions it does not hold.

The review would have to be quick. A decision three months after the election is pointless. And those on the council, of course, need to be persons above all suspicion.

Whoever is found in breach would not be punished by the state. Instead, those participating in the system would pledge to publish the reprimand just as conspicuously as the original campaign message.

“This segment has been censured by the Election Ethics Council for a misleading description of a political opponent’s stance.” That would likely sting a lot more ten days before an election than a fine of a few thousand crowns.

And those who don’t want to participate don’t have to. But then they would have to explain to voters why their party in particular does not want to commit to representing their political opponents honestly.

Special Times Require Special Responsibility

The idea that democracy might need special ethical rules right before an election is not unfamiliar. In several democracies, for instance, there are limits on publishing opinion polls for a while before election day. Polls are uncertain, but high and low numbers tend to become self-fulfilling prophecies.

A voluntary ethical framework for political campaigns would be less intrusive. No one is forbidden to speak and the state does not determine what is true. But those claiming to be custodians of our democracy pledge to uphold a certain minimum standard when democracy is at its most vulnerable. It’s really not a particularly radical demand.

Two Months Without the Sandbox

Political conflict would not disappear. Ideological differences would not be hidden. But perhaps adults aspiring to govern a country would at least need to leave the sandbox, political contempt would decrease, and voters could trust that information comes from the right sender.

Two months every four years when our politicians tell us why we should vote for them instead of why we should despise the others. That would not be less democracy. It could be the start of something better.