Arvoisat kuulijat,
näin ennakkoon jo hyvää itsenäisyyspäivää. On mukavaa olla täällä Nummelassa melkein kymmenen vuoden tauon jälkeen. Olen lähtenyt tästä koulusta vuonna 1994 – tosin vain tuohon naapuriin lukioon. Sen jälkeen tie on vienyt Jyväskylään, Helsinkiin, Amsterdamiin ja takaisin Helsinkiin. Eläminen ja työskentely täällä, muualla ja taas täällä on saanut pohtimaan paljon sitä, mikä tämä Suomi-niminen asia oikein on.
Viime viikolla julkistettiin Jorma Ollilan johdolla kirjoitettu Suomen maabrändi. Se on kahden vuoden työn tulos, jolla on tarkoitus kuvata uudella tavalla kaikille – etenkin meille suomalaisille mutta myös muulle maailmalle –, mistä meissä oikein on kysymys.
Voimiksemme sanotaan luottamus, hiljaisuus ja tekemisen meininki. Kuulostaa varmaan tutulta. Vaikka se suomalaisuus aika usein kääntyy myös jääräpäisyydeksi, siinä on jotakin aivan järjettömän hienoa. Eräs projektia varten haastateltu ulkomaalainen asiantuntija totesi, että suomalaisella on maailman luotettavin kädenpuristus. Se on maine, josta kannattaa pitää kiinni.
Suomi ei myöskään ole mikään valtavirran maa. Ja se on minusta upeaa. Katumuoti on Suomessa kummallisempaa kuin Ruotsissa. Meillä soitetaan sellolla Metallicaa. Marimekosta ei tule ikinä kaikkien käyttämiä vaatteita muualla kuin Suomessa. Suomessa on todella kivaa, jos pitää vaeltamisesta, oopperasta, karhujen bongaamisesta, koivukalusteista, hevistä. Mutta jos ei oikein ole sitä omaa juttua, täällä on hankala päästä alkuun.
Suomalaisuus on maabrändivaltuuskunnan mukaan toimivuutta, hyvää koulutusta ja luontoa. Suomalaisuus on talkoita, maailman pisintä makean veden tunnelia Päijänteen selältä Helsinkiin sekä yhtä tässä salissa tuttua juttua – maailman parhaita opettajia. Siis asioiden hyvin tekemistä ennen ja nyt.
Valtuuskunnan raportissa se monia kiehtonut juttu on, että nykytila ei yksin riitä. Meitä kannustetaan tekemään kouluista vieläkin parempia, muuttamaan museot ilmaisiksi, lopettamaan pulloveden tarjoaminen ja oppimaan tekemään särjestä parempaa ruokaa. Jos valtuuskunnan toiveet toteutuvat, vuonna 2030 puolet suomalaisesta maataloudesta on luomua ja Suomen järvistä voi juoda. Kuulostaa hyvältä.
Nämä kehut eivät ole aivan vilpittömät. On pakko tunnustaa, että olin mukana kirjoittamassa tuota raporttia. Keskeisimpiä ajatuksia maabrändissä on, että nämä suomalaisuuden voimat eivät ole asioita, jotka toteutuvat itsestään. Ne vaativat toimintaa. Siis sitä, että minun ja teidän tulee kääriä hihat ja ruveta tekemään. Tästä on hyvä puhua näin itsenäisyyspäivän tiimoilla.
Joulukuun kuudentena puhutaan paljon vapaudesta. Olemme tottuneet ajatukseen, että vapaus on vapautta jostakin. Siis ulkomaiden sorrosta, vanhempien määräyksistä, nälästä tai köyhyydestä. Tai vapautta siitä, että joku kertoo, millaisessa talossa ja missä saa asua ja millaista ruokaa ostaa. Tässä olemme onnistuneet ja tästä voimme olla ylpeitä sekä kiitollisia. Suomalaiset ovat varakkaita, koulutettuja ja kykeneviä.
Tuo vapaus on synnytetty kovalla hinnalla. Minä en osaa edes kuvitella, miltä tuntuisi, jos minun pitäisi pakata kahdessa–kolmessa tunnissa kaikki, joka minulle on arvokasta. Minun karjalainen isoäitini on näin joutunut toimimaan – kahdesti.
Maabrändityössä on hyvin arvokas muistutus meille. Pallo on nyt meidän sylissämme. Sillä tuo kovilla uhrauksilla hankittu vapaus jostakin muuttuu nopeasti arvottomaksi, jos sitä vapautta ei käytetä hyvin. Siis jos ymmärrämme vapauden oikeudeksi saastuttaa, vapaudeksi olla vastuuttomia tai vapaudeksi olla välittämättä. Minun isoäitini evakkomatka, kummitätini kokemukset ilmahälytyksistä pommitusten alkaessa tai isosetäni kaatuminen rintamalla ikään kuin mitätöityvät, jos me emme jatka tämän yhteiskunnan tekemistä paremmaksi. Koska ei hyvä elämä Suomessa vuonna 2010 voi perustua jonkun ulkoisen asian pelkoon, vaan mahdollisuuteen elää täyttä elämää meille tärkeiden ihmisten kanssa tässä ja nyt. Juuri sellaisena kuin itse on.
Tämä on minun ja meidän suurimpia haasteitamme tulevaisuudessa. Miten muutamme vapauden vastuulliseksi toiminnaksi? Tämän ja seuraavien sukupolvien haaste on kääntää vapaus jostakin vapaudeksi johonkin. Siis vapaudeksi elää vastuullisesti, auttaa, välittää, rakastaa tai tehdä.
Meillä on tuhoton määrä asioita hoidettavana. Jokainen suomalainen kuluttaa vuodessa luonnonvaroja 6,2 hehtaarin verran. Jos kaikki eläisivät maapallolla kuin suomalaiset, tarvitsisimme kaksi ja puoli maapalloa.
Ja vaikka ostamme sylit täyteen, se ei ole tehnyt meistä onnellisempia. Yksinäisyydestä on tullut Suomessa kansantauti niin vanhusten kuin nuortenkin keskuudessa. Yhdessä maailman rikkaimmista maista monia nuoria pelottaa tulevaisuus.
Jos haluamme onnistua omassa itsenäisyystaistelussamme, meidän on uskallettava tehdä Suomesta oikeasti paras paikka elää. Se tarkoittaa sen päivittäisen elämän tekemistä paremmaksi. Siis kiusaamisesta vapaata kouluaikaa, ympäristöystävällisempää asumista ja lähimmäisten ympäröimää vanhuutta. Se tarkoittaa enemmän kausiruokaa ja vähemmän kirsikkatomaatteja talvella. Se tarkoittaa vähemmän hiilivoimaloita ja enemmän tuulimyllyjä. Se tarkoittaa pidempia lomia lähempänä. Siis uusia makuelämyksiä, aikaa meille tärkeiden ihmisten kanssa ja asioiden tekemistä muiden ihmisten hyväksi. Se tarkoittaa kykyä ja halua tehdä asioita yhdessä meistä erilaisten kanssa. Ja se kaikki voi alkaa täältä koulusta.
Jos mietin omaa aikaani tässä rakennuksessa, muistot ovat hyvin ristiriitaisia. Koulu oli minusta helppoa, mutta koulussa ei ollut. Sain hyviä arvosanoja eikä minua juurikaan kiusattu. Minulla oli hyviä opettajia – joista osa on vielä täällä. Jokin kuitenkin hiersi.
Tiesin, että en sopinut muottiin. En ollut hyvä liikunnassa enkä ollut kiinnostunut samoista asioista kuin muut. En uskaltanut puhua siitä erilaisuuden tunteesta oikein kenellekään, koska pelkäsin joutuvani sinne outojen laariin. Minä kun pidin äidinkielestä ja yhteiskuntaopista. Minä olin meidän luokalla ainoa, joka osasi luetella kaikki ministerit. Ja koska itseä ahdisti, sitä tuli kiusattua muita. Se kaduttaa.
Minusta tuntui usein siltä, että muiden elämä oli upeaa ja minun elämäni ei ollut vielä edes alkanut. Minusta tuntui usein siltä, että kukaan ei voi ymmärtää minua. Koska en uskaltanut puhua siitä erilaisuuden tunteesta kenellekään, se asia vain kasvoi ja paheni sisällä. Ja vaikka myöhemmin yliopistossa ymmärsin, että tällaisia nörttejä oli Nummelan lisäksi Velkualla, Kajaanissa ja Espoossa, ainakin minä olisin silloin täällä Nummelan yläasteella kaivannut sitä, että joku sanoisi, että sä kelpaat. Tai kysyisi, että miten sulla menee ja mikä sua kiinnostaa.
Toivon, että asiat ovat nyt Nummelassa paremmin. Siis että porukkaan uskalletaan ottaa mukaan itsestä erilaisia tyyppejä. Ja jos näin ei vielä ole, toivon, että täällä ruvetaan muuttamaan niitä paremmaksi. Koska täällä on kaikki ainekset siihen. Teidän, oppilaiden, isoin tehtävä on tehdä kaikkien vapaus todeksi. Kuten urheilupiireissä sanotaan: kaikki pelaa. Ja siis ihan oikeasti.
Se tarkoittaa sitä, että on muutettava tapaa olla yhdessä. Menkää juttelemaan niille, jotka ovat vähän hiljaisempia. Uskaltakaa auttaa ja olla autettuna. Olkaa rohkeasti jotain mieltä. Älkää pelätkö innostua eri asioita kuin muut. Älkää stressatko mieltänne sillä, että mitä teistä tulee isona. Suurinta osaa teidän ammateistanne ei vielä ole olemassa. Ihan noin esimerkkinä: kun minä kävin tätä koulua, Googlea ei vielä ollut.
Opettajia kannustaisin luottamaan oppilaiden osaamiseen ja haluun olla tekemässä sitä todellisuutta ja tulevaisuutta, josta puhutaan. Antakaa jokaisen oppilaan opettaa joku asia muille. Antakaa jokaisen olla ainakin kerran vuodessa tosi hyvä. Koska jos jotain on tähän ikään mennessä oppinut, se on se, että me kaikki olemme jossain seurassa jotenkin kummallisia ja vähemmistössä. Voin taata, että teistä jokainen on joskus vähän liian mies, vähän liian nainen, vähän liian homo, vähän liian puhelias, vähän liian hidas tai vähän liian valkoinen. Siksi kaikkien pitäminen mukana porukassa koko ajan tekee kaikkien elämän paremmaksi.
Suomi on hyvä maa ja itsenäisyys arvokas asia. Mutta itsenäisyys on myös iloinen asia. Tämä unohtuu Suomessa usein. Itsenäisyys ei ole Linnan juhlia ja sotilasparaateja, vaan mahdollisuutta elää hyvin. Siksi minulla on teille kaikille yksi, varsin helppo ehdotus. Uskaltakaa hymyillä tänään. Nostakaa sitä suunpieltä molemmista reunoista ja levittäkää tunne silmiin. Uskalletaan juhlia itsenäisyyspäivänä sitä, mitä me saamme olla – ei sitä, mitä meidän ei tarvitse olla. Se ei ole vaikeaa. Itsenäisyys ja vapaus ovat asioita, joista saa olla iloinen. Katsokaa vaikka amerikkalaisia. Heinäkuun neljäntenä he kutsuvat ihmisiä kylään ja kertovat lähellä oleville tuttuja, kuinka mahtavia he ovat. Sitä on se hyvä vapaus.
Kiitos.
Showing posts with label finland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label finland. Show all posts
Friday, December 03, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Boys Aren´t Alright
"There´s too few roles available for boys. They are very early divided into winners and losers."
This assessment by a social worker specialised in marginalised boys made me think. Young men in this country are surely not doing too well. Even when there are more and more dads who play an equal role in bringing up the kids, too many boys still grow up in a climate where showing emotions is a sign of weakness and expressing violence strengthens your position in the group. Boys don´t cry. Be a man. It´s no wonder that according to research, well-being does not have a gender but ill-being does.
This became evident on a recent visit to an amazing NGO called Icehearts in Vantaa, Finland. Icehearts specialises in boys about to be taken into custody, having a difficult situation at home or not doing too well socially. They also include young people with an immigrant background. They often start with boys who have zero trust towards adults (for a reason) and are used to solving things through violence. By helping in school, teaching trust and group skills and playing sports, Icehearts mentors 6–18-year-old boys to get a grip on their lives, to plan their future and to continue their education. The men working at Icehearts show an incredible amount of dedication: they commit to working with a group of boys all the way from the age of six to maturity.
What they deal with is the same thing one can witness in the award-winning Finnish documentary Miesten vuoro by Joonas Berghäll and Mika Hotakainen. The documentary captures intimate discussions between Finnish men in the sauna. In the incredible scenes the men open up about their misfortunes, mistakes and let the tears run. Without victimising or ridiculing its subjects, Miesten vuoro shows that a large part of Finnish men have nonexistent tools and channels to deal with emotions. These tough guys demonstrate how the need to talk about feelings, love and family is there. The stuff has obviously been bottled up for years so when the floods break, there´s no stopping. No one makes it out from the cinema with dry eyes. At least every Finnish man recognises a father, husband, uncle or grandfather.
Without proper interventions we will keep on growing generations of men without any skills to deal with themselves. Exactly due to these nearly nonexistent emotional skills things are dealt through alcohol and violence.
Too often we use well-meaning tools for trying to change people into something else rather than coaching them to be better versions of themselves. Icehearts shows us one way. They clearly state that starting from skills and adapting the activities based on the group is the way forward. As one of the coaches put it: it´s not about ice hockey, it´s about the boys.
There is something to learn also from the small Finnish municipality called Kyyjärvi where they successfully formed a cooperative from people who had been unemployed for years. The key to success was that it started from interviews where the men and women were allowed to tell what they can do. Allowing people to keep their pride while going through difficult times helps you to win them on your side.
Monday, February 08, 2010
No More Don´t Ask, Don´t Tell
My biggest awakening of this year has been on the political aspects of food. I blogged earlier about Pollan and Safran Foer as some of the people kicking the discussion food going. Having now finished Safran Foer´s Eating Animals, it is becoming more and more obvious that we need to treat food more as a political issue. We´ve kind of let ourselves be swept away by nutritionists and health advocates.
Never have we Finns spent such a small part of our income on the things we eat. What we eat is making the planet and ourselves sick. We push stuff down our throats without a faintest clue of what it contains. Food comes increasingly from the Alepa shelf, not from the field. We´re like that awful Clinton policy on gays in the military: we pretend that there are no problems by not asking any questions. When something goes wrong, we say it is an individual mistake.
EU governments and the EU itself spend an insane amount of money on subsidising and promoting food. Just last year the Finnish government spent 257 000 euros on promoting diverse eating of pork (result here). Let me say that again: 257 000 euros on diverse ways of cooking pork. Honestly.
We have elections in 2011. I want the next government to take food seriously. I want better consumer policy, better ingredients and food produced closer to where I live. I want agriculture policy that takes climate change seriously. As a consumer and citizen I want to know where my food comes from, how its been grown and how ethical it is. And yes, I am willing to pay a bit more for the things on my plate.
I want better and more sustainable food. I want exciting food policy. I want beets of different sizes, big and dirty parsnips, uneven carrots and local bread in my grocery store. I want less of those soggy mozzarella-tomato paninis and more root vegetable delis. I want more publicity to proud farmers like Janne Länsipuro who gets excited over a pumpkin and a burdock. I want to take my nephew to a farm for a weekend to see how flour is made and where herbs come from.
But we also need actions by local and national government. Schools and lunch cafeterias are great places to teach people what good food tastes like. These are also excellent places to create sustainable ways of cooking for instance by diversifying the vegetarian meals.
People need incentives to make right choices. Food if anything can be a political issue that is truly participatory. Good food is a fun issue.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Immigration is a question of resources
We at Demos Helsinki (together with the centre liberal think tank e2) organised this week a future course for Finnish decision makers on immigration policy and the future of Finland. By focusing on the year 2030 we wanted to stress the fact that diversification will happen and it forces the society to rethink both cohesion and welfare. Detaching the participants from the current challenges, starting from 20 years from now and then counting backwards demonstrated well to them that change is possible as well as needed. Already in 2025 Finland is expected to have 500 000 pensioners and 300 000 immigrants more than currently.
We asked the twenty participants to narrow the outcomes into statements, which will be developed into a larger publication during the fall. Here are the outcomes:
It´s about resources.
Immigration cannot be solved purely as a question of attitudes and tolerance. It is fairer for all to talk about resources and needs. Immigration is already part of Finnish reality. Immigration will not save nor destroy Finnish welfare state but it offers a possibility for starting a rethinking process on welfare.
The work place needs to change.
Change is needed more in the work place and in professional communities than in the individual immigrant. Transformation training is needed in organisations faced with diversity. In order to open up the strong Finnish social networks we need financial support for extracurricular activities (sports, hobby clubs) around and within culturally diverse companies and public organisations. In order to speed up change, affirmative action can be used as a tool in recruitment for professions such as police officers and teachers (encounter professions).
We need a joint, hopeful future.
There is need for an inspirational concept of a Finnish future that is based on rights, responsibilities and goals of a better shared daily life. The best possible brand for Finland is created through happy people and communities. We need stricter equality politics in order to build a shared and fair future.
We need to learn Russia.
Understanding Russia and Russian are crucial for understanding immigration. Finland has already loads of unused competence on the issue, mutta purely mobilising that is not sufficient. There is a need to update the stuffy and narrow ideas of Russia into more exciting ones.
Politics of experimentation
We need courage to live with uncertainty. We need to openly acknowledge that we do not know what works. We need more research and more experimental politics. We need to support also unclear organisations.
Good Finland, happy families
We need to bring families to the core of diversity politics. Finland needs to strive to be the place for the happiest childhood on the planet without forcing families into uniformity. Schools need to be used as buildings and communities for parental volunteerism and non-governmental work such as hobbies, sports and clubs. Taking part in pre-school education only part time of the week needs to be possible in order to support various ways of combining work and parenting.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Shaken, Yet Still Standing
Yesterday´s elections were quite exciting, I have to say. It is always fantastic and good for democracy when things get shaken. Here a few observations:
- True Finns: Most of Finnish media is making the wrong analysis on this political party. Putting the party leader Timo Soini and his folks in the same category with the Dutch islamophobe Geert Wilders is a misrepresentation of the truth. The policy and popularity of True Finns works much more on the anti-establishment card than on xenophobia. This is quite obvious when you listen to them in debates. The party has a natural attraction amongst poor pensioners or unemployed youth - people feeling abandoned by the illusion we call the welfare state. Taking these fears and this anger seriously is a difficult challenge for the rest of the parties.
And let´s face it: how low would the voting rate have been WITHOUT True Finns? The fact that people wish to express anti-establishment sentiments and disappointment by voting is something we should take joy from.
- SDP: That old poster in the picture tells it all. SDP´s slogan: We will make some noise on your behalf. A political party unable to provide a role for the citizen deserves a defeat. As someone wrote on Facebook today: the problems of this party-turned-institution are the same as the Lutheran Church´s. And it is not saved by recycling Blairite slogans from 1997. Defending the System goes down badly at a time when people are seeking for a sense of involvement and belonging. Yes We Can is not only a disguising slogan for old politics, it means that you actually involve people in making change happen. It is a new way of doing politics and calls for a new way of building trust and communities. If they have the courage, this is a great opportunity for Social Democrats: empowering the people in the margins to be change makers in their own lives.
And let´s face it: we have come far from the 1903 goal on the separation of church and state when the leading man of the Social Democrats is a priest who is not even a member of the party.
- Greens: Good tail wind, have to give them that. I am not really interested in the boxes provided by other parties for the Greens: garden party of the right or the new Communists? This discussion does not really solve anything and is purely an intellectual masturbation exercise of political hacks.
If I would be making strategies for the party, I would try to find ways to diversify the party´s image from the current one: an upper middle-class smart party posse setting themselves above the rest of the society. The Greens should listen carefully to the increasing comments on arrogance and inability to understand other view points. Softening of actions, image and policy might be worth considering.
- National Coalition (Kokoomus): Kokoomus is still the biggest party in Finland although they did not make their target of keeping four seats. The party ran a campaign relying highly on the youthful Minister of Finance and the Minister of Foreign Affairs (neither of whom were running). They ran a campaign focusing on good mood, simplifications and happy-happy-joy-joy - an exemplary campaign of the republic of entertainment.
But the party stumbled in the last weeks when some candidates pushed some content to the surface which did not fit the party line. Cartoon TV ads do not explain away candidates calling immigrants social bums or questioning climate change.
This is the destiny of all parties controlled by spin doctors: there comes a point when you need to realise that you just cannot control it all.
All and all, the results tell a good story. The parties which have invested in their local actions and on bringing new people in did well in these elections. The ones at a loss with their objectives were punished by the voters. This is what we call democracy.
- True Finns: Most of Finnish media is making the wrong analysis on this political party. Putting the party leader Timo Soini and his folks in the same category with the Dutch islamophobe Geert Wilders is a misrepresentation of the truth. The policy and popularity of True Finns works much more on the anti-establishment card than on xenophobia. This is quite obvious when you listen to them in debates. The party has a natural attraction amongst poor pensioners or unemployed youth - people feeling abandoned by the illusion we call the welfare state. Taking these fears and this anger seriously is a difficult challenge for the rest of the parties.
And let´s face it: how low would the voting rate have been WITHOUT True Finns? The fact that people wish to express anti-establishment sentiments and disappointment by voting is something we should take joy from.
- SDP: That old poster in the picture tells it all. SDP´s slogan: We will make some noise on your behalf. A political party unable to provide a role for the citizen deserves a defeat. As someone wrote on Facebook today: the problems of this party-turned-institution are the same as the Lutheran Church´s. And it is not saved by recycling Blairite slogans from 1997. Defending the System goes down badly at a time when people are seeking for a sense of involvement and belonging. Yes We Can is not only a disguising slogan for old politics, it means that you actually involve people in making change happen. It is a new way of doing politics and calls for a new way of building trust and communities. If they have the courage, this is a great opportunity for Social Democrats: empowering the people in the margins to be change makers in their own lives.
And let´s face it: we have come far from the 1903 goal on the separation of church and state when the leading man of the Social Democrats is a priest who is not even a member of the party.
- Greens: Good tail wind, have to give them that. I am not really interested in the boxes provided by other parties for the Greens: garden party of the right or the new Communists? This discussion does not really solve anything and is purely an intellectual masturbation exercise of political hacks.
If I would be making strategies for the party, I would try to find ways to diversify the party´s image from the current one: an upper middle-class smart party posse setting themselves above the rest of the society. The Greens should listen carefully to the increasing comments on arrogance and inability to understand other view points. Softening of actions, image and policy might be worth considering.
- National Coalition (Kokoomus): Kokoomus is still the biggest party in Finland although they did not make their target of keeping four seats. The party ran a campaign relying highly on the youthful Minister of Finance and the Minister of Foreign Affairs (neither of whom were running). They ran a campaign focusing on good mood, simplifications and happy-happy-joy-joy - an exemplary campaign of the republic of entertainment.
But the party stumbled in the last weeks when some candidates pushed some content to the surface which did not fit the party line. Cartoon TV ads do not explain away candidates calling immigrants social bums or questioning climate change.
This is the destiny of all parties controlled by spin doctors: there comes a point when you need to realise that you just cannot control it all.
All and all, the results tell a good story. The parties which have invested in their local actions and on bringing new people in did well in these elections. The ones at a loss with their objectives were punished by the voters. This is what we call democracy.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Connecting The Dots
Last weekend I met my great aunt for the first time. There is a reason why: she left Finland in 1957 first to the United Kingdom and then continued to the United States. She was telling me how it is still difficult to connect the dots between the Finland then and Finland now. She left a country of muddy roads and arrived to one of Nokia, to put it bluntly.
I was struck by the Finland she was telling me about. She told about a school that did not accept her due to her religion. She left a country traumatised by war and where she was told several times that she did not belong. She left the country and her family for a better life, with no knowledge of English and no relations waiting in the other end.
The reasons for migration have not really changed in 50 years. But it seems to surprise some people here in the receiving nations that millions decide to leave all they have for a chance of a better life. People risk everything they love for some undefined dreams. For a promise with no money-back guarantee. It seems to surprise people even when the story can be found from each family.
It is surprising and - honestly - disappointing how we here, in a country that has transformed from a departure country to a receiving country, have continuing difficulties to comprehend that the people wanting to move to Finland share largely the reasons of those relatives of ours who left for Sweden, Germany, UK or the US. Paradoxically the other group - the ones who left - are portrayed as heroes when the the others - the ones arriving - are characterised as social bums. It is not only my great aunt who has difficulties connecting dots. Making this historical link might help understanding the transformation we are in as nations.
Something else has also stood the test of time: desire. Most people are not striving for something bizarre and condescending like tolerance and understanding. They are seeking for voting rights, good future for their children, a home, a job and some friends. Not tolerance but bread and freedom.
Oops, I think I just defined the American Dream.
I was struck by the Finland she was telling me about. She told about a school that did not accept her due to her religion. She left a country traumatised by war and where she was told several times that she did not belong. She left the country and her family for a better life, with no knowledge of English and no relations waiting in the other end.
The reasons for migration have not really changed in 50 years. But it seems to surprise some people here in the receiving nations that millions decide to leave all they have for a chance of a better life. People risk everything they love for some undefined dreams. For a promise with no money-back guarantee. It seems to surprise people even when the story can be found from each family.
It is surprising and - honestly - disappointing how we here, in a country that has transformed from a departure country to a receiving country, have continuing difficulties to comprehend that the people wanting to move to Finland share largely the reasons of those relatives of ours who left for Sweden, Germany, UK or the US. Paradoxically the other group - the ones who left - are portrayed as heroes when the the others - the ones arriving - are characterised as social bums. It is not only my great aunt who has difficulties connecting dots. Making this historical link might help understanding the transformation we are in as nations.
Something else has also stood the test of time: desire. Most people are not striving for something bizarre and condescending like tolerance and understanding. They are seeking for voting rights, good future for their children, a home, a job and some friends. Not tolerance but bread and freedom.
Oops, I think I just defined the American Dream.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Institution First
Today´s Helsingin Sanomat writes that the parliamentary committee reforming the national public broadcaster YLE is most likely going to suggest that YLE will be financed in the future through a separate YLE tax. Unlike the current license fee, this compulsory tax would be collected as part of the normal tax collection. It would not go into the government´s total budget but straight to YLE. Journalist Teemu Luukka writes:"It is not likely that the committee will suggest radical changes into (YLE´s) duties."
I had yesterday lunch with a Danish friend of mine. She is one of those social entrepeneurs like me, i.e. people searching for new solutions to current problems. She said that her current interest is in using standard design techniques also for the planning of public services. This would mean bringing the problem and the end user into the core of the design process. As she pointed out, the common public service design process works like the YLE case: how do we fund an existing institution in the future.
When the design process starts from the institution, we are already kill a big majority of good ideas even before they see the light of day. When we take an institution and its current structure for granted, it is hardly surprising that we do not find very good solutions.
Everyone following media discussion today would know that public service communications needs rethinking. This is not an issue of organisational reform but an issue of citizenship - what kind of information and analysis do we need in order to play our role as citizens in a better and more informed manner? Getting stuck on the word broadcasting avoids looking into a landscape of new tasks, new actors and more flexibility. Now the fix is making a poorly functioning funding system compulsory. So it´s band aid instead of recovery process.
The private media corporations (Viestinnän keskusliitto) have been calling for Finland to follow the BBC Trust´s example in having an independent body supervising YLE. When the reform is prepared by a parliamentary committee, this is very unlikely to happen.
Although I am somewhat skeptical to the total agenda of the anti-YLE campaign of the private actors, I would strongly support an independent supervisory board. I believe it would strengthen YLE´s role as a supervisor of the ones in power, which would need to get its legitimacy not from decision makers but from people directly. It would make clearer that we as citizens have rights to proper critique and information and this might someone work against those in power. That sometimes the benefit of the state and the benefit of the people are not equal.
An independent body would also widen YLE´s stakeholder basis, help its directors in creative thinking and in the end - provide better public service media for us and help us in doing our share in a democracy better.
I had yesterday lunch with a Danish friend of mine. She is one of those social entrepeneurs like me, i.e. people searching for new solutions to current problems. She said that her current interest is in using standard design techniques also for the planning of public services. This would mean bringing the problem and the end user into the core of the design process. As she pointed out, the common public service design process works like the YLE case: how do we fund an existing institution in the future.
When the design process starts from the institution, we are already kill a big majority of good ideas even before they see the light of day. When we take an institution and its current structure for granted, it is hardly surprising that we do not find very good solutions.
Everyone following media discussion today would know that public service communications needs rethinking. This is not an issue of organisational reform but an issue of citizenship - what kind of information and analysis do we need in order to play our role as citizens in a better and more informed manner? Getting stuck on the word broadcasting avoids looking into a landscape of new tasks, new actors and more flexibility. Now the fix is making a poorly functioning funding system compulsory. So it´s band aid instead of recovery process.
The private media corporations (Viestinnän keskusliitto) have been calling for Finland to follow the BBC Trust´s example in having an independent body supervising YLE. When the reform is prepared by a parliamentary committee, this is very unlikely to happen.
Although I am somewhat skeptical to the total agenda of the anti-YLE campaign of the private actors, I would strongly support an independent supervisory board. I believe it would strengthen YLE´s role as a supervisor of the ones in power, which would need to get its legitimacy not from decision makers but from people directly. It would make clearer that we as citizens have rights to proper critique and information and this might someone work against those in power. That sometimes the benefit of the state and the benefit of the people are not equal.
An independent body would also widen YLE´s stakeholder basis, help its directors in creative thinking and in the end - provide better public service media for us and help us in doing our share in a democracy better.
Monday, April 06, 2009
One More For The Road
Flying domestic is not something I do often, I think actually four times in my life if I count the return flights to Kittilä last week. And as before, flying domestic with someone non-Finnish makes one take another perspective as one tries to explain the behaviour of one´s fellow citizens.
Already on the flight to Kittilä, it was pointed out to me that the Finnair flight attendant allowed a Finnish man visibly drunk to occupy the seat in front of the emergency exit. I was informed by my company (someone who knows more about flying than anyone I have met) that this actually counts as a violation of airline protocol.
On the way back it got worse on the plane. The positive side was that we got to test the new Finnair Airbus 330-300, which will be used for flying to New York. It was the first week of the plane and things looked brilliant. The revamped Finnair colour scheme makes the cabin seem much more spacious and the new seats make you keep a good posture.
But as the plane was filled with Finns ending their one-week holiday either in Ylläs or Levi, it smelled like the empty bottle room of Alko. Big portion of the customers were visibly drunk already when boarding the plane. We actually changed our seats on the last minute due to the odour created by the people behind us. I managed to catch the frightened looked on a face of a young father who was forced to sit with his one-year-old in the middle of the Boozy Family. And the 5 euro charge for alcohol on domestic flights did not stop the people from boozing up more. I mean hey, last moment of holidays.
I am not blaming the cabin crew for slacking, I am sure they do not love the drunks in the back of the plane anymore than I do. After moving back to Finland from the Netherlands I have been in quite a number of situations where I notice how differently people and institutions tolerate overuse of alcohol in public transport, at stations not to mention restaurants. The Finnair case seems to be just another example of Finns looking the other way when the drunk is making another situation uncomfortable - or even risky as in the case of the emergency exit - for the rest of us.
Already on the flight to Kittilä, it was pointed out to me that the Finnair flight attendant allowed a Finnish man visibly drunk to occupy the seat in front of the emergency exit. I was informed by my company (someone who knows more about flying than anyone I have met) that this actually counts as a violation of airline protocol.
On the way back it got worse on the plane. The positive side was that we got to test the new Finnair Airbus 330-300, which will be used for flying to New York. It was the first week of the plane and things looked brilliant. The revamped Finnair colour scheme makes the cabin seem much more spacious and the new seats make you keep a good posture.
But as the plane was filled with Finns ending their one-week holiday either in Ylläs or Levi, it smelled like the empty bottle room of Alko. Big portion of the customers were visibly drunk already when boarding the plane. We actually changed our seats on the last minute due to the odour created by the people behind us. I managed to catch the frightened looked on a face of a young father who was forced to sit with his one-year-old in the middle of the Boozy Family. And the 5 euro charge for alcohol on domestic flights did not stop the people from boozing up more. I mean hey, last moment of holidays.
I am not blaming the cabin crew for slacking, I am sure they do not love the drunks in the back of the plane anymore than I do. After moving back to Finland from the Netherlands I have been in quite a number of situations where I notice how differently people and institutions tolerate overuse of alcohol in public transport, at stations not to mention restaurants. The Finnair case seems to be just another example of Finns looking the other way when the drunk is making another situation uncomfortable - or even risky as in the case of the emergency exit - for the rest of us.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Nordic
I sat the last two days in a seminar by the Nordic Culture Fund on diversity and Nordic cultural work. On the last day we ended up in a heated debate in our workshop on whether being Nordic is an identity and how does that come together with goals of inclusion and integration.
I said first in the discussion that I would see the Nordic countries rather as a natural area of collaboration rather as an identity with historic routes. The ethnic-cultural-historical argument for the Nordic countries easily stands in the way of true equality and integration. The links are obvious to those Europeans who claim that we share the same values and a history.
I realised towards the end of the seminar that my idea of the Nordic region was something special and I feel parts of it can be explained through the Finnish language. I realise that I have grown up with an idea of the Nordic region as something where peace and justice prevail. This is something I picked up from school, not that much which country oppressed which Nordic country at which time and who really had the vikings.
I was brought up with the idea that the Nordic identity and aspiration can be explained through actions of people like Anna Lindh, Olof Palme, Martti Ahtisaari or Hans Blix. That Finland was on its way to being Nordic. That Nordic means also peculiar people who do not fit to all conventions and who dare to touch our sensitivities like Tove Jansson, Lars von Trier or Ingmar Bergman. That Nobel Peace Prize illustrates Nordic actions by Nordic and non-Nordic people. That being Nordic means believing in the human being, having a clear sense of ethics, trusting your neighbours (passport-free border-crossing for ages) and working for the benefit of mankind. That here in the North we give from our own when we have enough. That Nordic is something we need to work for - hard. And more often than we would like to admit, we we fall short in living up to those noble ideals. That Nordic is not a state of being, it is a responsibility for action. And that of course we should not claim to own this package of ideals but that the combination of them makes our life up in these circumstances worthwhile.
I wonder if this articulation of the Nordic identity could also function as a tool for integration and inclusion. It may sound slightly naive but it gives me a sense of direction and a reason for optimism. In term of integration we wound need recognise those beautiful ideas, make concrete the individual and societal work needed to make our way towards them and be honest about the shortcomings in terms of greed, protectionism and selfishness. Of this we have a tremendous amount of examples from the last 20 years.
That we would consciously shift our focus to what we can become at our best and to our personal responsibility rather than obsessing over a shared past. The Nordic Dream seen here would be very different from the European or American one.
I said first in the discussion that I would see the Nordic countries rather as a natural area of collaboration rather as an identity with historic routes. The ethnic-cultural-historical argument for the Nordic countries easily stands in the way of true equality and integration. The links are obvious to those Europeans who claim that we share the same values and a history.
I realised towards the end of the seminar that my idea of the Nordic region was something special and I feel parts of it can be explained through the Finnish language. I realise that I have grown up with an idea of the Nordic region as something where peace and justice prevail. This is something I picked up from school, not that much which country oppressed which Nordic country at which time and who really had the vikings.
I was brought up with the idea that the Nordic identity and aspiration can be explained through actions of people like Anna Lindh, Olof Palme, Martti Ahtisaari or Hans Blix. That Finland was on its way to being Nordic. That Nordic means also peculiar people who do not fit to all conventions and who dare to touch our sensitivities like Tove Jansson, Lars von Trier or Ingmar Bergman. That Nobel Peace Prize illustrates Nordic actions by Nordic and non-Nordic people. That being Nordic means believing in the human being, having a clear sense of ethics, trusting your neighbours (passport-free border-crossing for ages) and working for the benefit of mankind. That here in the North we give from our own when we have enough. That Nordic is something we need to work for - hard. And more often than we would like to admit, we we fall short in living up to those noble ideals. That Nordic is not a state of being, it is a responsibility for action. And that of course we should not claim to own this package of ideals but that the combination of them makes our life up in these circumstances worthwhile.
I wonder if this articulation of the Nordic identity could also function as a tool for integration and inclusion. It may sound slightly naive but it gives me a sense of direction and a reason for optimism. In term of integration we wound need recognise those beautiful ideas, make concrete the individual and societal work needed to make our way towards them and be honest about the shortcomings in terms of greed, protectionism and selfishness. Of this we have a tremendous amount of examples from the last 20 years.
That we would consciously shift our focus to what we can become at our best and to our personal responsibility rather than obsessing over a shared past. The Nordic Dream seen here would be very different from the European or American one.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Public Service
Entertainment has been one of the issues on the battlefield - whether public service broadcasters should do entertainment or leave it to the commercial competitors. Watching Sweden´s SVT´s work on the Eurovision Song Contest (they call it Melody Festival) shows how an innovative public service broadcaster can turn European cooperation amongst public service broadcasters into a national megaprojects reinvigorating areas by taking the semifinals to different parts of the country. It is entertainment but entertainments with a special value. Corny, camp but brilliant. In Sweden the national finale is the main thing, not how the Swedish entry ranks in the European arena. I kind of like that.
Watching this programme and looking into the issue of commercial screens, I must conclude that I do support the idea of an independent expert body to control, set limits and open new areas for public service communications and press work. I feel this would make YLE stronger, release YLE from (unnecessary) parliamentary control and also serve the society and the license fee payers better. It might help us in really articulating in a clearer way what is actually the public service in public broadcasting. BBC says:Educate, Entertain and Inform - I would go more for something like Empower, Encourage and Represent (I wrote about this issue in this blog in September).
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Random Quote of the Day
Theatre Director Leea Klemola is currently directing a version of Alban Berg´s opera Lulu for Kokkola Opera. In Klemola´s version Lulu is not a sexy, vulnerable woman manipulated by men but a hairy woman from the circus who loves to get laid. In the interview Klemola talks about her perception of men:
"Nothing beats Finnish men! I can say that we were just ice fishing yesterday that I love Finnish men who are too noble to beat you, when I should probably be hit, when foam comes from the corners of my mouth and I say that once again me alone here all blah-blah! I would hit someone like that! The women that Finnish men tolerate, would never be tolerated in France! I would never marry a Frenchman, I would rather shoot a bullet into my head. Or maybe I would marry but at least would not do any art there."
- Vesa Sirén, Helsingin Sanomat.
How is that for a statement?
"Nothing beats Finnish men! I can say that we were just ice fishing yesterday that I love Finnish men who are too noble to beat you, when I should probably be hit, when foam comes from the corners of my mouth and I say that once again me alone here all blah-blah! I would hit someone like that! The women that Finnish men tolerate, would never be tolerated in France! I would never marry a Frenchman, I would rather shoot a bullet into my head. Or maybe I would marry but at least would not do any art there."
- Vesa Sirén, Helsingin Sanomat.
How is that for a statement?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Newsflash
As a preparation for a future work assignment, I am paying rather close attention at the moment on journalism around immigration. It is in general quite positive that at least in this country the quality media has realised that they need broader coverage over the subject to help people understand the reasons and consequences.
However, one seems to stumble at times. In yesterday´s Helsingin Sanomat journalist Riitta Vainio wrote a 3/4-page article with the title:
"Family culture amongst immigrants changes often painfully - Immigrant man seeks often for a good wife from the country of origin." Vainio´s article was published in the domestic news section but closer inspection shows that there is actually very little news or factual information in the article. The article´s references to its rather generalising statements are vague to say the least. Here are some examples:
"According to some local policemen a big portion of home alerts comes from immigrant families."
"In some families penalties to children are still accepted although they are known to be illegal."
"The portion of single parents amongst Somalis may be partly due to polygamy but there is no research."
"Child protection cases occur also in immigrant families."
There are only two quotes from experts in the article. Most of the article works on generalisations such as "the Russian-speaking", "the Somalians", "many" and "some". The article ends with the other expert quote being:
"Researcher Minna Säävälä from Väestöliitto emphasises that for a large majority of immigrants family is a resource, not the source of problems."
If I may, quite bizarre and somewhat sloppy journalism from a paper usually living up to high journalistic standards.
However, one seems to stumble at times. In yesterday´s Helsingin Sanomat journalist Riitta Vainio wrote a 3/4-page article with the title:
"Family culture amongst immigrants changes often painfully - Immigrant man seeks often for a good wife from the country of origin." Vainio´s article was published in the domestic news section but closer inspection shows that there is actually very little news or factual information in the article. The article´s references to its rather generalising statements are vague to say the least. Here are some examples:
"According to some local policemen a big portion of home alerts comes from immigrant families."
"In some families penalties to children are still accepted although they are known to be illegal."
"The portion of single parents amongst Somalis may be partly due to polygamy but there is no research."
"Child protection cases occur also in immigrant families."
There are only two quotes from experts in the article. Most of the article works on generalisations such as "the Russian-speaking", "the Somalians", "many" and "some". The article ends with the other expert quote being:
"Researcher Minna Säävälä from Väestöliitto emphasises that for a large majority of immigrants family is a resource, not the source of problems."
If I may, quite bizarre and somewhat sloppy journalism from a paper usually living up to high journalistic standards.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Right to Exclude
I guess it is OK to post twice in a day if you run into really good stuff. The Finnish Institute of International Affairs published today a clear and important paper on the relationship of immigration and recession. Researcher Toby Archer´s concise clarification is highly helpful in understanding the current sentiments in Finland and elsewhere regarding populism and xenophobia. As Archer writes, "during the recession there is a danger that the EU single market and labour movement become seen as negatives - taking away sovereign control from states: stopping governments from protecting jobs or from restricting foreigners from taking work away from local people".
Archer´s paper addresses a point I discussed last week in my meeting with designer Reza Abedini and graphic design agency Lava in Amsterdam: the sense of entitlement. Anti-immigration sentiments are a logical result from feeling like you are losing something you are entitled to. Proverbs like "to be born a Finn is like winning in the lottery" or "Favour Finnish" characterise what I mean. A notion that just being born to a certain citizenship means automatically a right to a certain standard of living is in great contradiction with global solidarity and openness to immigration.
As easy as it would be to judge all this as selfish, some of it has also more sincere and primal feelings behind it - especially in countries such as Ireland and Finland. In both of these countries the national identity is built on being an underdog and on relative poverty. When incredible affluence hit both nations during the last 20 years, people felt that their time had come, the hardships had paid off and that they would be able to leave their children a better place than the one they inherited. In countries like Finland, the post-war generation has gone through an incredibly rapid rise to the middle class.
When immigration is presented mostly as an economic and security challenge, it risks this dream of leaving a good world for one´s children as it brings more people to the kitchen table. And more importantly, these would be people who have not gone through the national experience from rags to riches.
Of course most immigrants come from conditions far worse than Finland during the last decade. Many immigrants, especially refugees, have gone through things no human being should experience - such as torture, starvation and persecution. But this is easily cast aside when one carries concern over one´s immediate family. This is not always loaded with racism or xenophobia but with parental instinct. I would dare to state that the more we can create trust so that people - immigrants and non-immigrants - feel comfortable expressing these fears and worries, the more interaction natives have with immigrants in professional settings and the more the media portrays immigrants who have made a significant contribution to the society, the more there are chances to answer and ease the fears and work towards an inclusive society.
Archer´s paper addresses a point I discussed last week in my meeting with designer Reza Abedini and graphic design agency Lava in Amsterdam: the sense of entitlement. Anti-immigration sentiments are a logical result from feeling like you are losing something you are entitled to. Proverbs like "to be born a Finn is like winning in the lottery" or "Favour Finnish" characterise what I mean. A notion that just being born to a certain citizenship means automatically a right to a certain standard of living is in great contradiction with global solidarity and openness to immigration.
As easy as it would be to judge all this as selfish, some of it has also more sincere and primal feelings behind it - especially in countries such as Ireland and Finland. In both of these countries the national identity is built on being an underdog and on relative poverty. When incredible affluence hit both nations during the last 20 years, people felt that their time had come, the hardships had paid off and that they would be able to leave their children a better place than the one they inherited. In countries like Finland, the post-war generation has gone through an incredibly rapid rise to the middle class.
When immigration is presented mostly as an economic and security challenge, it risks this dream of leaving a good world for one´s children as it brings more people to the kitchen table. And more importantly, these would be people who have not gone through the national experience from rags to riches.
Of course most immigrants come from conditions far worse than Finland during the last decade. Many immigrants, especially refugees, have gone through things no human being should experience - such as torture, starvation and persecution. But this is easily cast aside when one carries concern over one´s immediate family. This is not always loaded with racism or xenophobia but with parental instinct. I would dare to state that the more we can create trust so that people - immigrants and non-immigrants - feel comfortable expressing these fears and worries, the more interaction natives have with immigrants in professional settings and the more the media portrays immigrants who have made a significant contribution to the society, the more there are chances to answer and ease the fears and work towards an inclusive society.
Monday, February 02, 2009
That´s Me
I love these kind of projects. The Finnish Literature Society calls Finns every ten years to send in their stories of what they did on a particular day. These stories are important material to researchers in history and other cultural studies. Ten years ago they got 23 000 stories of Finnish life on a specific day. Today is that day again. I am taking part and encourage every Finn reading this to do the same. You can send in your story the latest on 28 February, more details here.
I am currently involved in a project where this kind of material would definitely be very handy. With a group of people we are putting together a cultural statement around national identity and self image. More details on that later.
When you talk about a self image of a nation, the last weeks have been interesting in this country. Helsingin Sanomat published a big story yesterday stating that Nokia has threatened to leave the country if legislation is not changed in a way that allows employers to look into the basic information (sender, recipient, form of attachment, time etc.) of an email if they suspect leakage of company secrets. Nokia and the government deny these accusations but it sure is interesting how the constitutional committee of the Parliament sees no problem with a legislative change that according to a great majority of legal experts they consulted is in full contradiction with constitutional rights to privacy of correspondence and freedom of speech. Not to take any stand on the validity of these accusation by Helsingin Sanomat but this is once again an example how the idea of civil rights and liberties is not really high on the Finnish political agenda.
This kind of discussion never really catches fire in Finland. This country has a tremendous amount of CCTV cameras and quite extensive rights to security guards but most Finns still think that this is all good and you have no reason for worry if you have not done anything wrong. It all stems from the idea that we are good and honest people and so are all the people holding these extensive powers. Following the same line is the idea that Finland is corruption-free. I have often wondered why there´s no more discussion about the way power ends in the same hands when a person can be at the same time in the city council, in the parliament and in the cabinet. The arguments I have heard are not very convincing:
1. this allows information to go smoothly through the system
2. people have the right to vote whom they want
Journalist Jarmo Aaltonen of Helsingin Sanomat follows the Finnish mentality disturbingly well in his article about politicians sitting in company boards:
"Of course different obligations influence people, some more, some less. This, however, does not make them automatically corrupt criminals. This is just the price one pays for democracy and open society. The alternative would be prohibiting all human interaction."
Seriously, this was published in the biggest daily of the country.
I am currently involved in a project where this kind of material would definitely be very handy. With a group of people we are putting together a cultural statement around national identity and self image. More details on that later.
When you talk about a self image of a nation, the last weeks have been interesting in this country. Helsingin Sanomat published a big story yesterday stating that Nokia has threatened to leave the country if legislation is not changed in a way that allows employers to look into the basic information (sender, recipient, form of attachment, time etc.) of an email if they suspect leakage of company secrets. Nokia and the government deny these accusations but it sure is interesting how the constitutional committee of the Parliament sees no problem with a legislative change that according to a great majority of legal experts they consulted is in full contradiction with constitutional rights to privacy of correspondence and freedom of speech. Not to take any stand on the validity of these accusation by Helsingin Sanomat but this is once again an example how the idea of civil rights and liberties is not really high on the Finnish political agenda.
This kind of discussion never really catches fire in Finland. This country has a tremendous amount of CCTV cameras and quite extensive rights to security guards but most Finns still think that this is all good and you have no reason for worry if you have not done anything wrong. It all stems from the idea that we are good and honest people and so are all the people holding these extensive powers. Following the same line is the idea that Finland is corruption-free. I have often wondered why there´s no more discussion about the way power ends in the same hands when a person can be at the same time in the city council, in the parliament and in the cabinet. The arguments I have heard are not very convincing:
1. this allows information to go smoothly through the system
2. people have the right to vote whom they want
Journalist Jarmo Aaltonen of Helsingin Sanomat follows the Finnish mentality disturbingly well in his article about politicians sitting in company boards:
"Of course different obligations influence people, some more, some less. This, however, does not make them automatically corrupt criminals. This is just the price one pays for democracy and open society. The alternative would be prohibiting all human interaction."
Seriously, this was published in the biggest daily of the country.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Government Buddies
In today´s Helsingin Sanomat the Minister of Culture makes public his plans for reforming the funding for the arts. If Stefan Wallin gets his way, the Central Committee of the Arts would develop into a strong and largely independent body much like the Academy of Finland.
I would fully support a change where like in science, the arts funding decisions would be taken by experts of the field with a greater arm´s length from the government. This sounds more like how things were done in the Netherlands. I would also take the reform to the same level as in the Netherlands where the evaluations of arts institutions are made public so that people and the media can scrutinise and understand why dance group X gets a certain amount and why theatre Z loses half of its funding. Making government more transparent is something that I feel quite passionate about.
As a somewhat veteran of the civil society, I would encourage Mr Wallin to take a careful look also on the ways NGO funding decisions are taken. As much as I support government funding for the civil society, I am slightly troubled by the relationships emerging when civil servants or politically appointed bodies make decisions on NGO funding. I fear that the dependency on decisions by the Ministry of Education creates a civil society less willing to attack the government fiercely and a civil society serving the government rather than acting as a healthy counter force. It is only natural that a NGO leader concerned about the budget for next year feels inclined to buddy up with the Minister or the top civil servant.
In this sense I do understand bodies like Amnesty or Greenpeace which guarantee their independence by refusing government funding however this is not the solution for all civil society. I do support civil society funding as one of government´s core responsibilities. But it troubles me that it does not take years of research to identify a relationship between decreased peace NGO funding and a centre-right government, increased environmental NGO funding and the Greens in the government or the Swedish People´s Party in the government and increased funding for organisations taking care of the largely Swedish-speaking archipelago.
I would encourage Mr Wallin to look into creating an independent body deciding on funding for the civil society and making public their criteria and evaluations. This would make government more transparent, decrease risks of corruption, feed political debate and in the end support an emergence of a more active civil society.
I would fully support a change where like in science, the arts funding decisions would be taken by experts of the field with a greater arm´s length from the government. This sounds more like how things were done in the Netherlands. I would also take the reform to the same level as in the Netherlands where the evaluations of arts institutions are made public so that people and the media can scrutinise and understand why dance group X gets a certain amount and why theatre Z loses half of its funding. Making government more transparent is something that I feel quite passionate about.
As a somewhat veteran of the civil society, I would encourage Mr Wallin to take a careful look also on the ways NGO funding decisions are taken. As much as I support government funding for the civil society, I am slightly troubled by the relationships emerging when civil servants or politically appointed bodies make decisions on NGO funding. I fear that the dependency on decisions by the Ministry of Education creates a civil society less willing to attack the government fiercely and a civil society serving the government rather than acting as a healthy counter force. It is only natural that a NGO leader concerned about the budget for next year feels inclined to buddy up with the Minister or the top civil servant.
In this sense I do understand bodies like Amnesty or Greenpeace which guarantee their independence by refusing government funding however this is not the solution for all civil society. I do support civil society funding as one of government´s core responsibilities. But it troubles me that it does not take years of research to identify a relationship between decreased peace NGO funding and a centre-right government, increased environmental NGO funding and the Greens in the government or the Swedish People´s Party in the government and increased funding for organisations taking care of the largely Swedish-speaking archipelago.
I would encourage Mr Wallin to look into creating an independent body deciding on funding for the civil society and making public their criteria and evaluations. This would make government more transparent, decrease risks of corruption, feed political debate and in the end support an emergence of a more active civil society.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Right Move
In two days the van will head back to Finland. The boxes and bags are packed and tomorrow is my farewell party from work. Today I carried two bags of stuff home from the office. This evening when packing the last boxes, I was once again quite surprised by amount and sort of stuff I have collected in the last four years - seriously, 20 sorts of tea...
This video link from the one I am heading to is once again a proof that this is the right move now. Not that I would have doubted it for a second. Even the tough Nordic winter is bearable when you are surrounded by the ones you love and who love you right back. Christmas is a good time to return.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Moving Boxes, Moving On
On Saturday it finally started feeling real. I was cycling home from Westerpark with 10 folded cardboard moving boxes. In less than two weeks they all should be filled. My Dad and brother will be arriving in two weekends from now, we pile them all into the van and head back to Travemunde for a 26-hour ferry trip to Helsinki. Home for Christmas.
I am glad that the move takes this form. Schiphol airport for me is a place that means short trips abroad. I know how it functions and it does not link to anything permanent. The car ride and the ferry make it concrete: time to move on, time for a change and most sadly, time to leave.
It is not yet clear what my days will be filled with from January onwards. I have sent papers for a company to the authorities and made some contacts but that is where we are. I have decided to allow myself to take some time to figure out what is the next step, what I want to do and what gives me the kicks. It is also essential to reserve time for the primary reason for packing these boxes: building a joint home and being closer to me family and friends.
With the risk of sounding to obamaesque, change feels good. Four years in one organisation is a long time. Having now the possibility to work for myself and focus on content generates a lot of excitement. After I made this decision to jump and start something new, I have not regretted it for a moment. I feel it is made for the right reason: not for the sake of leaving something but for the sake of wanting something.
I am glad that the move takes this form. Schiphol airport for me is a place that means short trips abroad. I know how it functions and it does not link to anything permanent. The car ride and the ferry make it concrete: time to move on, time for a change and most sadly, time to leave.
It is not yet clear what my days will be filled with from January onwards. I have sent papers for a company to the authorities and made some contacts but that is where we are. I have decided to allow myself to take some time to figure out what is the next step, what I want to do and what gives me the kicks. It is also essential to reserve time for the primary reason for packing these boxes: building a joint home and being closer to me family and friends.
With the risk of sounding to obamaesque, change feels good. Four years in one organisation is a long time. Having now the possibility to work for myself and focus on content generates a lot of excitement. After I made this decision to jump and start something new, I have not regretted it for a moment. I feel it is made for the right reason: not for the sake of leaving something but for the sake of wanting something.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Tradition of Elite
“What students today, the nation tomorrow.” The old promise of the student community was mentioned several times yesterday evening as the Student Union of the University of Helsinki HYY celebrated its 140th birthday. Fancy party indeed with 350 people in evening dresses and frocks.
This organization has been fundamental for our small nation in the North. It was the students of this very union who sang the national anthem for the first time when Finland was still under the Russian rule. It was also this very student union, which acted as the key stage in the cultural revolution of the late 1960s. 20 years ago HYY was one of the founders of Pakolaisapu, a legal counseling organization for refugees. This role taken by students is in no way unique for Finland – in the US students played a fundamental role in shaping the civil rights or anti-Viet Nam agenda.
It has been fours year since I attended these annual celebrations. This community has been crucial in shaping who I am now and how I carry myself to the future. It is not “just” some volunteering, it is a school of citizenship. I feel very strongly about its well being, at the same time recognizing that decisions are now made by people significantly younger than I am. And rightly so.
These parties provide us a peak into the mindset of their time. Selection of speakers and the songs being sung tell about the priorities and concerns.
This hope of acting as a beacon is of course an issue that the union needs to think of as part of its strategy in keeping students active in it: how much is the student union up to its time and promise of leadership? How does it keep itself fresh and alert? How is the student union showing the way of tomorrow for its nation? Which traditions are worth preserving and which are ones we have been doing for too long just out of a habit?
Relating to this challenge, I found myself thinking of the following yesterday evening: Singing is a great student tradition. But why students would sing in year 2008 mostly about boozing and even more troubling:”More land for Finland, more Finland on Earth, Let´s March to Carelia, Carelia!”
This organization has been fundamental for our small nation in the North. It was the students of this very union who sang the national anthem for the first time when Finland was still under the Russian rule. It was also this very student union, which acted as the key stage in the cultural revolution of the late 1960s. 20 years ago HYY was one of the founders of Pakolaisapu, a legal counseling organization for refugees. This role taken by students is in no way unique for Finland – in the US students played a fundamental role in shaping the civil rights or anti-Viet Nam agenda.
It has been fours year since I attended these annual celebrations. This community has been crucial in shaping who I am now and how I carry myself to the future. It is not “just” some volunteering, it is a school of citizenship. I feel very strongly about its well being, at the same time recognizing that decisions are now made by people significantly younger than I am. And rightly so.
These parties provide us a peak into the mindset of their time. Selection of speakers and the songs being sung tell about the priorities and concerns.
This hope of acting as a beacon is of course an issue that the union needs to think of as part of its strategy in keeping students active in it: how much is the student union up to its time and promise of leadership? How does it keep itself fresh and alert? How is the student union showing the way of tomorrow for its nation? Which traditions are worth preserving and which are ones we have been doing for too long just out of a habit?
Relating to this challenge, I found myself thinking of the following yesterday evening: Singing is a great student tradition. But why students would sing in year 2008 mostly about boozing and even more troubling:”More land for Finland, more Finland on Earth, Let´s March to Carelia, Carelia!”
Monday, October 27, 2008
Few Steps Away From The Left
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.
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.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Out of Touch
Had a free day today and decided to watch the latest YLE debate for local elections in Finland. For me, having spent last weeks following American elections, the Finnish experience is somewhat disappointing. It is unbelievable how the chairpersons of Finnish political parties tend to forget that the voters in the elections are not the local governments but the people. The Chairs only talk about institutions, infrastructure and government. What people want and what people should do seems to be forgotten both by the politicians as well as the journalists hosting the debate. The great thing YLE, however, have done is bringing the Party Secretaries into the studio to help the Chairs in details.
The weakest from the debaters based on my judgement were the leader of the Greens Tarja Cronberg, leader of the Centre Party Matti Vanhanen and leader of the Social Democrats Jutta Urpilainen. Minister of Labour Cronberg spoke twice in the first hour and is not able to push forward the Green agenda on services and quality of life. She tries to balance urban life and rural areas but gets somewhat confused with all the aspects. She becomes a voice of the government rather than representing the Greens in local politics although she improves her performance towards the end. Prime Minister Vanhanen's problems are somewhat alike. As Prime Minister he seems to act like he would be somewhat above the others and ends up coming across as smug and arrogant and not willing to take any criticism. Opposition leader Urpilainen however falls into the trap of populism. She is not able to answer questions on how Social Democrats would fund their "more, more, more" agenda. Urpilainen also gets unfortunately agitated when pushed into the corner with tough questions.
The winners of the debate are the populist True Finns and the centre liberal National Coalition. They get their ideological message across (True Finns about defenfing the small man and National Coalition on balancing costs and income). Leader of the National Coalition, Minister of Finance Jyrki Katainen manages to stay calm and push through the message that the current government has invested in municipalities. Leader of the centre-right Swedish People's Party, Minister of Culture Stefan Wallin manages also to be clear and talk about caring and climate change.
But the key problem is not between people, it is in the nature of the debate. The most absurd moment was the discussion over a recent poll where 62 % of respondents think that politicians can be bought in urban planning decisions. The reaction of the Party Secretary Jarmo Korhonen:"No Finnish politician can be bought. I know." That's the way Finnish dialogue works.
Overall the discussion stays in concepts only familiar to politicians and very seldom looks into the position of the individual in the changes. Dear leaders, no one uses words such as structure and resource in normal language. It enforces the idea that in order to take part in politics, you need to learn a new language.
The weakest from the debaters based on my judgement were the leader of the Greens Tarja Cronberg, leader of the Centre Party Matti Vanhanen and leader of the Social Democrats Jutta Urpilainen. Minister of Labour Cronberg spoke twice in the first hour and is not able to push forward the Green agenda on services and quality of life. She tries to balance urban life and rural areas but gets somewhat confused with all the aspects. She becomes a voice of the government rather than representing the Greens in local politics although she improves her performance towards the end. Prime Minister Vanhanen's problems are somewhat alike. As Prime Minister he seems to act like he would be somewhat above the others and ends up coming across as smug and arrogant and not willing to take any criticism. Opposition leader Urpilainen however falls into the trap of populism. She is not able to answer questions on how Social Democrats would fund their "more, more, more" agenda. Urpilainen also gets unfortunately agitated when pushed into the corner with tough questions.
The winners of the debate are the populist True Finns and the centre liberal National Coalition. They get their ideological message across (True Finns about defenfing the small man and National Coalition on balancing costs and income). Leader of the National Coalition, Minister of Finance Jyrki Katainen manages to stay calm and push through the message that the current government has invested in municipalities. Leader of the centre-right Swedish People's Party, Minister of Culture Stefan Wallin manages also to be clear and talk about caring and climate change.
But the key problem is not between people, it is in the nature of the debate. The most absurd moment was the discussion over a recent poll where 62 % of respondents think that politicians can be bought in urban planning decisions. The reaction of the Party Secretary Jarmo Korhonen:"No Finnish politician can be bought. I know." That's the way Finnish dialogue works.
Overall the discussion stays in concepts only familiar to politicians and very seldom looks into the position of the individual in the changes. Dear leaders, no one uses words such as structure and resource in normal language. It enforces the idea that in order to take part in politics, you need to learn a new language.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
