No description available.

The Center Party’s election results in 2022 was a great loss in comparison to the previous election. A distinguishing difference was the Center Party’s attitude to and choice of coalition partner where they 2018 proclaimed the Social Democrats to one of its main contenders along with the Sweden Democrats for to in the coming election express a will to partake in the same government as the Social Democrats, even though many party members and voters indicated that it wasn’t something they would prefer. This study therefore aims to explain the change in attitude by investigating underlying motives based on Gunnar Sjöblom’s rational theory about parties as strategic actors acting on three arenas: the internal arena, the electoral arena and the parliamentary arena. The arenas have different objectives and the motives are predefined based on these arenas to consist of reaching party cohesion, vote maximization and parliamentary power. Motive analysis is the method which is used to analyze the empirical material which is then analyzed in relation to the arena theories. The result shows that in similarity with previous research, a single motive cannot itself explain a party’s behaviour, however the motive indicators together with the party’s actions that the parliamentary arena’s motive showed to weigh heavier than the other motives.

This thesis aims to examine the relationship between ideological and affective polarisation and how it is affected by block-crossing cooperation at the local political level. Ideological and affective polarisation is measured in municipalities where block-crossing cooperation prevails, as well as municipalities where traditional block cooperation rules. The method that is used to measure the polarization is a mixed method with a questionnaire survey, directed to politicians in municipalities with different cooperation patterns. Further on, the answers have been qualitatively interpreted and the levels of polarization were converted into a number that represented the mean value of polarization in each municipality. The results indicate that block-crossing cooperation leads to lower levels of polarization, both ideological and affective, with an emphasis on the latter. On the contrary, traditional block political cooperations receive a significantly higher level of affective polarisation. The results can be supported by previous research as well as the theoretical framework. For instance, theories and research fields about social identity, group polarization and political psychology can explain the phenomenon of in-groups and out-groups that can reinforce affective polarization.This research has provided deeper knowledge and understanding of polarization and incentives for cooperation in Swedish politics with a focus on the local level. The thesis contributes to the existing research field of polarization. Hence, it opens for further research about polarization and deliberation, both at the municipality level as this thesis emphasizes, but also in the broader political realm.

Minority- and cross-bloc regimes in Swedish municipalities have more than doubled the last ten years. The phenomenon should be seen in light of the fact that the traditional blocks have lost support in favor of new parties in the municipal parliaments, such as the Swedish Democrats and different local parties. Historically, the municipal political arena is usually described as less ideological than the national arena. Nevertheless, in the 2014 elections, the turnout resulted in formations of weak center-right/center-left minority governments in one third of the muncipalities in Sweden. When municipal elections result in hung parliaments, remarkably many parties seems to favor minority governments instead of establishing cross-bloc majorities. Why? A possible explanation is that the party identification among the swedish electorate has been replaced by a strong bloc identification, which might induce the parties to avoid coalitions that jeopardize the support from bloc identificated voters. But is this fear rational? Do political parties that form cross-bloc coalitions lose more electoral support than parties that form bloc coalitions?    Thus, the purpose of this study is to provide new knowledge about the Swedish electorate and the impact of bloc identification on Swedish politics, by investigating whether coalition parties election results are related to the choice between bloc and cross-bloc coalitions. This is done by statistical Mann-Whitney tests of election data from Swedish municipal elections between 1994-2014.    The study shows that the average voter support does not differ significantly for parties in blocs compared to parties in cross-bloc coalitions. The exception is the Social Democratic Party, which on average loses fewer votes in cross-bloc coalitions compared to scenarios in which the party is ruling alone or in a traditional bloc. With these results, the study complement previous research on bloc identification and electoral behavior. Furthermore, the study does not support the hypothesis that a party's electoral support in cross-bloc coalitions differs, depending on whether or not the party is leading the cross-bloc coalition.    In summary, the study does not provide rational support for non-scientific assumptions that cross-bloc coalitions are associated with particular declining electoral support, despite increasing political mobility and enhanced block identification among the electorate.