As Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson recently arrived in my childhood hometown of Eskilstuna, even she must have realized that Sweden was losing its war on gang violence.
Just a day earlier, the city had finally earned its title of “Little Chicago” — a term that was occasionally used during my teenage years, especially when describing rougher parts of the city.
Although I never took the analogy seriously, that day, one of those areas became the scene of absolute horror when a woman and a small child were shot on a playground. Police have since linked the incident to gang crime and thankfully, there were no casualties – both survived.
While speaking about the shootings, Sweden’s first female leader, who has been in power for less than a year, warned that criminal gangs now pose a threat to “anyone who happens to be in their way, even normal law-abiding citizens.” And he made a direct connection between the violence and the rise of the drug trade, which he promised to discuss nationally and to fight crime by abandoning Sweden’s soft criminal code.
For Anderson, talking tough on crime may be a necessity rather than an option. Her centre-left coalition government is at risk of being thrown out of office in the country’s general election tomorrow, as the vote takes place against a backdrop of rising inflation and growing fears of Russian aggression in the Baltic Sea.
Many Swedes, like myself, feel that the country is headed in the wrong direction.
A few months ago, three young men in neighboring Örebro were shot and killed over the course of eight days, part of a wave of gang violence that spread across Sweden. And while I never expected the country to turn into a gangster’s paradise, it was always obvious to me that our approach to integration was a ticking time bomb.
Born in the early 1980s, I saw firsthand how difficult it can be to become part of mainstream Swedish society. My mother, an Ethiopian refugee, certainly ticked all the “right” boxes, like marrying a local and taking whatever jobs came her way.
However, she was never fully accepted as a Swede, despite the fact that she had an almost perfect command of the language and was clearly integrated into the culture.
It seemed to me that people like her faced an element of otherness that was difficult, if not impossible, to overcome. Additionally, many of my friends, some of whom were born to Middle Eastern parents, chose not to identify as Swedish even though they grew up in the country.
Sweden, which had a largely homogenous population in the past, has faced serious challenges in welcoming non-European immigrants into its society. And I believe that this can partly explain the difficult situation that the country is facing today.
Sweden experienced labor-based immigration in the late 1960s. And government figures show significant arrivals of immigrants from Iran in the late 1980s and Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. to an all-time high in 2016 as the country, along with Germany, opted for a largely open-border policy regarding Syrian refugees.
As of 2021, Sweden had over 196,000 residents born in Syria — a significant number for a country with a population of around 10 million. The total number of foreign-born people has grown rapidly over the past two decades, now reaching 20 percent of the total population. And although Syrians make up the largest immigrant group, those born in Iraq and Finland also contribute to Sweden’s foreign-born population.
Personally, I do not agree with the extreme belief of some Swedes that immigrants largely come to our country to take advantage of the generous welfare system. However, according to the European Commission, as things stand, the unemployment rate among foreign-born residents is more than four times that of Swedish natives. It makes sense that this breeds exclusion.
And perhaps unsurprisingly, 2022 is set to be the worst year of violence on record, with nearly 50 fatal shootings so far – a reality that is proving a major headache for Anderson’s centre-left coalition government, which has been in power since 2014 And her own Social Democratic Party has overseen years, if not decades, of failed political integration under previous prime ministers.
Offering refuge to those fleeing war is always the right thing to do, but Sweden’s experiment with multiculturalism seems to have taken a turn for the worse since 2016.
I am not suggesting that Syrians, or any other immigrant group, should be held responsible for the increase in gang crime. It is particularly worth noting that the Swedish model of integration failed long before their arrival, even causing some naturalized Swedes, including others with Middle Eastern roots, to support the far right in an attempt to limit further immigration.
But now, the country’s second largest party, the Sweden Democrats, are on a mission to restore what they see as “traditional Swedish values”. Historically locked out of power by the reluctance of other parties to work with them, they are forecast to secure around 20 percent of the vote tomorrow and could be on track to play a key role in a possible centre-right coalition that could end up ruling country for the next four years.
This would be their first time in government and would surely prove to be a game changer for the country. The party’s priorities include ending segregated neighbourhoods, curbing organized crime and curbing immigration.
While I may morally disagree with closing our borders to those in need, it may be the best way to recalibrate—at least temporarily—after decades of failed policies.
While it is impossible to turn back the clock on immigration, Sweden must find a way to solve its integration problem before it is too late. And the only way to achieve this is to recognize today’s Sweden for what it really is — a multicultural society.
While the far right essentially attempts to make “Sweden Great Again”, I am convinced that we need to forge a more inclusive national identity that recognizes the demographic changes of recent decades, while at the same time embracing the unique dual legacies that now exist across our country .
Only by recognizing who we are, is it possible to create a society that does not breed exclusion or even worse, crime.
