It has been 59 days since the election, and the attempts so far by the Red-Greens and their leader, Social Democrat Magdalena Andersson, to form a government have not impressed Lars-Johan Åge, professor of negotiation and mediation at the University of Gävle.
It is not easy to be a politician one day and a negotiator the next, because you live in completely different worlds. A politician's livelihood sometimes depends on red lines, which can be useful during an election campaign, but are a nightmare when it comes to forming a coalition, he says.
The main mistake the Red-Greens have made, according to Åge, is that they have overestimated their position.
This is very common in negotiations, and it usually leads to mistake number two: not preparing sufficiently. Now they do not seem to have talked to each other at all, and I think most people find that very strange.
Digging in your heels
According to Lars-Johan Åge, trust and confidence do not come as a piece of cake after election day; they have to be built up and nurtured.
It is clumsy of four parties not to have had informal conversations when they have had four years to meet, play billiards, drink beer, have coffee, argue, joke and get to know each other, despite many signs that they would govern a country together. You cannot wait to put the team together until the game has started.
So what could get the deadlocked situation moving?
Red lines have two major disadvantages in a negotiation. The first is that you can suffer from something called negotiation paralysis. You have taken a position and dug in your heels so firmly that it becomes a matter of prestige. It is like freezing to a lamppost in winter: you cannot let go of it even if you want to.
The second disadvantage is that you end up in a pseudo-negotiation, that is, a situation where you sit and discuss the red lines back and forth. It takes both time and energy, worsens relationships and gets you nowhere, says Lars-Johan Åge.
Burning the chance
How costly would it be for a party to give up a red line?
It depends. If you can justify it by saying it is in the public's best interests, it is usually forgotten after a while. If you do it just for your own gain, it usually becomes much tougher, says Lars-Johan Åge.
I actually think the world's judgment would not be too harsh on the left if they let go of their position for the sake of their voters and the people they care about. However, they would be burning their chance to continue with the same red line. If Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist were to move to the right, my guess is that posterity's judgment would be tougher.
Lars-Johan Åge is a professor of negotiation and mediation at the University of Gävle. Press photo.
What do you think?