The spirits are high as we sit down in AF-Borgen’s big ballroom for yet another Studentafton. It is the second Studentafton of the semester and on stage Simona Mohamsson, leader of the Swedish Liberal Party and minister of education, Gustav Fridolin, previous minister of education and former leader of the Green Party, and the moderator Jonathan Lamy, president of Sveriges Elevkårer, an umbrella organisation for Swedish student unions, take their places. Simona and Gustav are no small names, and the question of education is one of great relevance. Still, the room sits partly empty, and Studentafton’s frequent Instagram stories testifies to some difficulties selling tickets.
The Swedish Liberal Party, as Simona herself mentioned, has at times been known as a one-question party: The school-party. Simultaneously, the Green Party has slowly but surely grown to be an important player when it comes to education questions in the left block.
Why did any of them want to be Minister of Education? How did their time in school affect their work as minister? While Gustav talks about primary school being one of his safe spaces as a youth, Simona highlights how school was key to her integration into Swedish society.
However, stories about their lives and inspirational takes on the school system are quickly overshadowed by one of today’s common digs at the Swedish Social Democrats: Their municipalization of primary and secondary schools destroyed the Swedish education system. That is the question both Simona and Gustav come back to regularly, and they largely agree on the answer: The school needs to be under federal control to guarantee equivalent education for all children. However, while Simona continuously talks about not trusting municipalities’ politicians to prioritize education, Gustav rather means that municipalities simply don’t have equal conditions and opportunities to work on their schools. Following up on this, Simona makes the remark that Gustav is “much nicer than her”, as he highlights opportunities rather than incompetence or priorities. Gustav’s answer is clear: “I was a part of Hässleholm’s municipal council – it is conditions, not priorities”. The audience’s loudest laugh of the night follows.
But Simona and Gustav agree on more than just that the municipalization is wrong. They share opinions on the digitalization in Swedish schools having gone too far, the F-limit being too sharp and not fulfilling its function, and that the current grading system wrongly leads to students simulating game theory instead of learning. However, their solutions to these problems differ. Gustav highlights alternative roads to higher education and less focus on grades, which he claims will open up the education system and lessen the amount of game theory students are enacting. Simona instead talks about how teachers need to regain their roles as the ones in charge, making room for more input from principals and less input from students. She also points out how today’s organization of the school system puts too much on teachers’ plates, which distracts them from their core work.
As part of the bigger influence and input Simona thinks principals should have, she wants to allow for principals to introduce a school uniform mandate. In Gustav’s response to this, he mentions how he thinks a rule that mandates how people dress feels both unfree and unswedish. But the idea is not only opposed by Gustav. Also the moderator, Jonathan, seemingly disapproves of it. By quoting multiple different rules and laws, he comes to the conclusion that a uniform mandate goes against not only current school law, but also the Swedish Constitution. Thus, following up on their answers, he simply asks Simona if she wants to allow it, even if it means breaking the Constitution. Her answer? “Yes”.
When talking about the Swedish school system however, there are usually two questions that can not be avoided: The municipalization, and the private school reform (friskolereformen). During the evening, Simona makes it clear that she wants to change the current private school system, banning profits. This is a stance both Gustav and the Green Party, but also the evening’s audience, share with her. What is not as clear, is if her own government and political bloc does. As Jonathan quizzes her on this, she tells the audience that her government (consisting of Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna, supported by Sverigedemokraterna) will present a new school reform this very spring. A reform supported by the majority of the parliament, and thus a reform that will bring real change. If any kind of ban on profits is a part of that reform however, is left unclear.
—
The evening is well paced, and both Simona and Gustav bring up interesting points. Nonetheless, two things become evident: Gustav clearly benefits from not being politically active in the same way as Simona, and Simona loses out by having to convey three non-agreeable ideologies at the same time.
While Gustav points to research and human dignity, sometimes fully in line with the Green Party’s stances, sometimes deviating from them, his arguments are well prepared, logical, and empathetic. At the end of the night, he is clearly the audience’s favourite. Meanwhile, Simona needs to stay within party lines, and thus also fights the same battle as Liberalerna are doing on the grand scale: Her party is supposed to be ideologically social liberal, her political bloc is a majority conservative, while her party’s biggest question, education, is a welfare project, and thus inherently socialist.
This struggle begins to show as Jonathan pushes her on the private school reform, but is further exposed during the audience’s questioning. A student asks Simona about the huge cuts in economic support to the university student unions, and how this can be in line with ensuring higher education of good quality. In her answer, she highlights how important it is that universities and students use the power that already exists within the schools and that “students should be able to be strong on their own”, without economic support from the government. “How dependent should an organisation really be on the state?”. After having promoted more support functions in school, making the teaching profession more desirable, and putting more energy towards the school system – all reforms that need governmental economic support, this answer rings hollow. More than anything, it simply seems like an answer where the invocation of their social liberal stance was suddenly convenient.
Simona and Gustav agree on most things during the evening. If this is because of similar stances, or rather shallow answers, is a bit unclear. After being appointed as the leader of the Liberal Party, Simona has tried her best to seem strong, definite, and forward-thinking. This evening, in a city where twice as many vote for her party compared to the rest of the country, talking about their main issue, almost seemed set up for success. Instead, she couldn’t avoid being plagued by the same struggles affecting her party as a whole. The evening truly is informative and constructive, with all parts providing well thought out answers. However, the feeling that can’t be shaken is in the end brought up even by Simona herself: “I don’t think I’m very popular in here”.
