GUEST COLUMN: Finnish MPs are not susceptible to intimidation
It is hard to find an example in Finnish political history of threats having a real impact on political decisions
|
|
|
By Timo Turja
In 1968, when Parliament was debating the issue of the pensions of Finnish war veterans, there was an acrimonious political struggle. Pressure was put on many MPs to back higher pensions for veterans. The Centre Party’s Johannes Virolainen received a letter reading: “Thank your God that my gun jammed when you were in the sight. Next time it will not.”
Current political debate is dominated by a conspiracy theory of sorts, according to which Members of Parliament are easily manipulated and steered by election financiers, pressure groups, and interest groups, and that they can even be bought. It is said that they lack a political will of their own.
However, Finnish political history shows that it is actually very difficult to influence the decisions of MPs - even by using threats or aggressive pressure.
Members of Parliament often face pressure. A study published in Sweden in 2006 found that 74 per cent of the country’s parliamentarians had been targets of politically-motivated threats, physical harm, and even violence.
No similar studies have been conducted in Finland. However, the situation could be even more serious here, as individual Members of Parliament in Finland are usually better known as individuals than their Swedish colleagues. Currently a case is pending in Helsinki District Court in which a man faces charges of making threats to high-level politicians.
Naturally, there are constant attempts to influence parliamentarians’ decision-making. Lobbying is an important part of democracy, as it gives MPs varied information that they need to resolve problems facing society. If it is to succeed, lobbying requires open communications with sufficient understanding for the views of the opposing side.
The failure of lobbying often stems from violating political rules and from errors of style. Failed lobbying turns into pressure tactics in which open or veiled threats are made to Members of Parliament.
It is difficult to distinguish between threats and other types of pressure. For instance, veteran MP Tuure Junnila once said that he had experienced different types of intimidation during his career. Employers pressured the National Coalition Party’s Parliamentary group in a subtle and polite manner - between the lines, as it were. In 1973 a business lobbyist openly threatened Junnila that he would “lose his political role” if he did not agree to support the re-election of President Urho Kekkonen.
Going through Finland’s political history, it is nevertheless difficult to find examples of threats having had any real effect. Virolainen did not agree to an extra bonus for veterans’ pensions, and Junnila did not vote in favour of the special legislation for another term for Kekkonen.
However, there is one example of aggressive pressure that ultimately did have an influence on legislation: in 1930 the powerful pressure from the Lapua Movement got Parliament to pass several laws that placed restrictions on the political activities of the Communist Party. The Lapua Movement used threatening letters, sabotage, and the abduction of people who were driven to the Russian border. Two Communist MPs were actually violently kidnapped from a session of the Constitutional Law Committee.
Threats do not work on Members of Parliament, because Parliamentary decision-making is protected in many ways. It is safeguarded first by regulations in the constitution, which emphasise the independence, inviolability, and autonomy of Members of Parliament.
Work in a Parliamentary group also gives Members of Parliament a kind of collective protection against external pressure. Groups have decided not to bend under pressure from the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), the Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners (MTK), or striking locomotive drivers.
An individual parliamentary group may sometimes have conformed those using extra-parliamentary power when it has been politically expedient to do so. For instance, the Lapua Movement got understanding from within the parliamentary groups of the National Coalition Party and the Agrarian League. The Finnish People’s Democratic League (a leftist coalition comprising the Communist party and other socialist elements) gave its support to strike action aimed at the government of Prime Minister Karl-August Fagerholm in 1948. However, these are rare exceptions in Parliamentary history.
Pressure can also emerge thanks to the Parliamentary decision-making process.
When Members of Parliament listen to experts representing different interest groups they can be made aware of external attempts to wield influence and act accordingly.
Even experts have faced aggressive pressure especially when matters pertaining to the right to ownership have been discussed. In 1982 lakeside property ownership issues in the municipality of Utsjoki were under discussion. One of the experts refused to come before a committee because his family had been threatened. However, not even this kind of intimidation has influenced actual Parliamentary decision-making.
From the point of view of political history, Members of Parliament have not perhaps been as independent as those who drew up the Finnish Constitution hoped that they would be. However they were also not as easily influenced by outsiders as many think.
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 21.10.2010
The writer is a civil servant working at the Finnish Parliament as an expert in civics.
Helsingin Sanomat
|
| 26.10.2010 - THIS WEEK |
 GUEST COLUMN: Finnish MPs are not susceptible to intimidation |
|
