This letter was sent to the Speaker of the Riksdag to raise one simple but fundamental question: if a Swedish citizen believes that the Riksdag itself has violated their rights through a defective legal-political structure, the concentration of power within the legislature, the absence of independent judicial oversight, or by depriving the citizen in practice of effective access to independent justice, to which independent judicial authority should that citizen turn? The letter argues that this is not a theoretical issue, but a concrete problem linked to the rule of law, the right of access to justice, and the citizen’s trust in Sweden’s legal and political structure. The complete letter is available below.
The Riksdag’s Response and an Analysis of Its Meaning
Boras, 19 May 2026
Subject: Formal request for the identification of an independent judicial authority competent to examine a citizen’s complaint against the Riksdag
Dear Speaker of the Riksdag,
I am writing this letter as a Swedish citizen and as a philosopher who has spent years researching the philosophy of human rights, law, justice, responsibility, and good governance.
The purpose of this letter is to pose a simple yet fundamental question: if a Swedish citizen believes that the Riksdag itself has violated their rights through flawed legislation, an ineffective legal structure, the absence of independent judicial oversight, or by practically depriving that citizen of effective access to justice, to which independent judicial authority should that citizen turn?
This is not a theoretical question. It is directly connected to my life, my psychological security, my right of access to justice, and my trust in the rule of law in Sweden.
As a philosopher, I have the right to pursue my philosophical research. To continue my work, I require psychological security. Since 2023, when the issue of children being kept hungry was once again raised in the Swedish media, I have been deprived of my psychological security.
The four primary reasons why I consider the Riksdag to have violated my rights are as follows:
1. The weakness of the separation of powers and the concentration of power within the legislature
2. The absence of a constitutional court
3. The replacement of adjudication with bureaucracy
4. Institutional silence as an instrument of suppression and the preservation of a closed system
1. The weakness of the separation of powers and the concentration of power within the legislature
By ignoring the philosophy of the principle of the separation of powers and the practical concentration of power within the legislature, the Riksdag has, in practice, replaced true democracy with an oligarchic tendency within an ostensibly democratic structure.
The Riksdag has forgotten that the division of powers is essential for safeguarding citizens’ rights, because it prevents political, judicial, and executive power from being concentrated in a single centre. The separation of powers among the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary creates distance and mutual oversight in the governance of society. If the legislature not only enacts laws, but also practically controls the executive apparatus and dominates citizens’ access to judicial protection, the citizen is left defenceless against power, because the very institution that creates the rule can direct its enforcement and then judge citizens’ complaints, either directly or indirectly. In such a state of affairs, law is transformed from an instrument for preserving justice and citizens’ rights into a tool for imposing political will.
In such a situation, the legislature can enact “non-law” and impose it on the people, or enforce any part of the law it wishes and ignore any part it does not wish to enforce. In reality, the rule of law gives way to the rule of the legislator’s whim and will.
For example, Sweden has signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Riksdag has incorporated its provisions into Swedish law. If parents keep their child hungry and the authorities responsible for enforcing the law become aware of it, they intervene and rescue the child from the abusive parents. However, if a company kept hundreds of children hungry for 12 years, the law and those responsible for enforcing it close their eyes to the violation of children’s rights.
2. The absence of a constitutional court
The absence of a constitutional court means that a Swedish citizen has no independent route for directly challenging a law that violates their rights. In a true democracy, a constitutional court must be able to assess laws enacted by the legislature against higher standards, including the constitution, fundamental rights, and the country’s human rights obligations. In Sweden, however, when the Riksdag passes a law or creates a legal framework that in practice renders citizens’ rights ineffective, the citizen is confronted with a closed system. Consequently, the legislature not only legislates, but also remains immune from effective judicial oversight of its own legislation. In such a situation, citizens’ rights become dependent on the will of the very institution that should itself be subject to oversight.
If the Riksdag acts unlawfully and, instead of law, enacts “non-law”, and thereby engages in legal deception and an abuse of public trust, the citizen has no way to hold this institution accountable.
Act 2009:62 was a clear example of such “non-law”. The Riksdag passed a law under the title of combating money laundering and terrorist financing, yet this law failed to establish a distinct and clear offence of money laundering. In practice, honest citizens and companies were burdened with forms, controls, and reporting requirements, while criminals faced a criminal-law vacuum rather than a clear and deterrent law. From a moral perspective, imposing such “non-law” on the people was legal deception and an abuse of public trust. The fundamental problem is that, in the absence of a constitutional court, the citizen has no effective means to challenge such legislation or to hold the Riksdag accountable.
3. The replacement of adjudication with bureaucracy
The replacement of adjudication with bureaucracy is another factor that deprives the Swedish citizen of genuine access to justice. In a healthy legal system, a citizen must be able to bring a violation of their rights before an independent, impartial, and competent court, a court that possesses the power to issue binding rulings and can adjudicate between the citizen and public authority.
However, in Sweden, in all cases where a structural flaw has caused injustice, instead of having access to such a court, the citizen is referred to administrative, supervisory, complaint-handling, and quasi-judicial bodies. These bodies cannot take the place of an independent court. They typically operate within the same bureaucratic structure against which the citizen has complained, and often lack the power or the will required to break the cycle of injustice.
Consequently, the citizen’s complaint is moved from one desk to another, registered, and administratively reviewed, yet it never reaches true adjudication. In such a situation, bureaucracy, rather than being the gateway to justice, becomes a soft but closed wall; a wall that ostensibly leaves the path for complaints open, but in practice closes the route to justice.
4. Institutional silence as an instrument of suppression and the preservation of a closed system
Institutional silence is one of the most effective instruments of suppression in Sweden’s closed system. When a citizen poses a reasonable question, presents evidence, lodges a complaint, gives a warning, and seeks justice, yet the responsible institutions fail to respond, this silence is not neutrality; it is complicity in the preservation of injustice.
Institutional silence is not merely administrative non-responsiveness; it is a form of white torture. In this method, the citizen faces neither an overt blow, nor a clear ruling, nor a reasoned rejection, nor access to true adjudication. They are worn down through silence, delay, referral, indifference, and non-responsiveness. This is nothing less than killing through silence and by silence.
In such circumstances, silence becomes a tool for psychologically wearing down the citizen. The citizen is confronted only by a wall of non-responsiveness; a wall that neither accepts responsibility, nor provides an explanation, nor opens a path to justice. This method leaves the citizen psychologically exhausted, isolated, and defenceless, without the responsible institution ever being forced to openly accept responsibility for its decision or inaction.
When all ordinary avenues of seeking justice are closed, when reasonable questions remain unanswered, and when evidence, warnings, and complaints hit the wall of silence, the citizen may lose psychological self-control and may even reach the point of making threats such as self-immolation or suicide. In such a situation, instead of addressing the cause of the crisis, the system targets the consequence of the crisis: it turns the citizen seeking justice into a mental-health problem, involves the police, and sends him to a psychiatric hospital.
I do not present this process merely as a theoretical observation. I have documented this process myself in “A Mental Hospital Was the Realpolitik Answer to My Reasonable Request”: a citizen who had for years warned about money laundering, flawed legislation, and the inaction of Swedish institutions, after encountering silence and obstruction, was met not with a legal or political response, but with police intervention and a transfer to a psychiatric ward.
This example demonstrates how institutional silence operates within a closed system: first, it leaves the citizen unanswered; then, it wears him down; and finally, it weaponises that exhaustion against him as a psychological problem. In this way, instead of addressing the injustice, the citizen seeking justice is himself turned into the problem.
Institutional silence preserves the closed system and becomes a mechanism for reproducing a culture of irresponsibility. No one responds, no one accepts responsibility, and there is no independent authority to break this silence. In such a structure, injustice persists not only through flawed decisions but also by leaving the demand for justice unanswered. Here, silence is not an instrument of administration; it is an instrument of suppression.
To observe a practical example of this culture of irresponsibility, one need only look at the 340 emails I wrote to the members of the Riksdag. When confronted with the issue of children being kept hungry, 335 members remained silent and did not respond at all, while five gave irrelevant replies. This very silence served as a protective wall that enabled the continued violation of children’s rights for more than 12 years. When the people’s representatives maintain such silence in the face of the violation of children’s rights, how can they be expected to be accountable for the violation of the rights of an adult citizen?
Silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality. Silence in response to a reasonable question is not merely a failure to answer. Institutional silence, when employed consciously and persistently, becomes a silent instrument of suppression. This silence alienates the citizen from belief in law and justice; it leaves them alone, it wears them down, and then uses that very exhaustion as a reason to discredit them. This is the point where silence passes beyond irresponsibility and becomes a silent form of violence.
In light of the four points detailed in this letter, I hold the Riksdag responsible for the violation of my rights as a citizen. The reason for this responsibility is that the Riksdag not only legislates but has, in practice, created and maintained a structure that deprives the citizen of effective access to independent adjudication.
As a citizen who has worked, paid taxes, and transferred my right of sovereignty to the country’s political structure through my vote, I consider good governance to be my clear and lawful right. Good governance means that every citizen must be able to enjoy their fundamental rights, including security, peace, justice, the rule of law, and the right to effective access to justice.
From a human rights perspective, what is essential is access to a fair trial. When an individual believes that an injustice has been committed against them, they must be able to bring the violator of their rights before a court and hold that violator accountable. It makes no difference whether the violator of an individual’s rights is a single person, a corporation with several thousand employees, or the Riksdag as an institution with 349 members. What is vital, and must not be denied to the citizen, is the right of access to justice.
Therefore, I pose this question as a formal request to the Speaker of the Riksdag:
If I, as a citizen, believe that the Riksdag has violated my rights through its legislation, through the existing legal structure, and by practically depriving me of effective access to independent adjudication, which independent judicial authority has jurisdiction to examine my complaint against the Riksdag?
I request that you provide me with the name, address, and the formal procedure for approaching such an authority.
If no such authority exists, please state this explicitly; for in that case, the matter will not be merely my personal complaint, but we will be faced with a fundamental flaw in Swedish citizens’ access to justice against the legislature itself.
Yours sincerely,
Bahman Azadfar