Stefan Löfven served as the Prime Minister of Sweden from 2014 to 2021. Beginning his life as a child in the foster care system, Löfven became a labor leader in the Swedish Metalworkers’ Union, later becoming its President. He was a dedicated member of the Social Democratic Party and played a pivotal role in guiding Sweden through significant challenges as Prime Minister, including the COVID-19 pandemic and a European refugee crisis.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Harvard Political Review: In your time as Prime Minister of Sweden, you were representing the Social Democratic Party. What does social democratism mean to you?
Stefan Löfven: It means a society where everybody has a place here and now, but also in the future; that will build a society where everybody can live good lives and develop. So, we use the collective strength, the community, to make sure that all individuals can develop and live a good life.
HPR: Sweden is often highlighted by a lot of politicians in the U.S., on the left-wing especially, in admiration of the welfare state and its ability to lift people from one social class to another. You yourself, looking at your story, growing up as a foster child, and then becoming Prime Minister is maybe an example of that. So do you think the perception of social mobility and the American Dream being true in Sweden holds up?
SL: Yeah, that’s why we talk about the society here and now, but also the future, because societies will always change. And we want everybody to be able to go with that change and be part of the change. And that’s why we need the welfare system. As an example, if my job, due to technological changes or other changes, is all of a sudden gone and will disappear? Well, the question is, how can I get a new job as fast as possible, and the fastest way to get a new job, in my view, is that we help one another: training, education, financial support during unemployment.
So those are important ingredients for mobility. But at the same time, I’m very cautious in saying that. We don’t want a society where it’s not good enough to be, let’s say, a worker — that you have to move to another group in order to be able to live a good life. A worker is also entitled to a good life. And even if you stay as a worker for your whole life, which many people do, they are also entitled to a good life.
HPR: You became prime minister in 2014, shortly after the 2014 refugee crisis when hundreds of thousands of immigrants came to Europe primarily from Syria. At that time, Sweden, unlike many other European countries, chose to keep its borders open. Why do you think that was an important choice to make?
SL: Well, eventually, we had to change our legislation as well. We had legislation from 2008 or 2009 implemented under a previous government that meant that our threshold for receiving people was lower than the surrounding countries in Europe. So it was more attractive to go to Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands. So we had to change that legislation and make sure that our threshold was the same as the other countries.
What happened was that Europe couldn’t find a way of cooperating. If we had helped one another, if we had cooperated, all countries — 28 at the time before the UK left — we would have managed this situation. But we ended up with Germany, as I said, the Netherlands, Sweden, perhaps a few others that took all the responsibility, and that was not sustainable. So we also had to change but still be very clear that the right to seek refuge must be there because that is a universal right.
HPR: I think another way in which Sweden has stood out compared to other European countries and countries in the European Union is that it hasn’t been part of NATO — until maybe soon. But the war in Ukraine has obviously shaken Europe and has grabbed discussions on security policies in the EU, and Sweden has declared that they don’t want to enter NATO. What do you think of that decision? And how do you think that might impact Sweden in Europe and the world?
SL: First, I think it was right for Sweden to be non-aligned because it also meant that quite a big part of northern Europe was neutral and non-aligned. That, for me, means there’s less risk of tensions and conflict. With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, everything changed. So that gave us a totally new security situation in Europe, meaning that a superpower in our neighborhood didn’t care about this European security order, and didn’t care about the U.N. Charter. So that altered the whole situation. So, I think it was right to apply for membership.
But I also think that we have to be aware of what it will mean to add 1,400 kilometers of border between NATO and Russia, which is the eastern border of Finland. So we have to be aware of that. It can also mean increased tensions.
HPR: To talk about politics in Sweden and Europe and compare it to the United States — do you see any parallels between the right-wing shift in Sweden, and Europe as a whole, with the right-wing populism that’s defined American politics recently?
SL: Yes, I’m sure they are connected in different ways. Also, I think they cooperate, they discuss with one another, different groups. Absolutely in Europe, I know that. And of course, I know that Americans were also active in Europe to increase the number of right-wing extremists in Europe, in my own country. So absolutely, there is a connection. It’s a global phenomenon. I think it’s sad. I think that’s not what our society needs. We need something else: cooperation, solidarity, and community. So I think all the good forces have to fight against it and to stand up for democracy.
HPR: What are some tangible next steps you think the country needs to take to work towards that future?
SL: It is first to show that democracy delivers for everybody. As I said, we want a society where everybody feels reasonably comfortable and safe. Here, I have a job, income, my family is well, and we have the right to healthcare and all that. So democracy needs to deliver; otherwise, democracy will be weakened.
I also think that we need a very straightforward discussion and openness on the fact that we are facing extremism in all its different forms. Extremism is always dangerous, whether it’s religious, political, or other forms. I think we need more discussions about social media and what social media actually does, also how it affects the political debate. I think social media is perhaps one of the most important ingredients in this development that we see now with harder and harder rhetoric, and media plays a role as well.
Lastly, it is up to political leaders to also show what they want. Hopefully, more leaders want a different development than what we are actually experiencing right now.
HPR: On the topic of social media, when Greta Thunberg was interviewed by Trevor Noah in 2019, he asked her what the biggest difference between discussions of climate change at home in Sweden and in the U.S. were. She replied that in Sweden, people tend to see climate change as a fact, whereas in the U.S., sometimes it’s portrayed more as a question of belief. What do you think the reason for that difference might be? Also, do you think that the culture of “fake news” in America and distrust in institutions and academics might spread more to Europe and Sweden?
SL: Yes, I can already see that. There are leaders in the extremist party and even Democrats that are questioning, “Is the climate a threat at all? Is this something that we need to take seriously?”
My view? Yes. We have so much evidence with droughts, storms, flooding, and all that. And we have about 3,000 scientists in the process who say yes, it is a crisis, and it’s human-made. So absolutely there are forces that don’t want to recognize this. And so we have to be very, very clear and constantly talking, not least to young people, about how to change this. The more pressure also from young people, I think, the better the weaker position these denials will have.
But at the end of the day, we just keep on working on making sure that their emissions are reduced as much as possible. So even if there are people that deny this, the rest of us need to make sure that we will do the right thing as fast as possible. We are in a hurry, but it is possible.
HPR: So in that sense, do you think there’s also a sort of a positive side of social media? For example, the Fridays for Future movement has been very much organized on social media, and the youth are sort of taking on the responsibility of fighting climate change in that way.
SL: That’s a very good question. And yes, social media is not just bad. And when social media was developed, I was the first to think that, yes, this gives us a very good opportunity, or several opportunities to meet and to exchange ideas and opinions. So it’s a good way for people to meet, and you can meet so many more people. So that’s good. Then there is a downside that we need to also address. That downside is serious. But absolutely. It’s possible to reach out to many and get the best possible results.
Managing Editor
