Anders Tegnell is either a hero or villain, depending on whether you think Sweden’s approach to Covid-19 has saved the economy and respected individual freedom or whether you think it has needlessly cost lives. But is the country’s refusal to impose a lockdown a result of his wisdom and judgement – or was the Swedish government tied down by its constitution?
The latter is the conclusion of Lars Jonung, an economist at Lund University, who has published a paper explaining why he thinks that Prime Minister Stefan Löfven and his government did not have the option of following other European countries along the route of lockdown.
He cites three relevant articles of the constitution. The first, Chapter 2, Article 8, states:
Everyone shall be protected in their relations with the public institutions against deprivations of personal liberty. All Swedish citizens shall also in other respects be guaranteed freedom of movement within the Realm and freedom to depart the Realm.
While there are some exceptions to this rule, such as wartime measures, there is no exception for the control of an epidemic.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in