The last President?

By Jaakko Lyytinen
     
      On March 1st, 2000 Martti Ahtisaari handed over the duties of the President of the Republic to Tarja Halonen.
      On the same day a new constitution took effect under which the President is no longer the main decision-maker in the country.
      After the inauguration ceremonies, the President accepted the congratulations of the government, which were delivered by Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen.
      The President expressed thanks and stated a fact: with the new constitution, foreign policy would be the communal property of the President and the government, but in EU matters the Prime Minister would have the main responsibility.
      The President continued in a somewhat mysterious fashion: “In recent years we have seen how quickly changes have happened, and how things are intertwined in so many different ways. This will likely be the case in the future as well.”
     
Was Halonen anticipating difficulties in the distribution of power? During Ahtisaari’s time there had been many such problems, as the President had wanted to take part in EU summits.
      At times, Foreign Minister Tarja Halonen had been left outside the meeting room.
     
Halonen had another reason to forecast difficulties.
      Just before the Presidential elections, Prime Minister Lipponen had quietly changed government rules in such a way that the right of the President to take part in meetings of the most important preparatory body of foreign policy, the government’s foreign and security policy committee, would have been restricted.
      Presidential candidate Halonen heard about the proposal and managed to stop it in its tracks.
     
President Halonen found herself under close scrutiny from the very beginning.
      In her inaugural address, she noted that “the goal of the new constitution is to strengthen the parliamentary system, and I am ready to support this development for my own part.”
      With the exception of a couple of appointments to top positions, which called to mind some episodes during the presidency of Urho Kekkonen, she appeared to be keeping her promise.
      In foreign policy, Halonen let Lipponen take the front seat, but like Ahtisaari, she reserved the right to take part in EU summits.
      When a new government took power in 2003, the incoming Prime Minister, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, actually hoped that Halonen would continue to attend EU summits.
      When Jäätteenmäki was replaced by Matti Vanhanen, Halonen solidified her grip on foreign policy.
     
When the EU expanded by ten member states in May 2004, the two plates that Finland had at summit dinners began to attract increasing amounts of awkward attention.
      Halonen wanted to take part in the meetings even when there were no issues that would have pertained to presidential authority.
      The strangest moment was experienced in 2004 when EU leaders agreed on a new constitution.
      Finland was the only country with three representatives at the summit: the President, the Prime Minister, and the Foreign Minister.
     
At the beginning of her second term, Halonen promised to alter her role in the direction of being a leader of values. Nevertheless, the President attended EU summits whenever she wanted to. During the Finnish EU Presidency in 2006, Halonen’s active role began to generate ire among the Prime Minister’s staff as well.
      A turning point came in the spring of 2007.
      The National Coalition Party, which got the both the foreign affairs and defence portfolios in the government, now marched into the forefront of foreign policy.
      The SDP’s full house had shrunk to that of the President, whose position began to seem more and more precarious.
      Joining the critics of the two-headed leadership model were Halonen’s former teammates, Lipponen and Erkki Tuomioja.
     
The centre-right government was not content with just occupying more foreign policy airspace.
      It decided to continue the process of taking Finland toward a pure Parliamentary system.
      A year ago it appointed a committee chaired by Christoffer Taxell, which is expected to put forward a proposal soon on amendments to the constitution - that is, cutting back on the powers of the President.
     
In Halonen’s second term the dispute over Presidential powers has become more politicised and more political.
      The Social Democrats have turned around and come to the support of their president.
      Presidential authority could become a campaign issue in the next Parliamentary elections.
      This past week, the dispute was to have been put to bed for good when the Lisbon Treaty took effect.
      Encouraged by this, Prime Minister Vanhanen voiced his point of view: only the Prime Minister will participate in EU summits in the future.
      The game was finally supposed to be clear: the European Council - the EU summits - will in the future be an EU internal institution.
      The EU’s foreign and security policy are part of the EU’s internal policy, which does not pertain to the Finnish President.
      This interpretation was too much for Halonen to swallow.
     
It is nine years and nine months from the day of the transition of power. At that time President Halonen has proved that she certainly does not want to take the pruning away of presidential power, which was begun by President Mauno Koivisto, to its logical conclusion.
      Koivisto was an exception, even in world history: a leader who dared be the first to relinquish his own power.
      During the period of the primaries in the runup to the 1994 elections, Ahtisaari spoke negatively of the cutting of the powers of the President.
      He explained the changes in his views with the idea that the people want a strong president.
      Halonen has the same strong mandate of a direct popular vote. A lawyer by profession, she has constantly referred to the letter of the law, with no regard to the fact that the interpretation of constitutional experts is completely different.
     
This autumn, Ahtisaari changed his view, and said that “People do not need to live with their stupid opinions for the rest of their lives.”
      Halonen, for her part, has asked what reason there is to deny the people “two loves” - Parliament and an elected President. Yes, why? After all, the people want a strong president.
      In January a poll commissioned by the Finnish Broadcasting Company (YLE) showed that nine out of ten respondents wanted the President to continue to lead foreign policy along with the government.
     
Halonen has found the constant debate about her position to be insulting.
      No other president has ever experienced anything like it, she recently said in Helsingin Sanomat.
      She has appealed to the idea that the constitution should not be changed before more experience has been had.
      The previous constitution was tried with ten male presidents, but the new one has only been tried with one female. For that reason, Halonen feels that the present constitution should be tested at least under her successor.
     
In March 2012 Halonen will relinquish her office to her successor.
      When Halonen’s term is weighed up, the extended dispute over double representation in the EU and the debate over presidential powers might obscure her significant work on the international level.
      If she had wanted to, Halonen could have gone down in history as the last president with power - as a president who was ready to give up her power.
      Could a politician who was once known as a defender of parliamentary government, hope for a better honour?
      That would have been worthy of a statue.
     
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 6.12.2009


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Government reiterates: Prime Minister and not President to attend EU summits (4.12.2009)
  President and Prime Minister still at odds over EU summit issue (3.12.2009)
  Vanhanen: Prime Minister to represent Finland at EU summits (2.12.2009)
  President Halonen to replace Foreign Minister Stubb at EU summit (28.8.2009)