The political scientist: "SD are shooting themselves in the foot"

SD's party leadership has previously described Tony Gustafsson as an independent researcher who "has not been politically engaged at all".

Therefore, the disclosure of the historian of ideas' party membership becomes problematic, says political scientist Marie Demker.

- If you had been open about the connections from the beginning and said: "here we have a talented historian with academic legitimacy whom we asked to do an investigation", then this problem would not have arisen.

Now they are shooting themselves in the foot.

"The process has credibility problems"

In the work on a white paper, which is about bringing order and clarity to history, transparency is a key word, says Marie Demker.

- I am of the opinion that a researcher can absolutely make a good investigative report of this type, even if you happen to be a member of the party.

The research may be judged by the criteria we use within the academy.

How is the credibility of Tony Gustafsson's work with the white paper affected?

-

The first interim report published in June really only showed what was already known.

The conclusions are not affected there at all.

But the process itself has credibility problems.

What will the report look like when it approaches the present?

How will Tony Gustafsson relate to the period where he himself was active and a member?