Presidential election procedure

Re constitutional reform, Aamulehti interviewed (fi) parliamentary Constitutional Law Committee members Kimmo Kiljunen (Social Democratic Party) and Kimmo Sasi (National Coalition Party). Lest my previous post on the topic leave the wrong impression about said gentlemen's opinions, I'll summarize what they had to say.

According to Kiljunen, the Social Democratic representatives involved with constitutional affairs believe that if the President's powers are taken away, electing the President should be left to the Parliament. Kiljunen said that he considers this to be the best alternative.

The article notes that the Social Democrats have traditionally demanded that the President be elected by the Parliament. After the last five presidential elections, however, it shouldn't take a genius to see that the election system is good for the Social Democrats due to the centre-right parties supporting their own candidates and the Left Alliance usually backing the Social Democrat in the race. Why would Kiljunen want to make an unpopular change that is likely to hurt his party's power? I wonder how widespread his kind of thinking is among the Social Democrats.

According to Sasi, the President should be elected through a popular vote, because "There's not yet enough confidence that some electoral college would select the sort of person the people want. And there's no reason to take the election away from the people, even if the powers are reduced." Sasi, too, favors stripping the President of her powers.

The logical options, I think, are a ceremonial head of state elected by the Parliament and a President with real powers elected by the voters. Sasi's argument about the potential for cabinet wheeling and dealing is silly; there'd be no point whatsoever in electing a controversial, unpopular figure to a ceremonial post. If the choice is left to the Parliament, I fully expect our future Presidents to be inoffensive establishment figures. It'll all become frightfully dull.

As far as other parties are concerned, the article says that the Centre Party is undecided, with the party base traditionally supporting a strong President. True Finns chair Timo Soini, who rarely misses these kind of opportunities, announced (fi) that he, at least, likes the current situation.

Soini doesn't like the Sweden Democrats

YLE has a little snippet (fi) on its website about True Finns chair Timo Soini's attempts to keep some distance between his party and anti-immigrant parties in other Nordic countries. The True Finns' youth organization tried and failed to gain entry into the Nordic Youth Council together with Swedish and Danish right-wing populist parties. Soini disapproved of this and the youth organization announced that it intends to stop the cooperation. YLE doesn't name the other parties, but according to (fi) the Nordic Council's website, they are the Sweden Democrats and the Danish People's Party.

Rosenholz affair reactions

As you would expect, the papers are full of the Rosenholz affair today. YLE News provides a round-up of reactions:

National Police Commissioner Markku Salminen told YLE Friday that he is considering if the Interior Ministry should take an active lead and publish the information which it can release. However, he pointed out that the materials in the possession of the Security Police are its responsibility and the Ministry cannot make a decision about release on its behalf. [...]

[Interior Minister Anne Holmlund] says that her September schedule includes time to better familiarize herself with SUPO activities and at that time she will likely have talks on matters related to the issue.

The Interior Minister is taking the position that increased parliamentary oversight of the Security Police can be taken under consideration, but she has also noted that it has to be remembered that some of the information held by SUPO is such that it cannot be published. [...]

The Office of the President Chief of Staff Jarmo Viinanen on Friday denied the Aamulehti report claiming that the Security Police had misled President Halonen.

Minister of Interior Holmlund also said Friday that she has not received any misleading information from the Security Police.

President Halonen said on Thursday that she hopes that any cover-up surrounding the Stasi materials affair would come to an end. She said that the materials should be made available, at least to the extent that there can be no claims of secrecy.

It seems to me that the contention that the Security Police (Supo) hasn't acted inappropriately is based on a very fine distinction indeed. The assertion is that Supo's material is not the same as the Rosenholz files that per government policy should have been made accessible, even though Supo has admitted that the relevant content is the same. One might get away with that argument in a purely legal discussion, but in a political debate it's not likely to work too well and I'm surprised that Holmlund is trying it.

The obvious question to Halonen is, if Supo hasn't misinterpreted the Cabinet's 2000 decision and was thus correct to withhold the information up this point, why is it not correct to keep withholding it? Now, in 2007, Halonen thinks the material Supo does have should be released - based on what exactly? If Supo wasn't wrong previously, has government policy now changed?

Helsingin Sanomat carries an interview with Professor Seppo Hentilä (fi), an expert on the Cold War era, who makes some good points. "Supo has no option but to make the information public. In 2000 it was decided that the information must be given to three entities, judicial officials, scholars of history, and concerned parties. There's no need for a permission for the Rosenholz key from the CIA. In Germany and Denmark the corresponding information is already in use." (In the same article, Supo assistant chief Matti Simola says he suspects that a permission from the United States would be needed.)

Hentilä suggests that Supo should give the material to an independent group of researchers and lawyers, which in turn would report to the Parliament. He says that the situation won't be resolved if Supo's actions are checked only by other officials, which I take as criticism of Holmlund's approach.

Speaking of which, Aamulehti contacted opposition leaders (fi), who weren't very positive in their assessment of Holmlund's response to the revelations. Timo Soini (True Finns) used the phrase "miserable monkeying around". Eero Heinäluoma (Social Democratic Party) took a slightly more measured tone: "It's justifiable that Holmlund should clarify for the Parliament what has happened. The report should tell what material has come to Finland and what sort of right-of-access principles have been applied to them." Matti Korhonen (Left Alliance) was the only one to bring up resignation at this point.

True Finns' Soini declines the offer

True Finn party chairman Timo Soini reacted (fi) to the merger proposal by the Centre Party's Jarmo Korhonen in a typically Soinian manner. Quoth Soini in today's papers:

"It's entirely clear that a merger is out of the question."

"If a girl at a dance is asked for a spin, no one can mind that. Another matter is whether she'll accept."

"When you fell a tree, you take the branch. I have no right to sell the Finnish people's lifeline or even to negotiate with it."

"Korhonen is the sort of siren that I bolt myself more tightly to the mast and let the siren sing."

"[Before the election] snot wasn't good enough for the devil. Now that our support is on the rise, there's a terrible interest in a merger."

"I'm dangerous, but only to the Centre's support, not to the people. When they can't say something bad about me, they say I'm one of theirs."

"This tells that our rise is even bigger than what the polls say."

"I myself have been a Vennamoist since age 16 and don't shy away from that connection at all. And I still am, in my ideological roots."

"The Centre hasn't changed since the times of Kekkonen, so the most important things are power and might. Now they want a copyright on this legend."

"When we can't be hit, must we be hugged?"

That'll be a no, then.

One thing this episode shows is that the other parties aren't all that hostile toward the True Finns. Their isolation is more self-inflicted than anything imposed on them; to stay true to their message, they can't compromise with the major parties. Their agenda in itself is not such an anathema that a mainstream politician like Korhonen can't speak of them in a positive tone.

Centre's Korhonen proposes merger with True Finns

In an interview with Helsingin Sanomat (fi), Centre Party secretary Jarmo Korhonen proposed a merger between his party and the True Finns. Korhonen thinks the united party could get a support of over 30 percent. Quoth Korhonen, "The True Finns and Centre should be able to look at their common history. Both are centrist parties that have the same ideological background and ideological father, Santeri Alkio." Of the current True Finns leader, Korhonen says, "I appreciate Timo Soini; he's a professional of rhetoric and politics. He speaks for the poor people." There's no set schedule. "I don't expect an answer from Soini at this stage. It's a longer development."

The proposal makes perfect sense from Korhonen's point of view. In intraparty disputes the True Finns would be natural allies to Korhonen's rural wing of the party against the now dominant more urban wing led by Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen. For example, Korhonen thinks the government should do more to defend Finnish interests inside the EU, citing France and Poland as models to follow. Also, under the current system being the biggest party is highly valuable as it gives the inside track in forming a government and capturing the office of Prime Minister. Even a three percent boost in support would increase the Centre's position in its competition against the National Coalition Party and the Social Democratic Party.

So why isn't it happening right now? For one thing, the True Finns have been denouncing the Centre, the Coalition, and the Social Democrats as "Huey, Dewey, and Louie", three sides of the same coin. They can't very well merge with one of the interchangeable big three without it looking like a betrayal of everything for which they've campaigned in recent years. By the same token, the Vanhanen wing of the Centre will not like the proposal very much. If the extreme Centrists - people like Korhonen, Foreign Trade Minister Paavo Väyrynen, etc - would gain control of the party and first take it to a more eurosceptic and economically populist direction, then it would become a possibility depending on how willing to sell out the leading True Finns would be at that point.

In my opinion Korhonen's evaluation of over 30 percent of support is much too big. The Centre/Agrarian League plus the True Finns/Rural Party have never gotten more than 30 percent of the vote. The closest they got was 29.7%, in 1991. In all other parliamentary elections since the split they've had between 21 percent and 28 percent of the vote. Going over 30 percent would require them to retain nearly all of their current support plus draw in several percentage points worth of new support. It's more likely that whatever gains they'd make would be offset by losses among current supporters. The Centre has voters who prefer Vanhanen's line to Korhonen's and a part of the True Finns' appeal is that they're outsiders.

Right-wing parties enjoy a post-election boost

Helsingin Sanomat released a new poll (fi) by Suomen Gallup that supports the trends seen in the recent Taloustutkimus poll:

National Coalition Party 23.3%
Centre Party 22.8%
Social Democratic Party 21.1%
Green League 8.9%
Left Alliance 8.4%
True Finns 4.9%
Christian Democrats 4.5%
Swedish People's Party 4.3%

The Coalition has never before ranked first in Suomen Gallup polls. The True Finns haven't been this high since they were called the Finnish Rural Party. The two traditional left-wing parties combine for 29.5 percent, which is an abysmal result. Even if we include the Green League included, the left is at 37.9 percent. The government parties have 59.3 percent of the support, compared to the 58.5 percent in the election.

The article warns that it's customary for parties that did well in the election to receive a temporary boost in support. It says that the effect should dissipate during the summer. We'll see.

What's important? II

Previously I dealt with the government parties. This one's dedicated to the loyal opposition. As previously, the data comes from Vaalit ja demokratia Suomessa by Heikki Paloheimo et al. In a 2003 survey respondents were asked how important they considered 30 different possible political issues to be. Then the authors calculated how the answers correlated with party support.

Social Democratic Party

Social Democrats are, perhaps surprisingly to some right-wingers, very close to the political centre on most issues. There are very few goals which they rate much higher or lower than the average voter does. When everything is taken together, however, the picture becomes clearer.

The one goal Social Democrats think is clearly more important than the average voter is:

• Securing the level of public services

To anyone who has listened to Social Democratic leaders' rhetoric, this shouldn't come as a huge surprise.

A few rungs of the ladder down, we find:

• Decreasing unemployment
• Strengthening the integration of the European Union
• Securing the level of health care and medical care

The EU thing may surprise some, but at the time the party was led by the noted europhile Paavo Lipponen.

Of goals Social Democrats find less important than the rest, only one really stands out:

• Improving the conditions of entrepreneurship

Maybe that's the party's labor union wing talking.

Social Democrats can compete with Centre Party supporters for the title of the most centrist lot fairly evenly, but they are nevertheless noticeably centre-left. Emphasizing the importance of government-provided services seems to be the defining characteristic, the one issue on which they stand out.

If it's somewhat difficult to find the defining characteristics of Social Democrats, analyzing the other opposition parties doesn't pose the same problem. All four stand out, but in very different ways.

Left Alliance

The two big issues Leftists find more important than the average voter is:

• Improving the status of poor people
• Securing the level of health care and medical care

Slightly less significant, but still good predictors of Leftist leanings, are:

• Improving the income of the unemployed
• Securing the level of care for the elderly

It's pretty safe to say that Leftists support an interventionist government which helps the needy. The notable feature is emphasis on support for the poor and the unemployed, not only the sick and the old.

There are also a number of goals they think are significantly less important than the average voter:

• Cutting taxes
• Reducing crime
• Increasing discipline and order in society
• Improving the conditions of entrepreneurship

And rock bottom, as befits an ex-communist party:

• Strengthening religious values

In effect, Leftists are the anti-Coalitionists. The topics on which the two are on the same side of the centre are few and often they're at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

Christian Democrats

Christian Democrats have one overarching concern, which shouldn't be too difficult to guess. Yes, it's...

• Strengthening religious values

The positive correlation between supporting Christian Democrats and finding strengthening religious values important is in fact the biggest of any party/issue correlation in the survey, comfortably beating out even Greens' emphasis on increasing the efficiency of environmental protection.

The two other big issues for Christian Democrats are:

• Strengthening traditional values and moral beliefs
• Increasing foreign development aid

Both flow fairly naturally from the Christian angle.

Compared to the above three issues, in everything else Christian Democrats are fairly close to the political centre. There are some issues they don't find as important as the average voter, like:

• Decreasing differences in regional development
• Strengthening the integration of the European Union

But these are not the issues that drive the party's support. Promoting socially conservative, Christian values is the important thing.

True Finns

Unsurprisingly, True Finns have a number of issues on which they stand out.

• Reducing crime
• Increasing discipline and order in society
• Limiting foreign workers' entry into the country
• Improving living conditions
• Limiting refugees' entry into the country

Conclusion: they live in crime-ridden concrete suburbs and hate foreigners.

As supporters of a party that largely defines itself by its opposition to things, True Finns are also well defined by the things they find less important than the average voter:

• Improving the status of poor people
• Strengthening the integration of the European Union
• Improving the status of racial or other minorities
• Improving the status of families with children
• Increasing the efficiency of environmental protection

I was surprised by the lack of emphasis on improving the status of poor people, as I recall seeing demographic data which indicated that True Finn voters are less wealthy than the average Finn. Maybe they see "poor people" as code for "refugees". In general, party supporters don't share the right-wing economic goals of e.g Coalitionists, but also reject a number of left-wing goals. The picture is one of an isolationist, authoritarian, contrarian bunch.