THE BREAKTHROUGH OF REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
IN FINLAND
have become world famous. The Nordic social model has
also attracted increasing interest around the world.
ceive attention at meetings and events during the Finnish
Presidency of the EU.
TWO CENTENNIAL SESSIONS
EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE!
The Parliament of Finland is celebrating its centennial
in 2006 and 2007. Centennial sessions will be held on 1
June 2006 and 23 May 2007. The first centennial session
will emphasize internationalism and guests will include
Speakers and delegations from various countries.The session will pass a resolution establishing a research institute
that will focus on international relations and EU affairs.
It is vital for Finland to ensure that decision-makers and
actors in different fields have adequate information concerning changes in our operating environment.
Special guests at the second centennial session will include war veterans, former MPs and young people. The
session will pass a resolution aimed at strengthening the
position of women’s organizations. This is to honour
Finnish women and show that work to achieve equality
is still going on.
The centennial began with the Youth Parliament. Parliament has produced a wide range of materials concerning democracy for use in schools. Special events will be
arranged around the country and abroad. Many occasions
will be open to the public. The centennial will also re-
The most important event during the centennial will be
the parliamentary elections on 18 March 2007. Every
Finnish citizen who has reached the age of 18 by the
election date is entitled to vote. I hope that everyone will
exercise this right.
In this centennial Parliament wants to honour its history and the people who made it. This book gives the
reader a good idea of the birth of Parliament. Warm
thanks go to Juhani Mylly for a job well done.
During the centennial we want to learn from the past
and look to the future. This requires broad, open and
lively public discussion. I hope that the centennial events
will provide a good framework for discussion concerning the future.
I invite everyone in Finland and our friends around
the world to celebrate the first century of our democracy.
I hope that this centennial will strengthen our democracy and point the way for our nation in the future.
ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF FINNISH DEMOCRACY
DEMOCRACY SAVED FINLAND
On 1 June 1906 the Estates of the Grand Duchy of Finland approved a new Parliament Act and Election Act.
Thus began a reform that gave all Finns universal and
equal suffrage as well as the right to stand for election.
The popularly elected Parliament held its first session on
23 May 1907.
One of the most significant achievements of the reform was that Finnish women became the first in the
world to exercise full political rights - the right to vote
and the right to be elected. Nineteen women were in fact
elected to the first Parliament. We are proud of them.
Although the reform did not give Finland, which was
ruled by the Russian tsar, true parliamentary democracy
at that time, it created the basis for Finnish democracy.
When Finland became independent a decade later, in
1917, the supreme organ of state was already in place.
Our political system and nation were built on this foundation.
Parliament has always had an important task in building
national unity. The animosity of the 1918 civil war was
overcome through long-term work in Parliament. When
Finland, like many other European countries, faced the
threat of right-wing radicalism in the 1930s, Parliament
played a crucial role in fighting this threat. Meeting regularly during the Winter War and the Continuation War,
Parliament kept the national spirit alive.
In the unstable post-war years, Parliament was a key
arena of political debate but also constructive cooperation. The achievements of our modern welfare state are
based on our ability to negotiate and reach agreement
and to take care of everyone.
Today Finland is one of the most competitive nations in
the world.We are known for the high level of public education, technological expertise and an operating culture
that is free of corruption. Many of our scientists and artists
2
Paavo Lipponen
Speaker of Parliament
3
THE BREAKTHROUGH OF REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
IN FINLAND
The opening of the Finnish Diet in 1863 at the Imperial Palace in Helsinki, which is nowadays the Presidential Palace. The Diet
Act of 1869 called for the Diet to be convened regularly and established procedures that continued up to the parliamentary
reform of 1906. Oil painting by R.W. Ekman. House of the Nobility. Matti Ruotsalainen.
4
BREAKTHROUGH AND CONTINUITY
AUTONOMOUS FINLAND
AND AUTOCRATIC RUSSIA
Democracy made its breakthrough in Finland suddenly and in exceptional circumstances. Autocracy in Russia was undermined by military defeat and revolution
in 1905-1906. This provided Finland an opportunity to
overhaul its electoral system and Diet.
In describing the breakthrough of democracy, one
should not overlook the aspect of continuity. In addition
to the reforms of 1905-1907 this presentation also looks
at their background: the basis on which Finnish politicians were able in a short time to prepare electoral and
parliamentary reforms that have lasted, with small changes, up to the present day.
Finland, which was annexed to the Russian Empire in
1809, had an essentially Swedish political culture. Owing
to separate administration, the strengthening of the national identity and Russian influence, ties to the Swedish
heritage were gradually weakened, however. Finland did
not become Russified but rather Finnicized and western Europeanized. The formation of Finland’s political
culture in the 19th century was governed by four main
sources of influence: 1) the Swedish political and social
heritage, 2) the connection with Russia, 3) new western
European political currents and 4) Finland’s own political and social process, in which the other three influences
were intermixed in a unique way.
5
1.6.1906
Upper-class home in Turku
in the early 20th century.
Family in Kitee
in the early 20th century.
National Board of Antiquities.
National Board of Antiquities.
FINLAND 1900
In connection with Russia Finns came up against a
completely different political principle, in practice autocracy, and an extreme culture of subservience. The balance
of power, the people’s right to representation, political
parties, an independent press, parliamentarism and civil
rights were on the list of dangerous new ideas in Russia.
The reopening of the Diet in 1863 after a break of
many decades and the new Diet Act of 1869 signified a
great victory for the Liberals and Fennomans, who emphasized constitutionality. They strengthened Finland’s
autonomy and underlined Finland’s special status in the
Russian Empire, particularly when Poland lost its selfgovernment and faced Russification as a result of an uprising around the same time.
It was also important that Alexander II recognized the
Grand Duchy’s constitutional system. He promised to stay
within constitutional limits.The new Diet Act that was ratified by the tsar also referred openly to constitutional laws
during the Swedish period as the source and limiter of the
sovereign’s power. At least equally essential was compliance
with constitutional laws in enacting legislation.
The 1869 Diet Act stated in its first section that the
Diet of the Grand Duchy of Finland represents the people of Finland. Representatives of Finland’s nobles, clergy,
burghers and peasants had been able to participate in national decision-making in the Swedish Diet for centuries. Confidence in the fairness of the Estates began to
weaken in the latter half of the 19th century, however.
This also betokened the forward march of the idea of
modern democracy. The social and political foundations
for the parliamentary reform were laid during the days
of the Diet. The breakthrough in 1905-1907 signified a
great change but was not a rupture with the past.
The nobles’ representation in the Diet was based on
privileged birth, without the need for election.The clergy,
on the other hand, were represented by elected members
including teachers at universities and secondary schools.
The burghers were elected by well-to-do townsfolk, us-
6
POPULATION
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
towns
rural municipalities
Finnish-speaking
Swedish-speaking
Russian-speaking
German-speaking
Saami-speaking
other
ing rights based on land ownership. The size of holdings
influenced the number of votes going to electors, but these
had one vote each when it came to electing representatives. Women did not have the right to vote or stand for
election. Most of the adult population was disenfranchised.
2 712 562
341 602
2 370 960
2 352 990
349 733
5 939
1 921
1 336
643
12.59 %
87.41 %
86.75 %
12.89 %
0.22 %
0.07 %
0.05 %
0.02 %
THE DIET AND THE SOVEREIGN’S POWER
The Diet Act of 1869 faithfully followed the sovereigncentred constitution created by King Gustav III of Sweden. One of the most important changes was the regular
convening of the Diet. The Diet had to be convened at
least every five years. Solutions in committees had to be
reached through joint decisions. This emphasized the significance of committee work. After many attempts the
Diet finally received the right to introduce legislation in
1888. Financial authority was mainly in the hands of the
sovereign and the domestic government, the Senate.
The way the Diet operated was also significantly reformed. By the time of the parliamentary reform of
1906, the work methods, norms and organization that
INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE
■
■
■
■
agriculture and forestry
manufacturing, crafts and construction
commerce, transport and services
other occupations
73 %
11 %
8%
8%
ing a weighted system based on taxable income and with
different trades excluded on the basis of the Diet Act. Peasants’ representatives were elected in two stages, with vot-
7
Members of the Peasants’
Estate in the 1863 Diet.
would reject a bicameral system. Pushing this kind of reform was not realistic. Initiatives concerning voting rights
also met with the same criticism in the contest between
wishes and stark realism.
owners, mill owners, privileged tradesmen, house owners, mayors and councilmen. An amendment in 1879 removed this list, however. The Estate of the Burghers lost
its trade corporation nature and was expanded to include
everyone living in towns. In addition to the ability to pay
taxes, the right to vote now depended on whether a person was a member of a group that was expressly denied
this right, such as women and lower social groups.
Meanwhile in municipal elections unmarried women
and widows who managed their own affairs and property
and paid taxes were allowed to vote. Women had similar
rights in rural areas on the basis of land ownership. This
stoked dissatisfaction and created pressure to expand the
electorate in national elections.
Up to the 1880s the exclusion lists drawn up by towns
had a decisive influence on who could vote and who could
not.The minimum amount of income required to vote was
so low that it only excluded the poorest people. In the 1880s
it became a significant limiter of the right to vote, however.
Market life in the Hakaniemi section of Helsinki in 1907. National Board of Antiquities.
THE SUFFRAGE MOVEMENT
had been established in the Diet over the decades - committee work, discussing bills in sessions, meeting practices,
procedures, smoothing out differences between political
groups - offered a ready-made basis for the new democratic Parliament. The Diet Act of 1869 served as the
foundation when the Parliamentary Reform Committee
set to work in the winter of 1905–1906.
Compared with the pace of change in western Europe, in 1869 the Finnish Diet appeared oligarchic and its
four Estates old-fashioned. The Liberals were the first to
express dissatisfaction but many Fennomans soon joined
he critics.When the Diet Act was prepared in 1863-1864,
the Liberals were already calling for a bicameral parliament. Such an institution was becoming more common
in Europe, with the British Parliament serving as a model. Norway had adopted a unicameral system in 1814,
Denmark a bicameral system in 1849 and Sweden likewise in 1866. In Finland initiatives for a bicameral system
were repeatedly voted down in the Estates. Representatives anticipated that the authorities, ultimately the tsar,
8
The Estate of the Burghers was the only one whose
electorate expanded significantly before the 1906 parliamentary reform. The vagueness of the Diet Act left
room for towns’ own interpretations and the expansion of the electorate, and the election system was motley in practice. The Fennomans began to eat away at the
Svecomans’ power in the Estate of the Burghers in the
1880s. The Estate of the Nobles was largely controlled
by Svecomans, while the Fennomans controlled the Estates of the Clergy and Peasants.
The Diet Act of 1869 gave the right to vote and the
right to stand for election to taxpaying burghers, ship-
9
1.6.1906
National Board of Antiquities.
Members of the Burghers’ Estate
in the 1897 Diet visiting
the summer home of
J.L. Runeberg in Kroksnäs.
Political movements
in the early 20th century
were also visible
on postcards.
National Board of Antiquities.
National Board of Antiquities.
The intensifying struggle for power politicized the
election of the Estate of the Burghers in the 1880s. The
most serious dispute concerned voting scales, which the
Diet Act did not limit in any way. To avoid excesses the
towns had increasingly shifted to a limited voting scale.
This was also supported by the Senate when it approved
towns’ new election ordinances. An upper limit of 25
votes eliminated the most glaring cases but kept power in
the hands of wealthy burghers and officials.
In the latter half of the 1890s ten towns shifted to an
upper limit of 10 votes, which meant that wealthy burghers lost their majorities to burghers with middle incomes.
The change also shifted power from Swedish speakers
to Finnish speakers in towns that were mainly Finnishspeaking. In the Fennomans’ view this was not a question
of democratization but of taking over towns and the Estate of the Burghers from the Svecomans.
The idea of equal and even universal suffrage was
voiced as early as the 1880s by the «young» faction of the
Finnish Party, which represented the younger generation
of Finnish-speaking liberals. In 1894 they broke away to
form the Young Finns. While the Old Finns continued
to support an upper limit of 10 votes, the Young Finns
classes. This became clearly visible in 1904, when suffrage
demonstrations organized by the party began to attract
large crowds. The labour movement assumed leadership
of the suffrage movement.
The Swedish Party held on to an upper limit of at
least 25 votes. Since its supporters represented old power
and wealth, with a majority of votes they were also able
to keep power even in towns with a Finnish-speaking
majority. Rapidly growing Helsinki was particularly important for the Svecomans.
The 1897 Diet produced 17 initiatives to amend the
Diet Act. The Young Finns were the most active. The
three most radical initiatives were aimed at eliminating
voting scales based on wealth in the election of the Estate of the Burghers.
The question of women’s suffrage also came to the
fore. Some members of the Estate of the Burghers proposed that women should have the same voting rights as
men. The majority of the Law Committee politely rejected this idea, but five members came out in support
of the initiative. The significant thing is that the Estates of
the Nobles and Burghers, with the Svecomans in control,
agreed with the minority view in their own decisions.
started urging equal voting rights under the slogan «one
man, one vote».
Equal voting rights also received the support of the labour movement in 1896. Among the organized working
class, however, the idea of striving for democracy gained
strength in the following years. The Labour Party that
was established in 1899 started demanding equal, universal and direct suffrage for every Finnish citizen over
the age of 21, male or female, in national and local elections, along with a proportional election system. The Labour Party was the first in Finland to adopt a democratic stance. At the Forssa party congress in 1903 the Labour Party approved a socialist programme and changed
its name to the Social Democratic Party. It also began
demanding a unicameral Parliament. The party’s radical
line increasingly received support among the lower social
10
THE ISSUE OF SUFFRAGE IN THE SHADOW OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL STRUGGLE
Finns mainly took satisfaction in Russia’s military losses to Japan in 1904-1905. After the Tsushima naval battle, constitutionalists in Helsinki even began answering
the phone with the Japanese battle cry «banzai». Rus-
11
15.3.1907
Internationalism also
created a basis for
demands for democracy.
Magnus Enckell,
Elementary School 1899. Ateneum.
Members of Parliament
outside the Helsinki Fire
Brigade building waiting for
the beginning
of the opening session.
Indursky.
sia’s setbacks encouraged Finnish resistance. During the
war years Finns generally followed anti-tsarist activities in
Russia with sympathy.
The tsarist administration’s attempts to integrate Finland into the Russian Empire and promote Russification had sorely aggravated Finnish-Russian relations.
The closing of newspapers, the forced expansion of the
use of Russian, the tightening of censorship, the restriction of civil rights, dismissals, arrests and deportations had
aroused much bitterness.
The assassination of Governor-General Bobrikov in
1904 was viewed as a dangerous sign of the times by the
harried tsarist administration, foreboding a worsening of
the situation in the area around the capital. Since the war
with Japan was in a difficult stage, it was important to keep
the restless western borderlands peaceful. The easing of
Russia’s Finnish policy in 1904-1905 revealed a cautious,
temporary retreat from a Bobrikovian attack, but it did not
signify the abandonment of Russian integrationist goals.
The 1897 Diet had asked the Senate for a proposal
to expand voting rights, but despite repeated urging the
process took seven years. The proposed amendments to
the Diet Act in 1904-1905 were intended to bring equal
voting rights to the common Estates. The Senate and the
sovereign did not give in, however, viewing this as the last
barrier against rule by the masses.The Senate also wanted
the voting age to be 25 instead of 21. Women and labourers were not included in the electorate.
The proposal was a step forward, but compared with
the wishes of the people it did not go nearly far enough.
The labour movement had got the people to participate
in massive demonstrations by demanding universal and
equal suffrage and a unicameral Parliament.
The Diet, which was controlled by constitutionalists,
managed to get around the issue of voting rights and
focused on restoring legality. The Constitutional Committee completed its report and supported equal voting rights, but it proposed the elimination of requirements concerning minimum income. All that would be
required was the obligation to pay taxes, without fixed
income limits. The minority even considered this unnecessary. The majority were also prepared to grant the
right to vote, but not stand for election, to women and
labourers. The Constitutional Committee examined the
12
voting rights reform clearly from a democratic perspective.
The Nobles and Burghers did not even discuss the report, but the Clergy and Peasants approved it. The fact
that two Estates took a democratic stand contained a
promise that the labour movement worked hard to keep
alive. When a consensus could not be reached, the voting
rights reform was held over to the next Diet.
Finland’s Great Strike began on 30 October and ended on 6 November 1905. It created an exceptional atmosphere that was marked by a sense of freedom, optimism and energy. Behind lay political oppression, ahead
lay inspiring new vistas. Finns savoured the political thaw.
At the top of the list of wishes were a reform of the Diet,
freedom of the press and democratic civil rights. Finns’
reaction, particularly in the early stage of the Great Strike,
was mainly reformist and nationalist. The November
Manifesto, which was signed by the tsar on 4 November
1905, honoured these wishes.
The Senate had the task of preparing a new Parliament Act, «which means the modern reorganization of
Finland’s national assembly, applying the principle of universal and equal suffrage in electing members». New constitutional laws were intended to guarantee civil liberties
and the Senate’s accountability to Parliament. The manifesto repealed the repressive regulations of the Bobrikov
period. An extraordinary Diet was convened on 20 December 1905 to discuss the Senate’s proposals.
The November Manifesto largely complied with the
constitutionalist burghers’ wishes. In supporting uni-
PRELUDE TO THE PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
The Russian revolution expanded into a general strike
in October 1905. This time the democrats among the
burghers joined in. On 30 October 1905 Tsar Nicholas
II issued the October Manifesto, in which he promised
to relinquish autocracy and establish the Duma. This
was to be a popularly elected assembly with legislative
power. He also promised the people civil liberties and a
reform of voting rights. When tougher measures were
taken to suppress the general strike, it quickly ended in
early November. The situation in Russia remained uncertain.
13
Professor Robert Hermanson
chaired the Parliamentary
Reform Committee
in 1905–1906.
Portrait by Väinö Blomstedt.
The Great Strike in November 1905 was a turning point in Finland’s history. The Red Declaration was issued from the balcony of city
hall in Tampere. This demanded the convening of a national assembly to draft a new Constitution. National Board of Antiquities.
versal and equal suffrage it also took heed of the labour
movement and the revolutionary situation. Conservative
constitutionalists, mainly Svecomans, still considered universal and equal suffrage too bold a step. Attitudes were
changing, however. What was regarded as moderate re-
formism in the Diet now appeared old-fashioned. What
had previously been viewed as radicalism was quickly
becoming moderation. This created a situation in which
a bold reform was possible.
14
A new Senate composed of constitutionalists was appointed on 1 December 1905, with Leo Mechelin as
vice president of the Financial Department (equivalent
to prime minister). The Senate mainly consisted of oldergeneration Svecomans and Young Finns. One of the new
Senate’s first tasks was to appoint a Parliamentary Reform Committee on 4 December 1905. This committee
mostly included the same people as the committee appointed by the old Senate. The Social Democrats, who
had displayed their power in the Great Strike, received
three seats, the Young Finns and Svecomans four each
and the Old Finns three.
Professor Robert Hermanson was appointed to chair
the committee. Other Svecomans were T.J. Boisman, Felix Heikel and Emil Schybergson. Young Finns included
Santeri Alkio, Thiodolf Rein, E.N. Setälä and P.E. Svinhufvud. Old Finns were represented by J.R. Danielson,
J.K. Paasikivi and Juho Torppa. The Social Democrats
were represented by H. Lindroos,Yrjö Sirola and Edvard
Valpas.
Ten of the fourteen members of the committee had
served in the Diet. Danielson, Heikel, Hermanson, Rein
and Schybergson had thoroughly studied the old representative system and development abroad. To this group
of experts should be added the names of Setälä and
Paasikivi. Owing to internal conflicts the old political
elite could not dictate the final outcome, however. The
committee was also strongly influenced by outside pressures. Demonstrations, strikes and the threat of a revolution kept the need to gain the people’s approval present.
The committee played a key role in shaping the parliamentary reform. The Senate discussed its report in late
February 1906 and made only a few changes when it
prepared its proposal.
In April 1906 the Russian members of the RussianFinnish negotiating body tried to revoke limitations on
the tsar’s powers, and Nicholas II almost without exception agreed with the Russian members on disputed
points. Finns’ efforts to create a strong Parliament were
stymied. When the proposal was again discussed by the
Finnish Diet in May, it lacked the courage to insist. The
committee report nevertheless laid the foundation for
the 1906 Parliament Act and Election Act, except for expanding Parliament’s powers.
15
15.3.1907
Matti Ruotsalainen.
15.3.1907
UNICAMERAL OR BICAMERAL?
According to another proposal Parliament should be
unicameral formally but in fact should operate and be
elected as if it were bicameral, in the same way as Norway’s national assembly was divided into chambers. Critics emphasized that the educated classes would have a
stronger voice in the unicameral Parliament, among the
other members.
In the committee a unicameral Parliament was supported by the three Old Finns, Alkio and Svinhufvud among
the Young Finns and the Social Democrats, or eight members out of fourteen. The Svecomans, Setälä and Rein favoured a bicameral system or a division into chambers. By
not voting the committee adopted a unicameral system as
the basis of its work on 9 December 1905.
In many important matters the Parliamentary Reform
Committee easily reached agreement on general lines
such as universal and equal suffrage, for women as well as
men, and regulations concerning the convening and dissolving of Parliament and the convening of an extraordinary session. A more difficult question was whether Parliament should be organized on a unicameral or bicameral basis. Another significant controversy concerned the
election system.
The idea of a unicameral Parliament had received
broad backing in the nation’s political circles even before the committee went to work. The labour movement
had strongly supported a unicameral system for years
and the Old Finns came out publicly in favour of it at
their party conference on 29-30 December 1905. On the
other hand a bicameral system also had its own supporters, mainly among the Swedish Party but also among the
Young Finns.
According to one committee member’s proposal, Parliament should be a combination of democracy and the rule
of the educated classes. Key decision-making power should
be exercised by the second chamber, but the first chamber
should have a suspensive veto and a supervisory role.
FROM THE IDEA OF CHAMBERS
TO THE GRAND COMMITTEE
In its further preparations the majority of the committee nevertheless wanted to divide Parliament when it
enacted legislation. The plenary session would still have
final decision-making power in all cases and the committees would still operate. The chambers’ powers would be
clearly more limited than in Norway.
16
Universal and equal suffrage for the whole nation! National Board of Antiquities. Hakon Lindholm.
17
16.3.1907
Finnish women
marched for
the right to vote
in Helsinki
in the early
20th century.
Finnish Press
Agency.
The Social Democrats arranged demonstrations
against the division of Parliament into chambers. Demonstrations had actually continued since the end of the
Great Strike. They all supported universal and equal suffrage and a unicameral Parliament.
In the Estates there was fear that unbridled democracy would lead the majority to adopt oppressive and rash
policies. Leo Mechelin, the vice president of the Senate
(prime minister), proposed the establishment of a board
that would represent the judiciary, the universities, business and local authorities. This board would have been
able to suspend legislation but would not have had independent decision-making power.
Mechelin’s proposal was completely unrealistic as a basis for compromise. Pressures for democracy had intensified among the Old Finns as well. The spirit of change
was visible at the above-mentioned party conference,
where the democratic field carried the day. The party
leadership, under Danielson, began steering the party towards cooperation with the labour movement.
There was a clear need for a compromise. On 18 January 1906 the committee began discussing a proposal for a
Grand Committee that was put forward by Felix Heikel.
Its key idea was that Parliament would elect 48-60 of its
members to the Grand Committee, using a proportional
system. The Grand Committee would participate in handling all legislative matters.
The committee decided to adopt Heikel’s proposal as
the basis for further discussion, and the Grand Committee with some changes ultimately found its way into the
1906 Parliament Act. Those who wanted a bicameral system were disappointed by the result. The Old Finns and
Alkio considered it satisfactory, however. In the Socialists’
opinion the Grand Committee was an unnecessary vestige of a bicameral system.
WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE
The November Manifesto had promised universal and
equal suffrage. The Parliamentary Reform Committee’s
task was to determine how this promise would concern
women. The pressure to give women the vote was great,
for many reasons. Women had risen to leading social
positions, had been admitted to universities and had assumed an important role in education and culture. They
took part in working life alongside men in Finland more
18
than in any other European country. Women’s organizations on both the right and left had also worked hard for
voting rights. The promise of parliamentary reform had
further spurred activity. Men’s opinions had also matured,
as the 1904-1905 Diet showed. Furthermore, the nation
had a debt of honour to pay. During the period of repression, women had joined men in the constitutional struggle against the Bobrikov administration. All these arguments for giving women the vote were used in deciding
the matter.
Opposing voices were scarce in the winter of 19051906.The counter-arguments were also not as effective as
those in favour. The main counter-argument was the old
idea that a woman’s place was in the home, as wife and
mother, and that women should leave politics and social
matters to men. Even many men considered this view
outmoded. The strengthening of women’s social and political position was a historical process that appeared inevitable, like a force of nature. The supporters of democracy
were well aware that women still lacked the vote all over
Europe. Finland’s reformers were not short of courage in
this matter, however. They wanted to achieve something
in which their small country would be in the vanguard
and not follow in the wake of larger countries.
19
16.3.1907
Demonstrations were
arranged around
the country beginning
with the Great Strike in 1905.
R E L AT I O N S B E T W E E N T H E H I G H E S T O R G A N S O F S TAT E
RUSSIAN TSAR - GRAND DUKE OF FINLAND
■
Finnish Press Agency.
■
■
■
■
supreme legislative power
convening the Diet
dissolving the Diet
appointing the Senate
appointing the Speakers
GOVERNOR-GENERAL
al attitude is often much higher than men’s. There is no
need to fear that they will misuse it.”
Women’s right to stand for election caused considerable debate in the committee the following day. It was
considerably more difficult to give women the right to
stand for election than to give them the vote. The former
meant allowing women to become Members of Parliament and participate in key political decision-making,
while the latter left them in the role of voters and outside parliamentary work. Edvard Valpas supported giving
women the right to stand for election, pointing to women’s participation in work outside the home. Thiodolf
Rein was not afraid for Finland to act as a pioneer: ”We
lag behind others in so many matters; why should we not
be first for once!” A clear majority of the committee were
in favour of allowing women to stand for election. Only
Hermanson, Heikel and Schybergson were opposed. The
Old Finns Danielson and Torppa remained uncertain.
Chairman Hermanson summed up the debate by noting:
”The committee decided that the right to stand for election should be given to women as well as men.”
This was a historical decision. The committee’s proposal to give women the right to vote and particularly to
stand for election was extremely bold at the time, even
The committee addressed the issue of women’s suffrage
on 12 December 1905. The discussion was not long or
difficult, but instead the committee immediately decided
to grant women the vote, almost unanimously. There was
only one sour note: Chairman Robert Hermanson opposed women’s right to vote and on the following day
women’s right to stand for election when this came up
for debate. He was afraid that women’s participation in
political life would cause more damage than good. Women as ”emotional beings” were likely to be swayed to extreme stands. They could perform very important tasks in
society but he thought that politics was in conflict with
women’s basic nature. Hermanson’s old-fashioned stand
was not shared by others. One of the most enthusiastic
supporters was Santeri Alkio:
”Now that we are giving the right to vote to labourers, why not give it to our best educators. Women’s mor-
20
MINISTER SECRETARY OF STATE
link between the tsar and the Diet
opening the Diet
chairman of the Senate
Russian citizen
posted in Helsinki
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
IMPERIAL SENATE
DIET/PARLIAMENT
■
■
■
presenting Finnish matters to the tsar
contacts with the Senate
Finnish citizen
posted in St Petersburg
approving laws
approving the budget
limited right to initiate legislation
■
■
■
■
revolutionary, in both the domestic and European context. Finnish women were the first in Europe to receive
the right to vote and stand for election. In spring 1907
they became the first women in the world to become
Members of Parliament.
government of the Grand Duchy
preparing imperial bills
accountable only to the tsar
supreme judicial authority
1905. The Social Democrats and progressive burghers
wanted 21 as the voting age. This was also when people
assumed majority. Those who wanted to set the voting
age at 25 argued that 21-year-olds were not sufficiently
mature to bear political responsibility.
The majority of the committee initially adopted the
view that if the voting age was 21, the minimum age to
stand for election should be 25. On 10 January 1906 the
committee voted to make 21 the voting age and to propose that 24 or 25 be set as the minimum age to stand for
election. A minority also wanted to make 24 the voting
AGE LIMITS AND RESTRICTIONS
ON VOTING RIGHTS
The committee began discussing the minimum age required to vote and stand for election on 14 December
21
Kurikka magazine 1905.
National Board of Antiquities.
WHAT KIND OF ELECTION SYSTEM?
age. The Senate concurred with this view and also set 24
as the minimum age to stand for election.
The labour movement was adamantly opposed to other restrictions on voting rights. They feared that the upper classes would try to shut the indigent and even poor
people outside the electorate. The majority of the committee eventually took quite a liberal line towards voting
restrictions.
The list was also critically evaluated by Hermanson,
Boisman, Heikel, Rein and Schybergson. In their opinion people regularly receiving poor relief should lose
the right to vote. They emphasized that the right to vote
required independence and they appended a dissenting
view to the report. Once again they were successful and a
provision concerning people on poor relief was inserted
in the Parliament Act, though in a narrower form.
administration as far as possible. Everyone in turn also
called for ”realism” or caution, however.
The committee considered ways to increase the government’s accountability to Parliament, give Parliament
greater budgetary power and generally strengthen Parliament’s position. What finally came out of proposals was
the continuity of parliamentary work regardless of the
sovereign’s will, the limited right to present questions to
the members of the Senate and the establishment of the
Constitutional Law Committee.
All in all the attempts by the committee and the Senate to expand Parliament’s powers at the expense of the
sovereign produced meagre fruit. The biggest victory was
the establishment of a new democratic assembly, which
by its very existence questioned the sovereign’s anachronistic powers.
RESTRICTING THE SOVEREIGN’S POWERS
The relation between the parliamentary reform and the
sovereign’s powers and Russia complicated the committee’s work. The committee largely agreed when it came
to expanding the rights of Parliament and Finnish self-
22
work well enough. Each electoral district would return
12-21 MPs, according to its population. Voters had the
right to form electoral associations. The subcommittee
decided on the d’Hondt method for allocating seats. This
meant that candidates had a better chance of being elected if they belonged to an electoral alliance or party list.
The committee went along with the proposal, which
was approved by a vote of nine to four. The Senate
changed provisions regarding the number of districts, setting a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 18.
In discussing the election system the committee had to
form an opinion on three key questions: 1) Should Finland have a first-past-the-post or proportional system or
a mixture of the two? 2) How should it be divided into
electoral districts? 3) Should indirect elections be held
alongside direct elections? These three questions were intertwined.
The main lines were drawn as in the debate over
whether Parliament should be unicameral or bicameral,
between the old political elite and new forces. When the
committee quickly rejected the bicameral system, differences regarding the election system became even more
important. A proportional system could ensure minorities’ position better than a first-past-the-post system. On
the basis of experience abroad, the committee knew that
a first-past-the-post system favoured large parties. If it
chose such a system the Swedish Party was in danger of
being trampled by the larger Finnish parties.
In early 1906 the committee appointed a subcommittee to draft an Election Act. This subcommittee proposed
that the country be divided into 15 electoral districts.
This would ensure that a proportional system would
THE SOVEREIGN’S BILLS TO THE DIET
”His Imperial Majesty’s Gracious Bill to the Finnish Diet
concerning a new Parliament Act and Election Act for
the Grand Duchy of Finland” was presented to the Diet
on 9 May 1906. After the revisions made by the FinnishRussian negotiating body and the tsar’s decisions, there
was not much room for major changes without endangering the entire reform. In proposing changes the Diet had to consider whether they would be approved by
the tsar. Particularly provisions regarding the sovereign’s
powers were no longer open to debate. The Senate took
23
16.3.1907
”The last moments
of class division”.
At the bottom citizens
are waiting for the gentry’s
party to end.
«The eagle leaves Finland».
Ragnhild Sellén portrayed
the liberated Maid of Finland in 1906.
Finland in the shadow
of a great power. Predicting
the future on New Year’s Eve.
National Board of Antiquities.
National Board of Antiquities.
a cautious line and did not hesitate to intervene in the
discussion when it thought this was necessary. The constitutional decision also had to be approved by all four
Estates. None of the Estates wanted to endanger the great
reform.
Events in Russia also hastened the parliamentary reform. The change of government in Russia did not bode
well for democracy. The government and the first Duma that convened on 10 May 1906 immediately found
themselves on a collision course when the Duma began
to demand a parliamentary government and a thorough
reform of the regime. Russia’s crisis deepened and the
government prepared to dissolve the Duma.
The Constitutional Law Committee had already started discussing the reform in March on the basis of the
Hermanson committee’s report and then the Senate’s
proposal. By the time the tsar’s bill was presented to the
Diet, the Constitutional Law Committee had reached a
second reading in its unofficial handling of the matter. Its
report was completed on 25 May 1906. The Constitutional Law Committee unanimously approved the main
lines of the reform, with fairly little debate. Disagreement
arose over the voting age, with the majority in favour of
setting it at 24.
The Constitutional Law Committee was satisfied with
the proposed Election Act. One reason was undoubtedly
the fact that the Election Act was drafted by Finns and
did not have to be rewritten by the Finnish-Russian negotiating body, in contrast with the Parliament Act. The
sovereign in his own bill had mainly confirmed the outcome.
24
All the Estates conducted a general discussion of the Constitutional
Law Committee’s report on 28 May
1906. The detailed discussion of the
bills began the next day. Demonstrations calling for universal suffrage reached a climax around this time. On the
other hand many leaders in the labour movement were
aware of realities. The parliamentary reform was likely
to get through the Diet, so there was no point aggravating the situation. Workers surrounding the House of
the Estates were a serious reminder of the disenfranchised
masses and the demand for democracy.
In the Estate of the Nobility a small but vocal minority strongly opposed the establishment of a unicameral
Parliament and the approval of the Parliament Act. Many
of the nobles in the Swedish Party had clearly favoured a
bicameral solution earlier on, but opinions had changed.
The Act did contain several provisions that protected the
minority’s position. Once the size of factions had been
determined through voting, the Estate of the Nobility
approved the entire Act on 29 May 1906.
In the other three Estates a unicameral system had
strong backing. Most of the members of the Estates of the
Clergy and Peasants enthusiastically supported a unicam-
eral Parliament, while some members of the Estate of the Burghers
were more cautious. The biggest
bones of contention in the three
common Estates regarded the voting age and the election system.
The Estate of the Clergy voted on age limits, the election method and electoral districts. Once the main principles had been resolved, it quickly approved the Act on
29 May 1906.
The unicameral system also had strong backing in the
Estate of the Burghers, but some members were uneasy
about such a major reform. Despite arguments concerning ”inexperienced forces” and the class politics and hatred that were visible in workers’ demonstrations, most of
the members realized that political maturity could only
be achieved by exercising political rights. The Estate of
the Burghers eventually approved 24 as the voting age by
a clear majority of 59-10.
The Estate of the Peasants had many members who
wanted a voting age of 21, small electoral districts and
a first-past-the-post system. There was also dissatisfaction
about restrictions on voting rights.The result was lengthy
debates and numerous votes. In the end the Estate of the
25
D E V E L O P M E N T O F T H E PA R T Y S Y S T E M
Swedish party
(Svecomans)
Finnish party
(Fennomans)
1880
language
dispute
Old Finns
Liberals
Young Finns
labour associations
1899
1905–
1907
Compliants
(Old Finns)
Finnish Party
Constitutionalists
Svecomans
Young Finns
Agrarian Party
Social Democratic Party
Young Finnish
Party
Swedish
People’s Party
Election poster designed
by Alex Federley for the Swedish
People’s Party in 1907.
A man with a flag was the party’s
symbol for many years.
Christian
Labour
Party
National Board of Antiquities.
Peasants also approved a proportional system and the proposed electoral districts, however. The pressure to reach a
consensus with the other Estates and knowledge of their
decisions influenced the outcome. At any rate a dissenting stance would have been voted down in the compromise stage. The Estate of the Peasants approved the Election Act without amendment.
On 1 June 1906 the Estates approved the Constitutional Law Committee’s proposal to reconcile the decisions made by the individual Estates. After all the caution
and discipline that was shown in the Diet, ”the Finnish
Diet’s Obedient Response to His Imperial Majesty’s Gracious Bill concerning a new Parliament Act and Election
Act for the Grand Duchy of Finland” did not contain
dangerous changes. Nicholas II ratified the new Parliament Act, Election Act and Enforcing Act on 20 July
Historical election day in
Kankaankylä, Ylihärmä in 1907.
1906. By this time the tsar had already decided to dissolve
the Duma, which he did the following day. Russia’s political crisis marched in step with Finland’s parliamentary
reform all the way.
POLITICAL MOBILIZATION
AND THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN
Urban workers had become politically active in the late
19th century and now they were joined by labourers and
small farmers in the countryside. Party agitators stirred
up people at mass meetings and demonstrations, and as
the election approached candidates joined in. Party programmes were an important weapon in the first general
election – considerably more important than in many
subsequent elections.
26
National Board of Antiquities.
in Oulu. From the very beginning it was a modern mass
party whose programme promoted political agrarianism
and reform.
The Social Democrats had gained the upper hand in
the suffrage movement before the Great Strike. In the
fight for mass support this was highly significant, since
the number one issue in Finnish politics in 1905-1906
was the parliamentary reform. Strong growth in the Social Democratic Party’s organization was one of the clearest expressions of political mobilization. In two years the
number of party branches increased nearly tenfold from
99 to 937 and members increased more than fivefold
The election reform increased the number of voters
tenfold, from about 126,000 to 1,272,873. In a predominantly agrarian country this meant keen competition for
support among the rural population. Political movements
among small farmers and tenants began in the early part
of 1906. In spring 1906 the tenants’ movement was mainly channeled under the Social Democrats’ slogans.
Party movements among small farmers in Ostrobothnia and eastern Finland first led to regional agrarian unions, some of which were independent while others were influenced by the old parties. The forerunner
of the Agrarian Party was established in September 1906
27
23.5.1907
The lion flag and
a lake scene
symbolized Finland
in this postcard.
National Board of Antiquities.
Women MPs from different parties in 1907. National Board of Antiquities.
from 16,610 to 85,027. The significant thing in this rapid
growth was the party’s success in spreading from urban
areas to the countryside.
The party demanded greater legislative power for Parliament, the full right of Parliament to initiate legislation,
the accountability of the Senate to Parliament and the
expansion of Parliament’s budgetary power. The most
effective election weapon was the social section of the
programme, which demanded the reform of labour protection and labour inspection as well as accident, disability and old-age insurance. The agricultural section of the
programme was aimed at tenant farmers and labourers.
The parties on the right rushed to catch up with the
socialists. They reformed their organizations, drafted pro-
grammes and got busy with political field work. Organizational reform did not result in modern mass parties like the
SDP, but afterwards the parties on the right also had a national election machinery. In Finland’s political history the
period 1905-1907 signified a fundamental breakthrough
that gave the country a modern multi-party system.
The Old Finns had already begun tightening their
ranks in the winter of 1904-1905. At the 1905 party congress they received a modern three-tier form and started
developing a national field organization. They were considerably better prepared for the election than the Young
Finns, who had hurriedly regrouped.The Old Finns’ programme emphasized language policy and resolving problems in the countryside and was basically social reformist.
28
The Old Finns were the only ones who could to some
extent counter the Social Democrats’ advance in the
countryside and compete with their election campaign
and programme.
In April 1906 the Young Finns’ party congress approved
a new programme, but their poor outlook for the election
and the superiority of the Old Finns’ programme forced
the Young Finns to revise their programme in December,
though not as much as the rural wing would have liked.
With regard to labour issues and women’s equality the
programme was progressive, however. Constitutionalism,
tolerance, liberalism and equality had support among the
people, but success could not be solidly built on them.
The greatest problem facing the Swedish Party when
it met in May 1906 was disunity. Reorganization was
based on a modern political party rather than a cultural
alliance. The party was united above all by constitutionalism and language. It renamed itself the Swedish People’s
Party. The new name reflected the goal of bringing the
rural Swedish-speaking population into the fold. Universal suffrage made it important to collect votes from the
entire Swedish-speaking population.
The election was held on 15-16 March 1907. People
eagerly exercised their right to vote and the turnout was
70.7%. In addition to political activeness the people displayed skill in dealing with the fairly complicated election procedure.
The election result was a surprise. The Social Democrats took no less than 80 seats out of 200. This considerably surpassed the number that had been anticipated, even
in the Social Democrats’ own camp. It is worth noting
that the SDP received 37.6 per cent of the vote in rural
29
P.E. Svinhufvud chairs the first session of Parliament
in 1907. The unicameral Parliament met
in the Helsinki Fire Brigade building in 1907–1910.
National Board of Antiquities. Signe Brander.
areas, compared with 33.3 per cent in towns. The SDP
was also the strongest rural party in the 1907 election.
The Old Finns did well in the countryside and their
59 seats in the new Parliament seemed a reasonable result,
although the party had hoped for more. The Old Finns
also increased their support in towns, mainly at the expense of the Young Finns.
For the Young Finns 26 seats signified a collapse. Before the election the Young Finns had been the biggest
faction in the Diet. The Swedish People’s Party won 24
seats. The new Agrarian Party captured 9 seats in northern and eastern Finland, where the Young Finns had traditionally been strong. The Christian Labour Party won
2 seats.
The words that were spoken on 23 May 1907 by Iisakki Hoikka, who served as Speaker by virtue of seniority, reflected public opinion: ”I dare to say that no matter
how conflicting the ripples on the surface may appear,
at bottom the goal is the same everywhere. As a whole
our nation shares the earnest wish that the convening of
the Parliament that now replaces the old Diet will mean
real progress for our land, by eliminating problems in
our society, and that the material and spiritual situation
of the large majority of our people will be substantially
30
improved through legislation based on the foundation of
justice and fairness.”
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BREAKTHROUGH
OF REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
In a democracy the right to vote belongs to every social group and each citizen has one vote. Universal and
equal suffrage and the unicameral Parliament were a very
bold step at the time. Since Finland had previously lagged
clearly behind its Scandinavian neighbours and developed western European countries, the parliamentary reform appeared revolutionary against the background of
the oligarchic Diet.
Democracy also includes broad civil liberties, which allow citizens to express and publish opinions, form associations and hold meetings. In August the sovereign ratified a
general provision concerning freedom of speech, assembly
and association, but subsequently he only ratified legislation concerning public meetings. He did not ratify the
Freedom of the Press Act or the Association Act.
The proportional election system allowed small parties to thrive and have a say in politics. The multi-party system that is characteristic of Nordic democracy has
31
Ticket to the opening
of Parliament in 1907.
National Board of Antiquities.
prevented confrontationalism, promoted social peace and
provided good conditions for stable development.
The old political elite also ensured its position in the
new Parliament. The use of party lists under the new
Election Act made it possible to nominate general candidates and ensure the party leaders’ election.
After the 1906 parliamentary reform, Finland still did not
have a government accountable to Parliament. Nor could
Parliament oversee the legality of the government’s activities.The sovereign alone appointed and dismissed senators.
When Finland gained independence, many of the sovereign’s powers were inherited by the President of the
Republic. It was not until the constitutional reform of
2000 that relations among the branches of government
were arranged on a normal parliamentary basis.
The next general election, in 2007, will be conducted
according to the same basic principles that were approved
in 1906. The present Procedure of Parliament contains a
considerable number of provisions that date all the way
back to 1869.
The permanence of Parliament’s composition, structure and procedures throughout the past century, with all
its changes, has had great significance for the successful
building of the Finnish welfare state.
32