"The Commander-in-Chief is always the Commander-in-Chief"

NOTES AND QUERIES

print this

By Erkki Pennanen
     
      The real surprise of the Presidency of Tarja Halonen, at least for me, was what a big issue Halonen has made of her role as Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Forces.
      "The Commander-in-Chief is always the Commander-in-Chief", she pointed out last week, for instance, on television, while speaking about her position as a decision-maker in military matters as well. In Tarja Halonen’s election book, this characteristic comes out quite conspicuously.
     
Halonen seems to be quite thrilled with her position as "Madame Commander-in-Chief".
      This enthusiasm is not merely a manifestation of feminine vanity, or of the ease with which she is able to interact with well-behaved generals. It is linked with Halonen’s desire to maintain maximum hold of her authority as President, with which she can beef up the position that has been shaken in the leading of foreign policy.
      When the political arm-wrestling over the authority of the President took place in connection with the preparation of the constitution, not much attention was paid to the position of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Forces.
      There was no need to argue about that, because the position of C-in-C was seen to be connected primarily with the President’s ceremonial position as head of state, including the appointment of officers.
     
As Commander-in-Chief, the President retained a few significant powers, which can be seen in the collision between the Parliament’s Constitutional Law Committee and the government; initially nobody would have imagined that the President might start "activating" these powers on the political level.
      The President still has the right, in the final instance, to decide on the participation of Finnish soldiers in UN peacekeeping operations. In the view of the government, the President should also decide on participation in operations by EU rapid reaction forces, which the Constitutional Law Committee has now rejected.
      The matter has not been the focus of much attention before, because the "President’s decision on a proposal by the government" has been seen as a formal affirmation of agreement between the President and the government, and not as the President’s right to veto.
     
The role of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Forces has not, so far, been raised as a major factor in the Presidential election campaign - not even the last time around. After the views taken by Tarja Halonen and the Constitutional Law Committee, it is high time to take up the issue.
      The dispute over the division of authority of the President and the government in foreign and security policy threatens to acquire increasingly complicated dimensions, if the President can demand more extensive territory on the basis of being Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Forces.
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 1.12.2005


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Government proposes constitutional amendment on crisis management issue (2.12.2005)
  President Halonen accused of playing politics in crisis management issue (30.11.2005)

ERKKI PENNANEN / Helsingin Sanomat
erkki.pennanen@hs.fi