I generally support a center-anchored economic policy that balances the interests of capital and labor to build long-term, sustainable, and fair economic value. A well-functioning economy requires both dynamic business enterprise and strong protection for the workforce.

Rather than viewing capital and workers as adversaries in a zero-sum conflict, economic policy should foster synergy between investment, entrepreneurship, and fair working conditions. The goal is to build a resilient market framework that encourages innovation, rewards risk-taking, and ensures that value creation is distributed equitably across society over time.

Social Liberalism

My broader economic outlook is rooted in the social liberal principle of positive freedom: the understanding that formal freedoms are meaningless if individuals lack the actual resources and opportunities to exercise them. True individual liberty requires more than just the absence of government interference; it requires a public sector that actively creates the conditions for every citizen to achieve their freely chosen goals.

The success of a market economy should not be measured solely by traditional GDP growth, but by how effectively the wealth it generates expands human opportunity and improves quality of life. Public policy must provide a solid floor beneath every individual, equipping them with the material foundation, education, and security needed to navigate economic shifts and pursue a meaningful life on their own terms.

ANDREW YANG ECONOMICS & the Job Market of the Future

As automation boosts productivity across both blue-collar and white-collar sectors while inevitably eroding traditional job opportunities, the vast wealth generated by technology must not accrue solely to capital owners and tech monopolies. I therefore align closely with Andrew Yang’s concept of Human-Centered Capitalism, which seeks to restructure market incentives so that technological progress directly serves human well-being.

Society must socialize enough of the value created by automation to aptly compensate citizens for the loss of work opportunities.

I advocate for achieving this through a dynamic Citizen’s Dividend. By capturing a portion of the additional value generated by automation (for example, through a progressive corporate tax based on labor intensity, shifting the tax burden from salaries to profits), we can guarantee an unconditional financial floor for everyone. This mechanism ensures that as machines take on a larger share of human labor, citizens directly share in the gains of automation, receive fair compensation for lost employment opportunities, and gain a financial cushion that reduces the earned wage required to survive.

I am a liberal internationalist and believe that liberal democracies should actively work to promote democracy, individual freedoms, and human rights globally. It is essential to counter the growing strength of authoritarian regimes and to support the pro-liberty forces working for democratization and against oppression.

Europe must play a significantly more active role in this endeavor. The goal should be to develop Europe into a geopolitical superpower capable of serving as a liberal and pro-liberty counterweight to authoritarian and oppressive powers. This power should be used to defend international security, protect critical trade routes, defend allied nations against attack, and support democratic and opposition forces globally.

European Defense Union and NATO

I have previously viewed NATO as the obvious guarantor of our collective security. However, under ”Trump 2.0,” it has become clear that the organization’s built-in reliance on the United States through its statutes, alongside the fact that individual member states can block joint decisions, has effectively paralyzed the alliance. I therefore consider NATO’s current conditions insufficient to serve as Europe’s primary security architecture.

Instead, I advocate for an integrated European defense union / ”a European army” to assume this primary role, in line with Reinier van Lanschot’s vision.

This does not mean I wish to leave or undermine NATO. Should the opportunity arise in the future to reform the organization, I would welcome its continuation as a secondary security framework between a federalized Europe and global allies such as the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand—as well as Canada, provided it is not already included in the European defense union.

The UN and International Cooperation

International cooperation is important, but its institutions must be capable of acting when democracy and human rights are threatened. I therefore advocate for the abolition of the UN Security Council’s veto power and the reform of the organization’s governance to reduce the ability of authoritarian states to block measures that promote human rights.

At the same time, the prospects of successfully passing such reforms are unfortunately very limited, meaning Europe must be able to act independently. The UN remains a valuable forum for dialogue, but Europe primarily needs to develop its own capacity to defend democracy and human rights, support peacekeeping operations, and act when global institutions are rendered paralyzed.

Peace Through Strength

I believe Europe must develop into a geopolitical superpower with a large, strong, and well-equipped defense force, capable of acting forcefully and independently on the international stage. This requires both military capability and a credible political will to use it. Potential aggressors must understand that Europe possesses both the capacity and the resolve to confront threats and aggression with force.

History demonstrates time and again how pacifism and unilateral concessions are exploited by authoritarian regimes that interpret restraint as weakness rather than a desire for peace. I share Winston Churchill’s fundamental conviction that freedom-loving forces cannot face such threats with good intentions and hopes alone, but must be prepared to resist with the same resolve demonstrated by their opponents.

One of democracy’s greatest problems today is the declining trust in traditional political institutions and systems. This fuels support for populist, authoritarian, and anti-democratic forces that ultimately weaken democracy even further. I therefore advocate for reforms that make politics more accessible, representative, and anchored among citizens.

Democratization of the EU

There are significant democratic shortcomings in the EU’s current institutional structure. I therefore wish to give special support (beyond what is implied by my party affiliation) to Volt Europa’s ambitious reform policy aimed at making the EU genuinely democratic, transparent, and accountable to its citizens. Read more here and here.

A large part of today’s euroscepticism is actually rooted in the union’s own institutional deficiencies and democratic deficit. To unlock the EU’s full institutional and democratic potential, I advocate for comprehensive democratic reforms and a restructuring of the union in accordance with federalist principles.

A FULLY PROPORTIONAL Electoral System

Fundamentally, I advocate for a radically proportional electoral system where voters’ voices are represented as far as possible, without power-entrenching parliamentary thresholds. The argument that higher thresholds and fewer represented parties automatically create more stable governments no longer holds up in an era when trust in the political system is already strained.

Instead, I want to abolish formal thresholds and let the natural threshold be determined by the number of votes required to win a seat. The Netherlands is an example of a system without a separate formal percentage threshold, where the distribution of seats is instead based on the number of votes per seat.

At the same time, such a reform is very difficult to implement, especially in Sweden. Therefore, I preliminarily also advocate for more incremental reforms, such as print-on-demand ballot papers, voting advice applications (valkompasser) that include all registered parties (via 1,500 signatures), and investigating systems with an alternative vote, a so-called Ersatzstimme.

Digital Participatory Democracy

I view e-democracy as the primary techno-liberal tool to combat political disinterest and low trust in politics. My starting point is that democracy must not stop on election day, but must be understood as a continuously evolving ecosystem where societal challenges, public opinion, and citizens’ needs change over time. Therefore, it is insufficient for political decisions to be based solely on the parliamentary majorities formed in the previous election.

I strongly support Audrey Tang’s work with deliberative democracy, crowdsourcing of political decision-making, and digital consensus-building in Taiwan. A central element is identifying areas where people with differing views actually agree, rather than reinforcing divisions between political camps. I am also drawn to the idea of radical transparency: making decision-making processes and background documentation more open, so that citizens can track how political proposals are handled and understand how their input is taken into account.

Digital participation is, however, merely a complement to, not a replacement for, representative democracy. I therefore advocate for a shared democracy platform utilizing state e-identification, where consultations, citizens’ initiatives, and structured discussions can be combined with clear feedback from responsible decision-makers. This should first be introduced at the municipal level (e.g., Gothenburg) and evaluated before scaling up.

Republicanism

I am an avowed republican and advocate for the abolition of the monarchy in Sweden. For me, this is purely a matter of principle: public offices should not be inherited. Appreciating the royal family’s history and cultural status is fully compatible with questioning why a specific family should hold an inherited privileged position in the constitution.

I am therefore a member of the Swedish Republican Association (Republikanska föreningen) and was included on their ”Kryssa republikanskt” list ahead of the 2026 parliamentary election. At the same time, I regard this issue as a low political priority and do not campaign for it proactively. However, if the issue were to arise in a referendum or a parliamentary vote, I would vote in favor of a republic.

A Pragmatic and Solution-Oriented Climate Policy

I consider the climate crisis to be one of the most critical challenges of our time, not least for my own generation and those that come after us. At the same time, it is one of the most difficult problems to solve, which makes it particularly important to work in a pragmatic and solution-oriented manner. Climate policy must focus on what actually works, rather than getting bogged down in symbolic statements.

I believe the best conditions for solving the climate crisis lie within green technology, substantial investments, and active public governance that accelerates the development and adoption of the solutions required for a green transition. The problem is not that we lack the means to transition, but that the process is not being driven forward with sufficient speed and force.

Europe as a Climate Superpower

One of the greatest obstacles is that far too many of the world’s leaders do not prioritize the climate issue highly enough. Voluntary climate agreements and pledges based on individual states choosing to take responsibility on their own have proven insufficient. When states, including authoritarian and conservative governments, allow short-term political and economic interests to outweigh climate responsibility, the rest of the world suffers the consequences as well.

I therefore believe that Europe must develop into a climate superpower. Our collective economic strength gives us the ability to accelerate the green transition at home, but also to influence developments globally. Through diplomatic, economic, and other policy tools, Europe must be able to exert real pressure on states that do not take their climate responsibility.

In practice, this means that countries should not be able to pass off the costs of their emissions onto the rest of the world without consequences. When a state’s actions contribute to a global problem affecting us all, tools must exist to hold that state accountable. The climate crisis cannot be solved solely by those taking responsibility doing even more, while others continue business as usual.

Green Economy

I view environmental and climate issues through a long-term security and risk perspective. A society dependent on finite resources, unsustainable resource consumption, and gradually degrading ecosystems builds its own vulnerability. If we do not transition, we risk ultimately undermining our economy, our security of supply, and the quality of life on which our prosperity is built.

I therefore believe in combining technological innovation with a circular economy to reduce these risks and create long-term sustainable growth. The transition is not about opting out of prosperity, but about securing the conditions to preserve and develop it over the long term.

My energy policy principles apply at a pan-European level. I believe that the energy transition must be coordinated across national borders and that Europe as a whole needs to build a robust, fossil-free, and integrated energy system.

Phasing Out Fossil Fuels

I want to see a complete phase-out of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas from Europe’s primary energy supply. Fossil fuels should continue to play a role in reserve power and other secondary systems where necessary for emergency preparedness and operational reliability, but they should be excluded from our primary energy supply.

Dependence on fossil fuels is not only a climate problem, but also a national security vulnerability. Europe’s reliance on oil and gas from authoritarian states such as Russia and Saudi Arabia risks creating strategic dependencies that can be leveraged for political pressure. Phasing out fossil fuels is therefore also about strengthening Europe’s independence, security, and freedom of action.

A Balanced and Robust Energy Mix

I advocate for a broad mix of fossil-free energy sources, including nuclear power and renewable energy. We should not lock ourselves into a single technology, but rather utilize the solutions that best suit local, economic, and logistical conditions.

Large-Scale Electrification and Expanded Capacity

I believe Europe must push for a large-scale electrification of society. Vehicles, transport, and other sectors should transition to electric power to the greatest extent technically and practically feasible. This will increase electricity demand, which we must plan for rather than attempt to counter.

The task of energy policy should therefore be to expand electricity production and the associated infrastructure at the pace required to enable the transition. We should not limit Europe’s development to keep electricity consumption down, but rather ensure we have sufficient fossil-free electricity to power a growing and increasingly electrified society.

Permanent Solutions for Allergies and Chronic Conditions

Healthcare is not one of my primary political focus areas. I therefore concentrate mainly on an area where I have deep personal experience: allergies and chronic conditions.

I believe healthcare far too often assumes that patients should manage their symptoms with temporary medications for the rest of their lives, rather than attempting to address the underlying root problem. I therefore want to see greater investment in research and development, as well as better access to long-term and curative treatments. Examples include allergen immunotherapy, also known as allergy vaccination, as well as surgical procedures and new targeted treatments for chronic conditions where medically appropriate. Not all conditions can be cured with today’s knowledge, but I believe we should invest more in expanding what is actually possible. Reducing the need for lifelong symptom relief is not only a medical ambition, but also a matter of quality of life and fundamental human dignity.

Retain Regional Healthcare

I oppose a general centralization of Swedish healthcare and believe that the regions are fundamentally the appropriate level to organize and govern care. Supporting a federalized European Union does not mean I wish to centralize all functions of society. On the contrary, my view is built on the principle of subsidiarity: different issues should be managed at the level where they function best. I believe that areas such as defense and foreign policy benefit from joint European governance, whereas healthcare does not automatically improve by moving its political accountability from the regions to Stockholm.

Nor is there any general evidence that centralization in itself raises the quality of care. I therefore advocate for regional responsibility combined with national quality standards and coordination where clear benefits exist. The goal should be better healthcare, not consolidating power at a higher level for its own sake.

End-of-Life Autonomy

I support the establishment of a legal framework for voluntary active euthanasia and physician-assisted dying (PAD). Individual self-determination must extend to end-of-life decisions, particularly in cases of terminal illness, intractable suffering, or irremediable medical conditions.

Public policy should recognize bodily autonomy at the end of life by establishing clear legal provisions. This includes strict eligibility criteria, multi-stage medical evaluations, objective assessments of decision-making capacity, and robust safeguards against coercion.

Risk-Proportional Substance Regulation

I advocate for replacing dogmatic prohibition with a risk-proportional regulatory framework for controlled substances, grounding drug policy in public health metrics, harm reduction, and civil liberty.

A truly free society must afford adults the latitude to make personal choices and learn from mistakes they can recover from. On this principle, I support the legalization and regulated commercialization of cannabis and comparable stimulants where the overdose risk profile is non-fatal and medically reversible. Regulating these markets enables product standardization, potency labeling, age restrictions, and targeted taxation while displacing illicit trade.

Because freedom requires the ability to survive one’s missteps, this rationale cannot be extended to opioids and high-risk synthetic compounds, where the probability of a single fatal overdose is severe and immediate. Consequently, these high-risk substances must remain excluded from retail sale to private individuals and instead remain an exclusive monopoly of the public healthcare system to prescribe, administer, and manage within strictly controlled medical settings.