Authored by Sven Valerio via The Mises Institute,

Vice President JD Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference delivered a sharp critique of recent developments in Europe, particularly regarding freedom of expression, migration, and democracy. He highlighted the annulled election in Romania and the exclusion of the German party AFD from most public discourse by the political establishment. Sweden was also explicitly mentioned, with a focus on the suspended sentence of a man convicted of “hate speech” for burning the Koran—a sentence announced shortly after the man’s friend, who participated in the act, was murdered for his beliefs.

While I commend Vance’s historic speech, it’s important to note that Sweden’s hate speech law is only a small part of the broader “Swedish system” and its democratic shortcomings. 

Allow me to provide a fuller picture for an international audience.

In Sweden, the political arena is largely reserved for established parties, without any proper preferential voting. 

Elections here do not represent a fair competition for political power. The leading parties have systematically exploited the system to grant themselves significant advantages. This is particularly evident in the financing of their activities. Six out of the eight parliamentary parties rely heavily on public funding. The leading center-right party—currently holding the office of prime minister—receives 70 percent of its income from taxpayer-funded support, a higher proportion than even the Social Democrats. In total, political parties receive just under 1 billion SEK in direct public support, with even more allocated to party-affiliated organizations. This would be equivalent in the US to taxpayers contributing over 6 billion dollars in support to political parties and their affiliated organizations.

If you believe that media in Sweden is free and independent, think again. 

Swedish media receives 1 billion SEK in annual support, which would be the equivalent of 3 billion dollars in the US when adjusting for the size of the population. The leading right-wing conservative newspaper in Stockholm, Svenska Dagbladet, benefits from taxpayer funding amounting to what would be equivalent to 98 million dollars in the US.

Public service media (television and radio) has a total budget of 9.1 billion SEK. Sweden’s population is 10.5 million. 

For comparison, imagine the US having a government-controlled media system with a budget of 27 billion tax dollars. 

Moreover, the journalists’ union in Sweden issues press passes, and such credentials are required to participate in government-related events. 

Swedish top politicians rarely face truly critical questions, creating a political environment in which politicians are not held accountable by the public. 

Public hearings of the kind familiar in the US simply do not exist in Sweden.

Under these conditions, it is extremely challenging to promote political alternatives, whether right-wing or left-wing, that critique the status quo. 

If one manages to break through, the next obstacle arises: the Swedish parliament (Riksdag) has 349 seats, each apparently representing 0.29 percent (1/349) of the voters. However, a party must secure at least 4 percent of the votes to be allocated parliamentary seats. 

In theory, 13 parties could each receive 3.9 percent of the vote, collectively representing 50.7 percent of the electorate, but none would win a seat in the Riksdag.

Swedish schools teach students that such a system is probably a good thing and that generous public support for political parties and media is to be preferred. Otherwise, we could “end up like the United States.”

JD Vance was correct regarding European politician’s use of the word “disinformation.” 

The above account would never be published in the op-ed pages of a major Swedish news outlet. 

There simply are no media platforms where such criticism is accepted—not even those that I am forced to co-finance.