[pp.int.general] Pirate Manifesto Reloaded

Amelia Andersdotter teirdes at gmail.com
Fri Jul 4 16:19:12 CEST 2008

Hello list,

I will try to answer briefly the questions aloa5 asked, and what is
the PPSE strategy and reasoning for election tactics. I also agree
with aloa5's three-point-suggestion, but I'll not comment it.

2008/7/4 aloa5 <piratenpartei at t-online.de>:
> First question:
> Would you accept such an approach from any other party in your own country?

Yes. In fact, since Sweden has two major parties and five smaller
ones, this is almost standard practise for elections here. Social
democrats+greens+leftists join the red block,
neoliberals+neocons+farmers+christian democrats join the blue bloc.

The Pirate Party strategy for election has been to join the coalition
(block) where we can do the most useful things and gain the most

> Second Question:
> Would you think that voters would accept such an approach?

Deciding to join a coalition in Europarl gives voters a chance to know
what they will be able to expect from us in non-core issues.  The
feeling of discarding their right to have influence in non-core issues
is the main reason voters tend to mistrust the Pirate Party. With more
than 90% of all politics in the EU being non-core issues, having no
stance may just make PP(SE) appear passive and care-free, further
strengthening that fear with voters. At least in Sweden.

But I also agree that the question of _which_ coalition, if any, is
best left for after the election.

> Third question:
> Do you think that an opposition in your country has nothing to say and
> absolute no influence (quote: "..accomplish nothing.. voters give up
> their hope...")?

Sweden has two "blocks": red and blue. Unlike many southern European
states, Swedish politics is very stable and opposition and government
rarely have grave disputes. If the reds form a government, blue is
opposition. If the blues form a government, red is opposition. We have
also had a stable 7 parties in our parliament since 1988.

But the Swedish PP-strategy has always been to maximize our influence.
We have not planned to be a part of a minority opposition, we have
planned to gain influence by being a "wedge" so that the "winner
block" has to join up with us in order to be a majority in the
parliament. Thus, our national strategy has been to end up in the

Had our national strategy in the 2006 election not been to maximize
our influence by any means, while at the same time asking voters to
discard all other issues except our core issues there is no way in
hell we'd have been taken seriously.

I hope this answers the questions,

More information about the pp.international.general mailing list