'It will not happen': Top Centre Party MP rules out Sweden Democrat deal

The rejected deal would have linked the Centre Party to Moderate leader Ulf Kristersson, with the Sweden Democrats helping sustain his government. It mattered because reports suggested the Sweden Democrats might drop their demand for ministerial posts to persuade the Centre Party to switch sides.

Martin Ådahl rejected that possibility. He was a former Centre Party deputy leader and said the party could not accept any mechanism for supporting a government dependent on Sweden Democrat votes. His statement set the clearest red line the Centre Party had given in this episode.

The issue arose before parliament’s planned vote on Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist as prime minister. She had failed to build a centrist coalition. Meanwhile, a Fores article argued that policy mattered most, but Ådahl’s response indicated that liberal policy concessions would not make Sweden Democrat dependence acceptable to him or the Centre Party.

A dependent government does not necessarily include the Sweden Democrats as formal ministers. Instead, it needs their parliamentary support, or at least their abstention, to avoid being defeated. This matters because the government’s survival and governing programme can depend on another party’s decisions.

For example, Ulf Kristersson could lead a government made up of other parties while the Sweden Democrats supported it in parliament. They might demand policy changes, back a budget, or refuse to vote against the government. The government would then need to manage that relationship continually.

In this episode, that dependence was politically sensitive because the Sweden Democrats are described as far-right. Fores head Matilda Molander argued that cooperation should be judged by its liberal policy content. Ådahl rejected that approach, saying no mechanism could make reliance on Sweden Democrat support acceptable.

This episode involves competing routes to Sweden’s next government. Moderate Party leader Ulf Kristersson could seek office with support from parties including, potentially, the Sweden Democrats. A separate centrist project aimed to unite the Social Democrats, Greens, Centre Party, Liberals and Christian Democrats.

The centrist coalition had two important leadership figures. Centre Party leader Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist announced that she could not win enough support for the coalition, even though it was intended to produce a government headed by Social Democrat leader Magdalena Andersson. Parliament was nevertheless due to vote on Thand Ringqvist as prime minister.

That created a procedural and political conflict. The Speaker scheduled a vote on Thand Ringqvist while she was seeking an Andersson-led government. At the same time, reports focused on whether the Centre Party might instead help Kristersson, an option Ådahl firmly rejected.

Sweden’s prime ministerial vote is based on negative rather than positive parliamentary approval. The candidate does not need to win a majority of votes in favour. Instead, parliament rejects the candidate only when an absolute majority votes against them.

That means supporters can vote yes, abstain, or sometimes simply avoid creating a majority against the nominee. For instance, a candidate could receive fewer affirmative votes than opposing votes overall, yet still take office if the number voting against remains below the blocking threshold. This system makes informal support and abstentions important.

The rule explains why a government can be dependent on another party without formally including it. In the article’s episode, the Centre Party’s possible support for Kristersson was discussed in those terms. However, Ådahl said no arrangement could make a Sweden Democrat-dependent government acceptable.

Sweden has 349 members of parliament, so an absolute majority is 175 members. Under the country’s negative parliamentary system, a prime ministerial candidate is rejected when at least 175 MPs vote against the candidate. Fewer opposing votes allow approval.

The mechanism makes the number of “no” votes decisive, rather than requiring the candidate to collect 175 “yes” votes. A nominee might therefore take office with support from only a minority, provided opponents are divided or some MPs abstain. Parties can influence the result without formally joining the government.

That threshold helps explain the Centre Party’s importance in the article. If its MPs changed sides, abstained, or supported a candidate, they could affect whether a government passed the parliamentary test. Ådahl’s statement ruled out using such an arrangement to install Kristersson with Sweden Democrat dependence.

Backing a dependent government could reshape the Centre Party’s role. It might win policy concessions, but it would also need to defend cooperation with the Sweden Democrats. That could blur the Centre Party’s liberal identity and create tension over which policies were truly its own.

The article gives a concrete example of this debate. Fores head Matilda Molander argued that cooperation was not automatically wrong and should be judged by its contents. She said the key test was whether a government dependent on Sweden Democrat support pursued a broadly liberal programme. Her argument implied that policy conditions could determine Centre Party support.

The political consequence remains uncertain because Ådahl rejected that mechanism outright. If his position prevailed, the Centre Party would not support or join such a government. If the party chose another course, it could gain influence over policy but face coalition strain and continuing dependence on Sweden Democrat votes.

The Sweden Democrats’ role has grown from being treated as a far-right outsider to becoming a potential parliamentary kingmaker. In a fragmented parliament, a party does not need to hold ministerial posts to influence government formation. Its votes or abstentions can determine whether a prime minister survives the parliamentary test.

The article shows this leverage directly. Reports said the Sweden Democrats might drop their demand for ministerial positions if that encouraged the Centre Party to support Ulf Kristersson. Their possible backing therefore became central to negotiations, even without a formal coalition agreement.

That influence also creates a major political dilemma. Fores head Matilda Molander argued that cooperation should depend on the policy programme, while Martin Ådahl said no arrangement was possible. The Sweden Democrats’ support matters because other parties may need their votes, but accepting it can reshape alliances and provoke clear red lines.