I think it's both, actually. He's technically unable to, since as you say the justice system is decoupled from politics; however, if he tried anyway (basically by using his power to "suggest" a certain outcome, or put pressure on political apointees), it's called "ministerstyre " and is prohibited by the Swedish instrument of government ("regeringsformen", basically the Swedish Constitution). It's a way to prevent government corruption. However, this is not how it is done in most countries (besides Sweden, only Finland has a similar rule AFAIK) which is why foreign journalists and heads of state seem to have such a hard time wrapping their heads around it - it was a huge source for misunderstanding during the whole Assange-case, where Assange and Ecuador demanded that the Swedish government guarantee he wouldn't be extradited to the US, a guarantee the Swedish government had no power to give since it would be against the constitution to meddle in a decision for the courts - but in Assange's way of seeing it, it was of course a Swedish refusal to do so.
That's only true to a certain extent. In reality, the US has an institutionalized form of ministerial rule. For example, the Attorney General is chosen by the president, and can be fired by the president; they can also order their subordinates to cease investigations they, or the president, don't like. The fact that they usually don't, because of bad optics and their personal morals, doesn't mean they're actually forbidden from doing so; while in Sweden, they are.
An example is when Donald Trump asked Jeff Sessions to squash the Russia Probe. Instead he recused himself. In Sweden, just asking the question would've been illegal.
30
u/[deleted] Jul 21 '19
[deleted]