Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T07:32:34.303Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Democratic Breakdown and Democratic Stability: A Comparison of Interwar Estonia and Finland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Alan Siaroff
Alan Siaroff
Affiliation:
University of Lethbridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two of the new states of interwar Europe were Estonia and Finland. Both arose out of the Russian Empire and both were literate, Protestant nations. Yet democracy broke down in Estonia but survived in Finland. These outcomes would seem ironic, given that Finnish independence involved a brutal civil war and Finland was linguistically divided—factors not present in Estonia. This study, however, examines not just the nature of independence but also the constitutional structures, party politics and regime crises of these two neighbouring cases. In terms of the factors commonly cited as favouring stable democracy, the Estonian-Finnish contrast shows the particular explanatory importance of political culture, the speed of democratization, the views of elites and the nature of the party system. What happened in Finland also implies that a presidential, or at least a balanced semipresidential, system cannot be considered as inherently dangerous for democratic stability.

Résumé

Deux des nouveaux États de l'Europe de l'entre-deux-guerres furent l'Estonie et la Finlande. Tous deux provenaient de l'Empire russe et étaient des nations instruites et protestantes. Néanmoins, la démocratie s'est effondrée en Estonie mais a survécu en Finlande. Ces résultats peuvent sembler ironiques étant donné que l'indépendance finlandaise a entraîné une guerre civile brutale et la Finlande fut divisée linguistiquement—facteurs non présents en Estonie. Cependant, cette étude examine non seulement la nature de l'indépendance mais aussi les structures constitutionnelles, la politique de partis et les crises des régimes de ces deux cas voisins. En ce qui concerne les facteurs cités comme étant généralement favorables à la stabilité démocratique, le contraste entre l'Estonie et la Finlande montre l'importance explicative particulière de la culture politique, la rapidité de la démocratisation, les avis des élites et la nature du système de partis. La situation finlandaise suggère aussi qu'un système présidentiel, ou à tout le moins semi-présidentiel équilibré, ne peut pas être consideré comme dangereux en soi pour la stabilité démocratique.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , March 1999 , pp. 103 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Huntington, Samuel P., The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 37–38.Google Scholar

2 The relationship between development and democratization is most associated with the work of Lipset, Seymour Martin, going back to his “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy,” American Political Science Review 53 (1959), 69–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar. However, Przeworski and Limongi have concluded (for the post-1945 era) that whereas the level of economic development relates to the stability of a democratic regime, it does not affect the probability of a transition to democracy (Przeworski, Adam and Limongi, Fernando, “Modernization: Theories and Facts,” World Politics 49 [1997], 155–183)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Dahl, Robert A., Democracy and Its Critics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 251.Google Scholar

4 Ibid., 251–52; and Vanhanen, Tatu, The Emergence of Democracy: A Comparative Study of 119 States, 1850–1979 (Helsinki: The Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters, 1984), 33.Google Scholar

5 Diamond, Larry, Linz, Juan J. and Lipset, Seymour Martin, “Introduction: What Makes for Democracy?” in Diamond, , Linz, and Lipset, , eds., Politics in Developing Countries: Comparing Experiences with Democracy (2nd ed.; Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1995), 27–29Google Scholar.

6 Ibid., 19.

7 Huntington, The Third Wave, 37, 39.

8 Diamond, Linz and Lipset, “Introduction,” 16–19.

9 Dahl, Robert A., Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971), 129–162Google Scholar; and Dahl, Democracy and Its Critics, 260–62.

10 Dahl, Polyarchy, 40–43.

11 Linz, Juan J., The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Crisis, Breakdown, and Reequilibration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), 21.Google Scholar

12 Finer, Samuel E., The Man on Horseback: The Role of the Military in Politics (2nd ed.; Boulder: Westview Press, 1988), 78–80.Google Scholar

13 Dahl, Polyarchy, 33–39.

14 Dahl, Democracy and Its Critics, 254–60; and Lijphart, Arend, Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977).Google Scholar

15 Diamond, Linz and Lipset, “Introduction,” 33–36.

16 Ibid., 48–52; Dahl, Democracy and Its Critics, 263; and Huntington, The Third Wave, 100.

17 Eight flaws noted are: the individual president is by definition elected in a zerosum “winner-take-all” contest; often with only a plurality of (public) support; the losing candidate(s) lose more, and they lack the position of an opposition parliamentary leader; the president is elected for a fixed term, usually of six years, and cannot be removed if unpopular or incompetent; in the case of death, the presidency is immediately transferred to the then-vice president, who may be similarly flawed, or even more so; the president and the congress can be hostile forces, yet each can claim the legitimacy of democratic election; the inability to re-elect a given president makes that person unaccountable, and may also be frustrating in the case of a good president; and a presidential system—like singlemember-plurality voting—effectively “compresses” the party system into less than three main parties, which is not desirable for heterogeneous societies (Linz, Juan J., “Presidential or Parliamentary Democracy: Does It Make a Difference?” in Linz, Juan J. and Valenzuela, Arturo, eds., Comparative Perspectives, vol. 1 of The Failure of Presidential Democracy [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994])Google Scholar. The cited conclusion is from page 70.

18 The classic definition of semipresidentialism is that of Duverger, who defines it as having three elements: “(1) the president of the republic is elected by universal suffrage; (2) he possesses quite considerable powers; [and] (3) he has opposite him, however, a prime minister and ministers who possess executive and governmental power and can stay in office only if the parliament does not show its opposition to them” (Duverger, Maurice, “A New Political System Model: Semi-Presidential Government,” European Journal of Political Research 8 [19806], 166)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Linz, “Presidential or Parliamentary Democracy,” 48–55.

20 Mainwaring, Scott, “Presidentialism, Multipartism, and Democracy: The Difficult Combination,” Comparative Political Studies 26 (1993), 198–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 de Meur, Giséle and Berg-Schlosser, Dirk, “Comparing Political Systems: Establishing Similarities and Dissimilarities,” European Journal of Political Research 26 (1994), 198.Google Scholar

22 Kirby, D. G., Finland in the Twentieth Century (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1979), 64.Google Scholar

23 Hamalainen, Pekka K., “Revolution, Civil War, and Ethnic Relations: The Case of Finland,” Journal of Baltic Studies 5 (1974), 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Lipping, Imre, “The Emergence of Estonian Authoritarianism” in Ziedonis, Arvids Jr. et al. , eds., Baltic History (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1974), 209Google Scholar.

25 Uibopuu, Henn-Juri, “The Constitutional Development of the Estonian Republic,” Journal of Baltic Studies 4 (1973), 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Ibid., 14; and Jackson, Estonia, 166.

27 Uibopuu, “Constitutional Development,” 12.

28 Ibid., 15.

29 Arter, David, Politics and Policy-Making in Finland (Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books, 1987), 6–8Google Scholar; and Jacobs, Francis, “Finland,” in Jacobs, Francis, ed., Western European Political Parties: A Comprehensive Guide (Harlow: Longman, 1989), 520ff.Google Scholar

30 Finland is thus the “oldest of the [ongoing] semi-presidential regimes” (Duverger, “A New Political System Model,” 174).

31 The Finnish president serves a six-year renewable term; from 1925 until 1988 the standard procedure was a national vote for an electoral college of 300 party-affiliated electors who then voted in multiple ballots until someone had an absolute majority. Parties were free to “make deals” and to change their support between ballots. Only in 1919, 1944, 1946 and (effectively) 1974 was the president selected by parliament rather than an electoral college (Arter, Politics and Policy-Making in Finland, 80–82).

32 Taagepera, Rein, Estonia: Return to Independence (Boulder: Westview Press, 1993), 37Google Scholar; and Isberg, Alvin, Med demokratin som insats: Politiskt-konstitutionellt maktspel i 1930-talets Estland, Studia Baltica Stockholmiensia 4 (Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, 1988), 13.Google Scholar

33 de Chambon, Henry, La république d'Estonie (Paris: Éditions de la revue parlementaire, 1936), 119Google Scholar; and Royal Institute of International Affairs, The Baltic States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1938), 45–48.Google Scholar

34 Panning, Tönu, The Collapse of Liberal Democracy and the Rise of Authoritarianism in Estonia (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1975), 10Google Scholar; and Royal Institue of International Affairs, The Baltic States, 46–47.

35 Nordström, W. E., “Agrarförbundets Uppkomst,” Granskaren (September 1937), 110–114Google Scholar; and Hokkanen, Kari, “Die finnischen Bauernparteien” in Gollwitzer, Heinz, ed., Europäische Bauernparteien im 20. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: C. Gustav Fischer Verlag, 1977), 169–206.Google Scholar

36 Hokkanen, “Die finnischen Bauernparteien,” 180–83; Nordstrom, W. E., “Agrarpartiet under Sjalvstandighetstiden,” Granskaren (April 1938), 58–62.Google Scholar

37 Coakley, John, “Political Succession and Regime Change in New States in Interwar Europe: Ireland, Finland, Czechoslovakia and the Baltic Republics,” European Journal of Political Research 14 (1986), 200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 Linz, The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes, 111.

39 Magi, Artur, Das Staatsleben Estlands wdhrend seiner Selbstdndigkeit: 1. Das Regierungssystem (Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1967), 234–243Google Scholar; Panning, The Collapse of Liberal Democracy, 14–17; and Jackson, J. Hampden, Estonia (2nd ed.; London: Allen and Unwin, 1948), 180–181.Google Scholar

40 Rintala, Marvin, Four Finns: Political Profiles (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969), 50, 76Google Scholar.

41 Alapuro, Risto, State and Revolution in Finland (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 206–207Google Scholar; and Kalela, Jorma, “Right-Wing Radicalism in Finland during the Interwar Period: Perspectives from and an Appraisal of Recent Literature,” Scandinavian Journal of History 1 (1976), 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 Royal Institute of International Affairs, The Baltic States, 46; and Lipping, “The Emergence of Estonian Authoritarianism,” 210.

43 For example, it was not until July 1933 that the Estonian kroon was finally devalued — and this measure was only narrowly passed (Panning, The Collapse of Liberal Democracy, 43).

44 von Rauch, Georg, Geschichte der baltischen Staaten (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1970), 128–129Google Scholar; Lipping, “The Emergence of Estonian Authoritarianism,” 212; and Panning, The Collapse of Liberal Democracy, 39–40.

45 Isberg, Med demokratin som insats, 33.

46 Jackson, Estonia, 189–90; Panning, The Collapse of Liberal Democracy, 41–42, 51–55; and Uibopuu, “Constitutional Development,” 17.

47 Isberg, Med demokratin som insats, 40, 158; and Raun, Toivo U., Estonia and the Estonians (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1987), 119.Google Scholar

48 Hellmuth Weiss, “Bauernparteien in Estland,” in Gollwitzer, ed., Europaische Bauernparteien im 20. Jahrhundert, 207–22.

49 Isberg, Med demokmtin som insats, 45, 51; Panning, The Collapse of Liberal Democracy, 55; and Lipping, “The Emergence of Estonian Authoritarianism,” 212, 215–16.

50 Panning, The Collapse of Liberal Democracy, 56–57; and Vardys, V. Stanley, “The Rise of Authoritarian Rule in the Baltic States,” in Vardys, V. Stanley and Misiunas, Romuald J., eds., The Baltic States in Peace and War, 1917–1945 (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1978), 79.Google Scholar

51 De Chambon, La république d'Estonie, 121; and Jackson, Estonia, 203–04.

52 Taagepera, Estonia: Return to Independence, 55–56, 75.

53 The upper house, or senate, was a corporatist body of 30 interest representatives including leaders of the military, churches and universities, plus 10 direct presidential appointees. Both houses served a five-year term. Also, the voting age was raised to 22 from a comparatively low 20 (Uibopuu, “Constitutional Development,” 23–24, 33 n. 198, 34 n. 217; and Jackson, Estonia, 205–08).

54 Panning, The Collapse of Liberal Democracy, 60.

55 Kirby, Finland, 85–87; and Alapuro, Risto and Allardt, Eric, “The Lapua Movement: The Threat of Rightist Takeover in Finland, 1930–32,” in Linz, Juan J. and Stepan, Alfred, eds., The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), 132.Google Scholar

56 Wahlbäck, Krister, Från Mannerheim till Kekkonen: Huvudlinjer i finländsk politik 1917–1967 (Stockholm: Aldus/Bonniers, 1967), 115Google Scholar; and Kirby, Finland, 85–87.

57 Ibid., 241; and Kirby, Finland, 89.

58 Alapuro and Allardt, “The Lapua Movement,” 131.

59 This is Linz's term in his The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes, 27ff.

60 Kirby, Finland, 89–90.

61 Rintala, Marvin, Three Generations: The Extreme Right Wing in Finnish Politics (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962), 192.Google Scholar

62 Dag Anckar notes that the Finnish political culture at the turn of the century was a paternalistic one. See his Liberalism, Democracy and Political Culture in Finland (Åbo [Turku]: Åbo Akademi, 1983), 10.Google Scholar

63 Alapuro, State and Revolution in Finland, 212–14; and Kalela, “Right-Wing Radicalism in Finland,” 120; and Hokkanen, “Die finnischen Bauernparteien,” 184.

64 Djupsund, Göran and Karvonen, Lauri, Fascismen i Finland: Högerextremismens förankring hos väljarkåren 1929–1939 (Aring;bo [Turku]: Abo Akademi, 1983), 18–19.Google Scholar

65 Kirby, Finland, 90–91; and Carsten, F. L., The Rise of Fascism (2nd ed.; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), 164–169.Google Scholar

66 De Meur and Berg-Schlosser, “Comparing Political Systems,” 210.

67 Dahl, Polyarchy, 33–39.

68 Coakley, “Political Succession and Regime Change”; and Taagepera, “Civic Culture and Authoritarianism,” 408–09.

69 Kirby, David, The Baltic World, 1772–1993 (Harlow: Longman, 1995), 328–329.Google Scholar

70 Alapuro, State and Revolution in Finland, 217; and Linz, The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes, 76.

71 McHale, Vincent E., “The Party Systems of the Baltic States: A Comparative European Perspective,” Journal of Baltic Studies 17 (1986), 308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

72 Alter, David, “The Finnish Centre Party: Profile of a ‘Hinge Group,’ ” West European Politics 2 (1979), 108–110.Google Scholar

73 Alapuro, State and Revolution in Finland, 258.

74 Ibid.

75 Panning, The Collapse of Liberal Democracy, 65–66; Puntila, L. A., Politische Geschichte Finnlands 1809–1977, trans, by von Willebrand, C.-A. (Helsinki: Otava, 1980), 160–161Google Scholar; and Kirby, Finland, 105. The quotation is given in Puntila, Politische 161 (my translation).

76 Dahl, Polyarchy, 192–93.

77 Coakley, “Political Succession and Regime Change,” 201; and Alapuro, State and Revolution in Finland, 259.

78 Shugart, Matthew Soberg and Carey, John M., Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

79 Duverger, “A New Political System Model,” 173–76.

80 Uibopuu, “Constitutional Development,” 26–27.

81 Sartori, Giovanni, “Neither Presidentialism nor Parliamentarism,” in Valenzuela, Linz, eds., The Failure of Presidential Democracy, 109–110.Google Scholar