Eight possible Finlands
Helsinki Times speaks to all eight presidential candidates to find out, amongst other things, why they’re running, how they view the country they’ll be leading, and what Finland will look like at the end of their time in office.
The institution of the Finnish presidency in 2012 is a far cry from what it was in the 1960s and ’70s during Urho Kekkonen’s era. However, the President remains the head of state and represents Finland on the world stage. Moreover, the institution of the presidency is one that Finnish citizens hold in high esteem.
Therefore, the choice Finns make on 22 January, and possibly 5 February if no single candidate gains over 50 per cent of vote in the first round of voting, has the potential to significantly affect Finland and its relations with the rest of the world for the next 6 or 12 years and perhaps beyond.
Motivations
What sort of person wants to be a president, and for what reasons? Furthermore, what do their different motivations reveal about their personality, ability to lead the country and values? Although most candidates, when asked why they want to be President, mentioned the changes in the international world they’d like to contribute to, as well as the sort of values they’d represent, very few justified their decision to run with reference to the skills they possess.
The Christian Democrats’ candidate, Sari Essayah, wishes “to find solutions in cooperation with other actors to the many challenges which face the world,” including climate change, degradation of biodiversity, conflicts, and food and water shortages. She also emphasises the need for moral guidance and promotion of, what she calls, “healthy values”.
"Healthy values" mean, unsurprisingly, that she's against gay marriage. She's the 'love the sinner...' type. Doesn't seem to have a chance at winning.
Pekka Haavisto of the Greens offers a similar answer to Essayah, seeing in the institution of the presidency the need for valued-based leadership. However, Haavisto chooses to emphasise the values he’d help promote in the international world.
“Finland can promote democracy, human rights, development and equality around the world. Finland can also operate more actively as a peace mediator - we’ve a great tradition in this from President Martti Ahtisaari to Elisabeth Rehn,” Haavisto argues.
Openly gay and in a registered partnership. Seems to have the best chances of making it to the second round atm.
Eva Biaudet, the Swedish People’s Party’s candidate, focuses on two sets of issues of importance. Firstly, she feels that Finland’s advantages and strengths, such as the country’s education system, access to healthcare, strong civil society and sustainable economy “seem to have become a bit forgotten and need to be upgraded for tomorrow.” Secondly, she mentions Finland’s need for international cooperation (both politically and in terms of trade), with particular reference to the other Nordic and EU countries.
Doesn't really get that much attention and doesn't have that good chances of making it to second round despite not having that different policies from other candidates from the left.
The Left Alliance’s candidate, Paavo Arhinmäki, repeats a number of the aforementioned points but includes another that was notably absent, at least in explicit form, from the other candidates’ answers - namely, Nato.
“As President, I want to keep Finland outside any military alliance, thereby defending the militarily unallied nature of the country.”
Did well in a debate held in high school but not likely to get to second round.
The Centre’s candidate, Paavo Väyrynen, who’s known for his dogged political determination and ‘never say die’ attitude in the face of impossible odds, says quite frankly, and in characteristic style, that he “wants to influence the future development of Finland, Europe and mankind” by becoming President.
'Dogged political determination' means that he never goes away...
In contrast to these first five candidates, the National Coalition’s Sauli Niinistö, perhaps displaying some political realism but also less ambition, explains his desire to be President in terms of the person he is, rather than what he’d like to achieve while in office.
“In my opinion, I have a lot to give Finnish citizens. In international affairs, I’m widely experienced and I’ve much experience of domestic policies and issues in Finnish society.”
Will go to second round and will probably win the elections (but might not...). Right wing but not nearly as much as one of the others.
For Paavo Lipponen (SDP), as with Arhinmäki, the treatment of minorities in Finland at this moment in time is worrying and he’d work for unity between different people in society if elected President. Outside of Finland, he’d work to ensure that “Finland continues its active, constructive and international line while preventing the country’s isolation in Europe and the rest of the world.”
He's our ex-prime minister and that might be working against him here. Been surprisingly vocal about racism in the debates.
The last of the eight candidates, the Finns Party’s (PS) Timo Soini, is the only one to touch on the relationship between the presidential election and party politics.
“I’ve worked for Finland in a political party which has grown from a tiny group into a party supported by 20 per cent of the country. The next logical step is to apply for the most important and valued office.” Defending Finland’s sovereignty and her security is also of extreme importance to the PS leader.
Our right wing populist candidate. :| That, along with some quotes from him below, should say enough.
Today’s Finland
Although the President’s primary responsibility is leading the country in foreign affairs, she also has much scope for influencing public opinion. Therefore, Helsinki Times first asked the candidates about how they’d like the rest of the world to see Finland and also, in light of recent discussion, what level of racism exists in the country, with a selection of their answers provided.
Väyrynen keeps things simple: “I hope that Finland could be recognised as a neutral, militarily non-allied Nordic or Scandinavian country.”
Haavisto, on the other hand, is the presidential candidate who has perhaps the most open-ended understanding of Finland.
“The old image of Finland is that of untouched nature in Lapland and Santa Claus. Then came Finnish design - Alvar Aalto and Marimekko. They were followed by Nokia. It’s good that Finland’s image is composed of different layers and that it isn’t one-dimensional. It needs to accommodate a variety of phenomena, ranging from Angry Birds to [the social networking site for teenagers] Habbo Hotel, and from Aki Kaurismäki to ice hockey.”
Arhinmäki, for his part, focuses more attention on specific political and economic achievements.
“Finland’s strengths have been solidarity, a comprehensive welfare state, small differences in wages, a high standard of living, a functioning society and a clean environment,” he asserts.
Only Biaudet included in her list the relative equality Finnish women enjoy, while Essayah stood alone in listing Finland’s peaceful and peace-promoting qualities. Interestingly, Soini was the only candidate to refer to religion.
“Finland is a country which values her Christian roots and welcomes foreign workers ... Finland is a reliable partner that obeys the mutually accepted rules and emphasises morality even in financial issues.”
As for the issue of racism in Finnish society, Helsinki Times asked each candidate to rate how racist a country Finland is on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being not racist at all and 10 extremely racist.
“Maybe 3 or 4,” says Arhinmäki, although he points out the danger of making generalisations. “Finland isn’t a racist country per se and neither are Finns racists.”
A number of other candidates, such as Essayah and Lipponen, agreed with Arhinmäki.
“As a country Finland isn’t racist at all. There are, however, individuals or groups with racist attitudes, and they’re the reason my answer is 3,” the Christian Democrat MEP explains.
Soini didn’t comment on the existence of racism in Finland in his answer but says he sees no need for putting racism on a scale, noting that, “As a Roman Catholic, I’m part of a minority in this country and thus, I can sympathise with members of other minorities.”
Niinistö contrasts his own experience of racism in Finland with what’s been printed in newspapers on the subject.
“I haven’t met one person in Finland who’s said to me that they’ve had bad experiences of immigrants. At the same time, we read a lot in the media about racist sentiment in Finnish society. Therefore, I’d say somewhere between 4 and 6 based on the content of this ongoing debate.”
As for the other candidates’ scores, Biaudet said 8 and Väyrynen 7, while Haavisto and Lipponen didn’t give a specific figure.
Pretty optimistic comments about racism in Finland there, I feel. Then again, maybe they don't want to go calling potential voters racist before elections especially since there's been a rise in right wing voting recently.
The US and Russia
A small country like Finland has little leverage over the world’s biggest countries, but it can help legitimise or condemn the decisions they take. Accordingly, Helsinki Times asked the candidates to evaluate the foreign policy and actions of the US and Russia in recent years.
Disappointingly, a number of candidates demonstrated a reluctance to engage with the question and/or a poor grasp of the differences that exist between these states.
For example, Väyrynen, who prides himself on his foreign policy experience, having been Finland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs for most of the 1980s, states simply that, “These countries have behaved like typical great powers.” Similarly, Soini made no attempt to treat the two countries separately, while Lipponen, who chose to be interviewed by email, says the question is “too broad to answer in a Q&A format.” Other candidates didn’t appear to agree with the former Prime Minister on this point.
“Basically, when Barack Obama was elected, people expected major changes, but we haven’t seen them that much,” thinks Niinistö. “There’s been a lot of anti-US opinion in Finland since the Vietnam War, but I think it’s calming down now.”
Arhinmäki, the only candidate other than Essayah to bring up the 2003-11 War in Iraq, is more critical.
“This war was a massive mistake of the George W. Bush period: a mistake that’s already caused the deaths of over 100,000 people. During the time Bush was president, the US tried to bypass the UN and international law with its unilateral actions. Likewise, the CIA’s secret rendition flights and, for example, the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay demonstrate the different notions Finland and the US have of how human rights are respected.”
Arhinmäki also notes the unconstructive position the US has taken towards climate change prevention.
After touching on the subject of insufficient financial supervision in the US and the effect this has had on the rest of the world, Essayah says that, “In foreign policy I especially respect the support the US has given over the years to Israel - the only democracy in the area at the moment,” before noting her dissatisfaction with the lack of peaceful solutions pursued in Iraq and Afghanistan and the limited resources the US has channelled to development cooperation.
Unlike the other candidates, Haavisto’s comments about the US and Russia overlap.
“The policy of the US has changed during the Obama administration. One of the main factors in this has been the pressing of the reset button in relations with Russia.”
“If Finland becomes a member of the UN Security Council for the 2013-2014 period,” he continues, “it’s very important to maintain direct relations with all the great powers in the Security Council. It’s important for the President of Finland to have good relations with the US [and] Finland needs to have relations with Russia both bilaterally and through the EU.”
Other candidates were more critical of developments in Russia.
“Russia is continuing an uneven development. Politically the country’s leaders are further solidifying a version of authoritarianism with democratic processes (i.e. elections),” thinks Biaudet.
“It must however be noted that a majority of the population seem to be fine with this,” she continues. “Societally and economically the country is being divided into many groups, with some seeing increases in standards of living and others being marginalised and forgotten.”
Essayah takes the opportunity to paint a picture of the direction Russia should be heading towards in the future, saying that she “would like to see Russia developing into a normal Western European state, with a free, socially and ecologically responsible economy and well-functioning democracy.”
Arhinmäki also touches on economic issues.
“Russia, in particular, is an important great power to Finland economically... At the same time, the President of Finland has to engage in a bold and open dialogue about democracy and human rights.”
Finland in the future
Finally, what would the candidates like Finland’s position in the world to be at the time their term in office comes to an end, and what changes would they like to see made in those 6 or 12 years?
“In the world and in Europe I’d like Finland to be very stable and secure. I hope Finland maintains, maybe improves, its reputation as a country that serves the common good of its people,” says Niinistö.
Biaudet, on the other hand, would like Finland to be “a strong international partner and an open society [that] provides an attractive environment for investors and talented people.”
Finns would have a strong sense of self-esteem and xenophobia would be a marginal phenomenon, she adds. “We’d have strong innovative companies, active also in faraway economies, as well as creative entrepreneurs.”
Haavisto and Arhinmäki, for their part, raise the issues of equality and narrowing income disparity as well as ecological improvements, with the former candidate also mentioning increased citizen participation in politics and the latter Finland’s reputation as an “internationally recognised peace-broker and bridge-builder” remaining intact.
Soini’s vision of Finland in 6 or 12 years’ time reflects themes closely associated with his party.
“I’d like Finland to be a thriving, innovative, and international country that comprehends her global responsibility and hosts a self-assured nation that doesn’t need to be ashamed of itself. In Finnish society, different views and opinions live naturally side-by-side and healthy criticism is welcome, not shunned.”
Lipponen, presumably referring in no small measure to Soini and his party, says that he would like to see “Finland taking a big step towards being international. Domestically we’ll be freed from the grip of right-wing populism.”
In the end, there can only be one winner, and as President the victor will get the chance to help steer Finland in their preferred direction. However, if their vision hasn’t been realised after six years, Niinistö has some reassuring words to offer. Although he was beaten in 2006 by Tarja Halonen, the sitting president at the time, Niinistö, by far the most popular candidate in this year’s race so far, partly explains his defeat in 2006 in the following way:
“We Finns don’t remove someone from their job too easily.”
ALLAN BAIN
HELSINKI TIMES
LEHTIKUVA - HEIKKI SAUKKOMAA - MARKKU ULANDER
Source
Since we're also having presidental elections I just thought it'd be nice to post what our candidates are like (even if we don't matter much :D) For ppl from the US (or Russia) it includes some small insights on how us outsiders view their politics.
Commentary in italics is mine (and admittedly biased) and I can remove it if it's distracting
The institution of the Finnish presidency in 2012 is a far cry from what it was in the 1960s and ’70s during Urho Kekkonen’s era. However, the President remains the head of state and represents Finland on the world stage. Moreover, the institution of the presidency is one that Finnish citizens hold in high esteem.
Therefore, the choice Finns make on 22 January, and possibly 5 February if no single candidate gains over 50 per cent of vote in the first round of voting, has the potential to significantly affect Finland and its relations with the rest of the world for the next 6 or 12 years and perhaps beyond.
Motivations
What sort of person wants to be a president, and for what reasons? Furthermore, what do their different motivations reveal about their personality, ability to lead the country and values? Although most candidates, when asked why they want to be President, mentioned the changes in the international world they’d like to contribute to, as well as the sort of values they’d represent, very few justified their decision to run with reference to the skills they possess.
The Christian Democrats’ candidate, Sari Essayah, wishes “to find solutions in cooperation with other actors to the many challenges which face the world,” including climate change, degradation of biodiversity, conflicts, and food and water shortages. She also emphasises the need for moral guidance and promotion of, what she calls, “healthy values”.
"Healthy values" mean, unsurprisingly, that she's against gay marriage. She's the 'love the sinner...' type. Doesn't seem to have a chance at winning.
Pekka Haavisto of the Greens offers a similar answer to Essayah, seeing in the institution of the presidency the need for valued-based leadership. However, Haavisto chooses to emphasise the values he’d help promote in the international world.
“Finland can promote democracy, human rights, development and equality around the world. Finland can also operate more actively as a peace mediator - we’ve a great tradition in this from President Martti Ahtisaari to Elisabeth Rehn,” Haavisto argues.
Openly gay and in a registered partnership. Seems to have the best chances of making it to the second round atm.
Eva Biaudet, the Swedish People’s Party’s candidate, focuses on two sets of issues of importance. Firstly, she feels that Finland’s advantages and strengths, such as the country’s education system, access to healthcare, strong civil society and sustainable economy “seem to have become a bit forgotten and need to be upgraded for tomorrow.” Secondly, she mentions Finland’s need for international cooperation (both politically and in terms of trade), with particular reference to the other Nordic and EU countries.
Doesn't really get that much attention and doesn't have that good chances of making it to second round despite not having that different policies from other candidates from the left.
The Left Alliance’s candidate, Paavo Arhinmäki, repeats a number of the aforementioned points but includes another that was notably absent, at least in explicit form, from the other candidates’ answers - namely, Nato.
“As President, I want to keep Finland outside any military alliance, thereby defending the militarily unallied nature of the country.”
Did well in a debate held in high school but not likely to get to second round.
The Centre’s candidate, Paavo Väyrynen, who’s known for his dogged political determination and ‘never say die’ attitude in the face of impossible odds, says quite frankly, and in characteristic style, that he “wants to influence the future development of Finland, Europe and mankind” by becoming President.
'Dogged political determination' means that he never goes away...
In contrast to these first five candidates, the National Coalition’s Sauli Niinistö, perhaps displaying some political realism but also less ambition, explains his desire to be President in terms of the person he is, rather than what he’d like to achieve while in office.
“In my opinion, I have a lot to give Finnish citizens. In international affairs, I’m widely experienced and I’ve much experience of domestic policies and issues in Finnish society.”
Will go to second round and will probably win the elections (but might not...). Right wing but not nearly as much as one of the others.
For Paavo Lipponen (SDP), as with Arhinmäki, the treatment of minorities in Finland at this moment in time is worrying and he’d work for unity between different people in society if elected President. Outside of Finland, he’d work to ensure that “Finland continues its active, constructive and international line while preventing the country’s isolation in Europe and the rest of the world.”
He's our ex-prime minister and that might be working against him here. Been surprisingly vocal about racism in the debates.
The last of the eight candidates, the Finns Party’s (PS) Timo Soini, is the only one to touch on the relationship between the presidential election and party politics.
“I’ve worked for Finland in a political party which has grown from a tiny group into a party supported by 20 per cent of the country. The next logical step is to apply for the most important and valued office.” Defending Finland’s sovereignty and her security is also of extreme importance to the PS leader.
Our right wing populist candidate. :| That, along with some quotes from him below, should say enough.
Today’s Finland
Although the President’s primary responsibility is leading the country in foreign affairs, she also has much scope for influencing public opinion. Therefore, Helsinki Times first asked the candidates about how they’d like the rest of the world to see Finland and also, in light of recent discussion, what level of racism exists in the country, with a selection of their answers provided.
Väyrynen keeps things simple: “I hope that Finland could be recognised as a neutral, militarily non-allied Nordic or Scandinavian country.”
Haavisto, on the other hand, is the presidential candidate who has perhaps the most open-ended understanding of Finland.
“The old image of Finland is that of untouched nature in Lapland and Santa Claus. Then came Finnish design - Alvar Aalto and Marimekko. They were followed by Nokia. It’s good that Finland’s image is composed of different layers and that it isn’t one-dimensional. It needs to accommodate a variety of phenomena, ranging from Angry Birds to [the social networking site for teenagers] Habbo Hotel, and from Aki Kaurismäki to ice hockey.”
Arhinmäki, for his part, focuses more attention on specific political and economic achievements.
“Finland’s strengths have been solidarity, a comprehensive welfare state, small differences in wages, a high standard of living, a functioning society and a clean environment,” he asserts.
Only Biaudet included in her list the relative equality Finnish women enjoy, while Essayah stood alone in listing Finland’s peaceful and peace-promoting qualities. Interestingly, Soini was the only candidate to refer to religion.
“Finland is a country which values her Christian roots and welcomes foreign workers ... Finland is a reliable partner that obeys the mutually accepted rules and emphasises morality even in financial issues.”
As for the issue of racism in Finnish society, Helsinki Times asked each candidate to rate how racist a country Finland is on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being not racist at all and 10 extremely racist.
“Maybe 3 or 4,” says Arhinmäki, although he points out the danger of making generalisations. “Finland isn’t a racist country per se and neither are Finns racists.”
A number of other candidates, such as Essayah and Lipponen, agreed with Arhinmäki.
“As a country Finland isn’t racist at all. There are, however, individuals or groups with racist attitudes, and they’re the reason my answer is 3,” the Christian Democrat MEP explains.
Soini didn’t comment on the existence of racism in Finland in his answer but says he sees no need for putting racism on a scale, noting that, “As a Roman Catholic, I’m part of a minority in this country and thus, I can sympathise with members of other minorities.”
Niinistö contrasts his own experience of racism in Finland with what’s been printed in newspapers on the subject.
“I haven’t met one person in Finland who’s said to me that they’ve had bad experiences of immigrants. At the same time, we read a lot in the media about racist sentiment in Finnish society. Therefore, I’d say somewhere between 4 and 6 based on the content of this ongoing debate.”
As for the other candidates’ scores, Biaudet said 8 and Väyrynen 7, while Haavisto and Lipponen didn’t give a specific figure.
Pretty optimistic comments about racism in Finland there, I feel. Then again, maybe they don't want to go calling potential voters racist before elections especially since there's been a rise in right wing voting recently.
The US and Russia
A small country like Finland has little leverage over the world’s biggest countries, but it can help legitimise or condemn the decisions they take. Accordingly, Helsinki Times asked the candidates to evaluate the foreign policy and actions of the US and Russia in recent years.
Disappointingly, a number of candidates demonstrated a reluctance to engage with the question and/or a poor grasp of the differences that exist between these states.
For example, Väyrynen, who prides himself on his foreign policy experience, having been Finland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs for most of the 1980s, states simply that, “These countries have behaved like typical great powers.” Similarly, Soini made no attempt to treat the two countries separately, while Lipponen, who chose to be interviewed by email, says the question is “too broad to answer in a Q&A format.” Other candidates didn’t appear to agree with the former Prime Minister on this point.
“Basically, when Barack Obama was elected, people expected major changes, but we haven’t seen them that much,” thinks Niinistö. “There’s been a lot of anti-US opinion in Finland since the Vietnam War, but I think it’s calming down now.”
Arhinmäki, the only candidate other than Essayah to bring up the 2003-11 War in Iraq, is more critical.
“This war was a massive mistake of the George W. Bush period: a mistake that’s already caused the deaths of over 100,000 people. During the time Bush was president, the US tried to bypass the UN and international law with its unilateral actions. Likewise, the CIA’s secret rendition flights and, for example, the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay demonstrate the different notions Finland and the US have of how human rights are respected.”
Arhinmäki also notes the unconstructive position the US has taken towards climate change prevention.
After touching on the subject of insufficient financial supervision in the US and the effect this has had on the rest of the world, Essayah says that, “In foreign policy I especially respect the support the US has given over the years to Israel - the only democracy in the area at the moment,” before noting her dissatisfaction with the lack of peaceful solutions pursued in Iraq and Afghanistan and the limited resources the US has channelled to development cooperation.
Unlike the other candidates, Haavisto’s comments about the US and Russia overlap.
“The policy of the US has changed during the Obama administration. One of the main factors in this has been the pressing of the reset button in relations with Russia.”
“If Finland becomes a member of the UN Security Council for the 2013-2014 period,” he continues, “it’s very important to maintain direct relations with all the great powers in the Security Council. It’s important for the President of Finland to have good relations with the US [and] Finland needs to have relations with Russia both bilaterally and through the EU.”
Other candidates were more critical of developments in Russia.
“Russia is continuing an uneven development. Politically the country’s leaders are further solidifying a version of authoritarianism with democratic processes (i.e. elections),” thinks Biaudet.
“It must however be noted that a majority of the population seem to be fine with this,” she continues. “Societally and economically the country is being divided into many groups, with some seeing increases in standards of living and others being marginalised and forgotten.”
Essayah takes the opportunity to paint a picture of the direction Russia should be heading towards in the future, saying that she “would like to see Russia developing into a normal Western European state, with a free, socially and ecologically responsible economy and well-functioning democracy.”
Arhinmäki also touches on economic issues.
“Russia, in particular, is an important great power to Finland economically... At the same time, the President of Finland has to engage in a bold and open dialogue about democracy and human rights.”
Finland in the future
Finally, what would the candidates like Finland’s position in the world to be at the time their term in office comes to an end, and what changes would they like to see made in those 6 or 12 years?
“In the world and in Europe I’d like Finland to be very stable and secure. I hope Finland maintains, maybe improves, its reputation as a country that serves the common good of its people,” says Niinistö.
Biaudet, on the other hand, would like Finland to be “a strong international partner and an open society [that] provides an attractive environment for investors and talented people.”
Finns would have a strong sense of self-esteem and xenophobia would be a marginal phenomenon, she adds. “We’d have strong innovative companies, active also in faraway economies, as well as creative entrepreneurs.”
Haavisto and Arhinmäki, for their part, raise the issues of equality and narrowing income disparity as well as ecological improvements, with the former candidate also mentioning increased citizen participation in politics and the latter Finland’s reputation as an “internationally recognised peace-broker and bridge-builder” remaining intact.
Soini’s vision of Finland in 6 or 12 years’ time reflects themes closely associated with his party.
“I’d like Finland to be a thriving, innovative, and international country that comprehends her global responsibility and hosts a self-assured nation that doesn’t need to be ashamed of itself. In Finnish society, different views and opinions live naturally side-by-side and healthy criticism is welcome, not shunned.”
Lipponen, presumably referring in no small measure to Soini and his party, says that he would like to see “Finland taking a big step towards being international. Domestically we’ll be freed from the grip of right-wing populism.”
In the end, there can only be one winner, and as President the victor will get the chance to help steer Finland in their preferred direction. However, if their vision hasn’t been realised after six years, Niinistö has some reassuring words to offer. Although he was beaten in 2006 by Tarja Halonen, the sitting president at the time, Niinistö, by far the most popular candidate in this year’s race so far, partly explains his defeat in 2006 in the following way:
“We Finns don’t remove someone from their job too easily.”
ALLAN BAIN
HELSINKI TIMES
LEHTIKUVA - HEIKKI SAUKKOMAA - MARKKU ULANDER
Source
Since we're also having presidental elections I just thought it'd be nice to post what our candidates are like (even if we don't matter much :D) For ppl from the US (or Russia) it includes some small insights on how us outsiders view their politics.
Commentary in italics is mine (and admittedly biased) and I can remove it if it's distracting