Signal & Brus

🇸🇪 Svenska · 🇬🇧 English · 🇪🇸 Español

Democracy is based on every person having a vote of their own. Clan-based voting becomes a democratic problem when that vote is treated as something controlled by the group’s leaders.

Johan Westerholm at Ledarsidorna is usually well informed. I take seriously the claims in his article The “elders” distribute the seats. He describes how influential figures in Swedish-Somali networks have organised support and gathered personal votes behind particular candidates.

At the same time, Westerholm distinguishes between legitimate campaigning and suspected improper influence. He writes that the material presented does not link the Stockholm constituency to the reported incidents at polling stations. That is an important distinction. Organised support does not prove that any voter was coerced.

But the larger question remains: how do we prevent authority within a clan or closed network from turning into control over people’s votes? Outrage alone gives us no solution.

Can the voter say no?

It must be permissible to recommend a candidate, campaign together and vote for someone you trust. People are also free to choose a candidate who shares their background.

The decisive boundary is the freedom to depart from the group. Can you choose another candidate without risking threats, ostracism or the loss of help from people on whom you depend? Can you keep your choice secret even from your family and the group’s leaders?

When the answer is no, we have a problem that a voting screen alone cannot solve. Here are six things I believe we should do.

1. Make ballot secrecy real

Ballot secrecy is already a fundamental rule. Voters should normally be alone when they take ballot papers and prepare their vote. Anyone who needs assistance must of course receive it; the Swedish Election Authority also describes the requirement for a polling official to be present when someone else assists behind the screen.

The rules must be enforced equally and consistently everywhere. Polling officials need training to identify control disguised as assistance, the ability to speak privately with the voter and enough staff to intervene. Information should be available in relevant languages: you are free to choose for yourself, change your ballot paper and decline to tell anyone how you voted.

2. Make it safer to report pressure

Anyone subjected to pressure needs a clear route to help, including before election day. I want an accessible contact point within the election administration for advice and documentation, with an option to submit information without first having to appear publicly. Suspected crimes should be referred to the police.

Chapter 17 of the Swedish Criminal Code already contains provisions against improper interference in voting and violations of ballot secrecy. The question is also how we detect violations and protect the person who reports them. Tips may provide grounds for an investigation; they should not in themselves be treated as proof of guilt.

3. Require transparency about campaign organisation

Parties should require candidates to disclose who leads their personal-election campaigns, finances them and provides substantial support in the form of premises, transport or organisation. Such transparency makes dependencies and possible quid pro quos easier to identify.

This concerns the campaign’s power structure and resources. Individual voters’ political views must remain private. The same requirements should apply to every candidate and every kind of network.

4. Parties must stop accepting votes as a commodity

A party should never accept an arrangement in which an informal leader promises a certain number of votes in exchange for influence, appointments or advantages. Parties need clear internal rules, investigations of credible information and consequences when violations are established.

5. Ensure that association grants do not become clan grants

Public grants to ethnic organisations should be reviewed. One condition should be that the organisations are open to anyone who wishes to participate and respects their purpose, regardless of ethnic background or clan affiliation. This must be checked in practice, not merely stated in the bylaws.

Grant providers should examine how members are admitted, how boards are elected and who actually gains access to activities. Are there open membership meetings and genuine opportunities to influence decisions, or do money, assignments and benefits go to a closed circle? Shared culture can be a legitimate purpose for an association, but taxpayers’ money must not finance a clan’s power over individuals.

If an organisation in practice excludes others or uses grants to favour a clan, support should be capable of being stopped after an objective assessment. Repayment should be possible when grant conditions have been breached. The same standards of openness, internal democracy and accounting should apply to comparable association grants.

6. Meet people without going through group leaders

Political parties and public institutions should speak directly with residents through open meetings, accessible information and many different contact people. No self-appointed representative should be given a monopoly on representing a neighbourhood or an entire population group.

In the longer term, people must also be able to obtain work, information and practical help without becoming indebted to a closed network. The less dependent they are, the more room they have to choose for themselves.

No simple law can prohibit people from thinking alike. The aim must be to make it possible to think and vote differently, even within the same family, association or clan.

We should take clan-based power over politics seriously. The most concrete way to do so is to strengthen the individual who is expected to obey. The vote belongs to the voter.

This translation was prepared with AI assistance from the author’s Swedish article. The original was developed with AI assistance, and its featured illustration is AI-generated.