Sweden’s credibility in the EU is being demolished by the Tidö parties’ actions in the case concerning Minister Johan Forssell’s son. Democracy means letting in the light – always, writes lawyer Igor Maté.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Igor Maté

The Tidö parties’ decision to block the questioning of Migration Minister Johan Forssell (M) in the Social Insurance Committee is nothing less than crossing the Rubicon. In a democracy, openness and free discussion are not optional – they are the very core of the system. If a governing bloc decides to close the door to such scrutiny, for whatever reason, it is acting in an anti-democratic manner.

Sweden’s centuries-old tradition of openness – anchored in our principle of public access to information – is not a matter of political taste. It is a constitutional cornerstone. To turn away from it is to turn away from what it means to be Swedish in a political-democratic sense.

This point becomes even sharper when considering Sweden’s role in Europe. Just yesterday, the Swedish government vigorously defended the principle of the rule of law within the EU – a stance deserving of recognition and support, as this principle is crucial for the Union’s integrity.

But external credibility is always strengthened by internal consistency. If Sweden demands that others live up to democratic norms, we ourselves must avoid even the slightest shadow of failing to do so. Limiting legitimate parliamentary scrutiny not only risks accusations of double standards – it risks eroding the democratic identity that has long been one of Sweden’s proudest traditions.

And this is not just a solemn principle for textbooks or formal speeches. The risks are written in leaked data, weakened alliances, and open doors for hostile actors. They directly concern our national security, our foreign policy credibility, and the resilience of our digital defenses.

This is also not a private family matter. It concerns the minister’s official duties, because even indirect connections between his minor son and extremist movements can create vulnerabilities with potential consequences for national security. Whether the child was exploited, manipulated, or involuntarily involved is not the point. The mere possibility that secret information may have been disclosed – even by mistake – must be taken with the utmost seriousness. To dismiss the question is to dismiss Sweden’s security.

The timing could not be more sensitive. The government’s credentials in the security arena are already severely damaged. The embarrassing story of the Prime Minister’s former national security advisor – so absurd it could belong in Monty Python, were the stakes not deadly serious – exposed astonishing lapses in judgment.

Add to this the recent cyberattacks that have hit strategic companies like Volvo and SAS, as well as regional and municipal databases, compromising sensitive personal data for up to 15 percent of Sweden’s population. In such a climate, it is reckless to suppress parliamentary scrutiny of a minister with potential vulnerabilities.

The argument that the opposition would use the minister’s son as a “political bludgeon” is a smokescreen. The issue is not the child. The issue is the minister’s office, the government’s integrity, and the nation’s security. Refusing even to allow questions to be asked breeds suspicion, not trust.

By blocking this questioning, the Tidö parties are undermining not only the Riksdag but the very principle of openness upon which modern Sweden has been built. Anything less than full transparency weakens both Sweden’s democratic identity and the credibility that gives our country its moral authority at home and abroad.

Democracy means letting in the light – always.

Original article: Dagens Nyheter