SINCE THE ESTABLISHMENT of its present system of government in 1919,
Finland has been one of the more fortunate members of the Western
community of democratic nations. Compared with other European states,
the country was only moderately affected by the political turmoil of the
interwar period; it passed through World War II relatively unscathed;
and, although right on the line that divided Europe into two hostile
blocs after the second half of the 1940s, it survived as an independent
nation with its democratic institutions intact.
This enviable record was achieved against formidable odds. Although
the constitutional basis of their government grew out of
long-established institutions, Finns had never been fully free to govern
themselves until late 1917 when they achieved national independence.
Swedish and Russian rulers had always ultimately determined their
affairs. Finnish society was also marked by deep fissures that became
deeper after the brief civil war (1918), which left scars that needed
several generations to heal. In addition to class and political
divisions, the country also had to contend with regional and linguistic
differences. These problems were eventually surmounted, and by the 1980s
the watchword in Finnish politics was consensus.
A skillfully constructed system of government allowed Finns to manage
their affairs with the participation of all social groups (although
there were some serious lapses in the interwar period). Checks and
balances, built into a system of modified separation of powers, enabled
the government to function democratically and protected the basic rights
of all citizens. The 200-member parliament, the Eduskunta, elected by
popular vote, was sovereign by virtue of its representing the Finnish
people. An elected president wielded supreme executive power and
determined foreign policy. Although not responsible politically to the
Eduskunta, the president could carry out many of his functions only
through a cabinet government, the Council of State, which was dependent
upon the support of the Eduskunta. An independent judiciary, assisted by
two legal officials with broad independent powers--the chancellor of
justice and the parliamentary ombudsman--ensured that government
institutions adhered to the law.
Working within this system during the 1980s were a variety of
political parties, an average of about a dozen, ranging from sect-like
groups to large well-established parties, the counterparts of which were
to be found all over Western Europe. The socialist wing consisted of a
deeply split communist movement and a moderate Finnish Social Democratic
Party that by the late 1980s was a preeminent governing party. The
center was occupied by an agrarian party, the Center Party, which had
been in government almost continuously until 1987; the Swedish People's
Party; and a formerly right-wing protest party, the Finnish Rural Party.
The right was dominated by the National Coalition Party, which was
fairly moderate in its conservatism. In the 1970s and the 1980s, the
mainstream parties, and even a good part of the Communist Party of
Finland, had moved toward the center, and the political spectrum as a
whole was slightly more to the right than it had been in previous
decades.
A constitutional system that was conservative in nature had allowed
these parties to work together, yet within constraints that permitted no
single group to usurp the rights of another. Nevertheless, the variety
of parties had made it very difficult to put together coalitions that
could attain the strict qualified majorities needed to effect
fundamental changes. Only since the second half of the 1960s had it been
possible, though at times difficult, to find a broad enough multiparty
consensus.
Powerful interest groups were also involved in Finnish politics, most
noticeably in the negotiation and the realization of biannual income
policy settlements that, since the late 1960s, had affected most Finnish
wage-earners. Interest groups initially negotiated the terms of a new
wage agreement; then it was, in effect, ratified by coalitions of
parties in government; and finally the Eduskunta passed the social and
economic legislation that underlay it. Some observers complained that
government's role had become overly passive in this process and that the
preeminence of consensus actually meant that Finnish politics offered
the populace no real alternatives. Yet most Finns, remembering earlier
years of industrial strife and poverty, preferred the new means of
managing public affairs.
There was also broad agreement about Finnish foreign policy. The
country was threatened with extinction as an independent nation after
World War II, but presidents Juho Paasikivi and Urho Kekkonen, both
masters of realpolitik, led their countrymen to a new relationship with
the Soviet Union. The core of this relationship was Finland's guarantee
to the Soviet Union that its northeastern border region was militarily
secure. Controversial as the so-called Paasikivi-Kekkonen Line was
initially, by the 1980s the vast majority of Finns approved of the way
Finland dealt with its large neighbor and were well aware, too, of the
trade advantages the special relationship had brought to their country.
Working in tandem with good Finnish-Soviet relations was the policy
of active and peaceful neutrality, the backbone of Finnish foreign
policy. Advocating, as a neutral state, the settlement of disputes
through peaceful, legal means was a role Finns adopted willingly. A high
point of this policy was the part the country played in planning and in
hosting the 1975 Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Another facet of active neutrality was a committed membership in the
United Nations, most notably in the organization's peacekeeping forces.
<>CONSTITUTIONAL
FRAMEWORK
Constitutional Development
Finland's government structure has remained largely unchanged since
it was established in 1919 with the passage of the Constitution Act.
Building on a combination of old institutions from both the Swedish and
the Russian periods, this law, together with three others also of
constitutional status, has given Finland a system that has been
remarkably successful in allowing a once deeply divided nation to govern
itself.
Constitutional Development
Finland, although independent of foreign rule only since 1917, has
traditions of self-government extending back into the Middle Ages.
Because their country belonged to the dual kingdom of Sweden-Finland for
more than 600 years, Finns had long enjoyed the common Nordic right to
manage local affairs by themselves. Beginning in 1362, Finns took part
in the election of the Swedish king, and they thus became involved in
the government of the realm as a whole. This role was increased after
1435, when they began sending representatives to the kingdom's governing
body, the Diet of the Four Estates (Riksdag).
The Swedish Diet Act of 1617 and the Form of Government Act of 1634
formalized the Finnish tradition of estates, whereby leading members of
the country, representatives not only of regions but of social classes
as well, met to decide matters of common concern. Although the acts
restricted local government somewhat, they brought Finns more than ever
into the management of the kingdom's affairs. At regular intervals a
Finn presided over the nobility, the most important of the four estates
of the Diet; consisting also of the estates of the clergy, burghers, and
peasantry, the Diet continued to be Finland's representative governing
body until early in the twentieth century.
Royal power was strengthened by the constitution of 1772, forced on
the Diet by King Gustav III. This constitution, in effect in Finland
until 1919, long after it had been abrogated in Sweden, gave the king
final say about the decisions of the Diet. The king's power was further
augmented by the Act of Union and Security of 1789, which gave him
exclusive initiative in legislative matters.
Ceded by Sweden to Russia in 1809, Finland was not incorporated fully
into the empire by Tsar Alexander I, but retained its own legal system. A small body,
the Senate, was established to administer the country. Its two sections,
finance and justice, later became the basis of independent Finland's
cabinet and supreme courts. The Senate's head, the governor general, the
highest official in Finland, was a Russian appointed by the tsar. An
indication of the country's relative autonomy, however, was that all
other officials of the Grand Duchy of Finland were native Finns.
The tsar, who had the right to determine when the Diet met, dissolved
the assembly in 1809, and it did not meet again until 1863 when recalled
by Alexander II, the Tsar Liberator. Thereafter the Diet met regularly,
and in the late 1860s it ushered in the "Golden Age" of
Finnish legislation, a period of several decades during which the
country's laws were modernized and were brought into harmony with the
legal codes of Western Europe. It was during this period, too, that
political parties appeared, emerging first from the campaign to give the
Finnish language its rightful place in the country, then from the
growing resistance to Russian rule, and finally from the question of how
to contend with the coming of industrialization and labor strife.
The aggressive Russification campaign that began in the 1890s sought
to end the relative autonomy Finland had enjoyed under tsarist rule. A
military defeat in East Asia weakened the Russian empire and gave Finns
a chance for greater freedom. The Diet unanimously dissolved itself in
1906, and a parliament, the Eduskunta, a unicameral body elected by
universal suffrage, was created. Finland became in one step a modern
representative democracy and the first European nation to grant women
the right to vote.
The tsarist regime allowed the assembly few of its rights, however,
and only after the collapse of the Russian Empire and the Bolshevik
Revolution of 1917 were the Finns able to secure their independence. A
civil war and bitter political debates about whether the country should
be a monarchy or a republic preceded the passage of the Constitution Act
of 1919, which established the present system of government in Finland.
Finland - The Constitution
Finland's Constitution is not a single law, but rather a collection
of four laws that have constitutional status. The most important is the
Constitution Act of 1919, which lays out the functions and relationships
of the most important government entities, lists the basic rights of
Finnish citizens and the legal institutions charged with their
protection, and makes provisions for managing state finances and for
organizing the defense forces and public offices. The second of the
basic laws is the Parliament Act of 1928, a slightly modernized version
of the Parliament Act of 1906, which established the country's
democratically elected parliament, the Eduskunta, and spelled out its
procedures. Two other basic laws date from 1922 and involve supervision
of the cabinet or government: the Responsibility of Ministers Act, which
details the legal responsibilities of the members of the cabinet and the
chancellor of justice; and the High Court of Impeachment Act, which
explains how they are to be made accountable for infractions of the law.
Two acts dealing with the self-determination of the Aland Islands
also have constitutional status. The Autonomy Act of 1951 protects the Swedish character of the
archipelago, and a law of 1975 restricts the purchase and ownership of
land on the islands.
The Constitution Act of 1919, building on existing Finnish
institutions, established a parliamentary system of government based on
a division of powers among the legislative, the executive, and the
judicial branches of government. But the separation of powers is not
complete, and the branches' powers and functions are overlapping and
interlocking. Sovereign power rests with the Finnish people, who govern
themselves through the Eduskunta. Sharing legislative power with the
parliament, however, is a president, who also wields supreme executive
power. He exercises this power through the Council of State, a cabinet
of ministers. In accordance with parliamentary norms, this cabinet must
resign if it loses the support of the Eduskunta. The judiciary is
independent, yet it is bound by the laws passed by the Eduskunta, which,
in turn, follows constitutional norms in drafting them. Like other
Nordic countries, Finland has no constitutional court. The Eduskunta,
acting through its Constitutional Committee, serves as the ultimate
arbiter of the constitutionality of a law or legislative proposal.
Composed of seventeen members, chosen to represent the party composition
of the full chamber, the committee seeks expert opinion and lets itself
be bound by legal precedents.
The Constitution may be amended if proposals to this end meet
qualified or set majority requirements. The requirements are such that
as few as one sixth of the Eduskunta's members can prevent the passage
of amendments. The large number of Finnish political parties makes
attaining qualified majorities nearly impossible, unless an amendment
has widespread support. This protects the rights of minorities.
The individual rights of Finnish citizens are delineated in Section
II of the Constitution Act, Article 5 through Article 16, and, with a
single addition, there have remained unchanged since their adoption in
1919. The additional amendment, enacted in 1972, promises all Finns the
opportunity for gainful employment, to be provided by the state if
necessary. The list of rights is, of necessity, rather general. How they
are exercised, protected, and limited is set out in ordinary laws. The
state reserves for itself the right to limit them "in time of war
or rebellion."
First and foremost, all citizens are equal under the law, with a
constitutional guarantee of their rights to life, honor, personal
freedom, and property. The reference to honor provides for protection
against false and slanderous charges and reflects the importance of
reputation in Finnish tradition. The protection of property and the
requirement for full compensation if it is expropriated for public needs
indicate the conservative nature of the Finnish Constitution. The right
of freedom of movement encompasses residence, protection from
deportation, and guaranteed readmittance into Finland. Only in special
cases, such as convictions for criminal activity, are these freedoms
abridged. Complete freedom of religious worship and association is
guaranteed, as is freedom from religion.
Finnish citizens are guaranteed free speech and the right of
assembly, as well as the right to publish uncensored texts or pictures.
The inviolability of the home is promised, and a domicile can be
searched only according to conditions set by law. Privacy of
communications by mail, telegraph, or telephone is likewise provided
for. A Finn may be tried only in a court having prescribed jurisdiction
over him. The safeguarding of the cultural affinities of the country's
citizens is regarded as a fundamental right, and, as a consequence, the
two languages spoken by native-born Finns, Finnish and Swedish, both
enjoy the status of official language. The act stipulates that a Finn
may use either of these two languages in a court of law and may obtain
in that language all pertinent legal or official documents. Finally, in
accordance with its nature as a republic, Finland grants no noble or
hereditary titles.
Finland - GOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTIONS
The Eduskunta is the country's highest governing body by virtue of
its representing the people, who possess sovereign power. Its main power
is legislative, a power it shares with the country's president. It also
has extensive financial powers, and its approval is required for the
government's annual budget and for any loans the government wants to
contract. Although the president is dominant in the area of foreign
policy, treaties must be ratified by the Eduskunta, and only with its
consent can the country go to war or make peace. This chamber also has
supervisory powers, and it is charged with seeing that the country is
governed in accordance with the laws it has passed. To enforce its will,
the Eduskunta has the power to hold the government to account, and to
call for the impeachment of the president.
The Eduskunta is closely tied to the president and to the Council of
State. Neither the president nor the cabinet is able to carry out many
executive functions without the support of the Eduskunta, and the
cabinet must resign if it is shown that it has lost the chamber's
confidence. Strong links between the Eduskunta and the Council of State
result, too, from the circumstance that most cabinet ministers are
members of parliament. On the other hand, the Eduskunta is subordinate
to the president in that he may dissolve it and call for new elections.
Despite its legislative powers, it actually initiates little
legislation, limiting itself mainly to examining the government bills
submitted to it by the president and the council. In addition, all
legislation passed by the Eduskunta must bear the president's signature
and that of a responsible minister in order to go into effect. The
Eduskunta need not approve the legislative proposals submitted to it,
however, and can alter or reject them.
As stipulated by the Parliament Act of 1928, the Eduskunta's 200
members are elected by universal suffrage for four-year terms. All
citizens twenty years of age and older, who are able to vote, and who
are not professional military personnel or holders of certain high
offices, have the right to serve in the Eduskunta. A wide variety of the
country's population has served in this body, and its membership has
changed often. Sometimes as many as one-third of the representatives
have been first-term members, as occurred in the 1987 national
elections.
Finnish election laws emphasize individual candidates, which
sometimes has meant the election of celebrities to the body. Most
members, however, have begun their political careers at the local level.
In the late 1980s, about one-third of the representatives were career
politicians. The professions were overly represented at the expense of
blue-collar workers; about 40 percent of the members, compared with only
3 percent of the population as a whole, had university degrees. By the
1980s, farmers and businessmen were no longer so prevalent as they once
had been, while there were more journalists and managers. The number of
female representatives had also increased, and by the 1980s they made up
one-third of the chamber. In the 1987 election, women won 63 of the 200
seats.
Article 11 of the 1928 Parliament Act states that members are to vote
as their consciences dictate. A delegate is not legally bound to vote as
he or she promised, in a campaign for example. In the late 1980s,
however, party discipline was strict, and delegates usually voted as
directed by their party.
The four-year term, or legislative period, of the Eduskunta is
divided into annual sessions beginning in early February, with vacation
breaks in the summer and at Christmas. The first business of a yearly
session is the election of a speaker, two deputy speakers, and committee
chairmen. Those elected make up the speaker's council, which is
representative of the party composition of the Eduskunta and arranges
its work schedule. The speaker, by tradition of a different party from
the prime minister, presides over the chamber, but the speaker neither
debates nor votes.
Also chosen in the first days of a new session are those, from either
within or outside the parliament, who supervise the pension institute
and television and radio broadcasting; and five auditors who monitor
compliance with the government's budget and oversee the Bank of Finland
(BOF). Among the most important posts to be filled by the Eduskunta for
its four-year term are those of the parliamentary ombudsman and the six
members of the Eduskunta who make up half of the High Court of
Impeachment.
Parliament approves legislation in plenary sittings, but it is in the
committees that government bills are closely examined. In the late
1980s, there were thirteen committees in all: five permanent
committees--constitutional, legal affairs, foreign affairs, finance, and
bank--and eight regular ad hoc committees-- economy, law and economy,
cultural affairs, agriculture and forestry, social affairs,
transportation, defense, and second legal affairs. Committee membership
reflects the political composition of the Eduskunta. Members usually
serve for the whole legislative period, and they commonly have seats on
several committees, often of their own choosing. Members who have served
on a given committee for a number of terms often develop considerable
expertise in its area of responsibility.
Legislative proposals also pass through the forty-five-member Grand
Committee. Only the budget, which is not a legislative proposal in
Finland, escapes its review. The committee, adopted as a compromise in
1906 between those who advocated a bicameral legislature and those who
preferred the unicameral body finally established, was conceived as a
safeguard against the measures of a perhaps too radical parliament. It
therefore examines proposals for their legal soundness and propriety.
Yet, according to the British scholar David Arter, the Grand Committee
has only occasionally altered the proposals sent to it, and, as a
consequence, it has lost prestige within the Eduskunta. Its members are
generally newly elected representatives.
The Eduskunta has an elaborate procedure for handling government
bills sent to it by the president, after discussion and approval in the
Council of State. This procedure was adopted with the idea of preventing
the enactment of radical measures, and it is an indication of the
Eduskunta's essentially conservative nature. Proposals are usually first
discussed in a plenary session, then directed by the speaker to an
appropriate committee, where they are carefully scrutinized in closed
hearings. After committee review and report, proposals are returned to
the plenary session for the first reading, where they are discussed but
no vote is taken. The next step is the Grand Committee review. Working
from the Grand Committee report, the second reading in plenary session
is a detailed examination of the proposal. If the Grand Committee report
is not accepted in its entirety, the proposal must be returned to the
Grand Committee for further discussion. Once the proposal is back again
at the plenary session, for the so-called continued second reading, the
Eduskunta votes on the changes recommended by the Grand Committee. There
is no discussion in the final and third reading; the proposal is simply
approved or rejected. Votes may be taken at least three days after the
second reading or the continued second reading. Once approved by the
Eduskunta, bills require the signature of the president within three
months to go into effect. This requirement gives the president the power
of suspensive veto. This veto, rarely used, can be overridden if the
Eduskunta approves the bill with a simple majority following new
national elections.
Only the government's budget proposal is exempted from the above
parliamentary procedure, because the budget is not considered a
legislative proposal in Finland. Instead, the budget proposal is handled
in a single reading, after a close review by the largest and busiest
parliamentary committee, the twenty-one member Finance Committee.
Government bills connected with the budget and involving taxation,
however, must pass through the three plenary session readings and the
Grand Committee review. This reinforces the Eduskunta's budgetary
control.
The Eduskunta's elaborate legislative procedure can be traversed in a
few days if there is broad agreement about the content of a bill.
Qualified majority requirements for much legislation, most commonly that
touching on financial matters and property rights, enable a small number
of representatives to stop ratification in a plenary session and to
oblige the government to ascertain a bill's probable parliamentary
support before submitting it to the Eduskunta. Qualified majority
requirements for legislation involving taxation for a period of more
than one year require the approval of two-thirds of the body.
Sixty-seven members can hold such legislation over until after a new
election and can thus effectively brake government programs. Because
there is no time limit on a member's right to speak, filibusters can
also slow the progress of a bill through the Eduskunta, although this
tactic has seldom been employed. Government care in the crafting of
bills is reflected in the unimpeded passage through parliament of most
of them.
Legislation altering the Constitution is subjected to more rigorous
requirements. Constitutional changes may be approved by a simple
majority, but before they go into effect, they must be approved again by
a two-thirds majority in a newly elected Eduskunta. If the changes are
to go into effect within the lifetime of a single Eduskunta, the
legislation implementing them must be declared "urgent" by
five-sixths of the body and, in a subsequent vote, approved by a
two-thirds majority. This requirement means that a vote of one-sixth
against a proposed economic measure regarded as being of a
constitutional nature, such as some incomes policy legislation, can
prevent its enactment during a single parliamentary term. These same
majorities are required for an unusual feature of Finnish parliamentary
procedure that permits the passage of laws that are temporary
suspensions of, or exceptions to, the Constitution, but that leave it
intact. Since 1919 about 800 of these exceptional laws have been passed,
most involving only trivial deviations from the Constitution.
Members of the Eduskunta may initiate legislation by submitting their
own private members' bills and financial motions relating to the budget.
Several thousand of these are submitted each year, but 95 percent are
not even considered, and only a handful are accepted. Members also may
submit proposals connected to government bills, or may petition for
certain actions to be taken. The main point of these procedures is often
a delegate's desire to win the approval of his constituents by bringing
up an issue in the Eduskunta.
The Eduskunta has other means of exerting pressure on the government,
in addition to refusing to approve its legislative proposals. Its
members may address questions to ministers either orally or in writing,
and in either case a quick response is required. Potentially much more
serious is an interpellation, possible if twenty members desire it, in
which case the government can fall if it fails to survive a vote of
confidence. Few governments fall in this way, however, as they are
allowed to remain in power as long as a lack of support is not shown.
Interpellations have been used principally as a means of drawing
attention to a particular question, and press coverage usually is
intense.
An important instrument of Finnish parliamentary control is the right
and duty of the Constitutional Committee to examine government bills
with regard to their constitutionality. Finland has no constitutional
court, and suggestions for its establishment have foundered because the
Eduskunta has refused to cede this important review power to a court
that would be outside parliamentary control. Although the committee's
seventeen members come from parties with seats in the Eduskunta, the
committee has strived for impartiality, has sought the opinions of legal
specialists, and has let itself be bound by precedents. As evidence that
it takes its responsibilities seriously, committee members representing
both the far left and the far right have agreed with 80 percent of its
judgements over a long period of time.
The Eduskunta also exercises control of the executive through the
Responsibility of Ministers Act, which can be used against the
government or an individual minister if a parliamentary committee, the
parliamentary ombudsman, or five members of the Eduskunta so decide. The
Eduskunta's ability to control the government is also apparent in its
duty to comment on the annual report of the government's actions
submitted in May, and the Foreign Affairs Committee's review of the
frequent Ministry of Foreign Affairs reports detailing the government's
conduct in the field of foreign relations.
Finland - President
Supreme executive power is held by the president, assisted by the
Council of State. The president also has legislative power exercised in
conjunction with the Eduskunta. As of 1988, the president is to be
elected for a six-year term either directly by the Finnish people, or if
an absolute majority is not reached, by a college of 301 electors
selected in the same election. Previously the president was elected
indirectly by the college of electors.
As of 1988, there was no limit on the number of terms a president
might serve, but in the late 1980s legislation was being discussed that
would permit no one to serve more than two consecutive terms. The
president's only formal qualification is that he or she be a native-born
citizen. Once elected, the president must renounce all other offices,
and, with the aim of being a nonpartisan head of state, must cease being
a member of any political party. His election, separate from that for
the Eduskunta, gives him a distinct mandate that theoretically elevates
him above routine politics. Another advantage of his long term in office
is that it brings to Finnish political life a continuity that it has
often lacked.
The president is not politically responsible to anyone. He can be
removed from office only if the Eduskunta decides by a three-quarters
majority that he is guilty of treason. He would then be tried by the
Supreme Court. The risks that such freedom from political
responsibility entails are lessened because most of his executive
decisions can be carried out only by means of the Council of State, and
his legislative powers are realized through the Eduskunta.
The president's power to dissolve parliament and to call for new
elections gives him, in theory, considerable influence over parliament,
but ultimately he must work with an Eduskunta elected by the people. If
he cannot convince a majority of the voters or the members of the
Eduskunta to support his policies, he cannot act. An indication of the
importance of this central element in Finnish parliamentary practice is
that the Eduskunta has been dissolved only once--in 1924--against its
will. The other half dozen dissolutions were caused by the inability of
the government to agree on a common course of action.
It is the president who decides what legislative proposals are sent
to the Eduskunta, although in practice government bills are drafted by
the Council of State and are sent to parliament after presidential
approval. Failure to sign them within three months of their passage
amounts to a suspensive veto on the part of the president, a veto which
can be overridden by a simple majority of the Eduskunta after new
parliamentary elections. Both the presidential veto and the Eduskunta
override have been rare occurrences.
Another important presidential power involves the formation of new
governments. The president has the formal power to nominate ministers,
but his choices are bound by what the parties seated in the Eduskunta
will accept. His choices must correspond to the chamber's political
composition. Within these limits, though, the president's force of
character and political will influence the formation of a government.
The president also has the right to dismiss ministers, either individual
ministers, or, if he wishes, the entire cabinet. The president may issue
decrees about details of public administration, as long as these
measures are not contrary to laws passed by the Eduskunta. The right to
change laws is a parliamentary prerogative, although an emergency law
may grant the president this power in times of crisis, as was done in
World War II.
The president nominates all senior civil servants, high judges,
provincial governors, diplomats, professors at the University of
Helsinki, high churchmen, and the chancellor of justice. In making these
appointments, however, the president rarely departs from the names
suggested to him by appropriate authorities. As commander in chief of
the armed forces, a position he may delegate during wartime, as was done
in World War II, the president also nominates military officers.
The president has the power to grant pardons and general amnesties,
but the latter require the approval of the Eduskunta. Individual
immunity may also be granted by the president, in accordance with
certain provisions of the law. Moreover, the granting and the revocation
of citizenship require the signature of the head of state.
The Constitution Act gives the president the responsibility for
directing foreign affairs, and his authority in this area has grown
markedly since World War II. The occasion for the decisive shift of
presidential activity from principally domestic concerns to foreign
relations was the threat a changing world order posed for Finland's
survival; the crucial roles, played by President Paasikivi in
formulating a new foreign policy and by President Kekkonen in
consolidating it, restructured the office they held. Their success
increased the prestige and the strength of the presidency beyond the
formal powers already prescribed by the Constitution and enhanced the
president's role as head of state.
By the late 1980s, however, a long period of stability both at home
and abroad made the security and the direction provided by a strong and
authoritative president seem less essential for the country's
well-being, and there was serious discussion about limiting his power of
intervention in the political process. Legislation was being prepared
that would circumscribe his right to dissolve the Eduskunta and his role
in the formation of governments; in the latter case, he would be
required to take greater cognizance of the wishes of leading
politicians. Other reforms likely to be realized in the next decade
included curtailing the president's right to dismiss ministers,
arranging for the direct election of the president, and limiting the
president to two consecutive terms in office. Mauno Koivisto, first
elected president in 1982 and reelected in 1988, supported reducing the
traditional powers of the presidency. Observers held that these reforms
would augment the governing roles of the prime minister, the cabinet,
and the legislature and that they would mean that Finnish political
practices came to resemble more closely those of other West European
parliamentary democracies.
Finland - Council of State
The Council of State shares executive power with the president, and
it is responsible for the management of the governmental machinery. The
Council of State prepares the government bills presented to the
Eduskunta and authors most legislation. In the late 1980s, it consisted
of the prime minister, the chancellor of justice, and up to seventeen
ministers who directed twelve ministries: foreign affairs, justice,
interior, defense, finance, education, agriculture and forestry,
communications, trade and industry, social affairs and health, labor,
and environment. Some of the ministries have second or deputy ministers,
and occasionally a minister holds two portfolios. There have been no
ministers without portfolio since the early 1950s. Ministers must be
"native-born Finnish citizens known for their honesty and
ability." The minister of justice and one other minister must be
lawyers, but otherwise there are no formal qualifications for a cabinet
post. Ministers generally enter the cabinet from the Eduskunta, but it
has not been uncommon for them to be drawn from the outside, especially
to serve in caretaker governments composed largely of leading private
citizens and civil servants. Even prime ministers have on occasion come
from outside parliament, as did Mauno Koivisto in 1979. Ministers from
the Eduskunta may continue to be members of that body, but they may not
serve on any committee.
The prime minister heads the Council of State, sets its agenda,
nominates some members of the council's committees, settles tie votes,
and, most important, dissolves it when he sees fit or if it can no
longer govern. The prime minister also represents the president when he
is out of the country. If the president can no longer carry out his
duties, the prime minister replaces him until a new presidential
election can be held. Other than these rights and duties, a prime
minister in the 1980s had few formal powers and had only a very small
staff to assist him in his work. His main responsibility was holding
together cabinets composed of a number of political parties that
frequently had opposing views on central issues. He could manage this
through personal prestige or by force of character, through backstairs
wrangling, or, ultimately, by threatening to dissolve the cabinet if it
did not adhere to the government's program.
A key member of the Council of State, although he is not a minister,
is the chancellor of justice. Appointed for life by the president, he is
obliged to attend all meetings of the council and to review its
proceedings for legality. He has no vote, but his decisions about the
legality of council proposals and decisions are regarded as binding. The
chancellor of justice also reviews the president's actions, and he
reports infractions to the Council of State, or, if necessary, to the
Eduskunta. He is also empowered to initiate proceedings according to the
Responsibility of Ministers Act. One of the formal qualifications for
his position is that he be well versed in the law; and within the
country's legal system he is the highest prosecutor.
The Council of State must enjoy the confidence of the Eduskunta in
order to govern. The party composition of a new cabinet has to be
acceptable to the Eduskunta, and it must correspond, to some degree, to
the relative political strength of the parties within the chamber.
Formation of a cabinet has often been difficult because, in addition to
the large number of parties that participate in them, Finnish elections
usually give no clear indication of how political realities should be
reflected by a governing coalition. Even the selection of individual
ministers can be troublesome, for the parties themselves have much to
say about who serves as minister, and even a prime minister may have to
accept members of his own party not of his choosing. If a suitable
constellation of parties cannot be formed to yield an effective majority
government, a minority government, or even a caretaker government, may
be put together if the Eduskunta agrees.
The Council of State is held legally responsible for the acts of its
ministers, in accordance with the Responsibility of Ministers Act of
1922. In addition to making ministers accountable for their official
actions, this law--which has constitutional status--is also a vital, if
indirect, means of controlling the president's actions. Because many of
his decisions can be carried out only through the Council of State,
ministers who approve an illegal presidential action are liable under
the terms of this law. Ministers wishing to avoid the law's sanctions
must refuse to be party to a presidential decision that they view as
illegal. If ministerial consent is lacking, the president cannot act. In
such a case, the president must either abide by the decision of the
council, or he may dismiss it and attempt to form a new one amenable to
his wishes. If this is not possible, he may dissolve the Eduskunta and
call for new elections with the hope of having the voters endorse his
decisions by returning an Eduskunta from which a compliant government
can be formed. If the council refuses to approve a lawful presidential
decision, it is obliged to resign. Ministers can always resign
individually, but the resignation of the prime minister means the end of
a government.
A principal task of the Council of State is the preparation of
legislative proposals, or government bills, that the president presents
to the Eduskunta for ratification. Most of this work is done in an
appropriate ministry, where, in addition to ministry personnel and civil
servants, permanent and ad hoc commissions of experts and spokesmen for
special interests can be consulted.
In the 1980s, the Council of State had three committees to handle
important questions: the ministerial committees for finance, economic
policy, and foreign affairs. The Finance Committee, meeting on
Wednesdays, consisted of the prime minister, finance minister, and
several other ministers. It prepared the government's budget and
responded to the financial motions presented by individual members of
the Eduskunta. The Economic Policy Committee met twice a week to discuss
issues touching the country's economic life as a whole, broader
questions about the government's budget, and other financial concerns
suggested by the prime minister. The Foreign Affairs Committee, least
important of the three, met when needed to discuss issues concerning
foreign policy.
Plenary meetings of the Council of State, for which a quorum of five
was required, had three forms. The so-called Evening School meeting, on
Wednesday evenings, was a closed, informal session where ministers, top
civil servants, politicians, and leading figures from outside government
freely discussed decisions to be taken. It was thus a forum where the
country's leaders met and exchanged opinions on important issues.
Instituted in the late 1930s as a means of speeding the council's work,
the Evening School had no formal decision-making power. Votes were taken
at the Thursday meeting. The Council of State worked as a collegial
body, and unanimous votes were not required. In case of a tie vote, the
vote of the prime minister was decisive. Approved measures were
presented to the president for signing at the Friday Presidential
Meeting.
In accordance with its executive powers, the Council of State
implemented its decisions and directed the ministries and the lower
levels of the state administrative apparatus. This was done through
presidential decrees and its own ordinances, neither of which could
conflict with legislation passed by the Eduskunta. Ministers, aided by
political secretaries drawn from their own parties, headed the country's
twelve ministries. The ministries, which both formulated and
administered policy, oversaw about eighty central boards that were
wholly occupied with implementing policy. The central board system,
inherited from the time of Swedish rule, had grown considerably,
expanding by about onethird between 1966 and 1975 because of the
increase in state social services. The boards, such as the National
Board of General Education and the State Publishing Office, did much of
the state's work. By tradition somewhat autonomous, they decided how
legislation and ministerial decisions were to be carried out.
Finland - Legal System
The legal system originated during the period of Swedish rule, and
portions of the Swedish General Code of 1734 were extant in Finnish law
even in the late 1980s. The country's first court of appeals was
established at Turku in 1634. The modern division of the Finnish courts
into two main branches--general courts, dealing with civil suits and
criminal cases, and administrative courts, regulating the actions of the
country's bureaucracy--also dates from this time. This division was
formalized in 1918 when two sections of the Senate, the body that had
governed Finland during the period of Russian rule, became the newly
independent country's two highest courts. The Senate Department of
Justice became the Supreme Court, and part of the Senate Finance
Department was the basis of the Supreme Administrative Court. The two
court systems are entirely separate, and they have no jurisdiction over
one another. The establishment of the two courts was confirmed by the
Constitution Act of 1919. Overseeing the system of justice are the
chancellor of justice--the country's highest guardian of the law and its
chief prosecutor--and the parliamentary ombudsman. Although these two
officials have largely parallel functions and each is required to submit
an annual report of his activities to parliament, the former is
appointed for life by the president and is a member of the Council of
State, whereas the latter is chosen for a four-year term by the
Eduskunta. Both officials receive complaints from citizens about the
conduct of civil servants, and on their own may investigate all public
officials and may order prosecutors to proceed against them. The
chancellor of justice supervises public prosecutors, and he also has the
unrestricted right to investigate private persons. Both officials may
call on either of the high courts for assistance.
The High Court of Impeachment may be convened for cases dealing with
illegal official acts by cabinet ministers, judges of the two supreme
courts, or the chancellor of justice. Members of this court, used only
three times since its formation in 1922, are the chief judges of the two
supreme courts and the six courts of appeal, a professor of law from the
University of Helsinki, and six representatives from the Eduskunta.
As in the other countries of Nordic Europe, there is no
constitutional court. Issues dealt with by a court of this kind
elsewhere are handled by the Eduskunta's Constitutional Committee.
According to Article 5 of the Constitution Act, all Finns are equal
before the law, and Article 13 of the same act stipulates that they may
be tried only in a court of their own jurisdiction. No temporary courts
are permitted. Legislation passed in 1973 provides for free legal
assistance to those in need as well as for free court proceedings in a
number of courts. Trials in lower courts are usually open to the public.
Records of trials in higher courts are made public.
Judges are appointed for life, with retirement set at age seventy,
and they may be removed only for serious cause. With the exception of
some lay judges in circuit courts and in some town courts, all judges
hold legal degrees from one of the country's three law schools. The
judiciary in the late 1980s was a rather closed profession, and only
judges for administrative courts were occasionally selected from outside
its ranks.
Defendants have no obligation to employ an attorney for their defense
in a Finnish court, and may represent themselves or be represented by
another layman rather than by a lawyer. Nevertheless, in most cases
heard in general courts and in many argued in administrative courts,
trained legal specialists are employed.
The general court system handles criminal cases and civil suits and
has three levels: lower courts, courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court.
There are two kinds of lower courts: town courts, numbering 30 in the
entire country; and circuit courts, totaling 147 in 71 judicial
districts. Town courts consist of three judges, all trained
professionals except in some small towns. One of these judges is the
chief judge chosen by the Supreme Court; the others are selected by
local authorities. Decisions are made on a collegial basis. Circuit
courts consist of a judge, chosen by the Supreme Court, and five to
seven lay judges, i.e., persons without legal training, chosen by local
authorities for a term of four years. Decisions on cases in courts of
this type are made by the professional judge, unless he is overruled by
the unanimous vote of the lay members of the court. Larger cities also
have housing courts that deal with rent and accommodations.
Appeals from lower courts are addressed to the six courts of appeal
located at Helsinki, Turku, Vaasa, Kouvola, Kuopio, and Rovaniemi. Most
cases at these courts are heard by professional three-judge panels; more
important cases are tried before a plenary session of judges if the
chief judge so decides. In cases involving senior government officials,
a court of appeals may serve as the court of first instance. Judges of
the courts of appeal are appointed by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, located in Helsinki, consists of a chief justice,
or a president, and twenty-one judges usually working in five-judge
panels. It hears cases involving appeals of decisions of appellate
courts where serious errors are alleged to have occurred, or where
important precedents might be involved. A sentence from a court of
appeals may go into effect immediately, despite an appeal to the Supreme
Court, but it may be postponed while the case is pending if the Supreme
Court so decides. The chief justice of the Supreme Court is appointed by
the nation's president, and the other judges of that court are appointed
by the president on the recommendation of the Supreme Court.
The administrative courts system consists of twelve county courts,
one in each of the country's twelve provinces, and the Supreme
Administrative Court, located in Helsinki. All judges in administrative
courts are professionals, appointed in the same manner as judges who sit
in general courts. Judges work in threejudge panels at the provincial
level and in five-judge panels in the Supreme Administrative Court. When
appropriate, the latter meets in plenary sessions to hear especially
important cases.
Administrative courts deal with appeals against administrative
decisions by government agencies, although in some cases appeals are
directed to higher administrative levels within the government. About 80
percent of the cases of the county courts involve appeals of government
tax decisions; the remainder deal with questions relating to
construction, welfare, planning, and local government. The Supreme
Administrative Court handles appeals of county court and central
government board decisions that affect, or are affected by,
administrative law. About 50 percent of the cases heard in the Supreme
Administrative Court involve questions about taxes.
Finland also has special courts to handle civil cases; some of these
courts render judgments from which there is no appeal. The four land
courts settle disputes about the division of land, and their decisions
may be appealed to the Supreme Court. Appeals from the insurance court,
which handles social insurance cases, also may be appealed to the
Supreme Court. Cases that involve water use are dealt with in the three
water courts, and may be appealed first to the water court of appeals
and from there to the Supreme Court. If the case involves water permits,
appeals go to the Supreme Administrative Court. Decisions of the labor
court and the marketing court may not be appealed. The former treats
disputes about collective bargaining agreements in either the public or
the private sector. Its president and vice president are lawyers; its
remaining members come from groups representing labor and management.
The marketing court regulates disagreements about consumer protection
and unfair competition.
Finland - Civil Service
Article 84 of the Constitution Act stipulates that only Finnish
citizens may be appointed to the civil service, although exceptions may
be made for some technical and teaching positions. Article 85 states
that educational requirements for the civil service will be set by law
or statute, and that only on special grounds may the Council of State
make an exception to the set requirements. Exceptions of this type
seldom occur. No exceptions may be made for appointment to a judicial
post. According to Article 86, successful applicants for civil service
posts will be promoted on the basis of "skill, ability and proved
civic virtue." State employees also often must have an appropriate
mastery of the country's two official languages.
There is no general recruitment in Finland for civil service posts,
nor does the country have a preferred school for training civil
servants. The recruitment is done on an individual basis for a vacant or
a newly created post.
Civil servants enjoy a fairly secure tenure in their posts, but they
may be dismissed for poor performance or for disreputable behavior on or
off the job. About 90 percent of civil servants were unionized in the
late 1980s. Since the passage of the Act on Civil Service Collective
Agreements in 1970, civil servants have had the right to strike. If a
strike of a category of civil servants threatens society's welfare, the
dispute may be reviewed, but not settled in a binding way, by a special
board. If required, the Eduskunta may settle the disagreement through
legislation.
By the early 1980s, there were about 125,000 civil servants employed
in the national government, which made it the country's largest
employer. More than twice this number worked for local government and
for related institutions. Government employment grew rapidly during the
1960s and the 1970s, and was accompanied by a marked increase in the
politicization of the civil service, especially at higher levels. Even
at lower levels, posts were often filled on the basis of party
affiliation. Sometimes appointments were arranged by "package
deals," through which the parties secured for their members a
suitable portion of available posts. Care was taken, however, that
appointees met the stated requirements for state posts, and political
parties even arranged for training so that their candidates would be
qualified applicants for given posts.
Politicization of public jobs resulted partly from the desire that
the civil service, traditionally conservative, reflect the new political
dominance of the center-left governments formed after 1966. President
Kekkonen also used the spoils system to cement the broad coalition
governments he introduced in the second half of the 1960s. A study from
the early 1980s found that by 1980 the number of senior civil service
posts occupied by nominees of the Center Party (Keskustapuolue--Kesk)
and the Finnish Social Democratic Party (Suomen Sosialidemokraattinen
Puolue--SDP) had doubled for the former and tripled for the latter in
just fifteen years, mostly at the expense of officials linked to the
National Coalition Party (Kansallinen Kokoomuspuolue--KOK).
Widespread criticism of the politicization of the civil service and
complaints that the practice was harmful to efficiency and to democratic
values led to recommendations for stricter control of hiring and even
for the prohibition of all political appointments. By the late 1980s, no
such ban had been instituted, but in general a decline in partisan
nomination for civil service posts seemed to have occurred since the
election of President Koivisto in 1982. Appointments in provincial
governments, however, continued to be booty for politicians. Despite
these partisan practices, the civil service had a reputation for
competence, and it enjoyed the support of most Finns.
Finland - Provincial Administration
Finland's tradition of local self-government, which predates the
arrival of Christianity in the country, was placed on a more modern
footing in the nineteenth century when local functions were taken from
the church, and communities became responsible for education and health
matters. Universal suffrage was introduced in local government in 1917,
and the Constitution Act of 1919 states in Article 51 that "the
administration of the municipalities shall be based on the principle of
self-government by the citizens, as provided in specific laws." How
local selfgovernment is practiced in the country's urban and rural
municipalities (numbering 94 and 367, respectively, in 1988) is
specified by the Local Government Act of 1976.
The governing body in a municipality is the municipal council, the
members of which, ranging in number from seventeen to eighty-five, are
elected by universal suffrage for four-year terms. Elections are held in
October, and the proportional representation list system is used. Any
Finnish citizen legally resident in the municipality and at least
eighteen years old by the year in which the election is held can vote.
Since 1976, citizens of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland who have
been legal residents of Finland for at least two years may also vote.
Voter turnout has generally been somewhat lower than in national
elections. In the 1988 local elections, for example, only 70 percent of
those eligible--about five to ten percent less than in national
elections--voted.
Finnish citizens have an obligation to serve in elective local
government posts, which has meant that most elected officials are
laymen. The 1976 law provides for financial compensation and pension
rights for those citizens elected to local positions.
Candidates traditionally have campaigned for office through national
party organizations, and local election results are regarded as an
indication of the national parties' popularity. Local electoral results
mirror those of national elections with regard to party dominance in
particular regions. Members of the Eduskunta often have begun their
careers on the local level, and they have been allowed to hold both
local and national elective offices at the same time. Continued
participation in politics at the grass roots level has given Helsinki
politicians close contact with their constituents.
The responsibilities of municipal government include managing the
budget and financial affairs, approving plans submitted to it,
delegating authority to committees, and making decisions on important
issues. They also direct school, health, and social welfare systems; see
to the construction and maintenance of local roads; provide for the
management of waste and water; and supply energy. Many decisions
relating to financial or budgetary questions require two-thirds
majorities in council votes. This means that there is much discussion
behind the scenes before votes are taken and that there exists the same
consensus politics at this level as is practiced on the national level.
Because municipal governments have no legislative or judicial powers,
decisions are carried out by means of ordinances.
Much of the routine work of governing is managed by the municipal
board, which consists of at least seven people, one of whom is the
chairman. Board members, who serve for two-year terms, come from the
council, and they are chosen to reflect its party composition. The board
prepares matters to be discussed by the council, and, if measures are
approved, implements them. Aiding the board are a number of committees,
some obligatory.
A staff of trained municipal employees assists the council, the
board, and the committees. To meet their overall responsibilities,
municipal governments employed a large number of persons, about 17
percent of the country's total work force in the 1980s. For duties too
broad in scope for a single municipality, the managing of a large
hospital for example, communities join together to form confederations
of minicipalities or joint authorities. By the 1980s, there were about
400 of these bodies. Local authorities are also obliged by the Local
Government Act of 1976 to formulate, publish, and frequently revise a
five-year plan covering administration, financial affairs, economic
growth, and land use. Expert assistance from national government bodies,
such as the Ministry of Interior, helps local bodies to fulfill this
obligation.
The responsibilities of local government have grown in recent
decades, and in the 1980s about two-thirds of public sector spending was
in the hands of local authorities. Local involvement in planning also
meant that 10 percent of the investment in the nation's economy came
from municipal coffers. In order to meet their responsibilities, local
governments have the right to tax, including the right to establish
local tax rates, a power needed for their independence, but one that
supplies them with only 40 percent of the monies they expend. The
remainder is furnished by the national government (a little over 20
percent) or is derived from various fees and charges.
Finnish local self-government is subject to a variety of controls.
The national government decides the municipalities' duties and areas of
responsibility, and once they are established, only a law passed by the
Eduskunta may alter them. The municipalities are obliged to submit many
of their decisions to a regional body or to a national government agency
for approval. This control, however, is often rather loose, and only
when a local government has broken a law does the provincial or the
national government intervene. Except for minor changes, proposals to
higher levels of government are not amended by them, but rather are
returned to local authorities, who themselves modify measures or
decisions to meet prescribed standards.
Meetings of municipal councils are generally open to the public, and
though board and committee meetings are closed, records of their
proceedings are subsequently published. Local governments or communes
are also obliged to publicize their activities. Individuals who believe
they have been wronged by a municipal policy may appeal to the courts or
to officials at the provincial or national level.
Finland - Electoral System
Universal suffrage for national elections was introduced to Finland
in 1906, and it was extended to local elections in 1917. With the
exception of some minor reforms, the original proportional
representation system remains unchanged. This system enjoys full public
support, for although it favors larger parties slightly, proportional
representation allows political participation of small, and even
marginal, groups as well.
All Finns over the age of eighteen by the year of an election are
eligible to vote. Voting is not compulsory, and, in the 1980s,
participation averaged around 80 percent, slightly below the average
rate of the Nordic countries.
In the 1980s, the country was divided for national elections into
fifteen electoral constituencies, fourteen of which sent between seven
and twenty-seven representatives to the Eduskunta, according to their
population. The constituency for the Aland Islands sent one.
Constituencies corresponded to provinces except that Hame Province and
Turku ja Pori Province were each divided into two, and Helsinki formed
one electoral district itself. The five southernmost constituencies
supplied nearly half of the Eduskunta's delegates. In the early 1980s,
one delegate represented about 24,000 Finns.
Candidates for the Eduskunta are almost invariably nominated by a
political party, although a 1975 amendment to the election law allows
the candidacy of a person sponsored by a minimum of 100 Finns united in
an electoral association. Party lists for a constituency contain at
least fourteen names--and more for those constituencies with high
populations. Since 1978 a secret primary among party members has been
required if a party has more candidates than places on its party list.
Parties may form electoral alliances with other parties to present their
candidates, and they often do so because of lack of resources. This
practice partly explains the high number of small parties successfully
active in Finnish politics.
Since the introduction of proportional representation in 1906,
Finland has used the d'Hondt constituency list system with only slight
modifications. Under this system, elections are based on proportionality
rather than on plurality, and seats are allotted to parties
commensurately with the number of votes polled. Votes go to individual
candidates, however, and voters indicate their preferred politician by
circling the number assigned to him or to her on their ballots.
The Finnish system is distributive in several ways. There is no
electoral threshold, such as the Swedish requirement that a party
receive at least 4 percent of the votes in order to sit in parliament.
In Finland it was feared that a threshold requirement might deprive the
Swedish-speaking minority of seats in the Eduskunta. The Finnish system
also favors parties with a pronounced support in certain areas, rather
than those with a thin nationwide presence. Parties are not obliged to
contest Eduskunta elections in every constituency. The practice of
voting for an individual candidate rather than for a party means that
voters can register their dissatisfaction with a party's policy or
leadership by voting for one of its junior candidates. This
characteristic of the Finnish system means that no candidate, no matter
how senior or renowned, is assured election.
Elections for the 200-seat Eduskunta are held every four years in
March, except when the president has dissolved the body and has called
for an early election. Municipal elections take place every four years
in October.
The presidential election occurs every six years in the month of
January. Beginning with the 1988 election, it is to be carried out on
the basis of direct universal suffrage. If none of the candidates
receives more than half of the votes, 301 electors, chosen in the same
election, choose the next head of state. Although pledged in the
campaign to particular presidential candidates, members of the electoral
college have the right to vote in the body's secret ballots for any
candidate who has won at least one elector. If no candidate secures a
majority of the college in the first two ballots, one of the two
candidates who has received the most support on the second ballot will
be elected president in the third and final vote. By the late 1980s,
there was serious discussion of doing away with the electoral college
completely and making the president's election dependent on a direct
vote with no majority required.
Finland - Aland Islands
The province of the Aland Islands enjoys considerable autonomy by
virtue of the Autonomy Act of 1951 that guarantees the way of life and
the preservation of Swedish traditions on the islands. The 1951 law was
supplemented by a 1975 law that restricts the acquisition of real estate
on the islands. Both laws have constitutional status, and they may be
altered only in accordance with the strict parliamentary provisions that
protect the Constitution.
In addition to this protection against legislation prejudicial to its
interests, the archipelago's provincial assembly, the Landsting, has the
right to ratify laws affecting it. The Landsting consists of thirty
members elected on the basis of proportional representation for
four-year terms. Voters must be eighteen years of age by the year of the
election and must have the right of domicile on the islands, a right
acquired by living for at least five years in the province. Those with
this right may also exercise certain professions and may acquire real
estate, and they may not be conscripted if they have been residents of
the islands since before their twelfth year. This last provision
resulted from the demilitarized and neutral status of the islands
established by a decision of the League of Nations in 1921.
The Landsting has the right to pass laws that touch on
administration, provincial taxation, police matters, transportation,
health care, and cultural matters. Issues relating to the Constitution,
national defense, foreign affairs, the judiciary, family law, and civil
law are outside its competence. All laws passed by the Landsting must be
approved by the president of the republic, who may veto those laws
judged to exceed the Landsting's competence or to damage the country's
internal or external security.
The highest executive authority in the province is the Provincial
Executive Council, consisting of seven members elected by, and from
within, the Landsting. The council must enjoy the confidence of the
Landsting to carry out its duties, and the president of the council can
be forced to resign if this is not the case.
The governor of the province represents the national government. He
is appointed by the president of the republic, but only after the
approval of the Landsting, and is responsible for those administrative
functions beyond the competence of provincial authorities. Another link
between the islands and the national government is the Aland Delegation,
usually headed by the provincial governor; its other four members are
chosen by the Council of State and the Landsting. The delegation's chief
duties are supervising transfers of funds from the national government
to the provincial government, to pay for the costs of selfgovernment ,
and examining laws passed by the Landsting, before sending them to the
president. In addition to these ties between the archipelago and the
mainland, the province has one representative in the Eduskunta who
usually has a seat on the Constitutional Committee in order to protect
the islands' rights. Since 1970 the province has had one delegate at the
annual meeting of the Nordic Council.
During the late 1980s, changes of a constitutional nature in the
relations between the Aland Islands and the national government were
under review in the Eduskunta. The projected legislation touched on
increased provincial control of the taxes the archipelago pays or
generates and on greater control over radio and television reception,
with the aim of increasing access to programming from Sweden and to the
Swedish-language programs of the Finnish broadcasting system. Having
secured the right to issue their own stamps in 1984, the archipelago's
inhabitants also wanted to have their own postal system, a right still
reserved to the national government. Under discussion, too, were
international guarantees for the islands' security.
Finland - POLITICAL DYNAMICS
Consensus has been the dominant mode of Finnish politics since the
formation of a broadly based coalition government in 1966 and the
establishment of the comprehensive incomes policy system in the late
1960s. The government, made up of parties fundamentally opposed to each
other, was formed at the insistence of President Kekkonen. He had long
wished to heal the deep and bitter rifts that had marred Finnish public
life since the country had gained independence in 1917.
The dozen or so political parties that made up the country's party
system in 1966 reflected the divisions that ran through Finnish society.
The socialist end of the spectrum was broken into two mutually hostile,
roughly equal segments, communist and social democratic, often
accompanied by leftist splinter groups. The political middle was filled,
first, by the agrarian Center Party, the country's most important party,
with a rural base in a society that was rapidly becoming urbanized;
second, by the Swedish People's Party (Svenska Folkpartiet--SFP),
representing a minority worried about its future and divided along class
lines; and third, by a classic liberal party that was in decline. The
right consisted of a highly conservative party tied to big business and
to high officials, the KOK; and the radical Finnish Rural Party (Suomen
Maaseudun Puolue--SMP), the populist impulses of which linked it to the
"forgotten" little man often also resident in urban areas.
Kekkonen's presidential power and personal prestige enabled him to form
in 1966 the popular front government that pulled together sizable social
groups to realize important welfare legislation in the late 1960s.
The mending of rifts in the labor movement and a fortuitous agreement
in 1968 by leading actors in the market sector led to the first of a
number of comprehensive incomes agreements. These agreements, reached by
organizations representing most economically active Finns, usually ran
for several years and often required enabling legislation.
Critics of the agreements, which have brought much prosperity to
Finland and therefore enjoy widespread support, charge that their
monolithic quality has meant not consensus but a "time of no
alternatives." According to this view, the agreements have reduced
state institutions to mere ratifying agents rather than governing
bodies. It is claimed that labor and business negotiate while government
approves after the fact.
Most of the country's political parties, so fractious and distinct
until the 1960s, then drifted toward the political center; remaining
disagreements among the principal parties focused less on what policies
were to be than on how they were to be implemented. Because most
economic legislation required the set majorities stipulated by laws of
constitutional status, parties were obliged to work closely together.
Even parties not in government have had their say about the content of
economic legislation, for without their approval many government bills
would have failed.
Another characteristic of Finnish politics and public life was the
common practice of reaching agreements on key questions through informal
backstairs elite consultation. Often disputes were settled through
private discussions by the concerned parties before they were handled in
the formal bargaining sites established for their public resolution.
This was true for wage package settlements, as well as for legislative
proposals scheduled for debate in the Eduskunta, and for other issues
that required negotiation and compromise. An institutionalized version
of behind-the-scenes negotiations was the Evening School of the Council
of State, where leading figures of various groups could freely discuss
issues on the government's agenda. The Finnish tradition of informal
sauna discussions was an extreme example of informal inter-elite
consultations. Some observers claimed that important national decisions
were made there in an atmosphere where frank bargaining could be most
easily practiced. Advocates of these informal means of uniting elite
representatives of diverse interests held that they were quick and to
the point. Opponents countered that they encouraged secrecy, bypassed
government institutions, and ultimately subverted democracy.
Since the second half of the 1960s, there has been an increasing
formalization of the role played by political parties in the country's
public life. In 1967 the government began paying subsidies to political
parties, and the passage of the Act of Political Parties in 1969 gave
the practice a legal basis. According to the law, parties were to
receive subsidies according to the number of delegates they had in the
Eduskunta. Several other eligibility requirements for state funds that
also had to be met were nationwide--rather than local--activity for
political purposes, determination of internal party affairs by
democratic means, voting membership of at least 5,000, and a published
general political program.
The Act of Political Parties provided the first mention of parties in
Finnish legislation, despite their central position in the country's
political life. State subsidies were a recognition of the role parties
played, and the subsidies have further increased that role.
Consequently, the number of party officials has increased, as has the
number of parties, an effect opposite to that intended by the large
parties that pressed for subsidies. The large parties funneled a good
part of their funds to their local and their ancillary organizations,
while the small parties, with their existence at stake, used their
resources on the national level.
Finland - The Social Democratic Party
Founded in 1899 as the Finnish Labor Party, the Finnish Social
Democratic Party (Suomen Sosialide Mokrorrinwn Puolue-- SDP) took its
present name in 1903 and adopted a program that envisioned the gradual
realization of a socialist society, not by revolution but through
parliamentary democracy. In the 1907 parliamentary election, the SDP won
eighty seats, easily surpassing the results of its closest rival, the
Old Finn Party. Then, in 1916, the last time any Finnish party has done
so, the SDP won slightly more than an absolute majority.
Seduced by the example of the Bolshevik Revolution in nearby
Petrograd, many Social Democrats sought in early 1918 to realize
long-term party goals quickly and by force. After the defeat of the left
in the civil war and the departure of radical elements from its ranks,
however, the SDP was reconstituted in the same year under the leadership
of the moderate Vainö Tanner, an opponent of the use of violence for
political ends. Although still the country's largest political party,
the SDP was in only one government--a short-lived minority government
formed by Tanner in 1926--until 1937. At that time, it joined the
Agrarian Party (Maalaisliitto--ML in forming the first of the so-called
Red-Earth governments, the most common and important coalition pattern
for the next fifty years. A tempering of SDP policy on the place of the
small farmer in Finnish society permitted political cooperation with the
Agrarians, although the party retained its program of a planned economy
and the socialization of the means of production.
It was in 1937 that the SDP first began to demand the right to
collective bargaining, and the party remained closely connected to
organized labor. In 1930, for example, it had formed the Confederation
of Finnish Trade Unions (Suomen Ammattiyhdistysten Keskusliitto--SAK) in
an attempt to counter communist influence in the labor movement. During
World War II, the SDP contributed significantly to national unity, and
it resisted both rightist dreams of a Greater Finland and the desires of
others for an early truce with the Soviet Union.
After the war, long-standing tensions within the party caused
factional disputes, between those advocating closer relations with both
the Soviets and the newly legalized Communist Party of Finland (Suomen
Kommunistinen Puolue--SKP) and those critical of the Soviet Union and
its undemocratic methods. Some SDP members left it for the newly formed
popular front organization, the Finnish People's Democratic League
(Suomen Kansan Demokraattinen Liitto--SKDL), which participated in the
broad popular front government formed after the 1945 elections. After
the defeat of the communists in the 1948 elections, the SDP held all
cabinet posts in the minority government of 1948-1950; however,
thereafter the party participated in cabinets on an irregular basis, and
it was riven by internal struggles until the 1960s.
During the 1950s and early 1960s, the SDP as a whole became
increasingly moderate. An early indication of this move toward
moderation was the party program adopted in 1952 that played down the
role of class conflict and was critical of communism. Still, bitter
internal wrangles continued to plague the party into the 1960s. The
conflicts had both political and personal origins, but their core was
disagreement about the SDP's policy toward the Soviet Union. Tanner's
implacable hostility to the undemocratic nature of Soviet society had
led Moscow to insist on his imprisonment as a "war criminal"
after the war. His reinstatement as party leader in 1957 has generally
been regarded as a factor in the Night Frost Crisis of 1958 and in the
SDP's subsequent exclusion from power until 1966.
Conflicts relating to domestic politics resulted in the departure in
1959 of members close to farming interests. They formed the Social
Democratic Union of Workers and Small Farmers (Työvaen ja
Pienviljelijain Sosialidemokraattinen Liitto--TPSL), a splinter group
that contested elections and was included in several governments until
the 1970s, when it expired and most of its remaining members returned to
the SDP.
The election of Rafael Paasio to the party chairmanship in 1963 ended
the reign of the old leadership and brought a gradual improvement in SDP
relations with the Soviet Union; another result was a gradual healing of
rifts within the labor movement. These changes, coupled with the
election returns of 1966 that led to the first socialist majority in the
Eduskunta since 1945, allowed the party to leave the political
wilderness to which it had been consigned after the Note Crisis of 1961.
It participated in a strong majority government together with the newly
renamed Center Party (formerly the Agrarian Party), the SKDL, and the
TPSL. The popular front government passed a good part of the legislation
that transformed Finland into a modern welfare state of the Scandinavian
type and helped to establish the system of collective wage agreements
that still prevailed in the late 1980s.
During the 1970s, the SDP moved closer to the center in Finnish
politics as a result of the departure of some of the party's members for
groups farther to the left and the cautious pragmatic leadership of
Kalevi Sorsa, who became party chairman in 1975. Sorsa, who held this
position until 1987, served from the mid-1970s until the late 1980s as
either prime minister or foreign minister in all governments, which
helped to remove any doubts about the party's suitability for governing.
The SDP's success in the elections for the Eduskunta in 1983, coming
after the triumph of SDP politician Mauno Koivisto in the presidential
election a year earlier, may have marked a high point in the party's
history, for in the second half of the 1980s the SDP had trouble
attracting new voters from postindustrial Finland's growing service
sector. The SDP's years as a governing party, which had tied it to many
pragmatic compromises, lessened its appeal for some. At the same time,
the number of blue-collar workers, its most important source of support,
declined. The party could be seen as a victim of its own success in that
it had participated in implementing policies that brought unprecedented
prosperity to Finland, which served to transform Finnish society and
dissolve old voting blocs.
The party lost 100,000 votes and the office of prime minister in the
1987 parliamentary elections. The SDP remained in the government formed
by the conservative National Coalition Party, however. Observers
believed that the new party chairman, Pertti Paasio, son of Rafael
Paasio, and other younger members of the party would have to adapt to
longterm trends in Finnish society that promised to make the party's
future difficult. Although the SDP registered slight gains in the 1988
local elections, it still had to contend with the same economic and
social problems that made the other social democratic parties of Western
Europe seem to many to be parties of the past.
Finland - The Center Party
The Center Party (Keskustapuolue--Kesk), which took this name in 1965
with the aim of widening its appeal and adapting to changing social
conditions, was founded in 1906 as the Agrarian Party. It has been, as
its present name indicates, the key party in Finnish politics since
independence; until the formation of a conservative-socialist government
in 1987, it had participated in virtually every majority government.
Founded to represent the interests of small farmers in eastern and in
northern Finland, Kesk also gradually came to claim central Finland as
an area of support during the 1920s. As a consequence, it was the
largest nonsocialist party until the national elections of 1979, when
the National Coalition Party pulled ahead. As the party of small
farmers, the Kesk was, from its birth, suspicious of the concentrated
economic power of the south--labor, large farmers, and business. To
counter these interests, the party advocated a firmly democratic and
populist program that emphasized the primacy of the family farm,
small-scale firms managed by their owners, decentralization of social
organizations, and the traditional virtues and values of small towns and
the countryside. The party's commitment to democracy was tested and
proven in the 1930s when it rejected the aims of the radical right and
perhaps saved Finland from fascism. In the second half of the decade, it
began to govern with the assistance of the SDP, forming with that party
the first of the so-called Red-Earth governments that became the
country's dominant coalition pattern for the next half-century. Kesk's
claim to represent the "real" Finland, however, caused it, at
times, to seek to curtail the rights of the Swedish-speaking minority,
and some Kesk leaders, Urho Kekkonen for example, were active in the
Finnicization program.
Although opposed to fascist doctrines, Kesk had favored fighting on
the side of Nazi Germany--as a cobelligerent--during the Continuation
War of 1941-44, in the hope of regaining lost national territory. During
the course of the war, however, some of the party's leaders came to the
conclusion that good relations with the Soviet Union were essential if
Finland were to survive as an independent nation. Kekkonen, in
particular, was a driving force in effecting this change of party policy
in the postwar period. This policy
change was achieved, though, only after a bitter struggle during which
segments of the party's leadership hoped for Kekkonen's political
destruction; however, generational change and his domestic and foreign
successes allowed Kekkonen gradually to gain nearly absolute control of
the party, which he retained even after election in 1956 to the
presidency, a post ideally above party politics.
Soviet desires for a dependable contact in Finland, and the
unsuitability of other parties, soon made Kesk Moscow's preferred
negotiating partner, despite the party's anticommunist program. The
Soviets' natural ally, the SKP, was seen as being too much a political
outsider to be an effective channel of communication. Kesk's position in
the center of the political spectrum made it the natural "hinge
party" for coalition governments. After the Note Crisis, Kekkonen's
mastery of foreign policy also served, and at times was cynically used,
to preserve this role.
Postwar social changes, such as internal migration to the south and a
growing service sector, have reduced support for Kesk and have brought
about a steady decline in its share of seats in the Eduskunta. Attempts
to bring the party's program into line with a changing society did not
win Kesk new support. In prosperous southern Finland, for example, Kesk
failed to make significant inroads, electing only once a member of the
Eduskunta from Helsinki. Young voters in the south, or the coastal
region as it is sometimes called, favored the National Coalition Party
or the environmentalist Greens (Vihreat). Also damaging to Kesk was the
loss of a segment of its membership to the SMP, after its formation in
1959. Kesk was not able to retain the presidency after Kekkonen's
retirement in 1981; its candidate for the 1982 presidential election,
Johannes Virolainen, was easily defeated, as was the 1988 Kesk candidate
for this post, Paavo Vayrynen.
Kesk's failure, despite only slight losses, to participate in the
government formed after the 1987 national elections was perhaps a
watershed in Finnish domestic politics. Until that time, Kesk had been
an almost permanent governing party. Demographic and occupational trends
continued to challenge Kesk in the late 1980s, but the party's large and
convinced membership, far greater than that of any other party, probably
meant that any decline in its role in Finnish politics would be a slow
one.
Finland - The National Coalition Party
The National Coalition Party (Kansallinen Kokoomuspuolue-- KOK) was
founded in November 1918 by members of the Old Finn Party and, to a
lesser extent, by followers of the Young Finn Party. It represented
interests desiring a strong state government that would guarantee law
and order and the furtherance of commerce. Defeated in its attempt to
establish a monarchal government, the party formulated a program in 1922
that clearly set out its conservative aim of emphasizing stability over
reform. The large farms and businesses in southern Finland were the
basis of the party's support.
Throughout the interwar period, the party was hostile to the rights
of the Swedish-speaking minority and sought to deprive the Swedish
language of its status as one of the country's two official languages.
During the 1930s, it had close contacts with the radical right-wing
movements that mirrored trends elsewhere and for a time posed a threat
to Finnish democracy. One of the party's leaders, Juho Paasikivi,
elected party chairman in 1934, attempted with some success to move it
away from these extreme positions. The KOK was opposed to the Red-Earth
government formed in 1937, but was not strong enough to prevent it.
During the war, the party was part of the national unity governments.
After the war, the KOK became the most right-wing party in Finland,
as groups farther right were banned by the armistice agreement of 1944
and the SKP was legalized. Despite Paasikivi's terms
as prime minister in the first postwar years, his election to the
presidency in 1946, and the role he played in the drafting of the Treaty
of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance (FCMA-- see Appendix
B) as well as in the reorienting of Finnish foreign policy, his party
was not regarded as an acceptable coalition partner for much of the
postwar period. Soviet doubts about the sincerity of KOK's support for
the new direction of Finnish foreign policy, the so-called Paasikivi
Line, was sufficient to keep the KOK, for decades the country's second
largest nonsocialist party, out of government for most of the postwar
period.
The party also was excluded from governments because it was seen by
many to be rigidly right-wing, despite party program changes in the
1950s that moved it closer to the conservatism practiced by its sister
parties in larger West European countries. The party program of 1957
formalized its support for a "social market economy" and for
the concept of employer responsibility to wage earners.
In the postwar years, the KOK often allied with the SDP to reduce
agricultural subsidies, a joint effort that continued in the late 1980s.
The division between city and country interests continued to be a key
element in Finnish politics in the second half of the 1980s, and it was
one reason why the two principal nonsocialist parties, the KOK and Kesk,
were political rivals.
An action that increased the enmity between the KOK and the Kesk
leader, Kekkonen, and contributed to the Note Crisis was the formation
of the so-called Honka League by the KOK and the SDP. The Honka League
aimed to stop Kekkonen's reelection in 1962, but the attempt never had a
chance, and it was soon abandoned. The KOK continued to be opposed to
Kekkonen and to his foreign policy, however, and it was the only major
party to oppose his reelection in 1968. Nevertheless, moderate elements
in the party gradually gained control and softened its policies, both
domestic and foreign. In the 1970 national elections, the KOK increased
the number of its seats in the Eduskunta by one-third, and since 1979 it
has been the largest nonsocialist party in the country.
Some right-wing members of the KOK, dissatisfied with the party's
steady drift toward the political center, have left it. In 1973 some
formed the Constitutional Party of the Right (Perustuslaillinen
Oikeistopuolue--POP) to protest Kekkonen's special election to the
presidency in 1974, but this only accelerated the KOK's move toward
moderation. Under the leadership of Harri Holkeri--the party's candidate
for the presidency in 1982 and in 1988, and Ilkka Suominen--longtime
party chairman, the KOK has been able to attract many of those employed
in Finland's rapidly growing service sector, and in the 1987 elections
it nearly overtook the SDP. Kept out of power because of unexpected
losses in the 1983 Eduskunta elections, Holkeri was able to form a
government after the 1987 elections and to take the prime ministership
for himself. He pledged his government to a program of preserving
Finland's welfare state while maintaining a free market economy strong
enough to be competitive abroad and to safeguard the country's
prosperity.
Finland - The Communist Party
The Communist Party of Finland (Suomen Kommunistinen Puolue-- SKP)
was founded in August 1918 in Moscow by exiled leftists after their
defeat in the civil war. Its Marxist-Leninist program advocated the
establishment of a socialist society by revolutionary means. Declared
illegal the following year, the SKP was active in Finland during the
1920s through front groups, the most notable of which was the Finnish
Socialist Workers' Party (Suomen Sosialistinen Työvaenpuolue--SSTP),
which received more than 100,000 votes in the 1922 national election and
won 27 seats in the Eduskunta. The rise of the radical right-wing Lapua
movement was a factor in the banning of all communist organizations in
1930, and the SKP was forced underground.
The Stalinist purges of the 1930s thinned the ranks of the SKP
leadership resident in the Soviet Union. A survivor of the purges and
one of the founders of the party, Otto Kuusinen, was named to head a
Finnish puppet government set up by the Soviets after their attack on
Finland in 1939. It did not ever attract the support from the Finnish
workers that the Soviets expected, nor did the SKP succeed, during the
Continuation War, in mounting a resistance movement against Finnish
forces fighting the Soviet Union. At the war's end, the SKP was able to
resume open political activity within Finland; in the 1945 election it
won forty-nine seats and was rewarded with several posts in the
resulting cabinet.
In this election, as in all elections since then, the SKP worked
through an umbrella organization, the Finnish People's Democratic League
(Suomen Kansan Demokraattinen Liitto--SKDL), established with the aim of
uniting all left-wing elements into a common front. Although mainly
composed of noncommunists, and usually led by a noncommunist socialist,
the SKDL has generally been dominated by the SKP. Despite its initial
electoral success, however, the SKDL has not been successful in
attracting all Finnish leftists, and the bulk of the SDP has refused to
work with it.
The SKDL was not able to retain its hold on the voters in the 1948
Eduskunta election, and it lost eleven seats. Rumors of a planned
communist coup contributed to this defeat. During the 1950s and the
early 1960s, the SKP/SKDL continued to participate in the electoral
process, but with mixed results. The SKP/SKDL did not enter government
again until 1966, when Kekkonen insisted that the group be given
ministerial posts so that a broadly based coalition government could be
formed. After this date, the party was in most governments until
December 1982, when Prime Minister Sorsa forced it to resign for
refusing to support a part of the government's program.
Tensions long present in the SKP became more pronounced in the second
half of the 1960s, when social changes began putting pressure on the
party to adapt itself to new conditions. Internal migration within
Finland, from the northern and eastern areas where "backwoods
communism" had always been a mainstay of party support, deprived
the SKP of votes. The gradually increasing service sector of the economy
reduced the size of the blue-collar vote in the south that the SKP had
traditionally split with the SDP. A more prosperous economy also
softened social divisions and made the classic Marxist remedies
expounded by the party seem less relevant. Failure to attract younger
voters worsened election results in addition to leaving the party with
an older and less educated membership. These threating trends, combined
with the SKP's participation in governing coalitions since 1966, brought
to a head political disagreements between those in the party who
supported the system of parliamentary democracy and those who were
attached to a totalitarian Stalinist ideology. After 1969 the party was
virtually split, although the formal break came only in 1986 following
years of bitter dissension.
Through the 1970s and the first half of the 1980s, two factions, a
majority reformist or revisionist wing, led first by Aarne Saarinen
(1966-82) and then by Arvo Aalto (1982-88), and a minority Stalinist
wing, under Taisto Sinisalo, fought for party dominance. Each group had
its own local and regional organization and its own newspaper--the
moderates, Kansan Uutiset and the doctrinaire faction, Tiedonantaja.
Both groups remained in the SKP largely at the insistence of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). The revisionists, sometimes
characterized as Eurocommunists, took posts in cabinets, but the
Stalinists, or "Taistos" as they are often called after the
first name of their leader, refused to do so, preferring to remain
ordinary members of the Eduskunta instead. To heal the rift, a third
faction appeared in the early 1980s, and for a time one of its leaders,
Jouko Kajanoja, was party chairman.
The 1984 election of Aalto to the party chairmanship marked the end
of the attempted reconciliation, and in 1985 the revisionists began to
purge the Stalinists, who late in the year named their faction the
Committee of SKP Organizations. The revisionists resisted pressure for
unity from the CPSU, and for this they were punished in late 1985 when
the Soviets cancelled the highly profitable contract with the SKP to
print Sputnik, an international magazine. The CPSU gave the
contract to a printing firm controlled by the minority. The resulting
financial losses meant that Kansan Uutiset could appear only
five days a week.
In 1986 the split was formalized. Early in the year, the reformist
group published a new program that stressed the importance of an
independent, yet friendly, relationship with the communist parties of
other nations. In April the Stalinists set up an electoral organization
distinct from the SKDL, the Democratic Alternative (Demokraattinen
Vaihtoehto--DEVA). In June the SKDL party group in the Eduskunta
expelled the DEVA representatives from its ranks, and the latter then
formed their own parliamentary group. Later in the year, the two
factions set different party congress dates, further formalizing the
split. In the 1987 election, the two groups competed with one another,
and they had separate lists of candidates--the DEVA members led by the
actress Kristiina Halkola and the SKP/SKDL led by Arvo Aalto. The
Stalinists lost six of their ten seats in the Eduskunta, while the
reformists lost one.
In the late 1980s, the two factions appeared more and more irrelevant
as actors in Finnish politics. The reformists supported the democratic
system, yet they attracted few new recruits. The Stalinists, opposed to
the central values held by most Finns, split even further. In 1988 some
of them formed a new party, the Finnish Communist Party--Unity (Suomen
Kommunistinen Puolue-Yhdenaisyys--SKP-Y), and campaigned with DEVA in
the local elections of the fall of that year. An even smaller number,
claiming to represent the truest principles of communism, refused to
join this new party and formed their own.
Finland - The Swedish People's Party
In addition to the four large parties discussed above, which among
them enjoyed the support of about 80 percent of Finland's voters, and
the SFP, which despite its small size had an almost permanent place in
coalition governments, there were several other political parties that
had a role in governing the country. One, the LKP, was a vestige of its
former self; others, such as the Greens or the SMP were responses to
trends seen elsewhere in recent decades in Western Europe.
The LKP is directly descended from the Young Finn Party, which after
independence took the name National Progressive Party (Kansallinen
Edistyspuolue--ED) and played a major role in Finland during the
interwar period. After World War II, this party
declined in strength and was dissolved in 1951. Liberals subsequently
formed two other parties that joined together in 1965 under the present
name. Liberals in one party organization or another continued to
participate in most governments until 1979. These liberals were
proponents of business interests and the protection of private property,
but they spoke also of the need for government planning and for social
welfare programs. The LKP has steadily lost support to the other
nonsocialist parties, however. In the 1983 and the 1987 national
elections, it failed to win any seats in the Eduskunta, and in the local
elections of 1988 it lost more than a quarter of its representatives on
municipal councils. In the late 1980s, the future of this once-important
party was uncertain at best.
The SMP was founded in 1959 by the prominent and charismatic Kesk
politician, Veikko Vennamo, who broke with Kekkonen for both political
and personal reasons. The party, viewed for most of its life as
rightist, has always campaigned as a protest party fighting for the
interests of the "forgotten man," neglected or ignored by
larger parties. This populist party first found support among small
farmers, but it later received votes also from city dwellers who were
keenly dissatisfied with mainstream politics. The SMP's support
fluctuated wildly from election to election, and no safe estimate about
its future was possible in the late 1980s. This was especially the case
after its inclusion in governing coalitions. After considerable success
in the 1983 election, it got two ministerial posts. It therefore
competed in the 1987 election as a governing party, and it lost nearly
half its seats in parliament. Equally bad results were obtained in the
1988 local elections. In addition, although led in recent years by the
founder's son, Pekka Vennamo, the party was torn by dissension. With a
single post in the government, even after the disastrous 1987 results,
the SMP was in danger of losing its character as a protest party, the
role which had brought it voter support.
The Finnish Christian League (Suomen Kristillinen Liitto-- SKL) was
founded in 1958 to bring Christian ideals into politics and to curb
secularist trends. Its members generally belonged to the state church,
yet they did not claim to act in its behalf but for Christian values in
general. The party's support has fluctuated since it won its first seat
in the Eduskunta in 1970. The SKL has never had a ministerial post, even
in 1979 when it won ten parliamentary seats. Its share of votes declined
sharply in the next national election, but rose again in 1987, and
observers believed that a reliable base of support remained that was
likely to ensure its continued existence.
An environmentalist group, the Greens was not an officially
registered party during the first years of its existence, and it
therefore received no government support for the 1983 and the 1987
national elections. It was organized in the early 1980s as an electoral
association to work on a variety of quality-of-life issues and to
contest elections on both the local and the national level. In 1983 the
group won two seats in the Eduskunta, the first time an electoral
association had managed such a feat. In the 1984 local elections, they
doubled their support, and in the 1987 election they won four
parliamentary seats.
The group's membership was heterogeneous with regard to both origins
and aims. Activists were drawn from academia, the middle class, and the
disabled, as well as from feminist and bohemian circles. This diversity
was reflected in the multitude of members' goals, ranging from modest
reforms to a utopian shutdown of industry and a return to subsistence
farming. In mid-1988 part of the movement split off and formed a
registered political party, the Green League (Vihrea Liitto). The Greens
as a whole suffered a slight setback in the 1988 local elections. Given
its internal dissension, the role the environmentalist movement was to
play in governing Finland was likely to remain small.
Finland - Interest Groups
