Political Parties and ‘the Immigration Issue’: Issue Ownership in Swedish Parliamentary Elections 1991–2010

Abstract

Why is ‘the immigration issue’ rarely polemical for the Swedish mainstream when it divides parties across Europe? Several factors suggest fertile ground for conflict, yet parties hesitate to capitalise on anti-immigration cues. Based on interviews with Swedish MPs, the article discusses two interlinked issues. First, immigration crystallises conflicting ideological streams: market liberalism vs. value conservatism (for the centre-right) and international solidarity vs. welfare state/labour market protectionism (for the centre-left), and stressing the ‘wrong’ stream detracts attention from parties' core competencies. Second, since competition, when present, revolves around issue ownership, parties that are less trusted on immigration will divert attention to areas of higher competence. Whether immigration becomes politicised is not necessarily dependent on electoral grievances or a radical right presence but on parties' ability to handle and negotiate these conflicting streams and issue priorities. An appreciation of the party politics of immigration is thus central to understanding when, and why, immigration becomes an ‘issue’.

Acknowledgements

Research support under the Economic and Social Research Council's First Grant Scheme (RES-061-25–0195) is gratefully acknowledged. I would also like to thank the two anonymous referees as well as Christina Boswell and Charlie Jeffery for their extensive comments which greatly improved the article's focus and analysis. The research undertaken for this article owes a lot to the Swedish MPs who so generously gave up their time to speak to me in the summer of 2009.

Notes

1. The qualitative data stems from 31 semi-structured interviews with Swedish MPs conducted during August–September 2009. The interviews serve three purposes. First, they map how the conflicting ideological ‘pulls’ affect party politics and the extent to which MPs identify a decline in party polarisation. Since public opinion considers Swedish parties to have become more alike (Holmberg et al. 1991, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006), the interviews aim to establish whether the elected representatives acknowledge this sentiment. Second, they evaluate how changing levels of ideological conflict impacts on the modes of party competition. If parties are becoming more alike, then issue ownership, rather than spatial positioning, will be more important for party strategy. Third, they assess the extent to which issue ownership competition explains why some parties are more likely to engage with ‘the immigration issue’ than others are. The selection of candidates aimed for a) gender balance and b) an age spread in order to achieve maximum variation (Patton 2002). On average, four candidates per party were interviewed, which meant a slight over-representation of Left Party (5); Green (5); Social Democratic (5) and Liberal (6) MPs and an under-representation of Christian Democratic (3) and Moderate (3) MPs. The interviews centred around a set of pre-arranged themes (ideology, policy position and party competition on immigration) and aimed to map MPs' ‘experiences and the meanings they attach[ed] to those experiences' (Devine 2002: 199).

2. The statistical data for this article comes from the election survey material collected by the Swedish National Election Studies Program (http://www.valforskning.pol.gu.se/,'' principal investigators: Holmberg et al.) and is the standard statistical source for election research.

3. Compare: ‘Only through a political choice that lowers taxation and emphasises economic growth can we secure employment and welfare’ (Election manifesto 1991, Liberal Party); ‘Lower taxes stimulate the business sector to invest in our country, lower taxes means higher net income and lower increases of costs’ (Election manifesto 1991, Moderates); ‘Taxes must be lowered, primarily where taxes prevent new jobs. As soon conditions allow, income tax should be lowered’ (Election manifesto 1998, Liberal Party); ‘We want to immediately lower taxes where these prevent entrepreneurs, de-regulate and facilitate for new businesses’ (Election manifesto 1998, Moderates).

4. ‘There are still major differences between us and [the Alliance] relating to the labour market, especially how we view job securities and unemployment’ (Social Democrats 1); ‘There's one big difference between the Red–Green coalition and the Alliance; they want to raise taxes, we want to lower them’ (Moderates 1); ‘The differences between the Alliance and the left parties are still significant and have become a lot clearer’ (Liberal Party 1); ‘The Alliance wants to spend more effort on the individual, his or her freedom, but by the cuts they are introducing, they are making it worse for the unemployed. That's really the key difference between the parties' (Left Party 1).

5. ‘They are quite big. What I mean by that is that the key differences are primarily between us and the other parties. In some ways, the differences between us and the Social Democrats are greater than between the Social Democrats and the Alliance’ (Left Party 2); ‘We are overall closer to our three coalition partners and furthest away from the Left Party’ (Centre Party 1); ‘[The differences] will become even clearer … because the Left Party has such a distinct ideological profile’ (Moderates 2); ‘We are furthest away from the Left Party, no question’ (Liberal Party 1).

6. ‘There are some principal differences of course, but if you e.g., look at the budget proposals, then you won't find any massive differences' (Moderates 2); ‘There are a lot of things going on and we constantly pick up influences and new ideas which means that a) conflict becomes less pronounced and b) that we tend to agree a lot more than we used to’ (Christian Democrats 1).

7. ‘When push comes to shove, the Moderates is the only party that is serious about lowering taxes' (Moderates 1).

8. ‘[The Alliance] says that it should pay to work meaning that those who do have a job should be better off, whereas those who are unemployed should get it worse. That's a very clear aspect where we differ’ (Left Party 1).

9. ‘Ideologically, and in the policy proposals put forward, I think the differences are there and what I feel, when I have debates with someone from the opposition, is that I become more to the ‘right’ and a Social Democrat becomes more to the ‘left’ as a way of clarifying one's position and making the alternatives clear’ (Centre Party 1).

10. ‘We are strongly associated with [the labour market and unemployment] and health care … here we differ in terms of what the best solution is – the carrot or the stick?’ (Social Democrats 1); ‘What has happened is that each Alliance party gets a couple of key policy areas – we got education, integration and the EU – and the Moderates got their classic questions – taxes, law and order and the economy’ (Liberal Party 2); ‘What we try to do is to emphasise particular questions that we are seen to be particularly good at so as to avoid direct confrontation, that's why we will push employment questions rather than environmental issues in the next election’ (Social Democrats 2).

11. Worthy of note is that the Social Democrats did not emphasise taxes in 2002 even though they owned the issue.

12. ‘That's why we stick to what we know, it wouldn't be seen as credible if we, all of a sudden, campaigned on issues that are closely connected to, say, the Moderates. But then again, I don't think that that is something we would do either. The environmental issue is the most important issue for us, that's what we focus on’ (Green Party 1).

13. ‘We had very good candidates pushing those questions, they were very well established on education policies whereas the Moderate's equivalent was not … it's very difficult to break new ground and introduce new issues. Even though we have very similar policies as they do [on taxes], their views are so engrained in people's mindset that it becomes very difficult to change party emphasis … there is division in that way, we got the ‘softer’ questions' (Liberal Party 2).

14. ‘We have been quite a vague party, are we a party that's on the left, the right or in the middle? It wasn't easy to place us … Since 2001, we have gone deep into ideology and tried to become a party driven by ideas and that follows an ideological compass. That wasn't something we did explicitly before. This move allows us to be a much broader party which encompasses, and deals with, many more questions. Questions that we previously would have found difficult to deal with’ (Centre Party 1).

15. ‘Our policies always stem from our ideological conviction, what's right and what's the right thing to do?’ (Christian Democrats 2); ‘[Public opinion] is very important but not more important than ideology, because if it was, then we wouldn't be as vocal as we are with our views on same-sex marriages' (Christian Democrats 1).

16. ‘The problem is that voters who are close to us on value issues usually vote for the Social Democrats' (Christian Democrats 2).

17. ‘This move is very significant because it means that [the Moderates] are taking over a number of positions that were previously held by us. Yesterday, e.g., they proposed new measures for re-training which are typical Social Democratic solutions' (Social Democrats 1). See also Social Democrats 2 quoted in note 10.

18. ‘We don't really fit in on any conventional ideological scales, as it were, we are not a party that's on the ‘Left’ or the ‘Right’ … we've worked in various party constellations depending on the settings that exist, if they work, they work’ (Green Party 1).

19. ‘[The voters] don't care if it is a ‘Leftist’ or a ‘Rightist’ solution, what they care about is whether the policies work … If voters trust us and think that we are a more competent alternative, then they will vote for us. They make the calculation, “Are the Greens a better alternative on this issue than any of the other parties?”’ (Green Party 1).

20. ‘We hold certain conservative views, e.g. we are in favour of the king, we have traditionally pushed law and order questions, the military, etc.’ (Moderates 3); ‘We have always said that we need to be cautious when it comes to societal expenditure and that we need to save except when it comes to defence and the police force’ (Moderates 1).

21. ‘[W]e have not been very consistent when it comes to non-economic questions … [t]hose questions have provided us with, perhaps not an identity crisis, but definitely some challenges. The party is somewhat torn between, on the one hand, very libertarian views and, on the other, very morally conservative views' (Moderates 1).

22. ‘The debate we want to have is about who is the most capable of running the country, who can keep the public finances in check, who can get more people working? … the debate should be about those big questions' (Moderates 2).

23. ‘[W]e don't really want to have a debate at all because it's difficult to debate the case … so we try to emphasise that it's good for Sweden if people come here for work and that we should get refugees working as quickly as possible, I mean all parties want the discussion to take place on their home court’ (Moderates 2).

24. ‘My impression is that we used to be rather sceptical towards immigration, we were a bit hesitant towards internationalism and we tended to embrace Sweden and Swedish values. We were a party that was afraid of the unknown and didn't want any massive changes to the way things were … immigration has perhaps not been our strongest side or where we have had the clearest profile’ (Centre Party 1).

25. ‘[Immigration] is not a question that lies to the core of who we are, as e.g. family policy or health care do. Those questions are essential for our party identity so it's sometimes not very strategic to make a big deal out of immigration’ (Christian Democrats 1); ‘many voters associate us with family policy, the elderly and health care … [i]f you don't campaign on [those issues], you create space for other parties to do so' (Christian Democrats 2).

26. ‘We have, paradoxically, been able to tolerate asylum and refugee migration. The reason is that refugees were not considered to push down salaries in the same way as the labour migrants would because refugees are kept outside the labour market for so long … the right and the left flank have been able to agree here, “Ok, we will let these asylum seekers in but they are not allowed to be cheap labour or to suppress wages”. That particular agreement meant some confusion but it has also allowed us to avoid major conflicts' (Social Democrats 1).

27. ‘We are very critical towards the restrictive development that Swedish immigration and asylum policies have taken, they have become inhumane … the important thing for us is that this is not done in an exploitative way, so labour migrants should get the same pay, the same working conditions and the same rights as anyone else on the labour market’ (Left Party 3); ‘Refugee reception is a very fundamental act of solidarity and it is important that you actually help out here … labour migration can undercut wages and they won't have the same rights, and that's wrong, if they come here they must have the same rights' (Left Party 2).

28. ‘[S]ometimes we are the new social liberal party, sometimes we are the strong Green party and sometimes we are the party for solidarity, we are quite keen on raising levels of foreign aid for example. That's where we are and in that sense we don't fit on conventional Left–Right scales or blocs' (Green Party 2).

29. ‘We have a very “open borders”-approach to immigration which means that we could co-operate with the Alliance when it came to labour migration. We had a very different view here than the Social Democrats and the Left Party did, they very much listened to the trade unions' opinion. They said it would drive down wages and that there would be too much competition. The labour migration rules had become unnecessarily complicated so we were prepared to support a change and therefore the employers' opinions were more important than the unions' (Green Party 2).

30. ‘We are definitely more towards the “liberal” side of the spectrum; I mean there are two authoritarian parties in Sweden – the Moderates and the Social Democrats' (Liberal Party 1); ‘We are clearly to the “New” Left here, we feel very strongly about letting people live how they want to live and that the state should stay out of people's lives as much as possible’ (Liberal Party 2).

31. ‘[B]ecause of the way we approached it, immigration became a “Liberals' question”, so when we started to talk about also making demands, then we were seen as credible on the issue. People saw our approach as genuine; we weren't seen as a racist or xenophobic party because we already had the reputation of being a pro-immigration party. The Moderates, under Bo Lundgren, had pushed for very similar policies but that didn't generate the same response’ (Liberal Party 1).

32. ‘[W]e should disagree with our political opponents; it should be something that the population sees as a problem and it should be something that we have a concrete solution to’ (Moderates 1).