(Version française disponible ici)

According to a Statistics Canada survey published in 2023, only 28 per cent of Canadians reported high confidence in the federal Parliament. Many analyses, including one by the OECD in 2024, suggest there’s a close link between public transparency and citizens’ confidence in their institutions. The Canadian government’s position is that public trust can be strengthened by increasing transparency with measures such as improving access-to-information legislation.  

Sweden is often presented as a model country in matters of public transparency and access to information. But how exactly would adopting Swedish-style practices in Canada strengthen confidence in our public institutions? In the context of growing polarization, misinformation, and disinformation, is there a risk that populist parties might misuse these practices to deepen the crisis of confidence in our democratic institutions? 

There is no simple answer to this question, but it’s worth asking. While Sweden may be a model for anti-corruption measures and public transparency, over the past 15 years, the rapid rise of the Sweden Democrats, an anti-immigration party associated with the extreme right, has raised new questions. These questions are particularly pertinent since the party became part of the ruling coalition in Sweden. 

Transparency: a lever for building trust 

In 2024, the OECD published a report that examined how different factors influence levels of trust in public institutions. The report highlights a worrying situation: a significant proportion of the population has limited confidence in their national governments. In 30 countries, 44 per cent of those surveyed said they had little or no confidence in their government, while only 39 per cent reported a high or moderate level of confidence. 

In the OECD’s view, public transparency and freedom of the press are closely linked to a perception of high integrity in public institutions and reduced corruption. Many researchers also agree that citizens’ trust in their institutions is a fundamental element of good governance. Public transparency is seen as a key tool for strengthening that trust. As a result, many countries have been quick to introduce laws guaranteeing access to information.  

The Swedish model of ultra-transparency 

Contrary to what one might think, there is little regulation of political party financing and lobbying in Sweden. The country does have an anti-corruption unit, but the bulk of its anti-corruption arsenal lies elsewhere. The keys to fighting corruption are freedom of the press and access to information. 

Freedom of the press is a fundamental principle in Sweden. Sweden’s first law on press freedoms was passed in 1766! In addition to protecting freedom of expression, this law grants Swedes the right to access any public document. The application of this law goes much further than any law in Quebec or Canada. No Swedish public agency or organization is exempt from this right of access to information. 

Public transparency measures require public officials in Sweden to account for their professional activities and expenses. Elected representatives must declare any company or employer they have had dealings with in the past as well as their current financial interests, which are made accessible to the public. For example, civil servants are required to disclose any additional sources of income and gifts they received while carrying out their duties. The salaries of Sweden’s civil servants and elected representatives are also published. 

What’s more, every year the Swedish government publishes the official online publication Taxeringskalendern, which contains the tax returns of every citizen in Sweden. The Ratsit site also makes public a great deal of information that is considered private in Canada, such as the salaries, credit information and bailiff debt balances of all Swedes! 

The Ombudsman: a Swedish invention 

In Sweden, public-sector actors know that official documents are directly accessible online and that journalists can examine them. Sweden’s media also benefit from substantial public financial support used to maintain and foster a diverse and skilled media sector. This heightened transparency has resulted in a high degree of vigilance: elected representatives and civil servants are fully aware that they operate under constant public scrutiny. That places them in something like a “glass house,” where the slightest misstep can trigger a scandal. 

The law also protects all public servants by giving them the right to remain anonymous when they disclose information to the media. Revealing the identity of a whistle-blower is a crime in Sweden. Swedish legislation is designed to make reporting any act of corruption simple, inexpensive, and low risk. 

In addition to laws that make whistleblowing and access to information easier, the presence of an “ombudsman” – a Swedish invention that dates to 1809 – as well as regular audits, promote a culture of transparency while putting pressure on public players. These institutions are perceived as ethical watchdogs.  

An entry point for the rising far right 

This “ultimate” transparency has enabled the Swedish media to uncover several scandals in recent years. Though Sweden is historically renowned for its good governance, the country’s reputation has been shaken by revelations of corruption and misuse of public funds. 

The Sweden Democrats have capitalized on these scandals by positioning themselves as a moral alternative to the incumbent political elite and attracting a growing number of disillusioned voters. According to a recent study, opinion polls show that attitudes of party members and supporters are marked by a strong anti-establishment and anti-immigration stance that sets them apart from other Swedish parties. Their speeches frequently highlight cases where traditional politicians failed to respect the progressive or egalitarian values they defend in public. 

The Sweden Democrats have used scandals as a powerful political tool to reinforce the image of a corrupt and morally bankrupt establishment. For example, the party has taken advantage of cases of mismanagement of public funds, or controversial methods used to force the elderly or mentally ill to buy lottery tickets to finance a political party, to vigorously criticize the integrity of traditional political parties.  

These scandals are presented not just as individual failures, but as symptoms of the broad dysfunction of Sweden’s political system. At the same time, studies have shown that political trust is closely linked to social trust, which can be defined as a belief in the honesty, integrity and reliability of others. Sweden has consequently seen a sharp decline in this trust in recent years. 

Misinformation and populism to blame 

This strategy fosters distrust of the established parties and strengthens the credibility of the Sweden Democrats, who present themselves as advocates of “clean” politics and a return to traditional moral values. This message resonates strongly with voters who are disillusioned by the parties that have historically dominated the Swedish political scene. 

In 2024, the party was accused of operating a “troll farm” on social networks. Over a three-month period, this operation is said to have generated 27 million views on different platforms, amplifying the party’s media influence and political rhetoric. 

The Swedish case does not suggest that we need to return to an out-of-sight government to prevent the rise of populist parties or restore public trust. In the long term, Sweden remains a model of governance to be emulated. In this age of post-truth, it’s not the lack of transparency in public institutions, but rather the disinformation strategies of populist politicians – veritable engineers of chaos – that are eroding our trust in institutions. Let’s not miss the real target.