Isaksson / Koskimaa / Mattila | The Changing Balance of Political Power in Finland | E-Book | sack.de
E-Book

E-Book, Englisch, 348 Seiten

Isaksson / Koskimaa / Mattila The Changing Balance of Political Power in Finland


1. Auflage 2016
ISBN: 978-91-7335-052-5
Verlag: Santérus Academic Press
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 348 Seiten

ISBN: 978-91-7335-052-5
Verlag: Santérus Academic Press
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark



The political landscape in Finland has changed dramatically during the past 35 years. Like everywhere in the democratic West these changes have pertained to the economic and social underpinnings of the political process as well as to the concrete substance of government policy. Unlike most comparable countries, however, the transformation of Finnish politics has also been a matter of major institutional change. In fact, as this book argues at length, the basic regime type of the Finnish political system has changed. Despite the magnitude of change, there is still little in the way of a comprehensive analysis of power relations in modern Finnish politics. The present volume attempts to fill part of that void. The book is the result of the research project 'Political Power in Finland: An Analysis of Central Government Institutions and Actors' financed by the Academy of Finland in 2011-2014. Ten scholars representing the University of Tampere, Åbo Akademi and University of Turku collaborated in this undertaking.

is professor of political science at Åbo Akademi University in Finland.

Isaksson / Koskimaa / Mattila The Changing Balance of Political Power in Finland jetzt bestellen!

Weitere Infos & Material


Introduction: Finland 1970–2015 – A Transformed Political Landscape
LAURI KARVONEN, HEIKKI PALOHEIMO & TAPIO RAUNIO The political systems of democratic countries are remarkably stable. Even when societies experience significant structural change, the impact of such socio-economic transformation is mainly limited to the party system. Constitutional change regarding political institutions is much less frequent and is often linked to democratization or major domestic crisis as in Central and Eastern Europe. The more affluent ‘Western’ European countries, on the other hand, display considerable constitutional rigidity. Societies may change, but political systems do not. (Strøm et al. 2003) Finland is a noteworthy exception to this rule. Indeed, Finland is a rare example of a democratic country that has experienced major constitutional reform peacefully without domestic conflict. International literature has traditionally categorized the Finnish political system as semi-presidential, with the executive functions divided between an elected president and a cabinet that is accountable to the parliament. However, recent constitutional reforms have radically transformed Finnish politics. The new constitution, which entered into force in 20001, completed a period of far-reaching constitutional change that curtailed presidential powers and brought the Finnish political system closer to a normal parliamentary democracy. The president is today almost completely excluded from the policy process in domestic matters; leadership by presidents has been replaced with leadership by strong majority governments. In contrast to most democratic countries, the Finnish political system has arguably also become less subject to external constraints. The end of the Cold War removed the shadow of the Soviet Union from Finnish policy-making, but particularly through European Union (EU) membership Finland has become much more involved in global and regional integration. Drawing on unique and comprehensive longitudinal data, this book analyses the distribution of political power in Finland since the 1970s. The objective of the volume is not simply to extrapolate change within and between governing institutions and political parties, but also to understand the causal mechanisms explaining this significant period of constitutional and political reform. After outlining the constitutional reform itself, this introductory chapter contextualizes our period of analysis, providing a necessarily brief but important overview of the socio-economic and geopolitical changes that have impacted on the distribution of power subjected to more detailed investigation in the subsequent chapters. Constitutional reform
Finland is frequently categorized as a semi-presidential regime, with the executive functions divided between an elected president and a government accountable to parliament (the Eduskunta). In fact, Finland was by a wide margin the oldest semi-presidential country in Europe, with the semi-presidential form of government adopted in 1919, two years after the country achieved independence. Until 1982, the president was elected by an electoral college of 300 members (301 in 1982), who were elected by the same proportional system as MPS. A new direct-election system for choosing the president was first used in 1994.2 If a candidate receives more than half of the votes, he or she is elected president. If none of the candidates receives the majority of the votes, a new election is held on the third Sunday after the first election. In the second round, the two persons who received the most votes in the first round run against each other. The candidate who receives the majority of vote is then elected president. Under the old constitution, the president was recognised as the supreme executive power. For example, Duverger (1980) ranked Finland highest among the West European semi-presidential systems in terms of the formal powers of the head of state and second only to France with respect to the actual exercise of presidential power. The peak of presidential powers was reached during the reign of President Kekkonen, who made full use of his powers and arguably even overstepped the constitutional prerogatives of the presidency. During the Cold War, the balance between cabinet and president was therefore strongly in favour of the president until the constitutional reforms of the 1990s, which were in part a response to the excesses of the Kekkonen era. A period of parliamentarization started in 1982, when President Mauno Koivisto took office after a quarter of a century of politics dominated by Kekkonen. President Koivisto and the political elite in general favoured strengthening parliamentarism and curtailing the powers of the president. Table 1 summarizes the development of presidential powers during Finland’s independence, illustrating the fundamental changes that have taken place after the Kekkonen era and particularly in the post-Cold War context of European integration. These constitutional and political changes are dealt with in considerable detail in the subsequent chapters of this volume, and hence it is sufficient to pay attention here to the comprehensive sweep of the reforms. In government formation the role of the president is now limited to formally appointing the prime minister and the cabinet chosen by parliament; moreover, the president cannot force the government to resign. Governments are thus now accountable to the Eduskunta and not to the president, as effectively was the case before. The president has only an ineffective delaying power in legislation, and even the appointment powers of the president have been drastically reduced. Overall, the president is almost completely excluded from the policy process in domestic matters. Turning to external relations, the government is responsible for EU affairs while foreign policy leadership is shared between the president and the government. Foreign and defence policy excluded, Finland is now effectively a parliamentary regime. Presidential leadership has been replaced by leadership by strong majority cabinets, which have ruled without much effective opposition since the early 1980s. (Hallberg et al. 2009; Jyränki & Nousiainen 2006; Nousiainen 2001; Paloheimo 2001, 2003; Raunio 2011). Table 1. Powers of parliament, government and president in the Finnish constitution in four time periods   Source: The Constitution Act of Finland (Act 94/1919) with later amendments. The transformation of the Finnish polity has also conceptual repercussions. We argue that it simply does not make sense to classify or treat Finland as a semi-presidential country. The concept of semi-presidentialism was first used by Maurice Duverger in the 1970s, who also formulated the ‘classic’ or ‘original’ definition of such regimes: ‘A political regime is considered as semi-presidential if the constitution which established it combines three elements: (1) the president of the republic is elected by universal suffrage; (2) he possesses quite considerable powers; (3) he has opposite him, however, a prime minister and ministers who possess executive and governmental power and can stay in office only if the parliament does not show its opposition to them.’ (Duverger 1980: 166) Duverger’s definition has not been universally endorsed by other scholars, with most of the criticism concerning his claim that the president should possess ‘quite considerable powers’. After all, it can be inherently difficult to judge what constitutes such powers and where to draw the line between considerable and inconsiderable powers. The situation is made worse by the often blatant discrepancy between the text of the constitution and the actual real-world role of the presidents. It is evident that national political culture or established patterns impact on how constitutions work in practice. Different holders of the same office may also decide to make fuller use of their powers, depending for example on party-political constellations or on the state of societal affairs in the country – as indeed was the case in Finland for much of the 20st century. According to Elgie (1999: 13), a ‘semi-presidential regime may be defined as the situation where a popularly elected fixed-term president exists alongside a prime minister and cabinet who are responsible to parliament’. This has become the standard definition of semi-presidentialism, utilized by basically all recent studies (Schleiter & Morgan-Jones 2009: 875). When compared with the Duvergerian approach, it is easy to appreciate the simplicity of Elgie’s constitution-based definition, for it makes the recognition of semi-presidential regimes a clearly more straightforward process. However,...



Ihre Fragen, Wünsche oder Anmerkungen
Vorname*
Nachname*
Ihre E-Mail-Adresse*
Kundennr.
Ihre Nachricht*
Lediglich mit * gekennzeichnete Felder sind Pflichtfelder.
Wenn Sie die im Kontaktformular eingegebenen Daten durch Klick auf den nachfolgenden Button übersenden, erklären Sie sich damit einverstanden, dass wir Ihr Angaben für die Beantwortung Ihrer Anfrage verwenden. Selbstverständlich werden Ihre Daten vertraulich behandelt und nicht an Dritte weitergegeben. Sie können der Verwendung Ihrer Daten jederzeit widersprechen. Das Datenhandling bei Sack Fachmedien erklären wir Ihnen in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.