Democracy in the Turmoil of the Future
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
D e m oc racy in the Turmoil of the Future Democracy in the Turmoil of the Future Cover: Statue “Future” by Wäinö Aaltonen, 1932/1969 Bronze. Eduskunta, Parliament of Finland, Assembly Chamber Mika Mannermaa Committee for the Future Eduskunta, Parliament of Finland tel. +358 9 4321 fax +358 9 432 2140 tuv@parliament.fi ISBN 978-951-53-2961-5 (printed) www.parliament.fi ISBN 978-951-53-2962-2 (PDF) kansi DTF.indd 1 23.05.2007 14:24:55 Democracy in the Turmoil of the Future Societal influence within a new frame of reference Mika Mannermaa Original work in Finnish language: Demokratia tulevaisuuden myllerryksessä, 2007 Committee for the Future Eduskunta, Parliament of Finland www.parliament.fi ISBN 978-951-53-2961-5 (printed) ISBN 978-951-53-2962-2 (PDF) Helsinki, Finland 2007 To the reader Since it was set up in 1993, the Committee for the Future of the Finnish Parliament has touched on the subject of democracy in many ways. However, it is only now as its mandate draws to an end that the Committee for the Future has decided to address this subject specifically. The decision was not an easy one. Democracy is a difficult and challenging subject. To provide background for its debate, the Committee commissioned a report from fu- tures researcher Dr Mika Mannermaa. Produced in conjunction with the Committee as part of the Parliament’s centenary anniversary and launched to coincide with the Pori Jazz Festival in summer 2006, first a book with an international focus Democracy and Futures was published (appeared later in Finnish as Demokratian tulevaisuudet). The focus then shifted to Finland, and the Committee is now delighted to publish this book Democracy in the turmoil of the future. Thanks are due to Mika Mannermaa. We can all assess the result for ourselves. I can already report that the Committee has received a great deal of input to its own work, particularly in what is an election year. It has also become clear that the next committee will have to consider the ideas and con- crete proposals made in the book in its work on futures policy. At the very least, the following ideas and issues require further political discussion. • The different manifestations of democracy in the future – what direction will the Finnish model move in? What is happening at European and global level? What ought to happen? • The relationship between democracy and freedom is multifaceted, and democracy is a demanding system, the models of which have to be constantly reformed, inter alia by exploiting the opportunities provided by technology. • The idea of there being democracy everywhere in the world is rather problematic – in some parts of the world there has never been a model of a functioning de- mocracy – and it takes time for democracy to develop. Can democracy be export- ed at all? • If parliamentary democracy is on the decline even in developed countries and citi- zens’ trust in it is fading, we have to prepare ourselves for dangerous setbacks even in developed democracies. In a democracy even the worst threat scenario has to be prepared for using democratic means. • We have to develop our ability to recognise new contemporary phenomena in de- mocracy as opportunities as well as threats. • The “every man’s weapon of mass destruction” phenomenon raised in Democracy and Futures will in itself pose new challenges for societal governance, both at na- tional and supranational levels. • In spite of the difficulties it faces, parliamentary democracy is an important and positive thing – it has to be taken care of. The Committee for the Future’s Democracy publication and the Russia 2017: Three scenarios publication, which will be completed almost simultaneously, have in common the fact that the future is in part being examined rather actively. This may well be due to the subject matter and the mandate of the committee. In all its reports on democracy, the Committee for the Future has been assisted by a steering group chaired by Deputy Chairman Kalevi Olin and comprising the following members of parliament: Kyösti Karjula, Päivi Räsänen, Esko-Juhani Tennilä, Anne Huotari and Jyrki Kasvi. Each of them deserves my heartfelt thanks. Democracy has long been the subject of philosophical interest. In J V Snellman’s bi- centenary year, it is appropriate to end with a few thoughts from our philosopher, who reflected a great deal on matters of state, dating from 1863 (Political Studies Lecture Series, p. 341, Helsinki 2004): “It may be said that the duty of the nation is to act for the good of humanity. Cosmopoli- tan interest should thus guide our action. But there is no rational basis for such an inter- est. No one can know what humanity desires – nor for that matter does humanity exist as yet – it is still unborn. The interests of humanity form part of the interests of each nation, i.e. the interests of each nation require attention to be paid to its relationship with other nations. There is awareness of this in Christian nations, and a system of states is currently weaving a web around the world – so that European nations are dependent upon what happens in America, India, China, Japan and Australia. And vice versa. What all these circumstances demand of nations – that a person can know – and such we can at least demand of him. And patriotism provides an outlook - cosmopolitanism as an interest is empty speculation.” Jyrki Katainen Chair of the Committee for the Future Foreword by the author In 1906 the Assembly of Representatives of the Estates approved a new act of parlia- ment which brought about a modern single-chamber parliamentary assembly as well as universal and equal suffrage. At the same time, democracy was extended to encom- pass a greater proportion of the male population and women received full state rights, which were exercised for the first time in parliamentary elections held the following year. In the 1907 elections, 19 female members were elected to the Finnish Parliament. In 2007, 100 years will have passed since the first plenary session of the single-chamber Finnish Parliament in its current form. In 1993 the Finnish Parliament set up a temporary Committee for the Future to draft opinions on the positions taken by the Finnish government. This was preceded by an initiative signed in 1992 by 167 members of parliament, according to which the govern- ment should present the Parliament with a report on the perspectives for Finland’s long-term development. The Committee for the Future has been a permanent commit- tee since 2000, when Finland’s new constitution entered into force. The Committee for the Future is unique in its kind: it is through it that Finnish parlia- mentarianism has served as a trail-blazer in futures work regarding societal decision- making, even in the international arena. Indeed, it is natural for this committee to be where the future prospects for societal development and democracy are discussed. The future of societal decision-making has received less attention in systematic futures research than the development prospects for economy and technology. The subject is a demanding and multifaceted one. When I participated for the first time in a world conference on futures research in Stockholm in 1982, the theme of the conference was The Future of Politics. Back then, in my report in the journal for members of the Finn- ish Society for Futures Studies, I wrote: “It was noted during the conference’s conclud- ing debate that no single set of conclusions had emerged from the work, but that opin- ions of the current state and future of the contemporary political decision-making system varied enormously. In the view of some participants, the party-based political system operating in most countries today, with its contingent problems of disaffected citizens, is undergoing a significant crisis, which societies will survive only as a conse- quence of significant change, perhaps brought about by popular movements … In the view of other participants, there was no discernible crisis.” There is something topical about that quotation even today. On the other hand, the last quarter of a century has borne witness to surprising changes and quite new phe- nomena. Personal computers became widespread and then portable, mobile phones were invented and the Internet emerged. Socialism collapsed, the Baltic countries gained their independence and joined Nato. The Nokia phenomenon was born. Fin- land joined the European Union in 1995, even though it was still a taboo subject in po- litically correct debate in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The Treaty of Friendship, Co- operation and Mutual Assistance, the token of an age-old love between two nations carved in stone, was replaced by EMU and other agreements. A new globalisation swamped the world, and there were many other surprising developments. In a democratic society, the debate on the individual’s relationship with decision- making which affects him is an eternal one in that each generation has to devise its own interpretation of democracy and come up with solutions concerning the future which are always provisional in nature. The centenary celebrations of the Finnish Parliament provide the Committee for the Future with a wonderful opportunity to lay the foundations for a civil debate on the prospects for societal development in the future and on related issues and models of decision-making. This report aims to provide a stimulus for such a debate. I would like to thank the Committee for the Future for this opportunity to engage in such reflections and for the fruitful cooperation throughout the whole project. Ac- knowledgements are also due to a large number of Finnish and international experts, who in different ways have made their views available to me.