No abstract

Within the framework of a`mixed constitution', the Finnish political system wavered during a period of 80 years between genuine parliamentarism and e¡ective semi-presidential rule. The new constitution, adopted in the parliament almost unanimously and carried into e¡ect on 1 March 2000, aimed to reduce the powers of the president and to bind the exercise of the president's remaining powers more tightly to the cooperation of the parliamentary government. The constitution will act as a bu¡er, preventing any recurrence of the presidential activism of the 1960s and 1970s, and the political climate is in fact amenable to the further development of parliamentary modes of operation. It is clearly to be expected that the strengthening of the parliament^government axis and the reduction of the president's powers will distance the head of state from the everyday policy making and emphasize his or her role as a support of the government of the time, a moderator in con£icts and a mirror of popular opinion. In the future, the functioning of the political system will not be directed so much by reference to the political capital and personal activities of the president, but rather by reference to the parliamentary constellation, party interrelations and the ebb and £ow of governing coalitions. Semi-presidentialism as a System FormBroad historical analyses of Western European regimes tend to look upon sovereign power as the undermost and recessive element of the total governmental complex (e.g. Nousiainen 1991). Within the frame of the inherited constitutional order, sovereign rule was ¢rst obscured by the institutional structure of parliamentarism, and, most recently, constrained even further by the party government system. Party-based parliamentarism is thus a twice-revised variant of the original sovereign-centred regime. Beginning with Benjamin Constant and Joseph Barthe¨lemy, democratic constitutional doctrine was in search of a useful role for the monarch or elected president, and found it in the settling of con£icts and the securing of parliamentary balance. The traditional names pouvoir neutre and pouvoir mode¨rateur refer

 Background and objectives  The objective of the course is to introduce students to the political systems of Finland and the Nordic countries. After the course the students should understand how the political system of Finland operates and how the Nordic model of politics differs from the political systems of other European countries  The lecture series focuses mainly on the Finnish political system. In addition, students are expected to read an article about Nordic politics  Course organisation  The dates and topics of the lectures are:  5.10. Political culture / Voting and elections  6.10. Political parties / Parliament / Government / President  7.10. Corporatism and the welfare state / EU and security policies / Swedish-speaking minority / Conclusion  Course evaluation is based on participation in the lectures and a learning diary. The learning diary (10-12 pages, font size 12, 1½ spacing) must be submitted by email to the teacher by 30 October POLITICAL TRUST sum variable (trust in parliament, politicians and parties), European Social Survey 2010 (scale 0-10)

No abstract

Abstract. Primarily on account of the ‘semi‐presidential’ trait of the regime Finland is, along with France, often regarded as a deviant case among Western European states. The presidency certainly restrains the leadership role of the prime minister and curtails the governmental agenda on foreign policy. But in its everyday political process Finland still reveals customary features of European multiparty parliamentarism. With special emphasis on the bureaucratic tradition of the central administration, the article examines the structure of the State Council and outlines four styles of decision‐making.