New V-meeting after no to Ukrainian weapons

The Executive Committee held a meeting of the party’s board of directors today. The VU’s purpose for this is to get a decision in principle and to discuss principles for moving forward enabling arms for Ukraine, says Jenny Lindahl, the party’s communications director, to TT.

It says the VU had another suggestion before Monday’s vote that was to give the green light to 5,000 armored rounds fired at Ukraine. But the party council opposed it and the parliamentary group complied with the decision of the party council, which means that V in principle opposes the export of arms to the conflicting countries.

But the split within the party was evident in Monday’s vote. 13 members voted against arms for Ukraine. Five members abstained from voting and nine were absent.

The party received and received harsh criticism from other parliamentary parties for their decision to vote “No” in the Swedish Parliament.

The question is: What consequences might a strong division within the party have on the party? Traditionally, the party is part of the peace movement and its opposition to arms exports and military solutions to conflicts.

The political scientist and Social Democrat Ulf Pereld believes that the Left Party neither wins nor loses the electorate in what has happened. A recent Sifo poll showed Left Party voters were the group most negative about Sweden’s aid to Ukraine.

On the other hand, the ambiguity of the Left Party’s point of view shows an internal split on the subject. This division in itself is negative for the party and could create uncertainty about the party’s positions as well on other parts of the issue related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, he said.

– Now it is up to Noshi Dadgostar to strike an agreement between the party board and the executive committee and to ensure that the party line has a strong foothold in the relevant parts of the party. Ulf Bereld says the left has a lot to lose with an agenda focused on the party’s internal division.

Colleague Tommy Mueller thinks It is hard to say what it might mean in terms of party public opinion.

On the other hand, V’s actions can certainly be important in a parliamentary context. Historically, foreign policy has been the decisive reason why X has rejected any idea of ​​close cooperation with V. Foreign policy may still be a major obstacle to closer cooperation, particularly in government, he says.

According to political scientist Jonas Hinvors, the split within the party may be a sign that some parts of the party believe the party leadership has gone too far in mitigating so-called GAL issues, such as green issues and support for alternative lifestyles and assertiveness. Alternatives to conflict resolution with the help of the military.

– If the tension over arms exports is an indication that parts of the party realize that the party leadership has gone too far in alleviating the problems of the GAL, then V likely faces a more difficult future, as internal tensions could surface if or the other question, as Says.

Hinnfors says it would be worrying for V and Dadgostar to deal with it in the middle of an election campaign.