The Hindu : Finding stability in coalitions

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Apr 19, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Finding stability in coalitions

By K.K. Katyal

HELSINKI April 18: Come to think of it, Finland has most of the time been ruled by coalitions. Highly surprising to us in India, used to single-party governments for decades. And Finland has made a reasonably good job of the participatory system while we have yet to imbibe the coalition culture. The comparison, however, is valid only up to a point. Finland is a small, homogenous orderly society of five millions as against India with its huge size, diversities and a billion-plus population.

The composition of Finnish coalitions has varied over the years, representing different permutations and combinations. The present ruling combine comprises the Socialist Democratic Party, the Left group, Conservatives, Greens and the Swedish-speaking party. It is one of the rare occasions when the Left-oriented SPD and the Conservatives share power and, because of that, it is called the ``rainbow coalition''. The main force in the opposition is the Centre Party, representing agrarian interests which, normally, should be a natural ally of the SPD and, by the same logic, the Conservatives ought to have been in the Opposition. But realpolitik takes queer forms in democracies and Finland is no exception. Not all in SPD are happy about it — a senior party MP, Mr. Kimno Kiljunen, called it an unholy coalition — and hope that this anomaly will be removed in the parliamentary elections due next year.

The next election will be the first under the amended Constitution which sets new norms for government formations. Previously the President had the discretion to invite any member in a newly-elected House to try and form the Cabinet, but now the leader of the biggest party will have to be invited. The initiative has, thus, passed from the President to Parliament. Hence the importance of being the largest party: it will be in a position to shape the next dispensation — a coalition, it goes without saying.

The coalitional politics has achieved the present stability after several ups and downs. There was the initial spell of instability (after the country's independence in 1917), with minority cabinets in office failing to provide smooth governance. Then came coalitions, with different sets of partners. During the war, the base of the Government became unusually wider with parties of the Left and Right co-existing in an omnibus set-up. Another period of shaky governments followed after the War and it was in the mid-80s that a stable pattern emerged.

Why did Finland opt for coalitions? The replies to this question posed to Prof. Jukka Paastela of the Department of Political and International Relations, University of Tampare, to the SPD member of Parliament, and Mr. Jouni Molsa, a senior journalist of the country's biggest daily, added up to a cogent explanation. Here are their points: Finland has a multi-party, not a two-party, system and, as such, coalitions are a political necessity. At times the Presidents favoured and worked for coalitions to promote stability and unification. People are given to compromise and consensus. In the last two decades, three parties have had nearly the same strength and hence there is no escape from power-sharing.

It is a vibrant democracy, marked by competitive politics not only among parties but also within parties. At the moment, considerable excitement has been caused by the decision of the Foreign Minister, Mr. Erkki Tuomioja (who was in India this week on a brief visit) to make a bid for SPD's chairmanship — the post held by the Prime Minister, Mr. Paayo Lipponen. Though their basic philosophy is the same — both are socialists, both stand for a welfare state, with emphasis on shelter, food, education, health care for all citizens — their approaches differ in nuances. And that makes the debate on the subject highly lively. The Prime Minister is credited with a more pragmatic approach, cautious by temperament on dealing with both national and international issues. He tends to find solutions for current problems through the European Union.

The Foreign Minister, on the other hand, is forthright, and leans heavily on foreign policy. The Prime Minister is widely known in Europe, has worked hard in putting Finland in the core of the EU decision-taking system and it is because of him that the country has not been on the sidelines. The Foreign Minister, with greater involvement in global politics, has a wider focus, covering, apart from national and EU matters, a vast range of issues like aid to developing countries, human rights, armament reduction and international agreements. To cite one case, the Prime Minister's approach to West Asia is cautious, while the Foreign Minister regards Israel as part of the problem.

The contest is important because the SPD Chairman will be the Prime Minister, subject, of course, to the agreement of the allies in the coalition. Finland has four separate election calendars, of which Parliament, elected every four years (1991, 1995, 1999, etc) and the President, chosen for a six-year term (1988, 1994, 2000) have a higher profile. Then there are municipal elections and the contests for the European Parliament. According to a noted commentator, there has been a growing tendency among the voters to pay greater attention to the choice of individual MPs than to the parties. A typical Finnish approach to politics.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Travesty of the budget

Countering a coup

The Gujarat imbroglio

Tackling judicial arrears

Finding stability in coalitions