The latest witch hunt against me has crossed all boundaries. It wasn't about substantive issues, arguments, or political choices. It has been a wave of personal hatred, suspicion, and direct threats of violence. The feeds contain not only harsh words, but also direct and detailed threats. One of them described how I would be cut into small pieces.

This is not a price anyone should have to pay to participate in politics.

What triggered this hatred?

The trigger was the latest vote on stricter requirements for Swedish citizenship.

In that question, it was claimed that I voted against stricter requirements. That is not true. I voted for seven out of eight decision points and stand behind stricter requirements for Swedish citizenship.

Yet Jimmie Åkesson claimed in Sunday's party leader debate on SVT that I had received bribes from the Green Party. How can a party leader stand on public service broadcasting and spread a false claim about bribes?

In the current political climate, where lies quickly become fuel for witch hunts, hatred and threats, this is deeply irresponsible. When a person in Jimmie Åkesson's position says something like that publicly, he reinforces the suspicion and amplifies a climate that has already gone far beyond the limit.

What responsibility do political leaders actually take for the consequences of their words and statements?

The decision point where I made a different assessment concerned transitional rules for individuals who had already applied for citizenship under previous regulations, where the requirement had been five years' residence in Sweden instead of eight.

My conclusion was that there was very little to be gained from lacking clear transition rules, but an obvious risk of more legal proceedings, overloaded authorities, and unnecessary costs for taxpayers.

When laws change mid-process without clarity on how the transition should be handled, the risk of different interpretations, longer proceedings, and more complicated application increases. I also see a risk that this will largely become a symbolic gesture, while the practical consequences could be increased uncertainty.

I have weighed arguments, analysed and come to my own assessment. Therefore, I chose to vote differently on one out of eight decision points.

Let me also make it clear: I took this decision as a Member of Parliament, not as leader of the Ambition Sverige party.

At the same time, I want to be clear: I support stricter requirements for Swedish citizenship, which I also voted for in the ballot.

I want to see a migration policy based on order, responsibility and clear rules. Sweden must regain control over migration and ensure that immigration occurs in a way that is sustainable for the country.

My starting point is simple: anyone who immigrates to Sweden should support themselves through honest work, respect Swedish law, and contribute to society.

I have drawn up Ambition Sverige’s migration policy programme, which focuses specifically on these issues. Please feel free to read the party programme on Ambition Sverige’s website: ambitionsverige.se

More or less democracy in the Swedish Riksdag?

The Swedish parliamentary system is based on individual MPs being present in the chamber and voting by pressing a green, red, or yellow button. This may sound technical, but behind every button press lies personal responsibility.

Sweden is a representative democracy. Voters vote for parties, but they also elect members who are expected to familiarise themselves with issues, understand the consequences of decisions, and ultimately take responsibility for their vote. A Member of Parliament is not elected to be a mechanical extension of the party leadership.

In the debate about setting off, it has become clear that the Sweden Democrats' leadership considers it a given that not only SD's own members will vote according to the party line, but also independent members – so-called political independents – who previously belonged to the party.

The group leadership within the Sweden Democrats consists of group leader Linda Lindberg, deputy group leader Henrik Vinge, and second deputy group leader Julia Kronlid. At the parliamentary group's meetings, members are informed about the policy in upcoming votes. This in itself is nothing unusual. All parties work with coordination.

The problem arises when the party line is no longer a recommendation, but in practice a Compulsion. When members who might vote the wrong way are excluded rather than allowed to attend and vote according to their own convictions, then we have a democratic problem.

Before the vote on Nato, I and several other members were swapped out. I had voted no. But through the swap, my vote never had to appear on the roll call.

This is precisely the point.

The offsetting system is intended to manage absences so that the balance of power in parliament is not affected by illness, travel, or other practical hindrances. It is not intended to be used as a way to control or neutralise members who may vote according to conscience, knowledge, or their own analysis.

When set-off is used in that way, the issue becomes bigger than a single vote. Then it's about whether parliament consists of 349 independent members or if the chamber is practically just an extension of the party group leaders.

The system for voting simultaneously relies on personal accountability that extends beyond committee work and party meetings. Individual members ought to know what they are voting for or against, particularly on major and fundamental issues.

If members are not expected to think for themselves, if they are not allowed to follow their conscience or their own knowledge on crucial matters, then the voting buttons might as well be removed. In that case, members could stay home, and the voting could take place directly based on the parties' allocation of seats and the group leaders' instructions.

In such an arrangement, the Members of Parliament have in practice played out their role.

A significantly more serious problem than the existence of a few uncontrollable and unbribable non-party-affiliated members of parliament is that other members often lack the practical ability to vote according to their inner conviction or moral compass on sensitive issues.

A clear example is the vote on legal gender reassignment at the age of 16. The Moderate Party member who went against the party line and voted no demonstrated precisely the courage a free mandate is intended to enable. But everyone who dares to go against the party line also knows that the price can be high.

This should be discussed more.

Because if every independent voice is treated as a problem, and every deviation from the party line is punished, what then remains of representative democracy?

The free mandate does not exist to cause disorder. It exists to ensure that Parliament is not reduced to a predictable button-pushing machine.

A Member of Parliament who is never allowed to think for themselves is not actually needed.

Then we won't get more democracy. We'll get less.

When independence is called bribery

Jimmie Åkesson claims that Katja Nyberg and I have accepted bribes from the Green Party. Both Katja and I voted for seven out of eight points in the proposal for stricter requirements for Swedish citizenship. We therefore voted for a tighter migration policy. Trying to describe this as if we were acting on behalf of the Green Party is not serious.

The point at which I made a different assessment was regarding transitional rules. I believed that the absence of clear transitional rules risked creating more legal proceedings, higher costs, and more strain on already overburdened agencies.

You can criticise that. You can think I was wrong. But calling it bribes is something else entirely.

When a party leader makes such an accusation against independent members, they contribute to poisoning political discourse. Moreover, they do something else: they attack the very idea that a Member of Parliament can make an independent decision.

A free mandate means something. If every independent vote and deviation from the party line is to be explained by bribery, then the problem is the perception of democracy.

My message is and has always been: Think for yourself!

For me, it’s not a slogan, but a lifelong approach. In my professional life, in public debate, and in Parliament, I've always tried to remain free enough to analyse, evaluate, and draw my own conclusions. I did that in the latest vote as well.

My hope is that more people will dare to do the same, in parliament, in public debate and in Sweden at large.

For a free society, free people are required.

People who dare to think for themselves, even when the winds are blowing.

Elsa Widding

5th May 2026

Case officers at government agencies dictate the terms of what policies are to be pursued in Sweden. Jimmie Åkesson (SD) grumbles, but fundamentally changes nothing about the power of the agencies. He mostly engages in signal politics.

Last Tuesday, March 10th, DN interviewed in the article ”I am one hundred percent sure – the authorities are working against us” Jimmie Åkesson on the SD's direction of travel, what the SD wants to achieve, and how he views Swedish politics and the country's future.

Jimmie Åkesson is absolutely convinced that authorities are working against him and the Sweden Democrats in general. He believes that various authorities are obstructing legislative proposals and other measures required to save Sweden. What he says is correct, that authorities are very much working against both the Sweden Democrats and proposals put forward by the rest of the government.

Examples of good but opposed proposals are the ”body search zone laws” (searches in security zones) and the duty to inform act.

The former concerns the police being able to search people in particularly vulnerable areas without reasonable suspicion. It was nicknamed the ”snitch law” by established media and the red-green bloc.

The second concerns individuals working within authorities having to inform relevant authorities if they become aware of a person residing in the country illegally, with the aim of counteracting both gang-related crime and social parasitism, as well as terrorist acts on Swedish soil.

”The ”visitation zone law" was heavily revised. It can only be used in direct connection to a very serious crime, and then only for two weeks at a time, and must be extended by a prosecutor, not the police chief himself.

According to Akademikerförbundet SSR, the Information Obligation Act should only apply to six authorities: the Swedish Social Insurance Agency, the Prison and Probation Service, the Enforcement Authority, the Swedish Pensions Agency, and the Swedish Tax Agency. Initially, it also included healthcare, schools, and social care, but this has been dropped. It is in these authorities that undocumented individuals are discovered to the greatest extent.

Jimmy Åkesson pretends that he is doing enough to tackle the problems, but it is merely tokenism. The fact is that Åkesson is doing next to nothing to resolve the problems.

The problem is that authorities oppose all proposals they deem to be bad. Thus, individuals within authorities dictate the terms of what policies should be pursued in Sweden. This is called political activism. Police officer Peter Springare and social worker Maria Rennerstam provide good examples in their books.

The power of the authorities

The problem is that regulatory activism – ranging from smaller regulatory bodies to the higher courts – exerts a significant influence on power. Another term for this regulatory activism is the ”deep state”, and it refers to the way in which officials within regulatory bodies determine the country’s political direction.

We in Ambition Sverige therefore believe that we must abolish the principle of the separation of powers in order to resolve these problems. This does not mean that we want a government to have unlimited powers, but the problem with the system we have is that it was designed for a different Sweden.

Very few people in the 1980s and 1990s could have imagined that we would face crime that threatens the very foundations of our system, but that is the reality today. Today, we have criminal clans and networks that threaten our local authorities, county councils and even the state through infiltration.

There are plenty of such examples today, and special measures are required in a force majeure situation such as the one we currently find ourselves in. We cannot wait for officials within the Swedish authorities to see reason. It is our country that is at stake, and whether there will even be a Sweden worth living in for our children and grandchildren.

A Sweden without the principle of the separation of powers could, instead, have a functioning Constitutional Committee. We currently have a Constitutional Committee, but it operates without reprisals and merely involves a hearing. We saw this in the NUON affair.

What we need is a Constitutional Committee that can impose sanctions on politicians who have acted in ways that have been directly harmful to Sweden. This, combined with the reintroduction of professional and civil service accountability – which Ambition Sverige wishes to introduce – means that we can make radical changes relatively quickly if we come to power in Sweden.

If we do not take these steps, power in Sweden will be reserved solely for the Social Democrats, who, through their loyal officials and civil servants, ensure that Sweden pursues social democratic policies regardless of who is in government.

To break this vicious circle, we must therefore break the stranglehold of the balance of power about Sweden, because a system of government by the authorities is profoundly undemocratic.

Ambition Sverige wants to place more power in the hands of the people through democracy. Going to the polls in every election whilst knowing that social democracy is the sole ruling force in Sweden is the antithesis of democracy. Public officials should serve the will of the people, not rule over citizens.

Text: Ambition Sverige | Picture: Jimmie Åkesson and police officers carrying out a search | Original photos: Tommy Winterskiöld Vestlie (CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia) and Johan Nilsson, reworked using Grok AI, ®AmbitionSverige

Related Police can now visit – without concrete suspicion of a crime, 25 April 2024, Sveriges Radio

In an increasingly tough line on immigration and security threats, US President Donald Trump has signed Executive Order 14161, which now threatens to significantly change the entry rules for millions of tourists and business travellers.

The order, signed on 20 January 2025, will require entrants from visa-free countries, including most EU countries - to account for up to five years of social media activity, phone numbers called, email addresses and biometric data such as fingerprints and iris scans. It is an escalation of Trump's ”America First”-agenda, but also a move that critics warn could lead to a global chain reaction of opinion control at borders.

Tighter controls: from ESTA to full screening

For travellers from 42 visa-free countries, such as Sweden, the UK and Germany, the Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (ESTA) process has so far been a simple formality - an online application for a $40 fee for up to 90 days of stay, but under a proposal from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), published in Federal Register On 10 December, the disclosure of detailed personal information will soon become mandatory. Among others:

• Social media: Full history from platforms such as Facebook, Twitter (X), Instagram and TikTok over the last five years.
• Contact details: Telephone numbers and e-mail addresses used during the same period.
• Biometrics: Self-portrait (selfies) for facial recognition, plus fingerprint and eye scanning on entry.
• Family ties: Names and dates of birth of close relatives.

CBP justifies the changes with reference to Executive Order 14161, which aims to ”protect the United States against foreign terrorists and other threats to national security and public safety”. The process is expected to take significantly longer - from days to weeks - and will affect not only new travellers but also those already in the US on visas, who will now be screened retroactively.

Tourism has already been hit hard. According to U.S. Travel Association International visitor numbers are expected to fall by 6.3% in 2025, with a loss of revenue of $12.5 billion - partly due to Trump's restrictive policies. Experts warn that the new rules could scare away even more people, especially ahead of events such as the 2026 World Cup.

”Wrong” opinions as security threats: from students to tourists

The most controversial issue is how to use this data. It is still unclear exactly what views can lead to rejection, but the pattern is clear from existing cases. Already today, student visas are being cancelled for foreign students who have criticised Israel or engaged in pro-Palestinian activities. One example is the Turkish PhD student Rümeysa Öztürk at Tufts University, whose visa was revoked in March 2025 following an opinion piece criticising the university's handling of the Gaza conflict. She was arrested and detained for six weeks before a federal court temporarily restored her status, citing violations of free speech.

Similar cases include Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi at Columbia University, whose visa was cancelled for ”anti-Semitic protests” and ”support for terrorism” - terms that critics say are widely used to silence dissent. A senior official at the State Department recently testified in court that criticism of Israeli policies, such as calls for reduced military aid or ”abolition of Zionism”, can weigh in on visa decisions.

This ties in with a leaked DOJ memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi, dated 4 December 2025, which expands the definition of ”domestic terrorism”. The memo lists views such as ”anti-American”, ”anti-Christian” and ”anti-capitalist” as potential indicators of terrorist threats, along with support for ”mass immigration”, ”radical gender ideology” and opposition to immigration laws. The FBI is encouraged to draw up lists of suspicious groups and offer rewards for tips - a policy critics call ”a thought police law” and a threat to the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

These criteria are expected to be applied to travellers, meaning that a tweet on climate justice or criticism of US foreign policy could potentially block your trip.

Global ripple effect: EU and UK respond with their own measures?

The US policy risks triggering a domino effect. The European Commission has not yet officially responded to the proposal, but concerns are growing in Brussels and member states. According to Euronews and the BBC, the new rules could lead to reciprocal demands: EU citizens forced to open their profiles publicly to US authorities could face similar screening when entering Europe. Germany's foreign ministry has already warned that ”reciprocity” may be necessary, while the French government is discussing biometric checks for US travellers.

The UK, which is not an EU member but part of the visa waiver programme, has gone further. The country has recently arrested journalist Richard Medhurst under Terrorism Act 2000, suspected of ”expressing support for a prohibited organisation” through his reporting on Gaza and Lebanon. Medhurst, a Syrian-British journalist with over a million followers, was held for 24 hours without clear explanation - a case the NUJ and IFJ call a ”chilling threat to press freedom”.

Also former MP George Galloway, leader of the Workers Party of Britain, was arrested in September 2025 at Gatwick Airport during counter-terrorism-legislation. He and his wife were questioned for hours about their views on the Gaza conflict, without being formally arrested, but with orders not to leave. Galloway described it as ”political persecution” and part of a broader campaign against left-wing opposition.

These incidents illustrate a trend: countries like the UK and potentially EU countries are now introducing their own registers of ”wrong” views and contacts, requiring ”clean” profiles for entry. This is creating a world where travelling requires not just a passport, but political loyalty.

Implications for travellers and democracy

For the average Swedish tourist, this means significantly longer waiting times, greater uncertainty and a sense of surveillance. Even business travellers risk being stopped if an old tweet flagged as ”anti-American”, and for activists? It is a direct attack on free speech, which the ACLU and FIRE call ”ideologically driven counter-terrorism”.

The Trump administration defends itself with national security, but critics point to the lack of clear guidelines - what exactly is ”hateful ideology”? As Loyola Law Schools Professor Marissa Montes notes: ”It is broad and discretionary, giving officials the power to interpret at will.”

While the proposal is out for consultation, it is likely to come into force soon. Travellers are urged to clear profiles and be careful, but in a democracy thoughts should be free, not border guarded. The question is: will the world accept a future where passports require political purity?

Göran Reuterdahl, former Vice President of companies such as Ericsson and Microsoft and CEO of smaller listed companies, spokesperson for Swedish Sovereignty in Ambition Sverige | Photo: Ulf Gabrielsson, retouch Andreas Jansson

Gunilla Edelstam, an associate professor of law, warns that the Swedish Parliament is trying to make it more difficult to change the Constitution and if it is voted through, it could be almost impossible for Sweden to leave the EU.

Text: Gunilla Edelstam | Photo: Arild Vågen, CC BY-SA 4.0

Form of Government (RF) is the constitution that sets out the foundations of the Swedish system of government. Among other things, the RF sets out the basis for how the Riksdag governs Sweden through legislation. According to the current RF, which came into being in 1974, two parliamentary decisions are required to amend a constitution with an intervening election to the Riksdag. Half of the members of the Riksdag must then vote in favour of an amendment to the two Riksdag decisions.

Now the Swedish Parliament wants to make it harder to change the RF (Government Bill 2024/25:165). In the second decision after the parliamentary election, a qualified majority of two-thirds of the members of the Riksdag must vote in favour. Otherwise, the decision will fall and the proposed amendment to the Instrument of Government will not apply.

Parliament took the first decision on this change in October 2025. Parliamentary elections will be held in September 2026, after which Parliament will decide once more on this amendment. If the decision on the amendment is supported by at least half of the members of both parliaments, the Constitution will be amended.

Thereafter, any future amendments to the RF will require 2/3 of the members of parliament to vote in favour of a proposed amendment in the second round after a general election. This means that it will be very difficult to change the form of government in the future.’

Why do you want to make such a change?

The aim is said to be to strengthen democracy. Is this true?

Having a system where a majority (at least half) of the members of parliament must vote in favour of an amendment is perfectly reasonable, but making constitutional amendments more difficult by requiring a 2/3 majority for amendment is hardly democratic in a country like Sweden.

This means that a minority of 1/3 of the members of the Riksdag can prevent important changes to the RF. This does not strengthen democracy in Sweden. For example, EU membership is based on the fact that Sweden is a member of the European Union according to RF 1:10. This is thus laid down in the Constitution.

If Sweden were to want to leave the EU in the future, it would be sufficient for 1/3 of the members of the Riksdag to vote against. It will probably be impossible to leave the EU in the future if the proposal for a 2/3 majority wins through.

Membership of the EU means that legislation on issues such as the environment, electricity, forestry, competition, trade, agriculture and labour law can be decided by the EU. Decisions on such issues are taken by the European Parliament. Sweden's 21 MEPs out of a total of 720 cannot stand up to a majority of MEPs from other EU countries. EU legislation on electricity has instead led to an increase in Swedish electricity prices.

This is because Germany has the right to buy electricity from Sweden under an EU law. Germany buys a lot of electricity from Sweden. EU legislation has also had a negative impact on Sweden's forestry industry. Sweden has the most forest of all EU countries. About 63% of Sweden is covered by forest.

Forest industry representatives find the EU's requirements too tough, unrealistic and ineffective. This could hit Swedish jobs and export revenues hard. We could regain our sovereignty and self-government by amending RF 1:10 and leaving the EU, but with 1/3 of MPs voting against, it is unlikely that an exit will be possible in the future.

With regard to EU membership in particular, we could have chosen a different route to enable withdrawal if Sweden had had a constitutional court. If such a court existed, we could ask it to declare our membership of the EU invalid. The basis for this is the starting point in Chapter 1, Section 1 of the Swedish Constitution, which states that ”all power emanates from the people”.

This means that the Swedish people vote for their politicians in the Riksdag. These elected politicians then have the right to legislate in Sweden. We could demand that EU membership be cancelled on the grounds that the Riksdag never had the right to transfer legislative power to the EU. Legislative power only exists when the power emanates from the Swedish people.

The Riksdag consists of the elected representatives, i.e. the politicians elected by the Swedish people. The Riksdag's task is to legislate, but when the link to the Swedish people disappears, i.e. when legislative power is transferred from the Riksdag to the EU Parliament, this is a violation of RF 1:1.

The Swedish people have not voted for all the politicians in the EU, so the power exercised in the EU does not come from the Swedish people. We have only elected the 21 Swedish MEPs but not the other 699 MEPs in the EU.

The EU therefore does not have the right to legislate in a way that applies to the Swedish people. The link to the Swedish people does not exist for the EU Parliament. There is no legal right for the Swedish Parliament to transfer legislative power to the EU. This is the meaning of RF 1:1. We could therefore have EU membership declared invalid by a Swedish constitutional court. The problem is that we have no constitutional court in Sweden.

Limitation of state power is a characteristic of a modern democratic state. Limitations should be set out in a constitution such as the RF when it comes to the parliament's governance of the country, but if the parliament in future decisions (after the next parliamentary elections) accepts that 1/3 of the members of parliament in the future should be able to stop any attempt to change the constitution (for example by voting against any proposal to introduce a constitutional court), this may mean that it is not possible to limit important parts of state power.

There is a case for retaining the current more democratic possibility of amending the Constitution by a simple majority, where the votes of half of the members of parliament are required to accept a constitutional amendment.

Gunilla Edelstam Associate Professor, PhD, Team member of Swedish sovereignty and the EU, Law and order

The sexual abuse and rape of young children are exceptionally heinous crimes that must be stopped. Through its Justice Policy Programme, Ambition Sverige fully supports Dumpen in its tireless work to prevent child sexual abuse.

So far it is not enough, unfortunately.

Young children are rapidly entering the digital internet world through mobile phones and tablets. There are social media with friends, films and music. But there are also dangers in the form of paedophiles.

Today, paedophiles and other offenders can easily seek out and connect with children via social media and after a period of contact, once trust has been built, they can then arrange to meet the contacted child. A meeting that unfortunately too often leads to rape and sexual abuse.

The consequences of abuse are far-reaching and costly to society. Dumpen's investigations show that, in addition to purely physical consequences, abused children suffer various forms of deep trauma and mental distress that in many cases have led to suicide.

The legal system in Sweden currently deals with child sexual abuse reactively, i.e. the police act when the abuse has taken place, in accordance with the law, but by then the damage to the child has already been done.

In addition, the problem of child sexual abuse has been downplayed in the mainstream media, as demonstrated by the repeated questioning of the Dump's hangings of documented paedophiles.

Sexual abuse can be prevented through preventive measures such as criminalising adults seeking to contact children for sexual purposes. Today, the police work in a similar way to identify terrorists before a terrorist act is carried out. The criminalisation of sexual solicitation allows the police to arrest the paedophile before the abuse of the child has taken place.

Recently, the Tidö government announced that the criminalisation of sexual solicitation will be introduced from 1 April 2026. This is very good and necessary, but it is not enough. Paedophilia needs to be discussed much more so that children become more vigilant.

The whole community has a responsibility. Parents, teachers and visiting police officers in schools need to inform children about the risks of anonymous contacts on the internet. And even outside the internet, for example in the world of sports and athletics, children need to be informed about the risk of sexual abuse.

Finally, the general media must also contribute by publishing and discussing more about both the risks and consequences of paedophiles' actions against young children. The discussion is absolutely necessary.

Half the job is almost done - through the criminalisation of sexual contact with young children - but society as a whole must step up its responsibilities. Parents, teachers, police officers in schools and the general media must help raise awareness of the dangers of paedophiles online and in society.

Preventing child sexual abuse is of utmost importance. Supporting Dumping and Ambition Sverige in the effort to give children a safer and better future - inform and discuss paedophilia more!

Signed
Bo Hansson, spokesperson Law and order for Ambition Sverige and
Danny Raucci, Regional Manager for Ambition Sverige Gothenburg

Photo: Patrik Sjöberg and Sara Nilsson and to the right Bo Hansson and Danny Raucci (top) from the Ambition Sverige party | Photos: Dumpen and private

Ambition Sverige wants to live in a society where everyone who works in the service of the people, from administrator to director general, has a clear personal responsibility. A society where every decision is made with respect for the law, for the mission and for people.

Today, we see something completely different.
Decisions are taken arbitrarily, often without a clear legal basis, without transparency and without accountability.

In 1976, the criminal liability of public officials was abolished. Although the law on official misconduct still exists in the Criminal Code (Chapter 20), which also covers gross negligence and neglect, its application is in practice non-existent. The requirements for conviction have become so high that even serious errors, abuse of power and neglect rarely lead to prosecution, let alone conviction.

The result is a system where, in practice, no public official can be held legally accountable even for gross negligence. We see children denied help, elderly people raising the alarm without getting answers, and life-changing decisions that cannot be legally challenged, all under a culture of silence where accountability is dissolved.

At the same time, organised crime is spreading within municipalities and welfare systems, protected by a lack of transparency and accountability. Study after study has highlighted the problems, but no government has acted.

Ambition Sverige wants to reintroduce clear, legally certain and criminal liability for officials.
To reconnect power to responsibility.
To put an end to arbitrariness.
To ensure that law becomes law again and not an interpretation.

When accountability is absent and justice is silenced, we are fast approaching a lawless society.
We are Ambition Sverige. We restore responsibility and we take responsibility.

Elena Malmefeldt (A), spokesperson for the Swedish culture and Health and Wellbeing

Naturopaths (Swedish Association of Naturopaths)