The debate in SVT confirmed a new political power field with SD - not M - as S's main opponent

ANALYSIS • The fact that SVT chose to let half of Wednesday’s Aktuellt broadcast be filled with a duel between Magdalena Andersson and Jimmie Åkesson was a choice that says almost as much about media logic as about the state of public opinion. In practice, it is S and SD – not S and M – that are now competing for the role as the most influential force in Swedish politics. And even though both saw benefits in meeting, it was primarily Jimmie Åkesson who was strengthened by being elevated to Magdalena Andersson’s main opponent.

It is still unusual for SVT to fully demonstrate that Swedish politics is no longer built around the old S-M duel. In several polls, SD has surpassed the Moderates, and in the latest parliamentary election, SD gained ground while M declined – for the fourth election in a row. The long-term trend is hard to ignore: the Moderates have steadily shrunk since 2010, while SD has established itself as a broad popular party.

Against this background, the choice of opponent seems logical. If the debate is to reflect the actual power struggle, it is reasonable to pit the two largest parties against each other. But SVT is also SVT – a public service company that has long been criticized for a structural left-wing perspective. It is difficult to completely dismiss the idea that the editorial team also made a political assessment – that Andersson would stand stronger against an SD leader without government power than against a prime minister with institutional authority.

The result, however, was a debate where two self-image-driven parties got exactly what they wanted – but where Åkesson practically gained extra points just by being there instead of Kristersson.

Throwing mud about troll factories in social media

The first part of the debate, about dirty methods in social media, turned into more mudslinging than anything else. Andersson strongly criticized SD’s anonymous communication work, which TV4 in a widely publicized and controversial undercover report called a “troll factory”. Åkesson countered with suspicions about S’s own digital propaganda machine with a hidden sender. The verbal ping-pong – “you have conducted white power propaganda” versus “you engage in shady business” – became a study in slugger rhetoric.

Both were right in substance about the other’s methods, but neither managed to capitalize on it. From a power perspective, however, it was Åkesson who had the most to gain – for an SD leader to be invited to a debate as an equal to the S leader on which communication methods are most morally reprehensible implies a kind of normalization – what S does in political opinion-making is still the benchmark, and if other parties do the same, it can’t be completely wrong.

Unemployment and economy on Åkesson’s home turf

When the conversation turned to unemployment and the economy, it became both more traditional polarized block politics and more consensus than expected. Andersson repeated her criticism of the Moderate Party’s “backward” economic policy and painted a picture of a country where misplaced priorities that have favored “the rich” have exacerbated the divides. Åkesson chose to fight on his home turf: it is the generally low level of education among immigrants that drives up unemployment, both generally in the long term and especially in a downturn.

It didn’t become so much a question of who was right, since Andersson openly acknowledged that mass unemployment among migrants is a huge problem and that tougher measures are needed against those in that group who, despite being able to work, “sit in the square and collect benefits” instead of working.

The duel was more about who sounded more government-worthy in labor market policy. Since SD owns the immigration issue and both agreed that the lion’s share of unemployment is a consequence of migration policy, one must still see Åkesson as the winner of that ball. Andersson’s triangulation towards Åkesson is something that has been going on during the latter part of the parliamentary term, but the shoes still seemed to pinch more on the S leader than on the SD leader who had comfortably stepped into them for a long time.

Segregation and “forced mixing” with S on the defensive

When integration was discussed, Åkesson strategically had room to maneuver. He used the party’s now established term “forced mixing,” a word that rhetorically places the Social Democrats at a disadvantage and on the defensive. Andersson dismissed it as pure fantasy, but the counterarguments sounded hollow.

There is nothing explicitly stated in S’s housing policy declaration that fully supports the accusations, but numerous statements by S politicians have confirmed the validity of Åkesson’s criticism that what S wants is to “smear out” the problems of exclusion evenly across society instead of, as now, being limited to the million program areas.

The fact that S has long talked about “turning over every stone” to break segregation and stimulate integration but has ended up with the only thing they can do is to mix up a housing policy muddle, gave Åkesson a chance to wonder why the Social Democrats from the beginning caused these insurmountable problems with their extensive migration policy and counter with “the Swedes have not asked to be integrated.” It’s not about going halfway – it’s the immigrants who should adapt to Sweden and nothing else. Those who don’t find their place in Sweden can go home with the new generous repatriation allowance in their pocket, which in, for example, Somalia, corresponds to over 40 annual salaries. Here, Åkesson had the clearest policy advantage of the evening.

Demotion of Kristersson that stings

But more than testing and showing which policy arguments are the strongest, the debate was a testament to which parties are now at the center of Swedish politics and which are on the periphery. It is the Social Democrats and the Sweden Democrats who are the main opponents – then let Kristersson be prime minister in name as much as he wants.

If one is to give Kristersson anything, it is that he avoided the risk of losing a debate against Andersson in prime time. But in terms of prestige, SVT’s sidelining of him was a significant demotion. But a party that has lost voter support in election after election versus one that has significantly increased its voter support during the same period and already established itself as the larger one legitimizes that it is now the substitute bench for the Moderate Party leader.

A new power field is forming. At its center are S and SD, two dominants with partially overlapping voter categories and a common dramaturgy that consistently reduces the space for other parties – not least M.

As a support party to a bourgeois government, SD has acquired a sharper right-wing profile than it has had before. It has snatched the male LO collective that is attracted to the tough migration and crime policies from S. But to seriously beat Magdalena’s party, one must also attract the female S voters who prioritize softer welfare issues. There have been signals that the SD leadership has realized this and will invest heavily in them in the election campaign. It remains to be seen how far it will go.

Two winners – one smaller and one larger

The formal debate did not deliver any knockout blows. Both appeared politically competent, both did what their respective bases expected of them. Not many voters can be assumed to have changed parties after the broadcast.

But symbolically, the winners of the evening were clearer and perhaps two in number, one smaller and one larger. Magdalena Andersson got a duel that mobilizes her SD-hostile voters and marginalizes her traditional moderate competitor. Jimmie Åkesson got something even more important. To be raised to S’s only real opponent by the TV actor with the greatest impact in the country.

Politically, Åkesson also succeeded in pressuring Andersson more than vice versa, especially on the integration issue, which spilled over into both the labor market and housing market policy debate. Therefore, Åkesson was the one who came away with the biggest win – for what he said, but even more for what the duel made him – one of two main figures in Swedish politics, equal to the S leader, in front of a million-strong audience.

This is a position that cannot be solely campaigned for – it must also be assigned. And on Wednesday evening, it was SVT that – perhaps somewhat unexpectedly or with a cunning plan – gave it to him.