In the run-up to Sweden's 2026 election, far-right parties treated the hijab as proof that migrants neither belong nor can be assimilated. Azher Hameed Qamar argues that this debate reveals a democratic tension. Does equality demand sameness? Or does it protect participation despite cultural differences?
The elections in Sweden on 13 September have revived political debates about migration, national identity, and belonging. Debate now focuses on migrants as a problem to be solved. As Sweden celebrates International Democracy Day on 15 September, I reflect here on democratic belonging.
Beyond the ballot box, citizens live democracy by exercising their rights, participating, and being recognised. For migrants, however, the quality of democracy is not limited to formal rights. Migrants experience democracy through everyday encounters with political discourse, public institutions, civil society, and media representation. When the media portrays migrants as social problems, their place in society becomes contested, regardless of residence or citizenship.
In political debates about migration, migrants occupy a paradoxical position. They are politically visible, yet remain invisible as political subjects. They are discussed in relation to integration, crime, welfare, culture, and national identity. Yet their lived experiences remain at the margins, excluding them from narratives that shape their belonging. This echoes migrants' media representation, which portrays them (particularly Muslims) through narratives of threat, cultural, or social problems.
Migrants may be politically visible, yet they remain invisible as political subjects
Democracy becomes weaker when media or political narratives target migrants as social and political concerns. The prevalence of such narratives leaves little space for migrants to tell their own stories. Most important, therefore, is that migrants are recognised as active participants in public life.
Political rhetoric is not confined to election campaigns or parliamentary debates. It enters workplaces, schools, neighbourhoods, and public institutions. Some political actors use political platforms to associate migration with insecurity, cultural incompatibility or threats to the social system. As a consequence, migrants struggle to find their place in societies in which they are constantly expected to justify their presence.
Controversial proposals such as the Tidö Agreement only intensify such discourse. They signal a political shift towards more restrictive migration policies and narrow boundaries of visibility and belonging. What begins as a political campaign gradually influences the spaces where migrants live and interact. When political priorities transform these spaces to create inequalities, democracy is weakened.
The pre-election debates in Sweden have revealed how cultural visibility now defines national belonging. Right-wing commentaries claim the headscarf is incompatible with Swedish values, at odds with equality and freedom. This has turned the hijab into a boundary marker of national identity.
Such debates reflect a broader political tendency to treat migrants merely as objects of integration rather than participants in democratic life. By politicising cultural differences, right-wing actors categorise migrants as either 'successful' or 'failed' depending on their conformity to assimilationist expectations. Such tendencies narrow democratic belonging by treating cultural differences as grounds for unequal rights.
In Europe, anti-hijab narratives frame hijabi women as victims of patriarchal domination and oppression. This rhetoric does not sit well with Sweden’s democratic and legal commitments to rights, freedoms, and freedom of expression. For example, the Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, or gender, protecting individuals’ freedom to present themselves publicly however they wish. The act creates tension between anti-hijab narratives and democratic rights, and challenges diverse expression.
Anti-hijab narratives frame hijabi women as victims of patriarchal oppression. This does not sit well with Sweden’s democratic commitments to freedom of expression
Pre-election campaigning by right-wing parties in Sweden exposed growing intolerance towards visible hijabs in public life. So, does equality require sameness? Or does it protect equal participation despite cultural differences?
The notion of 'cultural incompatibility’ leads people to judge migrants’ distinct cultural expressions as invalid. Such expressions tend to be used as evidence of failed integration; belonging, people say, is conditional upon conformity. This aligns with the 'melting pot' model of assimilation, in which to be accepted, migrants must minimise visible differences. The 'salad bowl' model, by contrast, recognises diversity as a driver of social cohesion and democratic inclusion. The hijab controversy highlights competing models of integration and democratic inclusion.
Sweden’s hijab debate echoes broader European discourses over secular neutrality and democratic inclusion. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination. But some political discourses appear to target visible cultural differences as being incompatible with European democratic values. Indeed, reports from the European Union Agency show that Muslim women across Europe face disproportionate discrimination linked to their visible religious markers.
Some political discourse claims visible cultural differences are incompatible with European values. This creates disproportionate discrimination against Muslim women because of their visible religious markers
These dynamics reveal how cultural visibility instrumentalises difference as incompatible with ‘democratic’ values. In this debate, the principles of democracy are contested, negotiated, and sometimes undermined. Beyond clothing or cultural dress codes, Sweden's hijab debate gets to the heart of what 'democracy' and 'belonging' truly mean. In a democratic society, a ‘melting pot’ integration, one which demands assimilation and cultural conformity, erodes freedom and coexistence.
Sweden went to the polls on 13 September at a time when migration and national identity remain central to political debate. Now, the challenge is not to defend equality by erasing differences, but to practice equality by including all, and to welcome diversity. Perhaps this is a time to redefine multiculturalism as a democratic commitment to equal rights, recognition, acceptance, and diverse cultural expression. Democracy becomes meaningful only when people can participate, be heard, and belong without having to justify their place in society.
