Shortcomings of Finnish negotiation skills

COLUMN

print this

By Mikael Pentikäinen
     
      “There is a need in the world right now for a problem-solver like Finland. We also need to understand it ourselves, to tell about it, and even to feel a little bit of arrogant pride.”
      These words were written half a year ago by the national brand working group headed by Nokia Chairman of the Board Jorma Ollila.
      The group proposed the establishment of an Ahtisaari Day, during which international crisis mediators could be gathered to discuss solutions to problems and to help train Finnish crisis managers.
     
If the government formation talks are not put into a completely new gear Finland - and the Finns - will really need international education in crisis management.
      So what is our problem now?
      The election result was undoubtedly difficult from the point of view of government formation talks. It is clearly more complicated than it has been in decades. The victory of the True Finns moved political tectonic plates and is forcing Finland to find a new equilibrium among the parties.
     
We must also remember that the leaders of Finland’s political parties are quite young and inexperienced at the moment. Of the chairs of the Parliamentary parties, only Päivi Räsänen of the Christian Democratic Party was born in the 1950s. She is 51 years old.
      Three party leaders were born in the 1960s: the True Finns Timo Soini, 49, the Swedish People’s Party’s Stefan Wallin, 44, and the Centre Party’s Mari Kiviniemi, 42.
      Born in the 1970s were National Coalition Party leader Jyrki Katainen, 39, the SDP’s Jutta Urpilainen, 35, the Left Alliance’s Paavo Arhinmäki (34), and the Greens’ Anni Sinnemäki, 37.
     
Many have sat in government for a long time, but only Katainen and Kiviniemi have experienced tough negotiations, and that has taken place in the European arena. In spite of this, judging from communications coming from the House of the Estates, Katainen has had trouble in the government talks in leading the disparate negotiations.
      The political experience of Urpilainen and Arhinmäki is thin, which was undoubtedly reflected in the negotiations. Especially Urpilainen, who had boosted her status with a reasonable election result, surprised others by handing over the main role in the talks to her predecessor Eero Heinäluoma. The final outcome of the negotiations remains open, but it is not impossible that the SDP’s period in opposition might continue.
     
The lack of experience was apparent already before the elections, when the parties set ill-thought-out and excessively severe threshold issues. After the elections they have not managed to manoeuvre themselves away from those positions.
      One example of the consequences of the lack of experience was given by the Greens’ delegate council, which went against a proposal of its own party leadership and rejected Katainen’s invitation, thereby exacerbating the country’s political crisis.
     
Adding to the challenges is the current constitution, which has moved the formation of the government almost exclusively onto the shoulders of Parliament.
      In the present situation there is no point in wishing that President Tarja Halonen would step in. Help from Mäntyniemi would certainly be forthcoming if the constitution were to allow it.
      Now being tested are both the negotiation skills of the group of young party leaders, and the maturity of Finnish parliamentary democracy.
     
Negotiations that have been held so far do not serve parliamentary ideals very well. If the government is not formed soon, we can start talking about a crisis in parliamentary democracy. Then at the latest, debate will begin on strengthening the role of the President in the formation of the government.
      Finland's parliamentary system has been a source of pride for over 100 years. Now the party leaders need to show that Finnish representative democracy is worthy of its reputation.
     
Successful negotiation is very demanding. Its foundation lies on mutual trust and respect, a mutual vision of the situation, and a shared goal.
      Central to the success of Katainen’s new attempt is how he and Kiviniemi have managed in recent days to build a common will, and commit to a joint enterprise. They should have every possibility to succeed. Their personal chemistries work together, government cooperation has functioned, and political differences are ultimately very small.
      After the decision of the Greens, Katainen and Kiviniemi also need to find a way for the True Finns to be included. This will require flexibility on Soini’s part as well.
     
The situation is difficult for all party leaders. Everyone should win something, but nobody can be allowed to win too much. In politics a knockout punch is the beginning of the end. It is important to know how to share the credit, not hoard it.
      US President Harry S. Truman crystallised the setup: “It is amazing how much you can accomplish when it doesn't matter who gets the credit.”
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 7.6.2011
     
The writer is the editor-in-chief of Helsingin Sanomat
     


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Katainen to continue efforts to form government – says no alternatives ruled out (7.6.2011)
  Social Democrats walked out of government talks despite winning many concessions (3.6.2011)
  THURSDAY: Social Democrats and Left Alliance quit government talks – SDP and National Coalition Party blame each other (2.6.2011)

See also:
  Country brand working group sets tasks for Finland (30.11.2010)

MIKAEL PENTIKÄINEN / Helsingin Sanomat
mikael.pentikainen@hs.fi