UPDATE:Andersson Ultimately Assumes Prime Minister Role
Sweden chose to make what appeared to be welcoming history by electing their first female prime minister. Magdalena Andersson was provided the honor on Wednesday morning, but the exciting news didn’t hold up long.
A few hours after her taking the position, she abruptly resigned. What appears most perplexing is that a few hours after the resignation, Sweden’s Parliament drew up a financial budget directly contradicting that of Ms. Anderssons’.
For those who may not be unaware, Sweden classifies its’ government as a Parliament Democracy, meaning that members of the already elected officials within Parliament vote for the position of Prime Minister. So in laments terms, similar to the United States’ electoral voting system based off a region’s population (which is not ideal in its own right), the public votes in general elections as to who will represent them in what Sweden refers to as Riksdag (Swedish Parliament).
So Sweden does embrace a form of democracy, but as for the position of Prime Minister, and Ms. Andersson, this process is strictly done through Riksdag (the already elected officials). You can visit theGovernment of Sweden official webpage at your own convenience for a more in-depth analysis.
In the case of Ms. Andersson, it appears, and again, this is off what has already been publicly relayed by several sources, Ms. Andersson had her budget plan rejected after being appointed as Prime Minister. Some of you may be asking, why would that cause Magdalena Andersson to resign just hours after the appointment?
Well, if one was an elected official with a designated political philosophy, this including a potential budget plan coinciding with it, Andersson is put in a pretty difficult spot only to find out after her appointment, her actual budget plan was tossed out the window, and replaced with something similar to the opposite of what she might have attempted to put into place.
Which makes us ask the question, well why didn’t Riksdag appoint someone with that projected budget philosophy to begin with? Should they not know Andersson’s views, values, and political agenda before announcing her as Sweden’s Prime Minister? As a neutral bystander, it comes off as extremely sloppy, and quite honest, odd.
Could it have been a form of international PR stunt?
Perhaps there was sincere legitimate concerns with Andersson’s proposed budget (that Parliament should know about beforehand anyway). So if it’s that case, why not just elect the individual from the opposing party to begin with? Clearly they liked their budget plan, and they didn’t like the representative they appointed to the point a direct contradictory was curated?
Again, this all being a very surfaced, bystander point of view, but I imagine there are plenty of other neutral parties asking very similar questions.