Understanding Party Dominance: The Case of the Swedish Social Democrats

The modern parliamentary system is unimaginable without political parties. The central place in any system, even undemocratic ones, is organized around a political party as the main vehicle behind politics itself (van Biezen, 2004). While loose groupings of interests supporting a certain leader or policy have been present since the emergence of parliamentarism, it is only in the last two centuries that mass-based political parties have taken center stage in political life (Scarrow, 2005). Although there is no consensus on what a party is or ought to be from a normative standpoint, political scientists agree that parties are organized vehicles for a certain set of broad positions represented by notable politicians with mass support (White, 2005). This broad definition presupposes that parties are the fundamental starting point for democratic contests, serving as representatives of different aggregated positions that result in electoral outcomes and governance. However, the same definition does not clarify whether parties exist and compete in a neutral field or whether there are preconditions for every democratic election that determine the strengths and weaknesses of certain parties a priori. This dilemma shifts the discussion from a general phenomenon of political parties to a concrete examination of specific instances and eras of party dominance.

The dominance of a single party raises a set of questions that, when answered, provide a better understanding of political parties in general. One of the most notable examples of party dominance is the Swedish Social Democratic Party, which governed from 1932 until 1991, with a brief interruption between 1976 and 1982 (Esping-Andersen, 1990). The dominance of that proportion within a completely free and democratic political system, as Sweden was, prompts an analysis of how and why such dominance occurs, especially given the contested nature of democratic politics (Pempel, 1990). This article will therefore present a theoretical discussion of dominant party theory and apply the theoretical findings to the rise and dominance of the Swedish Social Democratic Party.

Figure 1: The Swedish parliament (2014) by Arild Vågen. Wikimedia Commons.

The dominant party theory

While all approaches to the dominant party phenomenon seek to understand and analyze its occurrence, there is a divergence of opinion regarding specific conceptualizations and reasons for the emergence and persistence of such parties (Boucek, 2012). The main debate centers on the criteria for a party to be considered dominant—whether it is defined by longevity or by influence. For some, the central measure of party dominance is the number of terms a party has won and served, while for others, this measure is secondary to the party's hegemonic status and its ability to shape a country's socio-political aspects over the long term (Boucek, 2012). To support the argument for influence over pure longevity, one can refer to the example of "parties holding concurrent majorities in separate competitive arenas at a specific point in time" (Boucek, 2012, p. 8). Simply put, if a party has overwhelming multi-level power even for a single term, it can be more influential and dominant than a series of consecutive but weak and ineffective terms in office. Thus, these two perspectives are often presented as conflicting and competitive.

Nevertheless, some scholars reject this dichotomy and advocate for a synthesis of various perspectives to better understand the emergence of dominant parties (Pempel, 1990). This approach argues that while longevity is significant, party dominance “involves more than simply a series of hard-fought electoral victories strung together sequentially” (Pempel, 1990, p. 334). Certainly, the dominance of a party cannot exclude successive electoral success, making a party’s duration in office a reasonable indicator of its power (Boucek, 2012). However, when this duration and electoral success are accompanied by “the ability of the dominant party to shape, over time, the nation's nexus of public policies, its rules of political conflict, and the benefits and burdens imposed on different socioeconomic sectors of the society” (Pempel, 1990, p. 334), then a party fully embodies dominance. This synthesized definition, therefore, emphasizes that a dominant party must be able to assert a hegemonic status with long-term influence, which becomes more likely if the party also maintains longevity in power. 

Taking the synthesized understanding of the equal importance of longevity and hegemonic influence, there are certain characteristics found to be present in almost all instances of dominant parties. Together, these characteristics, rather than individually, create fertile ground for the emergence of a preeminent political party (Pempel, 1990). These characteristics can be divided into three categories: institutional, social, and strategic.

To begin with, institutional arrangements, such as the electoral system, impact the likelihood of a dominance of a certain party. In this regard, arguments can be made in favor of both major electoral systems. For instance, the single-member plurality system, used in the UK and the US, significantly limits the space for third parties, effectively creating a two-party system that encourages strategic voting patterns highly favorable to the two main parties (Boucek, 2012). The history of British elections reflects this dynamic, with one of the two major parties consistently receiving a disproportionately high number of MPs compared to their overall vote percentage (Boucek, 2012). However, this system increases the likelihood of power shifting between the two parties, reducing the chances of consecutive electoral wins for either.

Figure 2: The Swedish Parliament in session (2009) by Janwikifoto. Wikimedia Commons.

On the other hand, proportional electoral systems are more conducive to single-party dominance because “one party typically needs far less than 50 percent of the seats in parliament to be dominant” (Pempel, 1990, p. 336). Thus, a party that consistently achieves over 30% of the vote is often able to negotiate and reconfigure coalitions, enabling it to remain in power for extended periods. This system allows a party to be a relative winner and coalition leader, making proportional electoral systems one of the key factors that can foster dominant party status.

Secondly, sociological aspects of dominance are equally significant. Essentially, “long-term rule has the potential to alter the ideological balance within a society” (Pempel, 1990, p. 352). A dominant party, through its longevity and power, shapes and reshapes the ideological landscape, expanding its base and steering the electorate toward its preferred narrative. The dominant party understands that “mobilizing voters may involve activating social divisions” (Boucek, 2012, p. 13), which is why it is crucial for them to hold hegemonic positions that allow them to control narratives and prioritize specific issues.

Lastly, in a functioning democratic system, a single party cannot embody the entirety of the ideological landscape or fully control its direction. Thus, another key characteristic of a dominant party is its capacity for strategic behavior. This capacity may be the most essential trait, as it requires a delicate balance where the dominant party “must be rigid enough in its beliefs and program to hold on to its core supporters [while] at the same time, no modern democracy has a society that is fixed in stone” (Pempel, 1990, p. 348). To maintain a dominant position, the party must recognize when and how to adapt its strategies without compromising its core ideology. Moreover, political change does not occur in a vacuum; it takes place within a political environment where the dominant party partly controls, allowing it to use its influence to shape public opinion. Instead of radically shifting its stance to align with the electorate, the dominant party leverages its position to bring the electorate closer to its own positions. The three factors: permissive institutional arrangements, shaping of socio-political ideological settings of a society, and strategic behavior, are basic necessities encountered in the cases of a dominant party.

The Swedish party system

With the theoretical framework established, examining the case of Sweden provides a valuable understanding of the dynamics of a dominant party in a democratic system. The Swedish democratic system has a long history, with its modern form taking shape in the latter half of the 19th century (Möller, 2020). Due to restrictive eligibility standards based on tax participation, only a tenth of the adult population was actually eligible to vote when the bicameral parliament was established in 1866 (Östberg, 2024). This limited electorate contributed to a two-party system rooted in the old estates system prior to the 1866 reform (Möller, 2020). It was only with the abolition of income—and tax-based voting rights, along with the inclusion of all adult men, that extra-systemic parties began to gain traction—most notably the Swedish Social Democratic Party (Möller, 2020).

Figure 3: The structure of the Swedish parliament (2019) by Ankan Ghosh Dastider. Wikimedia Commons.

The party system in Sweden has been relatively stable since the introduction of universal suffrage in 1918, and the electoral system is based on proportional representation (Möller, 2020). This aligns with the theoretical implications, which suggest that proportional electoral systems are more conducive to the emergence of a dominant party, as a relative win in a multi-party system—often around 30%—can suffice for securing the position of Prime Minister and leading the government (Pempel, 1990). Despite Sweden having seven or eight parliamentary parties, functioning as a proper multi-party system, the majority of the last century has been marked by the persistent dominance and leadership of the Social Democrats.

The dominance of Social Democrats

The rise of the Swedish Social Democratic Party can be traced back to the period of increased industrialization in the late 19th century, closely following the trajectory of the German Social Democratic movement of the same period (Östberg, 2024). It was one of the popular movements that emerged during a time of significant social and political change, but it quickly transformed into a political party and became the main challenger to the status quo (Möller, 2020). From the outset, the Social Democrats successfully built an alliance between the working class on one hand and the middle class on the other. The party drew its strength from the mass mobilization of workers within the union movement, while simultaneously recruiting middle-class intellectuals sympathetic to the socialist cause (Östberg, 2024). However, this alliance inherently involved class tensions. There was a constant need to find a balance, especially considering the broader dilemmas faced by European Social Democracy around World War I, particularly regarding the choice between a parliamentary or extra-parliamentary path (Östberg, 2024). Ultimately, the party’s leaders prevailed over more radical factions, largely composed of workers and youth organizations, and steered the party’s focus entirely toward a peaceful and parliamentary route to socialism (Östberg, 2024).The renewed focus on a reformist rather than revolutionary path to socialism was central to the Social Democratic parties in the Nordic states, and their rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s coincided (Esping-Andersen, 1990). In other words, the shift toward social democracy was not an exclusively Swedish phenomenon, but a Nordic one. However, due to several factors—such as very strong and unified labor unions, industrial growth, and Swedish neutrality during two World Wars—the Swedish Social Democratic Party became the most dominant of its Nordic counterparts (Esping-Andersen, 1990).

It is important to note that, aside from these idiosyncrasies, the Social Democratic Party in Sweden managed to fulfill the general criteria outlined in the theoretical framework. As already mentioned, the proportional representation system in Sweden aligns with the theory of a dominant party. Additionally, the system of negative parliamentarism is another crucial institutional factor that worked in favor of the Social Democrats (Lindahl et al., 2019). In most parliamentary systems, a potential government must secure a majority of votes in parliament to assume office. However, under Sweden’s system, a government only needs to avoid having a majority vote against it. As a result, certain parties can abstain from voting, indirectly supporting a potential government. This system led to a number of minority governments, many of which were led by the Social Democrats (Lindahl et al., 2019).

Figure 4: The Swedish Social Democratic party poster (n.n.) by Marleen Zachte. Flickr.

Moreover, the strategic aspect inherent in the theory of a dominant party is one of the key features of the Swedish Social Democratic Party. A prime example is the tripartite strategic alliance maintained by the Social Democrats. First, the party emerged from the labor movement, and it successfully retained massive support from this base at all times (Östberg, 2024). Even when opinions diverged, the party managed to pacify more radical elements within the labor movement, keeping a steady course toward parliamentary reformism (Östberg, 2024). Second, from the party’s first leader to prominent members, the Social Democrats held significant sway over middle-class intellectuals and white-collar workers (Östberg, 2024). Finally, their ascent to power in a predominantly rural pre-war Sweden would have been impossible without the substantial support of rural classes (Esping-Andersen, 1990). Thus, the Social Democrats successfully navigated the interests of three often conflicting social classes, maintaining their core labor character while also attracting other voter groups. This ability to unite diverse classes is a crucial characteristic of a dominant party (Pempel, 1990).

Finally, the ability of the Social Democratic Party to build a hegemonic structure and profoundly impact the socio-political landscape is unmatched (Esping-Andersen, 1990). The party successfully implemented most of its promises through reforms and created one of the strongest welfare states in history (Östberg, 2024). Even today, many politicians, such as Bernie Sanders, who ran for the Democratic US presidential nomination in 2016 and 2020, envision a future based on the principles of Swedish Social Democracy, advocating for a more equal and just society (Östberg, 2024). As a result, the ideological influence of Swedish Social Democracy has become a widely accepted approach among progressive forces, both in Sweden and abroad, further solidifying the party's dominance.

Conclusion

To fully understand the functioning of democratic mechanisms, it is crucial to examine the party system, with a key aspect being the dominance of a specific party. The theoretical foundations of dominant party theory provide valuable insights into the characteristics of such parties. However, it is in the case study of the Swedish Social Democrats that the theory truly comes to life, illustrating and demonstrating how both exogenous and endogenous factors enable a party to emerge and maintain dominance. In this case, the Social Democrats not only achieved political dominance but also reinvented a whole set of ideas and understanding of the party system and larger society.

Bibliographical References

Boucek, F. (2012). Factional politics. In Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks.

https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137283924

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). Single-Party Dominance in Sweden: The Saga of Social Democracy. In T. Pempel (Ed.), Uncommon Democracies: the One-Party dominant regimes. Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501746161-003

Lindahl, J., Hellström, J., & Bäck, H. (2019). Sweden. In M. Evans (Ed.), Coalition government as a reflection of a nation’s politics and society. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429422379

Möller, T. (2020). Political party dynamics and democracy in Sweden. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429300370

Östberg, K. (2024). The Rise and Fall of Swedish Social Democracy. Verso Books.

Pempel, T. J. (1990). Introduction. Uncommon Democracies: the One-Party dominant regimes. In T. J. Pempel (Ed.), Uncommon Democracies: the One-Party dominant regimes (pp. 1–32). Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501746161-003

Scarrow, S. (2005). The nineteenth-century origins of modern political parties: The unwanted emergence of party-based politics. In R. Katz & W. Crotty (Eds.), Handbook of Party Politics (pp. 16–25). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608047

Van Biezen, I. (2004). HOW POLITICAL PARTIES SHAPE DEMOCRACY. Center for the Study of Democracy. https://escholarship.org/content/qt17p1m0dx/qt17p1m0dx.pdf?t=lnomg4

White, J. K. (2005). What is a political party? In R. Katz & W. Crotty (Eds.), Handbook of Party Politics. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608047

Visual References