Sweden's 'Voluntary' Deportation Scheme Shockingly Undemocratic
By Gajanan Khergamker
Sweden’s latest proposal to introduce a voluntary deportation scheme targeting foreign-born individuals holding Swedish passports raises a myriad of concerns that strike at the very core of democratic values.
Currently, Sweden offers a voluntary exit scheme that provides 10,000 Swedish crowns (approximately $960) along with travel costs for refugees who choose to leave the country. The proposal suggests expanding this program to include naturalised Swedish citizens and families of migrants.
 |
| The very idea that foreign-born Swedish citizens could be encouraged —or coerced—into leaving the country is deplorable |
At its heart, democracy is premised on equality before the law, with no room for arbitrary distinctions based on origin, race, or ethnicity. Sweden, a nation historically lauded for its open society, embracing multiculturalism and progressive integration policies, now finds itself teetering on a precipice.
The very idea that foreign-born Swedish citizens could be encouraged—or coerced—into leaving the country suggests a tacit stratification within the citizenry, dividing people into categories of "native" versus "foreign," even when the latter group has ostensibly achieved full citizenship.
The program’s voluntary nature may seem innocuous at first glance. However, beneath the surface lies the potential for coercion and subtle pressure. It is important to recognise that a ‘voluntary’ program can rapidly transition into one where individuals, particularly those from vulnerable or marginalised groups, may feel compelled to leave in the face of societal or governmental pressures.
The stigmatisation of foreign-born citizens, exacerbated by a program of this nature, introduces the risk of alienation and a reduction in rights that are otherwise inalienable under democratic frameworks.
Moreover, Sweden’s plan, under the guise of reducing immigration-related strain on resources, seems to ignore the immense contributions of foreign-born citizens to the nation's economy, culture, and society.
By pushing a policy that appears to segregate its populace based on origin, the Swedish government risks breeding resentment and deepening the societal rifts that it ostensibly seeks to heal.
Legally, this move raises serious questions. Once citizenship is granted, it confers a range of rights and protections that should not be subjected to revocation or undermined based on an individual's place of birth.
Citizenship implies an equality that transcends geographic origins, and any state-driven effort to incentivise the departure of foreign-born citizens carries the stench of discrimination, no matter how softly it may be packaged.
International human rights frameworks also come into play here. Sweden has long been a signatory to various human rights treaties that emphasise the importance of non-discrimination and the protection of all citizens, regardless of their background.
This voluntary deportation scheme, while perhaps not an explicit breach of these obligations, certainly flirts with their boundaries, signaling a troubling shift in the nation’s commitment to upholding the universal principles it once championed.
The notion of 'voluntary deportation' of foreign-born Swedish citizens flies in the face of the very principles that democracy is built upon. It sets a dangerous precedent, one that subtly undermines the fabric of Swedish society by embedding a hierarchy of citizenship.
In a true democracy, the rights and protections afforded to citizens should not be conditional or dependent on factors like place of birth. Sweden must tread carefully, for the erosion of democratic values often begins with the slow, almost imperceptible implementation of policies that, on the surface, appear harmless but carry within them the seeds of division and inequality.
Ironically in a report, released earlier this year, Sweden’s Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Institute had ranked India among the most rapidly autocratising nations globally, an assertion that amplifies concerns raised since 2018 when India was first branded an "electoral autocracy." By 2023, this label still held, with the country’s democratic credentials continuing to erode, the V-Dem report, “Democracy Winning and Losing at the Ballot,” and preposterously, grimly noted.
The institute, renowned for categorising nations into four stages on the spectrum between democracy and autocracy – liberal democracy, electoral democracy, electoral autocracy, and closed autocracy – defines electoral autocracy as a system where multiparty elections exist, albeit under a compromised framework. Fundamental democratic guarantees like freedom of speech, association, and fair elections are systematically undermined, thus diluting the essence of democracy while maintaining its superficial shell.
With autocratisation on the rise in 42 countries, including India, the V-Dem report ominously underscored India’s significance in this global shift. "India, housing 18% of the world's population, accounts for nearly half of those living under autocratising regimes," the report stressed, adding that India’s democratic backsliding is emblematic of a broader global trend.
The decline, marked by a tightening grip on media independence, suppression of dissent on social media, harassment of journalists critical of the government, and an ever-growing hostility towards civil society, represents a systematic erosion of democratic norms. The opposition, too, has not escaped this wave of intimidation.
On the global stage, India’s positioning within the V-Dem Institute's Liberal Democracy Index had painted an equally bleak picture. Accordingly, ranking 104th out of 179 countries, India’s democracy now lagged significantly. The index, which evaluates democratic systems based on 71 parameters split between the Electoral Democracy Index and the Liberal Component Index, evaluates the robustness of electoral processes, individual and minority rights, the suffrage system, and the all-important checks and balances that restrain executive power.
However, the government’s response has been a categorical dismissal. In 2021, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar dismissed similar findings by V-Dem and Freedom House, labelling them as unsolicited moral posturing from "self-appointed custodians of the world." To date, the Ministry of External Affairs has remained silent on the latest report, maintaining a posture of indifference towards external criticism of India’s democratic health.
Needless to say, the "self-appointed custodians of the world" will now chose to look the other way at Sweden's systematic stigmatisation of foreign-born citizens in a shocking move that would otherwise seem totally undemocratic by any stretch of imagination.
