THE FINNISH POLITICAL SYSTEM (2-5 ECTS) Tapio Raunio (tapio.raunio@uta.fi)
Background and objectives
The objective of the course is to introduce the students to the Finnish political system and in particular to analyse how the Finnish system has changed since the Second World War
The Finnish political system has normally been categorized as semi-presidential, with the executive functions divided between an elected president and a government that is accountable to the parliament. However, recen
THE FINNISH POLITICAL SYSTEM (2-5 ECTS) Tapio Raunio (tapio.raunio@uta.fi)
Background and objectives
The objective of the course is to introduce the students to the Finnish political system and in particular to analyse how the Finnish system has changed since the Second World War
The Finnish political system has normally been categorized as semi-presidential, with the executive functions divided between an elected president and a government that is accountable to the parliament. However, recent constitutional reforms together with the end of the Cold War and membership in the European Union have transformed Finnish politics. The new constitution, in force since 2000, completed a period of far-reaching constitutional change that curtailed presidential powers and strengthened the roles of the government and the parliament in Finnish politics
Course organisation
The course consists of a lecture series and an essay. The lectures are held on Thursdays (16-19) and Fridays (9-12) The dates and topics of the lectures are:
13.1. Political culture / Voting and elections
14.1. Political parties
20.1. Parliament
21.1. Government
27.1. President / Corporatism and the welfare state
28.1. EU and security policies / Swedish-speaking minority / Conclusion
The lecture series is followed by a written exam (2 ECTS). The essay (10-12 pages, font size 12, 1½ spacing) must be handed in by the end of February (3 ECTS).
POLITICAL CULTURE The homogeneity of the population
The population of Finland was in 2010 5.4 million and the total population is projected to stay at approximately the current level in the near future – “healthy” fertility rates in comparison with the European average (1.86 children born/woman, 2009)
The eastern and northern regions are sparsely populated and an increasing share of the people lives in the more urbanized southern parts of the country. The capital Helsinki together with its surrounding areas has approximately one million inhabitants
The official languages are Finnish, spoken by 91 % of the population, and Swedish, the first language of 5.4 % of the citizens
Approximately 80 % of Finns are Lutherans
Culturally Finland is very homogeneous. The share of foreigners residing in the country is less than 3 % of the total population, approximately one-third of whom are Russians and Estonians
Unitary country (strong ‘centre’)
Finland is a unitary country that has no democratically elected regional institutions
The autonomous Swedish-speaking province of Åland has approximately 26,500 inhabitants
The country was at the start of 2011 divided into 336 municipalities (448 in 2001), the majority of which are in terms of population small rural municipalities
While municipal governments are responsible for much of the total government spending, the sub-national level does not constitute an important constraint on national government. The spending of the local governments is mainly related to implementing national legislation (primarily education, health care and social security)
Despite the introduction of reforms since the 1990s that have to a certain extent strengthened the regional administrations, Finland remains a unitary state, without any democratically elected regional institutions
Land of ‘objective’ media?
The Nordics buy and read more newspapers than other Europeans
A radical decline in the share of newspapers that are officially or publicly affiliated with political parties
Immediately after the Second World War in 1946, only just above one-third (34.8 %) of all newspapers issued between three and seven days a week were not affiliated with political parties. Almost half of them (49.8 %) were affiliated with the non-left parties and 15.4 % with leftist parties
By 1986 the share of ‘neutral’ newspapers had risen to 68.3 %, and in 2000 the share was 96.6 %
The concentration of media ownership together with the decline of party-affiliated newspapers means that the news content of the media (excluding the Internet) has become increasingly similar, with less alternative views offered to the citizens
No tradition of direct democracy
National referendums, which are only consultative, have been used twice: in 1931 on the prohibition of alcohol, and in 1994 on EU membership
Centre-periphery cleavage
Territorially Finland covers 338 145 km2, 68 % of which is forest, 10 % water, and 6 % cultivated land
Industrialization and the move to cities happened later than in most West European countries
While agriculture is not economically very important, agriculture and countryside in general have a strong sentimental value for the Finns
The Centre Party continues to be the main party representing the interests of rural voters
‘Borderland’
Finland shares borders with Russia (1340 km), Norway (727 km), and Sweden (614 km), with in addition about 1250 kilometres of coastline
Having formed a part of the Swedish empire since the thirteenth century, in 1809 Finland became an autonomous Grand Duchy of the Russian empire
In 1860 Finland acquired her own currency, the markka or Finnish mark. The constitution adopted in 1906 established – as the first European country – universal suffrage. At the same time the old four-estate assembly was replaced by the unicameral national parliament, the Eduskunta, with the first elections held in 1907
Finland declared independence from Russia on 6 December 1917. A short but bitter civil war between Reds and Whites followed in 1918 and was won by the government’s forces led by General Mannerheim
The constitution adopted in 1919 gave Finland a republican form of government combined with strong powers for the president
The semi-presidential system was adopted after plans to import a monarch from Germany had failed. In June 1918 the government introduced a proposal for a monarchical constitution. While the Eduskunta approved the initiative, a minority of MPs was able to defer the matter over the next elections. The monarchists changed their strategy, arguing that the parliament itself should elect the monarch. In October 1918 the Eduskunta elected Karl Friedrich of Hesse, a German prince, as the King of Finland. However, the monarchists’ hopes were destroyed by Germany’s defeat in the First World War
During the Second World War Finland fought two wars against the Soviet Union, the Winter War (1939-40) and the Continuation War (1941-44), and in accordance with the armistice agreement with the Soviet Union, fought German forces in Lapland in 1944-45
As part of the peace settlement, Finland was forced to concede a significant amount of territory, mainly from the Karelia region, to the Soviet Union. The peace settlement also led to close economic and political ties with her eastern neighbour, consolidated in the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance (FCMA) signed in 1948
The Cold War period was in Finland dominated by maintaining cordial relations with the Soviet Union. While the direct interference of the Soviet leadership in Finnish politics has often been exaggerated, the Finnish political elite nevertheless was always forced to anticipate the reactions from Moscow, and t...
Following instructions from Moscow, Finland was forced to reject Marshall Aid in 1947. In 1955 Finland joined the United Nations and the Nordic Council
In 1961 Finland became an associate member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), with the Kremlin ruling out full EFTA membership
The end of the Cold War changed the situation dramatically, with the FCMA abolished in 1991
Finland applied for EU membership in 1992 and joined the EU in 1995
Finland joined the third stage of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) among the first countries – and has played an active role in the further development of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)
The history of Finland as a ‘borderland’ still influences in many ways national political culture and behaviour – neutral borderland between the two power blocs (or between east and west)
Basic Facts about Finland Population 5.4 million (2010)
Official languages Finnish (91 %), Swedish (5 %)
Religion Lutheran (appr. 80 %)
Territory 338 145 km2 (68 % forest, 10 % water)
Land boundaries Russia (1340 km), Norway (727 km), Sweden (614 km)
A brief chronology of Finnish modern history
1809 Finland becomes an autonomous Grand Duchy of the Russian empire
1906 The old four-estate assembly replaced by the unicameral national parliament, the Eduskunta, with universal suffrage established as the first country in Europe. First parliamentary elections are held next year
1917 Declaration of independence
1918 Civil war between Reds and Whites
1939-45 Second World War. Finland fights two wars against the Soviet Union, the Winter War (1939-40) and the Continuation War (1941-44). Following the armistice with the Soviet Union, Finnish forces drive the German army out of Lapland in 1944-45
1948 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance signed with the Soviet Union. The pact eventually lapses in 1991
1995 Finland joins the European Union
2000 The new constitution enters into force, ending the era of president-led politics
Consensus democracy / consensual style of politics? Definitions of consensus:
general agreement
the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
group solidarity in sentiment and belief
Is consensus the ‘way of the country’ or does it result from institutions?
Nordic political culture is often categorized as having an emphasis on compromise and consensus
“No image of modern Swedish politics is more widely celebrated than that of the rational, pragmatic Swede, studying problems carefully, consulting widely, and devising solutions that reflect centuries of practice at the art of compromise” (Anton 1980: 158)
But: also a lot of conflicts between the organized working class and capital (a class compromise)
Importance of the 1930s (era of the Great Depression): Red-green coalitions were formed in all Nordic countries between social democrats and agrarian parties (hence marginalizing extreme alternatives)
Consensual features in Finnish politics
Multiparty governments
Partisan cooperation across the left-right dimension
Corporatism
Welfare state
Decision-making in foreign and EU policies
Deferment rule (abolished in the early 1990s)
Nordic political systems are based on a low level of transparency, with negotiations between the actors almost always taking place behind closed doors – in the government, in parliamentary committees (‘working parliament’), centralized wage talks
The Nordic model?
Seven key features of an ‘ideal’ Nordic model of government (Arter 1999: 146-149)
Dominant or strong social democratic parties
Working multi-party systems
Consensual approach to policy-making
Consultation with pressure groups
Centralized collective bargaining
An active state
Close relations within political elite producing pragmatism
Argument: there are significant differences between the five Nordic countries, but there are also enough similarities for a Nordic model to exist
VOTING AND ELECTIONS The electoral system
The 200 members of the unicameral Eduskunta are elected for a four-year term (three years until 1954)
The country is divided into one single-member and 14 multi-member electoral districts, with the Åland Islands entitled to one seat regardless of its population
Each district is a separate subunit and there are no national adjustment seats. The formula used for allocating seats to districts is the method of largest remainders, with the d’Hondt method used in allocating seats to parties
Turning to district magnitude (excluding the single-member districts), from 1907 to 2003 the smallest district had between 6 and 9 seats while between 19 and 33 MPs were elected from the largest district. In the elections held in 2007 district magnitude ranged from 6 (South Savo, North Karelia) to 34 (Uusimaa). The average district magnitude is 13.3 – or 14.2 when including only the multi-member constituencies
There is no legal threshold, but in the 2007 elections the ’effective’ threshold ranged from 2,9 (Uusimaa) to 14,3 (South Savo, North Karelia)
The proportionality of the electoral system is high. As the d’Hondt formula favours large parties, most small parties join electoral alliances, and without this option proportionality between votes and seats would be lower
Within electoral alliances the distribution of seats is determined by the plurality principle, regardless of the total number of votes won by the respective parties forming the alliance. Hence no account is taken of the relative vote shares of the alliance partners
For example, let us assume that an electoral alliance between party A and party B wins a total of 20,000 votes in an electoral district, and that this entitles the alliance to three MPs, with 15,000 of the votes going to candidates of party A and 5,000 to candidates of party B. However, what matters are the vote totals of the individual candidates, and hence party B can benefit from the alliance if it can concentrate its votes on one candidate in that district, as the three candidates with the most votes will be elected to the parliament
Thus smaller parties have tended to enter electoral alliances with larger parties, with particularly the Centre Party systematically entering into alliances with smaller parties such as the Christian Democrats. Particularly the Christian Democrats have benefited from electoral alliances, with 2/3 of all the seats won by the party attributable to electoral alliances (Paloheimo & Sundberg 2009)
The Electoral Act (1969) and the Election Act (1975) brought major changes to candidate selection. Until then the lack of legal regulations gave the parties a relatively free hand in making their own arrangements, and this resulted in processes that were strongly influenced or even determined by national party executives
An important tool for parties was the right to field the same candidate in several constituencies. However, since 1969 the same candidate can compete in only one constituency, thereby reducing the influence of the party leadership
Since the reforms carried out in 1975, candidate selection has been based on membership balloting within electoral districts. At the district level, registered political parties and voters’ associations with at least 100 persons have the right to nominate candidates, but only parties can enter into electoral alliances
Parties must use membership balloting in constituencies where the number of nominees exceeds the official upper limit of candidates (i.e. at most 14 candidates per electoral district or, if more than 14 representatives are elected from the district, at most the number of candidates elected)
A local branch or a group of at least 15 members has the right to nominate candidates. A group of at least 30 members from different branches has the same right. After the balloting, the district party executive can replace a maximum of one-quarter of the candidates (one-fifth in the Social Democratic Party)
While such list manipulation by the district party executive does occur in most districts, it is primarily explained by either candidate refusals or the need to form a more balanced list by correcting, for example, the geographical or occupational bias of the candidates
The national-level party organisation is almost completely excluded from the candidate selection process. The national party leadership has thus only limited possibilities to influence candidate selection at the district level
The candidates are placed on the party lists in alphabetical order. The exception is the Social Democratic Party, which employs a system in which the placing of the candidates on the list is determined by their success in the membership ballots, with the candidate winning the most votes heading the list
Voters choose among individual candidates
The ballot paper
This ‘open list’ system means that the electoral system is highly candidate-centred – and this is reflected in
citizens’ voting behaviour
campaigning
parliamentary work
There is arguably more competition within than between parties
Citizens have been asked in a survey which one, the candidate or the party, has been more important in guiding their voting behaviour (‘After all, which do you think was more important in your voting, the party or the candidate?’)
In the 1983 elections just over half, 52 %, viewed the party as more important and 42 % the candidate as more important. In 1991 the respective figures were 51 % and 43 %. In the 2007 elections 48 % stated that the party was more important, while 51 % reported that the candidate was more important
The weak involvement of the national-level party organisation in candidate selection is also reflected in campaigning. During the campaign, the national party organisation and leadership primarily act as a background resource, providing the local branches with necessary campaign material and, through the party leader, giving the party a public face
The actual work of collecting funds and spreading the message is the responsibility of candidates’ support groups, with private donations being important in financing candidates’ campaigns
The candidate-centred character of the electoral system is also reflected in parliamentary work
While Finnish parties can be characterised as rather centralised between elections, the decentralised candidate selection process limits the disciplinary powers of party leaders vis-à-vis MPs, as re-election seeking representatives need to cultivate support among their constituents
Comments