Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Polarization in the Finnish parliament (eduskunta)

Introduction

political eduskint finland

Parliament is the highest representative and legislative body in the states where the separation of powers is established. Parliament is a representative body in which the entire population and regions of the country are represented by their chosen representatives. As a rule, the whole parliament, or the lower house of parliament (for example, in federations) is formed through general elections. In modern states, parliaments, as a rule, are legislative bodies, that is, they are empowered to enact laws, and, to some extent, to form and monitor the executive power (for example, to pass a vote of no confidence in the government and impeach the president).

Legislatures are the main institutions responsible for developing policies in modern democracies. The basic policy decisions such as budgets, international treaties and trade agreements, rules regulating social relations, economic processes, understanding of human rights and freedoms must have the approval of legislatures.

According to John Carey (2006) there five main tasks performed by the legislatures:

1. Representation (diversity). Legislatures have more members in their composition than other higher institutions of power, therefore, they have more opportunities for more correct representation of diverse interests and for closer communication between the elected representative and voters. Either the selection of representatives reflects collective interests, or the legislatures are made up of representatives who enjoy the strong support of individual voters, grouped together.

2. Deliberation: 1) legislatures as a platform for discussion and consideration of different points of view; 1) opportunity for external monitoring and evaluation of the process of deliberation (transparency). Transparency makes it possible to limit the "list" of the points of view in question only to those points of view that can be defended publicly; 3) the ability to ensure the responsibility of representatives to their constituents (accountability). Levels of accountability in the legislature are different, because the levels of transparency in them are different, i.e. the more open the process of discussion, the easier it is for citizens to control their representatives.

3. Information and development of expertise. The more the size of the legislature, the higher the level of specialization and competence (in specific questions) of the members of the legislature, and, consequently, the higher the quality of information processing by the members of the legislatures (as experts better analyze their information). As a result, the decision-making process is often fixed for certain "Experts".

4. Decision-making. 1) the size of the legislature and the diversity it presents challenge the effective and rapid adoption of political decisions; 2) collective choice problems under a variety of policy options. 3) procedural "medicines", including the empowerment of certain legislators or groups of legislators to block proposals or to have exclusive right to make proposals, result in the creation of inequalities between legislators in their ability to influence collective decisions; 4) in modern legislatures, political parties seek to control access to positions that enable them to determine the agenda.

5. Deterrence of the majority and the executive. 1) an unlimited majority can lead to a violation of minority rights by no one and no one. The ability to limit the majority in the legislature is determined by the procedures for the operation of the legislature. The opposition can use the legislature to criticize and block the actions of the majority (including coalition majority); 2) political decisions are made not only by the legislature, but also by the executive, so the legislatures can challenge the executive branch on a particular issue in the decision-making process. The ability to restrict other players outside the legislature is determined by the peculiarities of the separation of powers and the features of the division of powers between the legislature chambers; 3) deterrence can hinder decision making in the short term, but contribute to the stability of policy courses in the long term.

Parliament's formation depends on the type of electoral and party system in the country. Since the parliament exercises one of the main branches of government in public administration, it is important to understand how it functions and how parties interact in the development of decisions, because the effectiveness and quality of the Parliament's work depends on it. Hence, with different forms of government, the Parliament can have different powers. In accordance with Shugart and Carey (1992) configuration of the legislative and executive powers should influence how Parliament behaves, namely, it affects the degree of polarization of parties in Parliament and, accordingly, sets the vector of their behavior.

Let us dwell in more detail on such a concept as the polarization. Briefly, this concept characterizes the degree of similarity between groups of individuals: the higher the polarization and degree of disunity, the less similarity between groups (Chakravarty & Majumder, 2001). Thus, measurement and evaluation of both economic and social polarization have become popular in the scientific community in recent decades. In the earliest studies, much attention was paid to inequality in income distribution, which is often the cause of conflict between groups in society. Obviously, economic inequality can lead to confrontation between rich and poor people. But paying attention only to economic characteristics will not be correct, because society can also be divided into separate groups in accordance with the non-economic characteristics of individuals, such as religion, ethnicity, nationality, political preferences. If the society is polarized by some characteristics, it can be assumed that in states where power is divided, the parliament must represent the entire spectrum of views existing in a given society. Hence it is logical that factions in parliament representing different segments of society may have different views on the same issues. Since one of the main tasks of the parliament is to work out solutions that satisfy the majority, parties tend to seek a consensus. The more concordant opinions of parliamentarians from different parties, the less polarized the parliament and the faster the decisions that satisfy the majority are accepted. Hence the degree of effectiveness of parliament depends, among other things, on the degree of polarization of the factions represented in it. Therefore, it is important to study the polarization of Parliament to understand how the legislature works and why it makes certain decisions.

Shugart and Carey in their work “Presidents and Assemblies” (1992) say that it is impossible to analyze the work of Parliament without having any idea of ??the political system that has been formed in the country. Their hypothesis looks as follows: the change in the interaction of the authorities in the country affects the work of the parliament, and, accordingly, the behavior of political parties. Obviously, it is difficult to analyze this hypothesis strictly empirically on mature democracies. Finland is one of the few European countries, where over the past 30 years, the form of government has been greatly transformed. It would be interesting to see how the change in the powers of the legislative and executive branches affects the polarization in the Finnish Parliament (Ediskunta).

Thus, the problem of this study is the lack of precise knowledge on how exactly the polarization of factions in the Finnish Parliament depends on the latest changes in the form of government (namely, on the gradual parliamentarization of the republic).

In this regard, the following research question was formulated: how did the adoption of the new Constitution and, as a consequence, the changes in the form of the state structure in Finland affect the polarization of parties in the Finnish Parliament?

Degree of scientific elaboration.

Thus, the object of this study is changes of the Finnish form of government and the subject is polarization of parties in the Eduskunta.

The aim of this study was to identify the influence of changes in the configuration of power's branches on the polarization of parties in the Parliament on the example of such a developed European country and a stable democracy like Finland.

To achieve the purpose, it is proposed to solve the following tasks:

1. To trace how the form of government in Finland changed over the period of 1983-2014;

2. To study legislative acts related to the change in the form of interaction between the President, the Government and the Parliament, adopted in Finland in the period of 1983-2014;

3. To analyze the amendments adopted to the constitution of 1919 in the period from 1983 to 2000 and their influence on the Finnish political system;

4. To analyze the change in the interrelationship of such political actors as the President, the Government and the Parliament of Finland after the adoption of the new Constitution;

5. To study the electoral and party system of Finland;

6. To analyze the demographic indicators characterizing the structure of Finnish society;

7. To describe the Finnish political system;

8. To consider and to describe the typology of the government regimes of Shugart and Carey, as well as consider Finland within the framework of this model and determine how the situation changed over the past 30 years in the scheme of Shugart and Carey;

9. To study the literature on polarization;

10. To build spatial models (political maps) of eight parliamentary convocations of the Eduskunta for the period 1983-2014 years;

11. To calculate the polarization indices of each convocation of the Finnish Parliament of 1983-2014, using the Aleskerov-Oleynik model (2016);

12. To draw a conclusion about how the parliamentarization of the Finnish regime influenced on the polarization of the factions in the parliament.

The general hypothesis of the study can be formulated as follows: with the gradual reduction of the President's power in favor of the Parliament, the parliamentary parties have more and more incentives for cooperation and reaching compromises, which means that the polarization should decrease.

As the methodology of the study is the institutionalism of rational choice, which offers a wide range of cognitive tools for the formation of hypotheses. The methodological toolkit of rational choice institutionalism suggests that (Shepsle, 2006): 1) institutions operate for a long time after creation, as they reduce uncertainty and allow individuals to benefit from their existence; 2) political actors have a fixed set of preferences; 3) institutions establish "rules of the game", determine strategies available to players and possible alternatives; 4) actors can make predictions to maximize preferences, since the institutional environment reduces the uncertainty of each actor with respect to the response behavior and reactions of others. There is an information and law enforcement mechanism. The institutional environment influences individual behavior, and the strategic interaction of actors determines the outcome of policy. The research was carried out within the framework of this methodology, with the help of which the directions of the evolution of the political actors' relationship in Finland was investigated.

The following methods are used in the work:

1. The method of spatial modeling of Poole and Rosenthal (1984) for constructing political maps of the Finnish Parliament;

2. Analysis of the Finnish political system's parliamentarization within the framework of the regimes' typology of Shugart and Carey (1992);

3. Calculation of the polarization index of the Finnish Parliament using the Aleskerov-Oleynik model (Aleskerov & Oleynik, 2016).

1. Description of the Political System of the Finland

The Finnish political system is usually classified as a semi-presidential, elected president and a government accountable to the parliament, sharing executive functions. However, with the end of the Cold War, the accession to the European Union and the recent constitutional reforms culminating in the new constitution that came into force in 2000, a transformation of Finnish policy took place. Presidential powers were limited, the role of parliament and government became stronger.

1. Political Culture

In order to judge the polarization of factions in the Finnish parliament, the polarization of Finnish society and its political culture should be considered. A set of attitudes and beliefs in society regulate and control the political process in the state and also provide rules that govern behavior in a given political system. Hence, political culture is formed on the basis of the history of the state's political system, and also on the basis of the history of its members: it is rooted in state measures and private experience of citizens. Thus, it is worth to pay attention to the composition of Finnish society to proceed to the consideration of the political system of Finland.

The population of Finland is 5.5 million people Statistics Finland. (2017). Population version 26Apr17. [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_vaesto_en.html , and it is projected that in the near future the total population will remain at the current level - Finland has a "healthy" fertility rate compared to the average for Europe (1.57 children born/woman, 2016) Statistics Finland. (2017). Births 2016. Statistics Finland 11Apr17. [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.stat.fi/til/synt/2016/synt_2016_2017-04-11_tie_001_en.html . In Finland there are two official languages: Finnish, spoken by 80.3% of the population, and Swedish, the first language of 5.3% citizens (2016) Statistics Finland. (2017). Population version 26Apr17. [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_vaesto_en.html. Among other things, the religious composition of Finland is quite homogeneous: 72% of Finns are Lutherans (2016) Ibid.. The same can be said about the national composition: the share of foreigners residing in the country is about 6 % of the total population, considering that 1/3 of the population are Russians and Estonians. Ibid. Consequently, it can be concluded that Finnish society is characterized by homogeneity of population.

What about structural changes, before the Second World War the primary sector in the economy dominated in Finland (Jalava, 2006). Then the economy has changed significantly. It was necessary to increase the share of metal products in the industrial production of Finland, but secondary sector of economy never became as important in Finland as in other European countries. Since the 1970s Finland has rapidly become a post-industrial society, where the tertiary sector of the economy has occupied more than half of the labor force. But generally, industrialization and urbanization in Finland happened later than in majority European countries (Simola, 2014).

Finland is a unitary state in which there are no regional institutions that are elected democratically. The structure of Finland includes the autonomous province of Еland Islands, which is inhabited by 29214 people. Ibid. In 2015, the country was divided into 317 municipalities, most of which belong to the population of small rural municipalities. Municipal authorities bear most of the total public expenditure. Expenditures of local authorities are mainly related to the implementation of national legislation (especially in the areas of education, health and social security). Despite the fact that reforms have been implemented since the 1990s that have to some extent strengthened regional administrations, Finland remains a unitary state with strong center, not planning to introduce democratically elected regional institutions. In addition, there is no tradition of direct democracy. The referenda in the country are of an advisory nature and even they were held only twice, one of which was devoted to the issue of accession to the EU. In 2012, an amendment was adopted to the constitution, which strengthened direct democracy by introducing a direct initiative of citizens. To apply for the initiative under the new law, citizens must collect at least 50,000 signatures (Anckar et al., 2015).

Finns have a high level of trust in media. The Finnish media have become very similar and have a high level of convergence in opinion because of their “neutral” character due the decline of party-affiliated newspapers (Terzis, 2008). Furthermore, Finns place more trust in their representatives in national parliament, their politicians, their police force and government, and in democracy in Finland at all (Salminen & Ikola-Norrbaka, 2010). This citizens' trust influence on political participation positively. Moreover, relatively high level of turnout is usually remarked here.

From the XIII century Finland was part of the Swedish Empire, and in 1809 became an autonomous Grand Duchy of the Russian Empire. The first Constitution was adopted in 1906. The Finnish four-estate Sejm was abolished and replaced by a unicameral parliament, the Eduskunta, and a universal and equal suffrage was introduced. There was no longer any right to vote, depending on social status or gender. The reform increased the electorate tenfold. Moreover, in 1907, the first election was held and 19 women in the world were elected. December 6, 1917 Finland declared independence from Russia. The Constitution, adopted in 1919, declared a republican form of government combined with strong powers for the president - the semi-presidential system. In the first four decades as an independent state, Finland experienced a civil war, a fierce linguistic struggle, a strong right-wing extremist movement (the Lapua movement of the 1930s), two periods of war against the Soviet Union and a painful Settlement after the Second World War. Not surprisingly, the level of conflict in domestic politics was high. The history of Finland as a "border zone" is still largely influenced by national political culture and behavior - neutral boundary between the two power blocs (or between East and West) (Meinander, 2010).

Citizens of Finland have two main electoral channels for influencing politics. They select a national parliament, which in turn chooses a government (in charge of domestic politics and EU policy), and also elects a president who deals with foreign policy issues together with the government. In addition, citizens can vote in elections to the European Parliament and municipal elections.

In the work “The Madisonian turn: Political parties and parliamentary democracy in Nordic Europe” Bergman and Strшm argue that the political culture of Scandinavian countries is often categorized as an emphasis on compromise and consensus (Bergman & Strшm, 2011). Thus, there is a question about Finland: is it consensus democracy or consensual style of politics? And it also interesting to know whether consensus is the real way of the country or it is the result from implemented institutions. There are the following consensual characteristics of Finnish policy: multiparty governments, partisan cooperation across the left-right dimension, corporatism, welfare state, decision-making in foreign and EU policies, deferment rule (abolished in the early 1990s). Political systems of Scandinavian countries are grounded on low level of transparency, when negotiations between the actors almost always take place behind closed doors - in parliamentary committees ("working Parliament"), and in the government (Bergman & Strшm, 2011).

Arter (1999) highlights seven key features of the "ideal" model of the Nordic government:

1. Dominant or strong social democratic parties;

2. Working multi-party systems;

3. Consensual approach to policy-making;

4. Consultation with pressure groups;

5. A centralized system of collective bargaining;

6. An active role for the state in regulating the market and in the provision of social protection;

7. Close relations within political elite producing pragmatism.

Also there are considerable differences between the five countries of Northern Europe, but there are also enough common features to generate the model of the Nordic government.

2. Voting and Elections

In the Enduskunta 200 parliamentarians are elected for a four-year term. The country is divided into one single-member and 12 multi-mandate electoral districts, the Еland Islands have the right to one seat, regardless of the number of its population. Each district is a separate unit and there are no national places for adjustment (Leveling seats). The d'Hondt method is used when allocating seats to parties. There is no legal threshold in Finland (Karvonen, 2014).

In Finland, voting for a party or an electoral bloc and for a specific candidate has been combined. Each candidate for deputy is given a number on the voting list and the voter notices in the bulletin not only the party for which he votes, but also the number of the candidate from this party, to whom he prefers. Thus, the voice of the voter not only allows to determine the number of seats received by the party in parliament, but also allows to decide who becomes a deputy in the party list, so as not to create advantages for those candidates listed on the party lists first. Such an order is also important for parties running in elections as a single bloc in order to distribute mandates among such parties in accordance with the will of voters. The proportionality of the electoral system is high. Since the d'Hondt formula supports large parties, most small parties join the electoral alliances, since there is no another option. In electoral alliances, the distribution of seats is determined by the principle of plurality, regardless of the total number of votes won by the relevant parties in the alliance. Consequently, the proportion of relative votes of alliance partners is not taken into account. The party can benefit from the alliance if it can focus its votes on one candidate in the area, since the three candidates with the most votes will be elected to the parliament. Thus, smaller parties are inclined to join electoral alliances with larger parties, especially the Centre Party, which often enters into alliances with smaller parties, such as Christian Democrats .

The Electoral Act (1969) and the Election Act (1975) made serious changes in the choice of candidates. Until then, the lack of legal norms has given the parties a relatively free hand in taking their own measures, and this has led to processes influenced or even determined by national party leaders. An important tool for the parties was the right to nominate the same candidate in several districts. However, since 1969 the same candidate can compete only in one constituency. Since 1975, the choice of candidates has been based on the voting of members of electoral districts. The parties must use the voting for membership in the districts where the number of candidates exceeds the official upper limit of candidates (that is, no more than 14 candidates for the constituency or, if more than 14 representatives from the district are elected, not more than the number of elected candidates). After the vote, the district party leader can replace a maximum of 1/4 candidates (1/5 - in the Social Democratic Party). Party organization at the national level almost completely excluded from the process of selection of candidates. Thus, the national party leadership has limited capacity to influence the choice of candidates at the district level.

The party lists represent the candidates in alphabetical order. The exception is the Social Democratic Party, which uses (at least in some constituencies) a system in which the placement of candidates on the list is determined by their success in the membership ballots, and the candidate with the highest number of votes tops the list.

Voters choose among individual candidates. In Finland preliminary voting is very common. Thus, 45% of voters give their votes during the preliminary voting in the 2011 elections. Statistics Finland. (2017). Statistics Finland version 5Apr17. [Data file]. Retrieved from http://pxnet2.stat.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/en/StatFin/StatFin__vaa__evaa__evaa_2011/?tablelist=true#_ga=1.76550419.743830351.1493218761

The electoral system of Finland is highly targeted at candidates, this system is called an "open list" system, and it is reflected in three aspects (Arter, 2008; Sцderlund, «Unpublished Source»). The first one is citizens` voting behavior: plenty of Finns think that the candidate as much important as party. The second aspect is campaigning, namely, the fact that during the election campaign in Finland there is more competition within parties than between parties. Also election race is characterized by weak engagement of the national-level party organization in candidate selection. The national party organization and leadership primarily only act as a background resource, provide campaign materials and, through the leader of the party, provide parties with a public face. The responsibility of the candidates themselves and their support groups is to raise funds and disseminate information, an important role in the financing of candidates' campaigns is played by private donations. The third thing is parliamentary work. Although the Finnish parties can be characterized as sufficiently centralized between the elections, there is a decentralized process of selecting candidates, which restricts the disciplinary powers of party leaders towards deputies. This was done so that representatives seeking re-election should develop support among their constituents. In addition to the selection mechanism, Finnish parliamentarians are also highly represented in local politics. A clear majority of representatives are either members of municipal councils, or belong to the executive bodies of their local / district party branches. However, the traditionally strong role of the state, both from the point of view of legislative authority and identity, means that MPs primarily focus on influencing national legislation. There is a high degree of identical voting on various issues within party groups, but the votes of party groups associated with the state's annual budget are more scattered (Pajala, 2008). Although the cohesion of the groups in the Eduskunta continues to be lower than in other legislative bodies of the Nordic countries, with Finnish MPs also pay much less attention to group discipline than their colleagues from other parliaments of the Nordic countries.

3. Political Parties

In comparison with Western Europe in Finland there was a rather high number of effective parties over several decades (Dalton et al., 2000). By the number of effective parties, the Finnish party system is the most fragmented among the countries of Western Europe, during the period from 1945 to 2015 the number of effective parties in parliament was on average 5.1. In the convocations of the 2011th and 2015th years, the effective number of parties is 5.83 and 5.84, respectively (Gallagher & Michael, 2017). Thus, there is a tendency to an even greater fragmentation. Neither party at time after the declaration of independence reached even the majority of seats in parliament (the largest percentage of votes was collected by the SDP in the elections of 1995). Therefore, the absence of a clearly dominant party required cooperation between the main parties. In fact, it is seldom in Finland when one party or an electoral alliance receives a majority of votes even in one constituency. Moreover, in the terminology of Giovanni Sartori (1976), a significant number of Finnish parties were relevant. All parties had either coalitional or blackmailing potential. Moreover, since the Finnish multi-party system reflected so many splits, it was extremely difficult to limit competition between parties in one or two ideological divisions. In the Klaus von Beime's list of party systems in Western Europe Finland was the only country that approached the party in each of the ten identified ideological groups of parties (Beime, 1985).

The years after World War II can be divided into two periods. Thus, approximately until 1970, the Finnish party system was stable: the vote was high, the electoral variability was low, and almost no new parties were included in the Eduskunta. The disintegration of existing classes in the society led to the emergence of new Finnish parties, it is not surprising that since then structural changes (class diversion) have contributed to increasing electoral instability both in terms of fragmentation of the party system and with the volatility of voters. Nevertheless, in general, the party system was surprisingly stable, despite the accession of new parties to the Eduskunta, such as the Green League and the now non-existent Village People's Party. At the same time, three main parties - the Social Democrats, the Central Party and the National Coalition - kept their positions, as well as the smaller parties, which mostly cling to their votes in recent decades.

It is obvious that if the parties separated in different directions, then the society is also divided and making the choice according to the preferences. The cleavage approach is applicable to European countries and is rooted in Europe, while research in the United States is more guided by the explanation of the choice of a party by a voter through party identification or the theory of rational choice. In the European research tradition, the basic idea was that voters vote in accordance with their social environment, that is, orienting to the social class, religion, language, and residential area (Bergman & Strшm, 2011). The fundamental work about the cleavage approach is Party Systems and Voter Alignments (1967) by Seymour Lipset and Stein Rokkan. It is said in the work that party competition and Western European party systems stem from splits formed because of historical phases. Consequently, the main blocks of party support were formed in accordance with the social identity. The tension between state building and certain groups of the population on the periphery gave rise to a regional cleavage. Economic splits were formed as a result of tensions between land and city industrial interests and between owners and employees. Finally, the sectarian split was based on the conflict between the nation state and the church.

Three of the splits mentioned above were of great importance in the birth and development of the Finnish party system and the cleavage structure. The left-right dimension was the main cleavage. Then the centre-periphery (or rural-urban) cleavage has come at the second place to some extent because of EU integration and globalization. Thus, voters of the party center live mainly in less densely populated areas, while, for example, the National Coalition, the Social Democrats and the Green League relies on residents of urban centers. The splitting along the integration-independence dimension is measured by the intertwining with the center-periphery splitting, but this cleavage can become even more significant, especially if the left-right direction becomes less pronounced. There is also a language division, respectively, there is the Swedish People's Party, which expresses the interests of the Swedish-speaking minority (Bergman & Strшm, 2011).

Since the 1980s, there has been a sharp decline in party membership. Finland has lost about half of party members (Biezen et al., 2012). The highest membership rates are the Party Center (organization of the Center has traditionally been very strong) and the Swedish People's Party. The strong presence of the Swedish People's Party in Swedish-speaking municipalities often makes it difficult to determine the boundaries between party members and non-party members. The number of local party departments also has decreased since the early 1980s.

Since the 1960 the turnout has decreased greatly constantly. It was on average 85% in the 1960s elections and fell to 67.9% by 2007. The first rise in voter turnout after the Second World War in Finland was in 2011, 70.5%, it can be explained by the growth of the popularity of the True Finns party; there was more struggle and interest. The number of people identifying themselves with a particular party is decreased. Thus, the share of people who decide for whom to vote before the election campaign has declined (Bergman & Strшm, 2011).

Government funding of parties has strengthened the party organizations. Political parties were legally recognized in the Law on the Party of 1969. This law gave parties a privileged status both in elections and in the distribution of public funds. The share of seats won in the last parliamentary elections determines party funding. Parties also receive money for other purposes (for the dissemination of information, election campaigns, subsidiaries, etc.). If the party has not won seats in Parliament it does not receive public funding. Thus, the system provides protection against the emergence of new parties - in accordance with the Cartel party theory (Katz & Mair, 1995). In recent years, legislation on party funding and expenditure on the campaign was increased - both from the point of view of how much money candidates can receive from individual donors and reporting requirements on the costs of the campaign. After the financial scandals that followed the 2007 elections was adopted the latest legislation.

The role of party leaders has acquired a strong significance both in election campaigns and in the formation and maintenance of coalitions in the Cabinet. Although the plenary sessions and ministerial committees occupy an important place in the adoption of government decisions, the most important decisions are nevertheless taken in the course of discussions between the leaders of the coalition parties.

4. The Parliament (Eduskunta)

Finnish Parliament can be classified as a "working parliament", which focuses on the work carried out in parliamentary committees. According to Arter (1999), three characteristics for such a parliament are 1) the division of work between committees reflecting the jurisdiction of the respective ministries; 2) the work of the committee over plenary sessions; 3) concentration of parliamentarians on legislative activity and not on debates. Also plenary debates are not so important.

A strong system of committees allows the parliament to exercise effective control over the government. At present there are 16 committees in Eduskunta. The committee has a quorum if at least 2/3 of its members are present (unless a higher quorum is required). Discussion in the Committee is mandatory and precedes the stage of the plenary session. Committees should report to the plenary on all matters under consideration, with the exception of the proposals of private members. Committee meetings take place behind closed doors, ministers do not hold seats in the Eduskunta's Committees. The number of committees remains fairly stable.

New laws usually are taken after the legislative proposals of the government. Prior to the amendment to the Constitution of 2012 at a plenary meeting of the government and on its recommendation the President had the formal right to determine, that the Parliament should pass the bill, but it was as a mere formality, as the President could not veto this initiative.

According to the Constitution, the first stage of the adoption of the law is the plenary session sends the bill to the committee (or committees) for preparation. Further, for a more accurate accounting of opinions and reasonable decision-making committees often invite experts such as civil servants, legal experts, scientists, representatives of interested groups, etc. when considering initiatives. Thus, the proposal can be amended by the committees (within certain limits). The Committee's report may contain a dissenting opinion. After the report of the Committee on the proposed initiative is published, the proposal is considered in two readings at the plenary session. In the first reading the committee's report is discussed and a decision is made on the content of the legislative proposal. In the second reading, which takes place on the third day after the first reading is completed, the Parliament accepts or rejects the legislative proposal by a simple majority. Earlier, before the amendment to the Constitution in 1987, the President could postpone the adoption of the law until the reconsideration by the newly elected Parliament. After 1987 and until 2000 the President could delay legislation until the next parliamentary session. And then the Parliament had the right to cancel the President's veto. According to the new constitution (Section 77):

“An Act adopted by the Parliament shall be submitted to the President of the Republic for confirmation. The President shall decide on the confirmation within three months of the submission of the Act. ... If the President does not confirm the Act, it is returned for the consideration of the Parliament. If the Parliament readopts the Act without material alterations, it enters into force without confirmation. If the Parliament does not readopt the Act, it shall be deemed to have lapsed”. ?

Therefore, it turns out that the President of Finland has only a suspensive veto, and in order for the proposal to become law, the approval of the president is not required. The challenging of cabinet proposals or parliamentary decisions by the president has not yet been implemented in practice.

Finland has traditionally been included in the category of countries in which opposition parties have a significant impact on public policy, especially, through a system of committees. Moreover, until 1987, a deferral instrument operated in Finland, which meant that one-third of the deputies (67/200) could delay the final adoption of the customary law, postponing it until the next election, and further this proposal could be made if its supported the majority in the new parliament. In 1987, the delay period was reduced to the next annual parliamentary session, and in 1992 deferment rule was canceled. The deferment rule both explained the trend to create oversized coalitions and promoted the practice of concerted decision-making, thus the gap between the government and the opposition was decreased. The inclusion of this rule in the Constitution was justified by the fact that it would prevent the constant winning of the government's parties by a simple majority, offering also protection from possible radical socialist reforms. After the abolition of the deferment and a number of other constitutional changes, the role of the Eduskunta and the government has significantly strengthened. In this way, since the beginning of the 1990s, Finland has practically become a state with a government controlled by parliament.

Let us consider the main control instruments. The most rigorous instrument is a vote of no confidence in the government by the parliament. Interpellations are also an important type of control. An individual MP can initiate requests, but usually they are put forward by party groups of opposition parties. The difference between interpellation and other types of deputy requests is that the answer is accompanied by a debate that ends with the adoption of a resolution expressing the opinion of the parliament on the intervening action or line of the government as a whole and the vote of confidence or mistrust by the parliament. The main purpose of such queries is to raise the authority of the opposition parties or to stimulate debate on topical issues. Also, the practice of parliamentary questions became popular. Initially, parliamentarians could put only written questions (since 1906), oral questions (since 1966) and questions to the State Council (i.e., the government) (since 1989). Monthly questions to the State Council were introduced for a more open dialogue between the parliament and the government on pressing issues. Oral questions and questions to the State Council were combined into a question time, during which deputies can spontaneously ask questions to ministers on any topic of concern. This process is shown live on the main state television channel of the country on Thursdays.

Individual parliamentarians can represent three types of initiatives: legislative drafts, budgetary motions and petitions. But mostly new laws are based on government proposals, and the proposals of individual parliamentarians are rarely crowned with success (Raunio, 2011).

Parliamentary access to information is another significant element that ensures government accountability. In accordance with the Constitution, the parliament and its committees have access to all the information that they need, which is available to the public authorities, when considering relevant issues (Section 47) Ministry of Justice, Finland. (2017). Constitution of Finland. Retrieved from http://oikeusministerio.fi/en/index/basicprovisions/legislation/constitution.html , including in international affairs, EU matters and the national budget. It is obviously that after Finland became a member of the European Union, they provided an even greater opportunity for government control for the Eduskunta.

The reforms of the 1990s gave the government and the MPs the opportunity to offer debates on topical issues. Also, the optimization of various government reporting requirements and the increase in the number of such reports improved the quality of information received by Eduskunta. This is especially true of government reports and statements by prime ministers.

Until the 1990s, the president can dissolve the parliament without consulting anyone, and then appoint new elections (the president could use this tool to influence the government). This right was used four times after the Second World War (1953, 1962, 1971 and 1975). In 1991, the Constitutional Amendment was adopted and changed the rule of parliament resignation: now the dissolution of Parliament requires the initiative of the Prime Minister of the country. This is spelled out in Section 26 of the Constitution:

“The President of the Republic, in response to a reasoned proposal by the Prime Minister, and after having heard the parliamentary groups, and while the Parliament is in session, may order that extraordinary parliamentary elections shall be held. Thereafter, the Parliament shall decide the time when it concludes its work before the elections”. ?

The development of the national budget concerns all ministries, but these negotiations are headed by the Ministry of Finance. Usually the parliament approves the national budget unchanged. MPs vote for the annual national budget with a roll call vote, so then voters can see how the parliamentarians voted (Pajala, 2008).

5. Government

Before the adoption of the new Constitution of 1999, the president assigned the person who conducted negotiations about from which parties the Cabinet would be formed. In fact, the president appointed the new Cabinet by his own at the last plenary meeting of the Cabinet retired. The new constitution changed the rule, now the Cabinet is appointed by Eduskunta:

“The Parliament elects the Prime Minister, who is thereafter appointed to the office by the President of the Republic. The President appoints the other Ministers in accordance with a proposal made by the Prime Minister. Before the Prime Minister is elected, the groups represented in the Parliament negotiate on the political programme and composition of the Government. ... The nominee is elected Prime Minister if his or her election has been supported by more than half of the votes cast in an open vote in the Parliament.” ?

Consequently, governments are formed on the basis of negotiations between political parties, provided that the largest party will negotiate after which Eduskunta appoints the Prime Minister and the Cabinet (through the investiture vote). Also under the new constitution, the government must submit its program to the parliament on an obligatory basis, followed by a debate and a mandatory vote on the issue of confidence. When making decisions, the simple majority rule is used. After approval of the program, party groups of government parties are obliged to comply with this document. Also, the introduction of the investiture rule reinforced the parliament, since the parties represented in the cabinet can influence the course of the government. With these changes, the role of the party leader during the election campaign has increased, since there is an implicit rule that the largest party is negotiating the formation of the government, and its leader usually becomes prime minister. In this regard, each party sets itself the goal to show their leader as the most suitable for the post of prime minister, like a man who can manage the Сabinet well. For this reason, leaders try to avoid some radical statements and confrontations. If we talk about the viability of the cabinet in Finland, earlier in the country there were unstable governments that acted in the shadow of the president, but the governments appointed after the era of President Kekkonen remained in effect for the entire period.

On average, Finland has the highest number of parties in the coalition government among Western European countries after the Second World War. Mostly coalitions of parties from different blocs (left-right). And from 1995 to 2003 the government had a large coalition government, which was called “rainbow government”, and consisted of five parties: the Social Democrats, the National Coalition, the Left Alliance, the Swedish People`s Party, and the Green League (Arter, 1995). The last governments usually united two of the three main parties: the Social Democrats, the Centre and the National Coalition. The existence of such large government coalitions in Finland can be explained by the high fragmentation of the party system, as well as by the absence of the dominant party.

The new constitution expanded the powers of the Prime Minister, his jurisdiction extends to all areas of politics: he directs the government, oversees the preparation and consideration of issues that are the responsibility of the Cabinet, acts as an intermediary, helping to resolve the dispute within or between ministries. However, the formation of a coalition cabinet imposes restrictions on the executive power of the Prime Minister: not only he alone, but representatives of other government parties influence the choice of other ministers. There is no prescription either about the number of Ministers or how they should be selected. If the Prime Minister resigns, the entire Cabinet is dismissed.

In Finland there are two types of plenary cabinet meetings: headed by the Prime Minister and headed by the President. Which is chaired by the president, decisions are taken only by the presidency, and in plenary sessions held under the chairmanship of the prime minister, a simple majority vote is used. Also, most of the tasks in the Cabinet are coordinated with the help of such ministerial committees as the Cabinet Committee on Foreign and Security Policy, the Cabinet Finance Committee, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Policy and the Cabinet Committee on European Union Affairs (since 1995). These committees are headed by the Prime Minister.

Since the important place in coordinating the work of the Cabinet is the government program, which is a mechanism for resolving and preventing disputes among members of the coalition. The government parties monitor that their party groups support the government program. In this way, the probability of disagreements between the parliament and the government is minimal. The state administration is divided into three levels: national, regional and municipal. The administration of the national level includes ministries and other central state institutions. The preparation of issues and decision-making are often delegated down from the minister to civil servants. In recent years, Cabinets have invested resources in improving the work and strategic planning within the Cabinet and the entire executive branch, the goal is to improve horizontal coordination within the government through the government's intersectoral policy programs (Bergman & Strшm, 2011).

6. The President

Finland is the oldest semi-presidential republic in Europe (since 1919). Executive functions are divided between the elected president and the government accountable to the parliament. Duverger (1980) rated Finland as the most powerful semi-presidential system in Western Europe, under the formal authority of the head of state.

According to the old constitution, the president was recognized as the highest executive authority. Under the old Constitution the President was recognised as the Supreme Executive power. In the interwar period the political leader was the Prime Minister and for foreign policy said the foreign Minister. It was formally a semi-presidential regime under which carried out the practice of parliamentary government. But the President still could interpret the Constitution to their advantage, these opportunities were often used by Urho Kekkonen. The president had much more power than the government. After the 25-year reign of Kekonnen, the limitation of presidential powers and the strengthening of parliamentarism began, these changes resulted in the adoption of a new constitution which came into force on 1 March, 2000.