So the local elections are done in Finland. It was fantastic to see many of my friends getting through. They all deserve it. Congratulations to Elina, Laura K, Mari, Laura R, Ville and Nanna. Helsinki seems to be in good hands.
The centre-right party National Coalition (Kokoomus) is the winner of the elections being for the first time in Finland´s history the biggest party on the municipal level nation-wide. They even managed to pass the Social Democrats in Vantaa, a traditionally strongly leftish city next to Helsinki. Kokoomus is growing its alliance amongst Finns, which I hope means moving even more strongly towards liberalism also socially.
The Greens beat the Social Democrats with clear numbers in Helsinki and became only for the second time in history the second biggest party of the capital. I hope this means more investments in services, in public transport and urban planning. Traffic policy is the big issue where Kokoomus and the Greens will most likely be bolstering their muscles against each other in the course of the next four years.
Nationally the biggest winner of the elections is the populist True Finns growing their seat number nationally with 336 seats. They have clearly marked their place as a serious contestant for the votes of the working class and the unemployed with a xenophobic message. This truly worries me even if one could seek for some consolation from the fact that the rise of the populist right is a pan-European phenomenon. I understand the fear of insecurity that the True Finns tap into but in times like these we really see what kind of a wonderful safety net the EU and the euro are for us. The responsibility of the other parties is not to ignore the True Finns but to take them on their message and reveal the weakness of their rhetoric. It is however yet difficult to make any prognosis what their support will result to apart from offensive language.
The Social Democrats came down in the elections with rocket speed. Their populism did not work in this economic situation with factories being closed down across the country. I feel most Finns understand that it is time to save, not to demand more for free. Only in Helsinki they lost nearly 12.000 votes mostly going to the Greens and True Finns. The fall especially in Helsinki was harder than anyone expected. It only continues the long list of evidence on the crisis of European Left. Chairperson Urpilainen´s strategy of claiming her party to be part of the centre can be questioned - at least the voters were not energised by it. Taking the position of the conservative and stubborn defender of the Nordic welfare state (which they claim to be their creation) is not a very aspirational campaign message.
In other parts of the country the results also show difficulties for the Centre Party, traditionally the biggest party on local level and also in the last parliament elections. The success of Kokoomus is mostly due to the problems of the Centre Party. The position of Prime Minister Vanhanen as the party leader is significantly weakened for instance by the poor results in Lapland - Centre Party lost there 8 % of their votes from 2004 meaning over 6 000 votes. It is interesting to see how the price of being in government is only paid in these elections by the Centre Party.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Please explain what you mean by xenophobic message?
Well, for instance by lobbying for a tighter immigration policy or Timo Soini advocating that cultural budget can only be used for supporting "Finnish culture" which he described for instance as folk dancing.
So correct me if I'm mistaken, you believe that someone is xenophobic if they want tighter immigration?
What do you call then the opposite side of the spectrum, those that see no problem with a host ethnic society becoming a minority within their own country?
I recognise your point to an extent. Just being in favour of tighter immigration does not make you xenophobic. But defending this policy position by claiming that immigration per se threatens Finnish values (without defending those Finnish values) has according to my judgement a xenophobic tendency.
And to your second point: I see no problem in a particular ethnicity becoming a minority or a majority amongst citizens. For instance in the United States it is already calculated that in approximately 20 years non-whites will form a majority of the electorate. This, however, will not tell anything about sharing or not sharing values amongst the population. Ethnicity is not equal to values or cultural codes.
"I recognise your point to an extent. Just being in favour of tighter immigration does not make you xenophobic. But defending this policy position by claiming that immigration per se threatens Finnish values (without defending those Finnish values) has according to my judgement a xenophobic tendency."
Hi Tommi, glad that you agree with me that being in favor of tighter immigration, does not automatically make one a xenophobe. I am then to assume that if the imported values and value systems are indeed in conflict with that of a liberal, pluralistic and democratic host society, then you would have no problem in defending that host society's right to demand certain requirements from possible immigrants seeking entrance. Or are you such a person that believes in "open border" policies, that anyone, anywhere should be able to choose where they are to live?
"And to your second point: I see no problem in a particular ethnicity becoming a minority or a majority amongst citizens."
Does this thinking extend to 3rd world as well? For an example, European immigration to a certain region in Africa increases to such an extent that, the local culture and language of a distinct ethnicity diminishes to a shell of its former self in perhaps say, 100-200 years, and then finally extinction? Are you saying that there is not richness in diversity?
"For instance in the United States it is already calculated that in approximately 20 years non-whites will form a majority of the electorate. This, however, will not tell anything about sharing or not sharing values amongst the population. Ethnicity is not equal to values or cultural codes."
European colonialism of the Americas has been the subject of many debates, it sounds as if you agree to such a thing as long as its a peaceful one. What are you to say to the plethora of diverse and unique ethnic groups, that feel the strain of becoming increasingly extinct? Are any areas or locals or states off limits to becoming a minority in the areas they have held for a millennia as a majority? Again, are you saying that there is not richness in diversity?
What are you to say to people who wish not to be colonized?
Where did you go Tommi? I'm still waiting for your response.
I do believe in the right of countries to set certain house rules for living but the key is making sure that also the native population lives up to them. If we demand openness and acceptance from immigrants, we need to make sure that the native people´s scorecard is clear. Societies with double standards lead easier to violent conflicts.
I think we also need different strategies to places where the immigrants are economically stronger and to places, like EU, where immigration is caused mostly by willingness to improve one´s living standards.
It might be also that we have a different definition of diversity. Every ethnicity staying in their own box is not what I call diversity, mixing and recognising differences also within the native population (and their values) is true diversity.
Post a Comment