Pre-checked voting slips, groups of people entering voting booths together, people shouting instructions in polling stations, cash being paid to voters. Serious allegations have been leveled in the wake of Sweden’s election, many centered on Left Party campaigners in areas with lots of immigrants, and a number of police investigations are under way.
One newly-elected member of parliament, the Left Party’s Mohammed Ali, who was elected in Borlänge in Dalarna thanks to voters putting a cross next to his name in preference to his party colleagues, has taken leave while the circumstances of his election are examined. He hasn’t been charged and denies all wrongdoing.
In the midst of these specific allegations, vaguer accusations that immigrants are participating in “clan voting” have also been levelled, with little evidence. Sweden Democrat Kent Ekeroth alleged that the election was swung by “voting cattle” from abroad, who gained citizenship “with their breakfast cereal”.
Voting fraud is a crime. But voting for someone from your own community is a democratic right, and a perfectly natural instinct.
Voting as a new citizen is also a right, and a duty. “Clan voting”, if that means immigrant voters are coerced by family members, is wrong, even illegal, though there have been few proven cases of this actually taking place. More often, allegations of clan voting are just used to discredit extended families with immigrant backgrounds who tend to vote for the same candidates.
Of course, in the best of worlds, voters will have read the parties’ programmes, weighed up their own interests, the interests of the country and the wider world, and made an informed choice, independently of pressure from family or friends.
In the real world there is no obligation to be well-informed. It is your prerogative to use your precious democratic right to vote as you wish. If you use it to vote for the candidate you thought looked hot on their election posters, it is entirely up to you (and as we have secret ballots, nobody need ever know).
There are plenty of other reasons that might not meet the standards of an Athenian philosopher, but nonetheless are perfectly reasonable considerations for a normal voter.
You might vote for a candidate born and bred in your region, instead of someone who was parachuted in from outside. Is that so wrong? You might choose a female candidate over a male one, all other things being equal. And if you're an immigrant you might vote for someone from your own community – not because you’ve been pressured to do so, but because you feel that person understands your experiences and will represent your interests.
And many – even most – voters will be affected by the people around them.
Who hasn’t at some point been talked round to a political viewpoint by a partner, relative or friend? It’s a healthy part of any democracy.
Many families vote for the same party generation after generation; this is a feature of all democracies, not a bug. Look at the leading politicians in any political party in any country and you’ll find the husbands, wives, children, nieces and nephews of leading politicians in the same parties. Are they clan voters too?
And look at the regions of Sweden: in Norbotten, the Social Democrats haven’t fallen below 37 percent of the vote in more than 50 years. Or the voters of the wealthy Stockholm district of Danderyd which votes reliably and overwhelmingly for the Moderates every time. Maybe the voters of Norrbotten and Danderyd all take a fresh, impartial look at the facts in every election and coincidentally always draw the same conclusion. Or maybe there’s a bit of clan voting going on there too?
Let’s say it loud and clear, once again: coercion of voters is always wrong; paying money, however small the amount, to entice someone to vote a certain way is always wrong. But before Swedes cast aspersions on immigrants who vote for immigrants, they should hold up a mirror.