Fig. 14 Spatial model of the Eduskunta 2003-2006s

Indicators of the polarization index slightly increased. In these years the parliament is characterized by a moderate polarization of parties, which is due to the disagreements between the parties that are described above. Anyway, it can be said that on different issues different parties had a consensus.

Eduskunta of the 2007-2010 convocation (Matti Vanhanen's Cabinet, Kesk)

The next parliamentary elections were held in March 2007. Eight parties passed into the Eduskunta:

- The Finnish Center (Kesk) 54

- The National Coalition Party (Kok) 52

- The Social Democratic Party of Finland (SDP) 48

- The Left Union Party (Left Alliance, Vas) 18

- The Green Union party (Vihr) 16

- The Swedish People's Party (RKP) 10

- The Christian Democrats (KD) 6

- The Finns Party (PS) 10

The Kesk was still the largest party in the parliament, Kok became the second largest party, and the Social Democrats took the third place in the highest representation. The current Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen (Kesk) has formed a new government consisting of the Finnish Center Party, the National Coalition, the Green and the Swedish People's Party. As a result, a right-centrist government was formed for the first time after the composition of 1991-1994. Moreover, the Center Party and the National Coalition Party together had an absolute majority in the parliament

Many prominent deputies decided not to take part in this election such as Suvi-Anne Siimes (the Left Alliance), which left the party in 2006, saying that she failed to make the party a modern left-wing party, did not want to support the candidacy of former orthodox pro-Soviet Communists. Some deputies, on the contrary, have returned, for example former Finance Sauli Niinistц (Kok), who also ran for presidency in 2006, bypassed the Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen and, moreover, was supported by him in the second round. The fact that he supported the representative of the opposition, not the government party, was a sign that the Prime Minister in the future sees another coalition in the government. Also the fact that Matti Vanhanen himself did not make great efforts to become President confirms that Finland has moved towards a parliamentary regime where the Prime Minister plays perhaps a more important role than the President. For some time before these elections in many parties the party leadership was replaced (Nurmi, H., & Nurmi, L., 2007).

Hence, the government parties have high coherent on political map (Fig. 15-16), first of all, they were united by a desire to reduce the income tax, and the RKP's proposal to abolish the inheritance tax was also supported by other two. SDP looks less unanimous in opinions than before, it did not get the place in the Cabinet because of the party was against further tax cuts.

Fig. 15 Spatial model of the Eduskunta 2007-2010s

Also the confrontation of the SDP and government parties worsened during the pre-election race and the anti-conservative company that the SDP conducted with the help of the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK). Elections were successful for the true Finns Party which increased the number of seats in the Parliament, largely at the expense of the support of its charismatic leader Timo Soini by the population.

Now let us see if the polarization index reflects the situation shown on the political map for the case of 2007-2010:

???????????? ???? ???????? = (-0.0532, 0.0047);

= 0.5753, = 0.4771.

In general, the current period is characterized by a slight drop in polarization in parliament. This was facilitated by the formation of a multiparty government, whose parties together had 120 seats in parliament, respectively, the government could easily rely on the Parliament in carrying out its bills.

Fig. 16 Positions of the deputy unions in the Eduskinta in 2007-2010s Eduskunta of the 2011-2014 convocation (Jyrki Katainen's Cabinet, Kok)

- The National Coalition Party (Kok) 47

- The Finns Party (PS) 40

- The Finnish Center (Kesk) 37

- The Social Democratic Party of Finland (SDP) 42

- The Left Union Party (Left Alliance, Vas) 13

- The Green Union party (Vihr) 11

- The Swedish People's Party (RKP) 11

- The Christian Democrats (KD) 6

- The Finns Party (PS) 40

Again, the important issues of the election campaign were taxation. The economy of Finland was recovering slowly after the recession of the 1990s, there was still a high level in the country, it all amounted to an increase in public debt and to a discussion on how to solve this problem. During the election campaigns, Kesk, Kok, RKP and Vihr advocated an increase in the VAT rate, while the remaining parties were against, in general, the leftist parties criticized the government in 2007-2010 for creating a unified tax system.

During the election campaign for the first time was articulated the issue of same-sex marriages. On this issue the parties split into two camps: PS, KD, KESK and KOK take a conservative stance, while the leftist parties, RKP and Vihr are closer to the liberal position.

These elections were a breakthrough for the Finns. The party itself and its predecessor "the Finnish Rural Party" represented the voters of the lower middle class, small farmers and entrepreneurs, the PS was also in demand among the urban working class and the lower middle class.

The main topic of the election campaign was the financial bailout arrangements of Greece, Ireland and Portugal. During the campaign, the True Finns strongly objected to the signing of these agreements by Finland, SDP and Vas were against too. Skepticism towards the EU positively influenced the support of the PS. After the election, only the Finns multiplied the number of seats in parliament compared to last year. It was natural to expect that they would be in the government coalition. Nevertheless, Kok became the largest party in the parliament and its leader began to form the government. Since one of the main requirements of the Kok program was the approach to saving the Eurozone countries, PS was not included in the coalition, as it would block additional obligations for financial rescue. The SDP adopted more moderate position on this question, agreeing to support additional loans provided they are fully guaranteed. But the coalition of Kok and SDP was also not implemented, as there was a confrontation over the VAT rate: the Social Democrats were categorically against raising the rate of tax. Then Katainen tried to form a government of Kok, KESK, VIHR and even PS. However, these plans failed. In the end, after long negotiations, Katainen suggested six-party coalition of Kok, SDP, Vas Vihr, RKP and KD which was called "six-pack". Thus, the government Katainen was secured a large parliamentary support. A government program was drafted and approved, which did not include questions on increasing the taxation of consumption. All these differences in perties' opinions explained by their location on the political maps (Fig. 17-18).

Fig. 17 Positions of the deputy unions in the Eduskinta in 2011-2014s

This convocation was the most atypical in recent years. After the elections in 2011, the parties changed their location more radically. It can be seen that there are some disagreements even within government parties. The center of mass moved for the first time in a long time, and the index of polarization of the parliament increased in comparison with the one of the previous convocation. The growth in the index and the configuration of the parties were influenced by disagreements over many old issues (concerning taxation), as well as new ones such as the same-sex marriages, but the main bone of contention was the question of signing agreements on the financial support of other EU member states. In particular, the Finns party, which occupies the most extreme opposition position. All clusters reflecting the deputy parties are rather dense with the exaptation of the Finnish Center Party. The fragmentation of opinions within party can be caused by the drop in popularity of the Kesk after the debate about violations of party funding and subsequent police investigations centered on Kesk (Fig. 18).

Fig. 18 Spatial model of the Eduskunta 2011-2014s

After calculating the polarization indices and analyzing the spatial maps of all the parliamentary convocations of the period 1983-2014s, it became apparent that the entire sample can be divided into two periods: convocations operating before the adoption of the new constitution (1983-1998), and convocations operating after the adoption of the new constitution of the 2000th year (1999-2014) (Table 1 and Fig. 19). A fairly low level of polarization in the convocation of 1983-1987 is explained by the coming to power of a new President, with the inauguration of which began a period of reduction of the President's powers in Finland. In the second (1987-1990) and the third (1991-1994) of the convocations, there was an increase in polarization in the Eduscunta, which was explained by the divergence of parties in matters relating to the construction of nuclear power plants, financial measures to help farmers and small entrepreneurs. One of the largest parties, the Center Party, in the convocation of 1987-1991, moved from the government party to the opposition party, it increased the discord of the parliament as a whole. For the first time in a long time, the right-wing party came to the government coalition. It is interesting that this was a left-right government coalition, and the centrists remained in opposition.

In the Parliament of 1991-1994, the highest level of polarization is observed for the whole period under review. This is due to the difficult economic situation in the country, the rapidly growing unemployment and unpopular program of harsh economic measures, which was adopted by the right-centrist government (the government formed in those years became the first for a long time, which did not include the Social Democratic Party). Also, the filing of an application for membership in the European Union caused sharp contradictions in the Eduskunta.

Further, the polarization index is constantly on the decline and reaches its minimum point in the parliament of 1999-2002. The decline in the confrontation in the Parliament during these eight years is due to the formation of a "rainbow government" by the Prime Minister, the leader of the SDP party. The Cabinet included five parties. Thr Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen also remained for the next term (1995-1994), leaving the same composition of the Cabinet. Never before the government included the radical left and right wing at the same time, but now the government was in the balance of left and right forces. Since the entire period under consideration is characterized by Finland's move towards parliamentarization, the president was increasingly giving way to the government, which in turn became increasingly accountable to the parliament; accordingly, the balance of power and mood in the government was reflected in the parliament, and vice versa. The most important fact of the decrease in the polarization index was the increased work of the government and parliament on the new constitution, which was adopted in 1999 and entered into force on March 1, 2000.

In the Eduskunta Convocation of 2003-2006, a slight increase in the polarization of the parliamentary factions was observed, which took place because of disagreements over taxation.

In 2007-2010 the polarization index is again omitted, from this time the right-centrist rights showed themselves much better than in 1991-1994. Consistency was achieved in matters concerning the income tax. In general, the multi-party government controlled 120 seats in the paralement, so the parliament was more coordinated.

And, finally, the convocation of 2011-2014 again shows the growth of party confrontation. This situation arose in connection with the issue raised for the first time during the pre-election campaign regarding the attitude to the EU, as well as the issue of same-sex marridges. Also this state of affairs in parliament is associated with the loss of seats of all major parties and the strong multiplication of the seats by the Eurosceptic party - the True Finns. Even the fact that the government consisted of 6 parties and controlled the majority of seats in Parliament could not stop the confrontation on a number of issues.

Table 1. Polarization in the Eduskunta of 1983-2014s (polarization indices estimated within groups-points framework)

Conclusion

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. This aim was achieved by gradual accomplishment of determined tasks. Further the main findings of the study are summarized.

In this paper, we want to see if the location of Finland has changed in this scheme, and if so, how. After a detailed description of Finland's political system and its changes over the past 20 years, it can be concluded that with the coming to power of President M. Koivisto in 1982, the period of parliamentarization of Finland began. Several factors contributed to the parliamentarization of the Finnish political system. One of them was the disintegration of the USSR, in connection with which there was no need for a strong presidential leadership and the so-called personification of the regime. After the presidency of W. Kekkonen in Finnish society the criticism of the President for his excessive authority increased, and from this period the political culture of the elite began to rapidly change in the parliamentary direction. Finland's accession to the European Union stimulated the expansion of the parliamentary basis for the adoption of foreign policy decisions concerning the country's participation in the EU's activities. The political parties of the country have the ability to create viable government coalitions, which was not the case before. The logical completion of Finland's move to the parliamentary system was the legal registration of the new regime, nsmely, the adoption of the new Constitution of Finland in 1999. The main elements of the constitutional reform are following:

1. Now Eduskunta elects the prime minister after consultations between different parliamentary groups, and the President only formally appoints the head of the Cabinet. Other ministers are appointed by the President in accordance with the proposal of the head of the Government (Section 61) Ministry of Justice, Finland. (2017). Constitution of Finland. Retrieved from http://oikeusministerio.fi/en/index/basicprovisions/legislation/constitution.html. The President can not influence the resignation of the government or minister, since the Constitution provides that the President must dismiss the Council of State or an individual minister only if they lose the trust of the Eduskunta (Section 64) Ibid. . The President also sends the minister to resign on the initiative of the Prime Minister. Also, at the initiative of the Prime Minister, the President dissolves the Parliament and announces new elections to the Eduskunta.

2. The President is now in charge of foreign policy in close cooperation with the Government. European issues are mainly related to the jurisdiction of the Cabinet and the Prime Minister. The dominant position of the President in foreign affairs is weakened to a "ceremonial" role (Raunio & Wiberg, 2001).

3. Almost all legislative powers of the President were transferred to the Government. Now the Cabinet, and not the president, prepares bills for submission to the Parliament, the President's opportunity to change the bills of the Government has largely been eliminated. The President's veto on the laws passed by the Parliament is also limited, now the Parliament can immediately overcome the President's veto.

4. The President appoints today only a small number of senior civil servants.

5. The president has become more connected than before with the Government's opinion and takes many decisions on the proposal of the Cabinet.

Thus, power of the President was strongly limited as a result of parliamentarization and implemented of new constitution and Cabinet's power was increased. Prime Minister has become true head of executive power and this position has become more respectable (Paloheimo, 2003). Therefore, new constitution strengthens connections between the Cabinet and Eduskunta, and all government mechanism depends on the Parliament now. After all we can conclude that although over the last 30 years Finland went in the direction of a parliamentary system, the country has not shifted to pure parliamentarism, Paloheimo calls this system “almost parliamentary” (Paloheimo, 2003). Existence of general elections of the president and his independent prerogatives distinguish Finland from classical parliamentary systems. If speak about scheme of Shugart and Carey, we think that Finland changed her place. From the previous analysis, we can conclude that Finland has significantly lowered its position along y-axis, which expresses the number of presidential powers vis-а-vis the government, and also moved to the right, along the x-axis of the separate existence of the two branches of power, since now the authorities are still interdependent: the Cabinet is accountable to the Parliament, and the President can dissolve the Eduskunta on the proposal of the Prime Minister, but also now the Government is a confidant of the Parliament.

Also in the work, a detailed analysis of the dynamics of the polarization index of the Finnish Parliament in the period from 1983 to 2014 was carried out. The results of the calculations confirmed the claimed early hypothesis. Amendments to the old constitution as well as the adoption of a new constitution weakened the power of the President and strengthened the Parliament, which means that during the observation period (1983-2014), the Parliament increasingly became the backbone of the executive branch. In the logic of research on the interaction of the branches of power (Shugart and Carey), it has the following effect: earlier, the parliamentary parties had less incentive to reach a compromise (on whether there was a compromise or not, the normal functioning of the Government depended less, because the great influence on it had the President) than after the beginning of the reforms. Calculations confirmed that with the gradual weakening of the President, all large government coalitions were created and the parties sought to find a compromise. The general hypothesis of the study was confirmed: with the gradual reduction of the President's power in favor of the Parliament, the parliamentary parties have more and more incentives to cooperate and reach compromises, and the polarization in parliament is declining.

References

1. Aleskerov, F., & Golubenko, M. (2003). On the evaluation of a symmetry of political views and polarization of society. SU-HSE Working paper WP7/2003/04.

2. Aleskerov, F., & Oleynik, V. (2016). Multidimensional Polarization Index and its Application to an Analysis of the Russian State Duma. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.01351.

3. Anckar, D., Kuitto, K., Oberst, C., & Jahn, D. (2015). Country Report Finland, Sustainable Governance Indicators 2015. Available at: www. sgi-network. org.

4. Arter, D. (1995). The EU referendum in Finland on 16 October 1994: A vote for the West, not for Maastricht. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 33(3), 361-387.

5. Arter, D. (1999). Scandinavian politics today. Manchester University Press.

6. Arter, D. (2009). From a contingent party system to party system convergence? Mapping party system change in postwar Finland. Scandinavian Political Studies, 32(2), 221-239.

7. Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2008). What is middle class about the middle classes around the world?. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(2), 3-41A.

8. Berglund, S. (1988). The 1987 Eduskunta Election in Finland. Scandinavian Political Studies, 11(1), 69-76.

9. Bergman, T., & Strшm, K. (2011). The Madisonian turn: Political parties and parliamentary democracy in Nordic Europe. University of Michigan Press.

10. Bossert, W., Chakravarty, S. R., & D'Ambrosio, C. (2013). Multidimensional poverty and material deprivation with discrete data. Review of Income and Wealth, 59(1), 29-43.

11. Carey, J. M. (2006). Legislative organization.

12. Chakravarty, S. R., & D'Ambrosio, C. (2010). Polarization orderings of income distributions. Review of Income and Wealth, 56(1), 47-64.

13. Chakravarty, S. R., & Majumder, A. (2001). Inequality, polarisation and welfare: Theory and applications. Australian Economic Papers, 40(1), 1-13.

14. Dalton, R. J. (2000). Citizen attitudes and political behavior. Comparative political studies, 33(6-7), 912-940.

15. Duverger, M. (1980). A new political system model: semi?presidential government. European journal of political research, 8(2), 165-187.

16. El Hannari, N., Pajala, A., Raiskila, M., Suojaranta, T. ja Vainio, J. 2015. Ryhmдyhtenдisyyden vakaus: Hallitus-oppositio -ддnestдminen eduskunnassa 1980-luvun parlamentaarisessa murroksessa. Politiikka57:2, 126-136.

17. Esteban, J., Gradнn, C., & Ray, D. (2007). An extension of a measure of polarization, with an application to the income distribution of five OECD countries. Journal of Economic Inequality, 5(1), 1-19.

18. Esteban, J. M., & Ray, D. (1994). On the measurement of polarization. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 819-851.

19. Gallagher & Michael, (2017). Election indices dataset at http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/staff/michael_gallagher/ElSystems/index.php, accessed [date].

20. Gigliarano, C., & Mosler, K. (2009). Constructing indices of multivariate polarization. Journal of Economic Inequality, 7(4), 435-460.

21. Jalava, J., Pohjola, M., Ripatti, A., & Vilmunen, J. (2006). Biased technical change and capital-labour substitution in Finland, 1902-2003. Topics in Macroeconomics, 6(1), 1-20.

22. Jonung, L., Kiander, J., & Vartia, P. (2009). The great financial crisis in Finland and Sweden: the dynamics of boom, bust and recovery, 1985-2000. The Great Financial Crisis in Finland and Sweden, Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc, 19-70.

23. Karvonen, L. (2014). Parties, governments and voters in Finland: Politics under fundamental societal transformation. ECPR Press.

24. Katz, R. S., & Mair, P. (1995). Changing models of party organization and party democracy: the emergence of the cartel party. Party politics, 1(1), 5-28.

25. Lipacheva, A. E. (2015). Editors of the Series WP7 “Mathematical methods for decision making in economics, business and politics” Aleskerov Fuad, Mirkin Boris, Podinovskiy Vladislav.

26. Lipset, S. M., & Rokkan, S. (Eds.). (1967). Party systems and voter alignments: Cross-national perspectives (Vol. 7). Free press.

Размещено на Allbest.ru