In 2017, Novus conducted a survey among members of the Swedish parliament (Riksdag) about, among other things, hatred and threats. Here are the results of the questions:

1. Have you personally been subjected to external threats or abusive treatment in your capacity as a Member of Parliament?
2. How often have you been threatened?
3. Do you consider the threats or harassment to affect your parliamentary work?

In 2017, 62 % of MPs stated that they had been subjected to external threats in their capacity as members of parliament. Almost one in ten at least once a week.

One in three said it had a negative impact on their parliamentary work.

Among women, more than one in two said it had a negative impact on their parliamentary work.

The survey also clearly showed that threats against women were often much harsher and more personal in nature, which explains why they are affected more severely than men.

Note that this does not apply to party leaders, who are even more exposed than this. Just like ministers, power and a greater media presence act like a red flag to some, and hatred and threats flow much more heavily toward them – both digitally and physically.

Given the digital presence our MPs have, through social media, email, and perhaps how easy it is to find their home address, this can easily trigger someone to move from words to action. Even if it doesn’t happen, this is a constant reminder to our politicians that they are disliked by some. That they are exposed around the clock, something that enters their homes digitally every day, regardless of the time.

The silent majority who do not hate or threaten is therefore heard the least. It’s a small few who can easily undermine trust in the entire electorate and influence our decision-makers. This is a real threat to democracy, something Novus’s survey showed in 2017. It doesn’t seem to have gotten better.

Political debate is sometimes characterized by rhetoric in which opponents are dehumanized and where any willingness to cooperate seems entirely absent. The debate can be perceived as a fight to the death, especially when the stakes are described as concerning Sweden’s future. This further reinforces the impression of conflict.

Many citizens distance themselves from this type of debate climate and feel that democracy doesn’t feel relevant to them. At the same time, there are people in society who can be strongly influenced by such rhetoric and, in some cases, act on it — for example, individuals with serious mental illness who may feel compelled to act.

The question of how threatened democracy is is being discussed more and more, which is also confirmed by surveys conducted over a long period. An earlier Novus survey shows, for example, that one in three Swedes believes that politicians harm democracy, largely linked to a lack of willingness to cooperate and a debate culture where conflict seems to be a goal in itself rather than a means to an end.

It’s a complex and simple question at the same time.

Just as one locks the door when leaving home, even though stealing is already illegal, our elected representatives shouldn’t have to be so vulnerable to hatred and threats, whether they come from individuals or from foreign powers and troll factories. In the same way, it’s far too easy to threaten journalists, which is quickly perceived as a threat to democracy. I wrote about this a long time ago here:

Sjöström: Hot mot journalister ett arbetsmiljöproblem – Dagens Media

Threats against journalists are a threat to democracy, but the problem is that it’s too easy to reach them. Newsrooms must take responsibility for their work environment and not expose their employees to this, especially since this exposure in itself becomes a threat to democracy. It must not be this easy to damage democracy in Sweden.

At the same time, politicians must of course show that they are reasonable people who can reflect and compromise. The news media must make room for that and not reinforce the behavior that undermines trust in our elected officials. The fact is that, in practice, one must appear on TV to get elected, which means that politics largely adapts to the rules of TV. In a Novus Sanity Check podcast episode with Annie Lööf, which can be listened to here, Annie talks about exactly this: if you say something provocative in a debate, your media presence lives on for the whole week, while someone who doesn’t only reaches those who actually watched the debate. To be highlighted in the news media, a statement must be provocative. Listen to the (swedish) episode here:

#64 Annie Lööf – om politiken och medielandskapet – Novus – Kunskap och undersökningar

The full 2017 survey can be read here, which was conducted in connection with the program “Länge leve demokratin” (Long Live Democracy) by Jan Scherman.

novus.se/novus-svensk-valjaropinion/svt-lange-leve-demokratin/avsnitt-2/

In closing: Hatred and threats against those in power are a threat to democracy, but you can’t ban something that is already illegal. However, we must strengthen protection for our leaders against this threat — we cannot let our democracy be this vulnerable while remaining passive ourselves. It must, of course, be possible to prosecute crimes more effectively. Already today, the Swedish public sees a sense of resignation regarding the police’s work in this area. But we must also make it harder for people to intrude into our leaders’ homes and private lives through digital channels. If the hatred doesn’t reach the person it’s directed at, it will not have the same impact and the same damaging effect on democracy that it has today.

Torbjörn Sjöström
Opinion Analyst Novus