DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT

Paula Tiihonen, Doctor of Administrative Sciences 21.12.2015 Committee Counsel [email protected]

Committee for the Future Finnish Parliament (all opinions are personal)

POWER OVER COMING GENERATIONS

case: Committee for the Future in the Eduskunta, the Parliament of Finland

Who has the power to decide on behalf of coming generations? Who has the right to speak in the name of coming generations?

1. Power centres and balance

Power is in the hands of human beings. We, the people, can use it in many ways, on many levels with many objectives and for many purposes. It is humans who shape the values on which power is based. And we also have the power to change power systems, even the structures. On the level of institutions we have two key power centres: politics and the economy, or should we call them democracy and business? These two main power centres make the majority of decisions that are needed to ensure that the future is good rather than bad for coming generations.

So, I think we should first look a bit at the development of these two powers and assess if there is a rational, fair and wise balance between them. Then we should think what kind of new ways there are to work for coming generations, to ensure a better future for them, keeping all the time in mind the delicate and problematic balance between the interests of present and future generations. In the context of politics and democracy, what we must determine in order to have a good understanding is which models of organising work for coming generations are possible and realistic and which are not, which are worth trying even if it is a long hard process, and which are not suitable or even wanted. To facilitate that evaluation I shall briefly outline differences in the basic features of political and administrative systems – the result of different cultures and traditions of governance and citizenship.

My aim in doing this is to get a background against which to analyse proposals made by a network called “Roundtable of National Institutions for a Sustainable Future”. The most demanding of these proposals relates to creating the post of UN High Commissioner for Future Generations or widen the mandate of the EU Ombudsman to represent also next generation. Our responsibilities towards coming generations have been endorsed in many international treaties, resolutions and declarations, but this recognition is only a moral principle. An implementation is always more difficult.

1

By the way, one background is personal and clear: I wrote my doctoral thesis on democracy and have worked for over 40 years as a public official in the service of democracy, first in the state civil service and then for the last 20 years as an official in the Eduskunta, the parliament of Finland, specifically with the Committee for the Future. If some readers think “what a bureaucrat”, I am proud of that. Still, I sometimes feel that I am more a gardener, toiling in the garden of democracy and governance. I confess that I take seriously the statement that democracy is one of the great values that our generation have to hand over to future generations.

Anyway, democracy is important when considering the rights of coming generations. In a democratic society, the discourse on people’s relationship to decision making concerning themselves is eternal in the sense that every generation must create its own interpretation of democracy, in its various sectors and on its various levels and do this in a democratic way. A set of stage settings depicting democracy is not enough. Not even a good democracy functions without errors in times of transition and upheaval. The long-term and fundamental character of democracy means that maintaining and renewing it can be compared to tending a garden. As a gardener in my parliamentary Committee I am used to being patient, results can be seen only slowly after hard work. You must take care of big old trees, but give opportunities for many new fragile small flowers, have the courage to encounter and support every kind of new and wild things – even unknown unknowns - but at the same time be prepared all the time for risks.

As a bureaucratic gardener I think that for the sake of the democratic system’s credibility and future prospects, it would be wise to start evaluating economic power from the perspective of democracy. Democracy and the economy should be spoken of using the same criteria of importance, with the same force, at the same time and in the same forums.

Stein Ringen (a Norwegian scholar currently working as a professor in Oxford) identifies five trends in the changing power relations between politics and the economy. Very briefly:

1. With growth in the economy, economic power has increased compared with politics, in which each voter still has only one vote, 2. Economic power has become concentrated in the hands of a small elite, 3. With liberalisation of markets and the economy, the private has entered public arenas, 4. Political power has been thrust out of economic arenas; funding of political activities has shifted to those who have the ability and wish to pay for political activities and whose interests lie in doing so, and 5. With globalisation, deregulation and information technology, capital markets have slipped out of the control of nation-states. Ringen has also highlighted the linkage between the credibility of political democracy and economic power as a long-term question. He has drawn attention to the following two development trends that reduce national legislative power in all democracies:

1. Big actors in the economy have, as a part of globalisation, acquired a new and powerful means of exercising power, the possibility to transfer capital, production, jobs, head offices, taxes, innovations, research and development and new thinking to other countries. This possibility existed earlier as well, but now the right of veto or power to exit is real and credible. 2. Supranational legislation and issuance of various norms (EU, UN, WTO, Council of Europe, World Bank, IMF, G8, and so on) have increased.

Some more concrete thoughts on power on different levels of politics.

Global economic power and democracy are connected in a very interesting and paradoxical way. Globalisation has added to democracy and equality more than any individual political decision. It has given work and brought prosperity to hundreds of millions (Chinese, etc.) and, through the rapid economic growth that it has brought, given several states opportunities to develop education, health care, infrastructure and other prerequisites for future economic growth and at the same time the fundamentals for human wellbeing at a vigorous pace. At the same time, especially examined in the light of the starting points of citizens in the

2 developed countries and from the perspective of the increasingly higher goals set for democracy, globalisation has distanced people from decision making affecting them. The weakness of legitimisation, the foundation of trust, real or perceived, has been reflected also in the attitude of citizens to the leaders of their own country.

Climate change is certainly a future problem that everyone knows and is affected by. The basic question is again who has the right or/and the responsibility to decide on behalf of future generations. Nowadays even some constitutions, especially those adopted in last few decades, refer to generations to come. The constitutional clauses can be grouped into three categories: general clauses for intergenerational justice, ecological generational justice and financial generational clauses. Clauses just formulate a state objective, they do not lay down a public right, a right for each individual citizen. Values on which power is based is not enough; institutions, competence, forums and tools to use power are relevant. But first, some examples of problems relating to balance of powers.

China and rich Western countries have profited most from the global economy and globalisation. We are in a situation where Chinese businessmen (worth billions), of whom many also happen be members of the parliament, cannot allow their small children or pregnant wives to walk to kindergarten or to a shopping centre because of the dangerous climate. On the other hand, my two favourite critical examples of a problematic way of life among us Westerners are the following: First, we citizens in rich old countries have invested our future pension money in global insurance firms/banks which, in order to serve us and meet our expectation of a secure and prosperous retirement, must get the biggest possible profit where and whenever they can. They have been getting it from China, directly and indirectly, for 20-30 years now. We see already very clearly that investments are moving to India. We not connect this chain of financial activities to climate change. Second, on the level of the ordinary average man in the consumer society we have to ask the basic moral question of democracy and equality: if my family living in Western wellbeing is accustomed to driving a car or two, why can’t a Chinese or an Indian family have that as well?

On the European level you can clearly see a lack of balance between economic and political powers. The tasks of the EU, its organisations or methods of operation were certainly not built specifically from the starting point of democracy. An effort has been made, especially in the 21st century, to bring citizens’ rights and obligations to the fore, but democracy as a matter on the system level is still one of the fundamental problems of the EU. The EURO/EMU is based on interests of finance. The only freedom of movement which is in real action is free movement of capital. The EU has a lot of power in the hands of the central bureaucracy- even so much that businesspeople think it is not worth investing in Europe, not even for coming generations. But, still from the point of the people and their rights it is a question of the legitimacy of the power structure. It is not an accident that populist parties and movements that want to get rid of the EU are gaining in strength.

An example in which our Common Long-term Future is on the agenda. Greece, the home of democracy and Western culture, a member of the EU and of EMU, is nearly bankrupt. Who has the right to decide and what is an acceptable time span (5, 50 or 100 years?) for decisions in democracies where the interval between elections is 3-4 years and national budgets cover only one year. How should the wellbeing of coming generations be ensured in Greece, in the EU? Who is making the value-based long-term decisions on behalf of those who have built the prosperity of this continent, on those who have saved it from wars and on those who have to have a possibility to make their own future after us? Is solidarity or economic ratio the most important criterion for long term decision-making? Children in Greece are already hungry. And who decided that this and the next generation will have to pay the bill, the bill that was originally the bill of German and French banks, which were saved and the mess given to the tax-payers? Prior to the spring 2015 general election, Finland (with 5 million people) had invested only little in Greece, something that encountered very fierce resistance. We know that the European Stability Mechanism was originally planned total up to €700 billion, of which Finland’s real share is now - suddenly just after elections – many times more compared to the figure given to people before elections.

This is only a beginning. If Europe's political leadership cannot handle a problem like Greece, which represents only 2 percent of its economy, how will it be able to manage bigger problems in

3 the future? To mention only debt-austerity problems, Spain and Italy have both a huge public debt. In the case of Greece you have to see more than the economy, people. For instance the problem of the Mediterranean migrants. Almost in every EU-country politicians resist taking them more, so sharing the common EU-burden of humanity. Finland’s share is absolutely too small. Over borders of Greece is coming this year over 100 000 people, mainly from Syria. Only to the tiny little isle of Lesbo came during two days in July when I was writing this text 5 000. It just is unfair leave poor countries in south-eastern Europe alone with a pan-European long-term problem, which has been seen at least ten last years . The basic error is lack of democracy and solidarity, a failure of politics but also a failure of the other big power - economics, business and finance. The big picture has been lost for years in Europe. In general from the perspective of the powers of national parliaments, what was earlier in 1990’s the focus of criticism was the division of legislative powers between the EU and national parliaments, whereas in the present decade it is budgetary power that has come in for criticism. Funding and financial crises have increased especially the EU’s advance financial supervision, the EU Commission’s bureaucratic power to exercise guidance over national budgets before in democracy governments have even been able to present the budgets to their national parliaments. Two highly appreciated Finnish professors, specialized in constitutional issues, Kaarlo Tuori and Tuomas Ojanen have expressed hard critics. In the end of July 2015 professor Tuori said in the case of Greece that National Democracy in Greece is dead. Creditors, the EU, Germany and France dictate laws and control both politics and economy strictly, so strictly that even opening hours of bakeries are ruled outside Greece.

The biggest problems in the increased economic power and in the development of supranational-level democracy are sociological and cultural: the frailty of European civil society as well as the weak identity and fragile solidarity of EU citizens. Still, the European economic crisis has had some effects that are positive from the point of view of democracy – an increased awareness both in the media and among the public in general of the community of destiny that the countries of Europe, or at least the Eurozone, share. An awareness of European intertwinement is an essential prerequisite for supranational, EU-level democracy.

We citizens in every nation assume that parliamentary democracy will use its power vigorously in particular when times are bad or when some serious danger/enemy is seen, so when we need help and support. Between the political power that is concentrated in the hands of the parliament and the government enjoying its confidence, on the one hand, and the increased expectations of citizens, on the other, is a gap that is caused by the disproportion between politics and the economic sphere. Politics and representatives of the people have in part been forced to bear undue responsibility relative to the real means that politics has at its disposal.

Some more about changing political power and balance problems within it. There are many other strange and paradoxical situations. In elections, representatives of peoples and political parties are being given their mandates by ever-smaller proportions of both citizens and inhabitants. In many countries the franchise is de facto limited in a variety of ways and even among those who can do so only one-third or so exercise their right to vote. Legitimacy is on unsteady legs also because party memberships have declined. Party members represent only about 5 per cent of the electorate, and they are mainly elderly people. Almost without exception, in trust/value/esteem rankings politics and the parliament are among the institutions that are the least esteemed of all. It is a depressing state of affairs and appears to be permanent. This bottom-of-the-barrel status in measurements of esteem and trust has persisted for several decades all over Western democracies.

Democracy along with its parliamentary institutions is in a paradoxical situation at the global level also. Political democracy has spread more widely and faster in the world than even the most optimistic of future visionaries have been able to foresee. The driving force has been the economic growth that globalisation has brought. Nearly the whole of Asia or Africa have embraced democracy, at least formally, in the space of a few decades. With the advent of new institutions, hundreds of millions of people have gained new freedoms and rights and above all prosperity. Within Europe, the disintegration of the Soviet Union and a desire for EU membership have transformed one Eastern European country after another very quickly into democracies. The change has been so intense that democracy has meant primarily the building of democratic organisations. After the building stage, however, enthusiasm has begun ebbing and voting turnouts have

4 started to decline. The empty rooms of democracy are not enough. Democracy is a garden which has to be tended all the time.

In concrete terms: the depth of the democracy deficit and the fact that people are becoming numb to it are also reasons to strengthen efforts to work harder for coming generations, especially in politics. Politics needs more power and new tools to use it.

In the global economy states, as democracies, continue to bear responsibility quite as though nothing had changed in decades. In this system they have to answer for bad choices, poor performances and increasingly frequent inactions in regard to not only various sectors of the economy, but also security, the environment, work, health, education, science, the family and the whole varied spectrum of life. And all that in a world where states no longer have the same power and the same instruments of the exercise of power as in the past. The essential economic and other choices are made in places beyond their reach. There is no alternative at all to the market economy.

One of the most difficult changes that must be acknowledged is that nowadays national governments no longer have the means of safeguarding employment for their citizens. Taxi-drivers know all kind of things. In July a hilarious taxi-driver from Haiti in New York when I told that in my country after elections the government was changed mainly because people wanted jobs started to laugh: “Politics do not make jobs! It’s the business! Governments cannot promise jobs! We came before JFK to a conclusion that perhaps this time the driving force in good/bad development of jobs has been more than the business/economy science and technology (robots and automation). Anyway, if masses of people do not have jobs, enough of a decent salary to have a house and get a family, educate themselves or consume anything, a lot follows from this. The responsibility to share – especially share opportunities for some kind of positive future - is more important than ever.

Democracy researchers have warned us of the danger of “broken promises”. In the Nordic model of democracy, the disproportion between the promises – as people have inferred them – of political democracy and the reality that has been accomplished will be especially great. The reason is simple: in the welfare model that has been embraced here the state has been strong and extensive. Ever since the 1960s the political system has not been content with merely promising citizens opportunities to achieve prosperity and wellbeing. The state itself has in nearly every sphere of life distributed wellbeing to all, either directly or indirectly. Within the space of only a couple of generations citizens have become accustomed to knowing that the state will take care of them in good times and bad, from the birth to the death.

Back to the big picture of power centres. The triumphal march of capitalism has been indisputable. Many democracy researchers have described the development of the state and how power has been shifting away from it and political democracy mainly to the market. Still there are many varieties of capitalism. Even if all states were to follow the model of economic growth, they must also make a lot of other choices that are decisive with a good future in mind.

Hope for better? Future researchers use the term “weak signals”. Two examples, both on the level of institutions and on the level of new ways of thinking. We should not forget that in Europe after the Maastricht Treaty Article 174 (of the EU Treaty) officially endorsed the precautionary principle starting of course from environmental damage. The Community policy on the environment shall be “based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventative action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay”. It is clear that the applicability of the precautionary principle should not be limited only to environmental risks. This principal can be applied also in an active sense, through the concept of preventative anticipation or willingness to take action advance of scientific proof of the need for the proposed action on the grounds that further delay will prove ultimately most costly to society and nature, in longer term, selfish and unfair to future generations.

Another positive signal where there is a possibility to apply the brake a little to the super power of the economy and finance. All over the world, the economy has traditionally been measured a lot and precisely (GDP), but from the perspective of economy and finance, by members of a club of like-minded experts, who

5 have studied the same economics textbooks, worked in the same kind of institutions with like-minded colleagues. Lately, sub-sectors of the economy and wellbeing that are difficult to measure, such as poverty and happiness, are being taken seriously by economists. An attempt to define greed is a real new awakening in thinking about the future of the economy, quiet signal that the economy, democracy and equality belong together. In the 21st century, the World Council of Churches has for the first time brought analysis of greed into the public discourse and is working on criteria to measure its different forms.

2. Long-term politics in parliaments

How has political power – and especially the parliaments that wield it – responded to this situation? Are there any really new solutions being deliberated in parliaments? Regrettably little in light of the downward spiralling esteem that old democracies command. Downright frighteningly little when we take account of the zeal with which old democracies have been prepared to export their democracy to various continents even by force of arms.

I think we, the people, have to strengthen our political power on every level. Something that has long been more and more evident is that politics and democracy must play on the same level, in the same forums and also the same hard games as in the economy. If business has moved to the global level, politics must do the same. Global democracy solutions are certainly not easy. In a discussion of the future of coming generations, however, this level cannot be bypassed. Also awaiting solutions are 21st-century big common problems like climate change, population growth and poverty. Not even talk about various political and economic crises and even a core question of democracy and the rights of unborn generations – the threat of wars - are as close to us Europeans of today as Ukraine is.

To put it briefly, long-term politics in parliaments is gardening, taking care of all the opportunities and options of coming generations. But parliaments are very old traditional institutions. The Althing, the parliament of Iceland, was established on 23.6.930 and the first known act of the English Parliament is from 1229. A parliament’s task has been really permanent: to enact laws. For hundreds of years all over the world, it has become established practice for parliaments to legislate and approve international treaties, set taxes and confirm the state budget as well as to express confidence or non-confidence in the government. Parliaments in several countries also have acquired more general functions, involving examination of the legal, financial and administrative actions of ministries, relating to oversight of the government. In their fundamentals, however, parliaments have remained unchanged – within the separation of powers between three branches, they have stuck to legislation and left judicial and executive functions to the organs whose responsibility these matters are. In the way they operate, parliaments represent institutions that are strictly bound by tradition. Power of initiative or vision, strategies, innovation, re-thinking are in the government’s hands: the government governs.

However, parliaments have traditionally had their role to play when major questions facing the nation, such as deciding on war and peace, were being resolved. Taxation and the state budget have been important instruments of democracy also in this respect. That is why they have not been allowed to remain only a strategic matter for the government. There is a tremendous need inside the system of democracy to handle all kinds of big future problems. And not only problems of one future, but of several of them. Nobody knows the future. If we are in real democracy we should believe and see that the future we want can be made, and made in a democratic way.

If the foregoing analysis that researchers have made of the paradoxical situations of democracy, the curse of unfulfilled promises and the transition from the era of the national welfare state to one of global market- states is correct, is it not the task of parliaments to speak to their peoples about the matter? To tell about the change that the world is undergoing and point out that the expectations that people and various interest groups harbour are unrealistic. To tell who and where are making the great choices of the future for coming generations and how it is being done, and perhaps also cast a little light on what those choices are. Not even this is enough. Parliaments should be making the future and getting people to join them in doing so. The law,

6 the budget – not even representative democracy, traditional national parliaments are sufficient as instruments for this task. New forums and new tools are needed.

In a situation where the legitimacy of parliaments and democracy is crumbling, more than the apparatus and performance techniques need to be re-thought. The great future choice that politics and parliaments will have to make is: should we let development roll on under its own momentum as though it were a law of nature, or shall we resist its bad sides and support its good ones?

It is people who make an economy. It is time to re-think at least conceptions of whose interests the state is pursuing. What are the general, common and shared interests? What is democracy and equality? What should be assessed with respect to every decision and action of the state is whether it increases or reduces income differences?

Both nation-states and their collective organisations like the EU, the World Bank or the UN know the tough laws that rule the economy and competition in a global world. They all share the weak status of politics. If parliaments embark on a struggle for a fairer world and a more genuine democracy than currently obtains, they will really need strong support. Only the direct support of people will be sufficiently strong.

In Finland 20 years ago, some of our Representatives had the insight that establishing a committee to deal with the future would be one means of revitalising the Eduskunta from within. What is especially noteworthy is that the Committee for the Future is an original political innovation conceived by parliamentary democracy itself. It came into being on Representatives’ own initiative and in the face of opposition from many quarters. It was not easy to establish a forum specialising in matters of the future and consolidate its position. It took legislative initiatives by a majority of Representative on two occasions (133 of the 200 Representatives in 1986 and 167 in 1992). The idea of giving the Committee permanent status when the Constitution was revised encountered opposition. Overcoming it took a historic decision, through which a plenary session voted down the opposition that the Constitutional Law Committee and its experts had mounted. Speaking in the plenary chamber after their victory, the Representatives who had pushed through the proposal to put the Committee on a permanent footing said: “the future is permanent”.

Accentuating long-term futures policy and creating a forum to deal with it within the Eduskunta led to the idea of renewing democracy from within taking shape in the parliament’s own circles. The Committee for the Future is one of the Eduskunta’s 16 standing committees. As any other standing Committee, it has 17 members, who are all Representatives, and is cross-party in composition. It  prepares parliamentary documents entrusted to it, such as the Eduskunta’s response to the Government's Report on the Future (normally one report per parliamentary term),  issues statements to other committees on matters related to the future,  discusses issues pertaining to future development factors and development models,  analyses research regarding the future, including methodology,  serves as the parliamentary body responsible for assessing technological development and its consequences for society.

The Committee for the Future was unique in the world as an institution. 17 parliamentarians themselves stake out policy lines for the future. The time perspective is long and the scale of issues broad. Why? In many countries intergenerational problems are limited to some environmental norms and options and sustainable development strategies and sometimes to development plans, demographic crisis, control of financial equilibrium of states, or to the opportunities for civil society represent basic values outside or beside traditional political decision-making processes. We think these are important but they are on the whole not only suitable and enough to set the delicate balance between the interests of future and present generations.

Committee’s only task is to think futures, a range of alternative futures, discuss them and work for the best possible future for the people. It deliberates factors that influence the development of the future, futures research and the impacts of technological development. Situated at the core of political life, it has a lot of power - not legislative, not budgetary, but initiative and visionary. While the time perspective is 20-50 years, 7 it is actually working for the best of coming generations. And it really works: it has meetings twice a week, two hours on Wednesdays and one hour on Fridays.

Absolutely the most important efforts are devoted to its own issues, its own projects. First of all, the power to decide its own agenda is one of the pillars of the strength of the Committee. It has had the power of initiative from the very beginning. The Committee itself shapes the agenda and chooses the methods to be used in its work. Nobody else. The only limit to thinking, discussing issues of the future, is resources. Like any other Committee of the Eduskunta, it has only one counsellor and a small secretariat. It also has a small research budget (€75,000) of its own. But, the whole idea is based on the belief that experts consider it an honour to be able to work for democracy. Instead of a salary or fee, they get their report published by and deliberated in their national parliament.

Committees of the Eduskunta have very broad and strong rights to receive information. In order to get more knowledge and wisdom the Committee for the Future has to organise different kinds of hearings, analyse all kinds of information, travel abroad to get weak signals of something important and new and prepare studies on futures, different options, possible dangers, scenarios using mainly methods of futures research. After a general election, every Committee must itself create its success and earn esteem for its work in each and every 4-year parliamentary term. What is of essential importance is to choose one Representative to act as a steering group/subcommittee chair for each project and commit to this work. Especially during the last period 2011-2015, the use of subcommittee/sections (altogether 7) has added efficiency to preparatory work.

By virtue of its exceptional role and task, the Committee serves as the Eduskunta’s Think Tank and in this way also serves our parliamentary institution by obtaining information to support decision making and appraising the long-term effect of decisions.

For all committees the corresponding minister/corresponding ministry is important. The Prime Minister as the corresponding minister is the only appropriate choice for the Committee for the Future. If, for example, a minister for science, technology and innovation is appointed, the matters associated with substantive questions that his or her remit would include would be in practice future-related. However, in accordance with the idea on which the Committee is founded, the broad scope of its tasks and a high level of Government-Eduskunta dialogue, the cabinet member with foremost responsibility must ultimately be the Prime Minister, who also chairs the Research and Innovation Council (in the Government).

Considering the fact that parliaments everywhere in the world are quite similar, it is natural that the Committee for the Future receives visits from many politicians, researchers, officials, journalists and others with “a thirst for the new”, as it would be fitting to call them in the light of the interest they demonstrate. What amazes them most of all? One thing above everything else: that in Finland so many members of the legislative assembly spend many hours each week together in the same room giving some or other matter their joint deliberation. Not a petty crisis that breakfast TV or an evening tabloid has highlighted, but matters of the long-term future that they have themselves concluded, from observing everyday life and world events, are significant phenomena and to which they have given names. And when the visitors are told that they also jointly plan, on the basis of a theme index that they have themselves determined, the projects to be tackled during the coming four-year parliamentary term, decide on the level and mode of implementation of these projects, arrive at their conclusions and publish the results of their thinking together, they shake their heads. Surely that can’t happen between people representing different parties! At least not with regard to matters that the Government hasn’t even discussed, adopted a stance and in actual fact already refined its stance into a legal provision.

The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), established as long ago as 1889, is one of the oldest, broadly based international organisations still extant. In 2006 it assessed the new tasks of parliaments and the ways in which they needed to renew themselves in this new millennium and published the results in a practical guidebook titled Parliament and Democracy in the Twenty-first Century - a guide to good practice (IPU Geneva 2006). The book concludes with the chapter “Facing the future”. Parliaments must be ready for many things: to represent and speak on behalf of the entire people in all its diversity, make public the choices and dilemmas facing policy-makers and help educate the public about them, provide national forums for

8 canvassing and debating alternative views and policy proposals, promote conflict resolution and help smooth out differences in their role as experts on high-level dialogue and ensure that human rights as well as economic, social, educational and political rights are protected and promoted.

The final paragraph of the “Facing the future” chapter in the IPU book is devoted to a discussion of planning and making the future. It outlines models in which parliaments have gone over from reacting to proactive engagement, from approving government bills to themselves presenting initiatives, from solving individual problems of the past or today to pondering long-term structural problems. The examples outlined include the Subcommittee on the Future Development of Latvia established by the Latvian parliament in 2003, the Commission for Future Generations set up by the Israeli parliament in 2001 and the Committee for the Future in the Eduskunta since 1993. The Committee for the Future is seen as positive proof of the fact that parliamentarians really can be a source of initiative not only in outlining the future, but also in managing it and thereby shaping their country’s future.

There are certainly many explanations as to why only the Finnish case of these three prominent models is still at work in 2015. I give just one explanation: success in planning and shaping the future can only happen if parliamentarians themselves have the self-confidence to exercise the power they already possess. The power of vision is one of many forms of power.

Certainly in the work for next generations there are drawbacks as in gardening. A few examples from our own time can be found in the latest reports of the Council of Europe, which touch on the question of basic issues of democracy: freedom of expression and trust in the fairness of the political system especially during an economic recession.

According to the Council of Europe, among others, increasingly restrictive measures are being focused in the old democratic European countries on the political liberties that are of key importance from the perspective of democracy. The freedom of speech of journalists working in the traditional media has been narrowed, the right to demonstrate is being intervened in earlier than used to be the case and above all communications of every kind in the Internet environment have been made the subject of more extensive monitoring than hitherto.

The spending cuts associated with austerity policies have led to a running down of democratic structures and a weakening of the situation regarding human rights in some European countries. This has in turn caused a crumbling of the general trust that state structures enjoy. As a result, the pan-European legitimacy problem of representative institutional democracy is worsening. The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed his concern that austerity policy has increased the number of people who are thrust outside society and accelerated the rate at which inequality between people’s ability to function in society is developing.

3. Where should a forum for futures policy be situated?

Now I suppose I have made clear that it is good and wise for the future of coming generations to have a special forum for democracy. What this means in practice is a forum for politics/politicians, to handle long term policy issues. Politics is still in position to affect and shape the future and it should bear responsibility. Politics has an ethical responsibility towards future generations, take care of intergenerational justice. There are two main approach to institutionalize this responsibility. One approach focuses on constitutional rights written in our constitution, the other approach calls for organizational solutions. But, at the end with both approaches, there are many possible homes: parliament, the prime minister’s office or other governmental agency, a university or some other research institution, an independent think tank, an NGO, or it could be outsourced to the private sector, and within these in turn there are many possibilities. Even in this our relatively new international network “Roundtable of national institutions for a sustainable future” we have many models:

9

1) a political, democratic, representative body of parliamentarians; even a standing permanent committee in the parliament 2) a council, ombudsman or commissioner chosen from among parliamentarians or connected/nominated by the parliament or a government/ministry a) with a general task (the future, rights or wellbeing of coming generation) or b) with a specific task (children, the environment, sustainable development) 3) a parliamentary or governmental agency of civil servants which has this special task (often an auditing office) 4) some more flexible body (association/ network of legislators, civil servants, all kind of experts, scientists and some interest groups) in the parliament or in some way connected to parliamentary work 5) the same under the government or some or other ministry 6) a university; public (state-owned), private, public-private 7) a public foundation, a think tank, an association 8) a private or public-private foundation, a think tank, an association 9) a network, an NGO, a lobby 10) a private firm, business.

In Finland and in Chile parliaments have been most active in organizing new thinking, forecasting and scenario-working inside parliaments as a part of normal political and legal process in committees. In April 2015 also the Parliament of Ukraine decided to establish the Commission for the Future. As was the case in Finland when the Committee for the Future started 20 years ago it is not a standing permanent committee (yet). It took almost 10 years to get that status. In Scotland the parliamentary future work model is organized in more flexible way. In these different parliamentary models tasks of the future units cover actually all sectors of politics and life. The EU has several bodies focusing mainly on future work connected to technology and science. European Parliamentary Technology Assessment network (Epta), is founded to handle the challenge of new technologies. The OECD, UN, World Bank and other big global political actors have their own solutions. In this context the UN/World Future Council is already working actively and in the near future the UN Secretary-General’s proposed High Commissioner for Future Generations will perhaps also be in action. The World Future Society (WFS) founded in 1966 has the largest membership in the futures field. The big conference every July in some city of the US gathers hundreds of futurists, working in universities or think tanks in public and in private sector (mainly in the US). The World Futures Studies Federation (WFSF), founded in Paris in 1973, is a real global network of leading futurists, scholars, teachers, researchers, foresight practitioners, policy analysts, activists, students and others from 60 countries with a long-range view. Millennium –project is an old Washington- based network of Future activists.

I continue on the national level. Some national bodies have broad and some specific mandates. The most common ones are bodies focusing on environment. At the background are a number of international treaties which most democratic countries are involved. In Europe the most traditional, advanced and appreciated are technology (science) assessment bodies (TA-bodies; EPTA European Parliamentary Technology Assessment).

The basic difference between all these bodies relates to the right to use state power, i.e. make legally binding decisions – and ultimately also wield the power of sanctions, coercive power, in the name of the state. Some use legal power, some not. Only 1-3 are mainly such. Bodies either are part of the state power system or not. Only 1-7 are, but not always nowadays in an era of outsourcing and privatisation. Only 1-3 normally use it. Some are more of a standing nature, permanent, open and legally operated and controlled, some less.

The majority of institutions focusing on the wellbeing of coming generations are in groups 1-7, as are public- sector bodies. But that is only in old European countries. The situation in the USA is quite different where many strong bodies working for future generations are private or public-private. The future in this regard can be different in Europe too - there is a strong movement towards the private in every sector of society, including all kind of future-oriented work. Public-private choice means that the bodies that future

10 generations rely on can act as a public or private or public-private entity. Their object can also be private, public or public-private.

In Europe and actually in the whole world Switzerland with the direct democracy system is always an exception, also in organizing future policy. People can vote on very many things, also about instituting a future council. I suppose, that after voting it will get democratic legitimacy after writing down by law its tasks, way of working, competence etc. I order to asses the Swiss case you have to know more of basics of this very special democracy.

The Welsh Assembly has taken a much more important role than in any other case by writing the main principles and rules of work for coming generations directly into law. The new “Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015” is about improving the social, economic, environmental and cultural well- being of Wales. I think it is a law type which we in Finland call “programming laws”. We used them in the sixties and seventies when we build up the Nordic Welfare State model. Nowadays it could be typed “a law of goals” or a “future-oriented visionary law”.

The aim of the Act is to make the public bodies listed in it (Welsh Ministers, local authorities, local health boards, Public Health Wales NHS Trust, Velindre NHS Trust, national park authorities, fire and rescue authorities, Natural Resources Wales, The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, The Arts and Sports Councils of Wales and the National Library and Museum of Wales) think more about the long-term, work better with people and communities and each other, look to prevent problems and take a more joined- up approach. To make sure all are working towards the same vision, the Act puts in place seven wellbeing goals. Public bodies have to report on their work. The Auditor General and the Future Generations Commissioner have power of scrutiny.

In Finland we have actually strong future bodies in every group, but not in the sense of law and using exercising legal power as in Wales. The most important bodies in Finland are: 1) standing permanent Committee for the Future of 17 MPs in the Parliament, 2) The University/Future Research Institute at the University of Turku, which offers a doctorate in Future Studies, 3) the Foresight Network in the Prime Minister’s Office, a body of civil servants and experts who report to the PM 4) as part of citizens movement in 1970’s NGO, the Association of Future Research and 5) several think tanks as Sitra, the Finnish Innovation Fund under the Parliament, a public fund aimed at building a successful Finland for tomorrow.

It is a great thing that all of these are working for a better future, but if we keep in mind the starting point – power - and the two main questions for this article, 1) who has the power to decide for coming generations and 2) who has the right to decide for coming generations, I think the best place is the parliament. In my understanding, only parliaments in democracies can have the right to use, besides legislative and budgetary power, also visionary power over us people so that it can result in a binding goal, task or an action that the authorities have a duty to perform – not merely a wish, or a proposal. Certainly, it is not so clear to where future work in the parliament should be assigned. Should it be a committee or an ombudsman or something totally new? In the old parliamentary system all committees work to some extent for the future, an ombudsman or a commissioner can do it, but also a separate research institute or a think tank connected to the parliament and where politicians and their most important counterparts are represented.

The debate on the status of our Committee for the Future that arose in the context of revision of the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure in the beginning of the 21st century clearly illustrated a number of fundamental problems associated with the Committee’s work that still become the focus of discussion from time to time. I suppose the situation is the same in other countries while I know that future work is still after all these years something a bit strange – if not the task, the methods.

The arguments in favour of giving the Committee permanent status that were presented in the plenary session debate were mainly pragmatic and can be placed in the following categories:

1) With respect to the work that it does, the Committee for the Future can be compared to the Grand Committee (in Finland, the EU Committee which handles the most important EU issues, weekly before and

11 after every important meeting in Brussels, with the Prime Minister/Ministers in attendance) as well as in part to the Foreign Affairs and Defence committees, which likewise deal with questions other than those associated with legislative and budgetary matters in their own sectors. 2) The long-term planning and deliberation of matters that the Committee for the Future does specifically for the legislature are important. 3) The continuity that giving the Committee permanent status would ensure would also bring greater esteem for its work. 4) The international interest that the Committee has prompted and the positive reputation that is has brought are important. 5) Putting the Committee on a permanent footing is specifically a political solution and staking out of policy. 6) Practical problems relating to resources and quorums would arise as long as the Committee’s status remained different from that of the permanent committees. 7) Despite the opposition that the idea was encountering, giving the Committee permanent status was not, in the view of either experts or the Constitutional Law Committee, contrary to the Constitution.

Correspondingly, the arguments put forward by those who viewed the idea of permanent status in a negative light can be grouped into the following categories:

1) The role played by the Committee for the Future differs essentially from that of the other committees insofar as it does not have any legislation- or budget-related tasks. 2) Matters relating to the future are indeed important to the Eduskunta, but a committee is not the right kind of body for dealing with them. 3) How future-related tasks could best be dealt with in some other way should be studied and the role of the Committee for the Future assessed on this basis. 4) The esteem that a committee and its members enjoy does not depend on its formal status, but rather on its work and the results achieved.

One of the most central arguments against the activities of the Committee for the Future has been repeated year after year: “all committees must look to the future and deal with futures-related matters pertaining to their respective sectors. Futures policy, which is counted as including also science, technology and innovations, is made in committees and plenary sessions”. This is a clear objective, but in fact growth in the workload of committees entrusted with legislative tasks (e.g. EU matters) means that very little time has been left for work with alternative futures. Discussions in plenary sessions sometimes really handle futures policy, but especially when our Committee prepares a report for the session, which is obliged to deliberate it.

However, what matters most when assessing the location of futures policy is the general division of labour within parliamentary democracy. As is the case everywhere in democracies, the division of labour within the political system means that the Government is a proactive political actor. What this means is that, taking the demands of the future into consideration, it makes proposals to the parliament, which in turn has the task of approving laws and the budget. The Government governs. The parliament can be active and a source of initiatives specifically in long-term futures policy and for this it needs an empowered and capable body that concentrates, with the aid of the methods of futures research, on these often difficult and complex matters.

At a plenary session in 1999, when the status of the Committee was being decided on, a clear argument in favour of giving the Committee permanent status was presented. The starting point was that what is involved in futures policy is the Eduskunta’s prestige and Representatives’ influence:

“The Committee for the Future performs a service role in the legislature. It is a body that can comprehensively concentrate on examining the future, on articulating, from the perspectives of both parliamentary work and the general development of society, the present-day societal pressures to which also the law-making committees must find better answers than heretofore. In my view, putting futures work on a permanent footing is a matter of how active a relationship the Eduskunta adopts to not only appraising future courses of development, but also to the Government and the public service. After all, what is very largely involved at the moment is that we, as a parliament, are content with what the Government enacts within its Programme for Government as well as that, very largely, also citizens express criticism, asking whether public servants direct the Eduskunta. In my view, our attaching sufficient importance to futures work and giving it enough room in the legislature as a whole will also help us towards assuming the role that belongs to the Eduskunta. Namely, the legislature must remain, true to its traditions, the most important forum for the social discourse”.

A point that has been emphasised on numerous occasions since then is that, in addition to legislative and budgetary power, the Eduskunta also has power of vision. This form of power is nowadays more and more important.

12

4. My answers to my questions

Who has the power to decide for coming generations? Who has the right to speak in their name? A short answer is nobody.

Both economics and politics wield strong power over coming generation. Balance between these powers and legacy and especially the legitimacy of the power they wield is a complicated, but very important issue if we keep in mind the common and mutual best of people in the future.

In my case, given that the Committee for the Future is a part of the parliament, it is in a certain sense easy to answer these questions, because in principle it derives all of its rights from the Finnish people, in practise living in the representative democracy of today, through voting. We know this old system of parliamentary democracy is not enough – it is no coincidence that one of main projects on our work list in the last parliamentary term was crowdsourcing. But, in a democracy old or new, nobody has the right to wield power over coming generations so strongly and in such a way that unborn generation no longer have rights, the means, tools or mind or courage to decide on their life and wellbeing and plan and innovate their children’s future options. Nobody knows the future. That is why the Committee for the Future has only the right to think and discuss different futures, all kind of possibilities, options and dangers and apply visionary power to these several futures. Still, I do not deny that since it is at the core of democracy, inside one of the main power centres, this can be an important forum when used wisely.

The influence that the Committee for the Future wields is wider than the committee itself, even within the parliament. In the Finnish system, Representatives are also always members of 1-2 other parliamentary committees. Some of them have discovered that it is innovative and effective to combine visionary power against a long-term perspective with practical legislative or budgetary power. In practice all ministers are members of the parliament, so, many of them have been in the Committee for the Future. All in all, long- term future work in the Eduskunta has acquired its flexible forms in the course of these more than 20 years.

Given that I have been working for the Committee for over 20 years, from the very beginning, it would not be my place to I evaluate the results that it has achieved. But I can express some general views. This forum is a place to learn to see far, understand big pictures, be ready for new things – it is a vantage point. The Committee for the Future is the only forum in the Eduskunta where all parties can together, without unnecessary regional, chronological or sectoral limits, appraise the development of the entire political system against a time frame that is longer than that of day-to-day politics and a parliamentary term. Turmoil and uncertainties in the economy are elevating democracy and politics to the centre of interest in a new way.

A considerable proportion of ministers have been members of the Committee. In the period 2003-07 its chair Jyrkki Katainen was, as a young politician, elected as the leader of the biggest opposition party, the National Coalition, and became Minister of Finance after the election. The Committee’s report “A Caring, Encouraging and Creative Finland”, which appraised the information society, was incorporated, complete with name, into the Programme for Government. Mr. Katainen later became Prime Minister and is now an EU Commissioner. Another Prime Minister also came from among the ranks of our Committee. Juha Sipilä, who also as a new politician won election to the Eduskunta in 2011, chose the Committee for the Future to work in, and was chosen some years later to lead another big party, the Centre Party. By the end of the parliamentary term he was number one in all polls, then the winner in the general election and has now become Prime Minister. The chair of this period 2015-2018 Carl Haglund is the leader of the Swedish Party, the Minister of Defence in the last Government.

The Committee for the Future is not one of the committees that parliamentarians most eagerly aspire to membership of after a general election, but it has proved itself to be a good vantage point from which to follow changes in the world and the challenges that coming generations will have to contend with. Visionary power is not easy to use, but when wielded wisely offers a very strong position from which to practise politics.

13

When it has worked well, the Committee’s operational model has been almost an ideal way of creatively and critically combining scientific and technological information with a search for innovative new political solutions. The Committee has enjoyed fairly good success, because sufficiently different politicians with broad minds and an interest in the new have sought membership of it. What is very important is that the Committee contains, on the one hand, very experienced, inquisitive and bold politicians and, on the other, also ambitious “rising stars” with a thirst for knowledge. It is likewise important that they represent the Finns in all their diversity of education, from farmer to professor.

The second foundation stone for lasting success that can be pointed to is that the aim in the Committee’s reports is to be thorough and scientifically critical rather than trying to please the public or voters with showily produced and light pamphlet-style publications. Lighter versions of reports have been needed for information purposes, but the serious and thorough way that science deals with phenomena has not been overlooked. Newcomers in the Committee ask often: “Is the work more science than politics?” My answer is clear – it is 100 % politics in the best form. Committee members respect all opinions and weak signals on alternative futures. If I remember right, it has only once voted during these 20 years. The Committee decided by voting which of the alternative terms describing a “good life” was the best.

5. The most critical point is independence – independence against or for

The most difficult thing in power that will affect coming generation is independence. Independence as freedom is important and clear, but with power it is another thing. Independence from what and with what justification and with what kind of tools? By its very nature, independence leads to knock-on problems in the instruments of exercise of independent power and naturally the most intractable problems concern such instruments of exercise of strong power as the right of veto, the power to prosecute, coercive power and in general the right to impose sanctions.

After all, it is a fact that when the status of institutions that will concern themselves with future generations is being determined, there is usually a specific desire for strong rights to intervene in the activities of the public authorities, to prevent authorities or other actors from doing something that is seen to conflict with the rights of future generations. The other approach to independence is the opposite, positive. It is to seek means of presenting – independent of the legislature and government, or perhaps more accurately in tandem with them – alternative choices for consideration in decision making and to get decision makers to act, in whatever position or sector they work, with the long-term implications in mind. Authorities can also be required (by law) to explain better than is ordinarily the case the long-term effects that their decisions will have, how they will impact on coming generations. This practice has long been followed in Europe when government bills with a bearing on environmental matters have been introduced in parliament.

The first decision at the first meeting of our Committee in 1993 adopted a clear stance on the approach to be adopted and well expressed something of our mentality and mind-set. The English name was originally Committee of the Future, but this was changed at the first meeting to Committee for the Future. As a secretary I remember that it was felt that the new preposition reflected a proactive and positive grasp on the future. Not against but for something, always active not passive, always curious not suspicious and never ever afraid to ask questions, ask for the new things, not only wait to see what will come.

Bypassing a legitimate administrative system always involves a big risk. Good intentions and outstanding experts – those who have a better grasp of matters and people than others – have always been abundantly on offer. In political democracy the government – in the broad sense – has always been responsible to parliament for the way it exercises its executive power also in matters of long-term import. The various units subordinate to the government are, on the other hand, always dependent on the level of the general political line, although they are independent in their individual decisions and everyday activities. The possibilities available to ministers to intervene in their subordinates’ administrative actions are limited. Advance scrutiny, which in terms familiar from the press could be compared to advance censorship, does not exist in the administrative system. The system is founded on trust that each unit exercising public power will do its best

14 for the common and general good over the short and the long term. If a mistake is made, it will be rectified – also and specifically on the involved party’s own initiative.

To use power you need tools. Independence is a strength only if it has strong tools to act. The strongest tools available in the exercise of power on behalf of coming generations in the public sector are the veto or the right to freeze laws or some actions and sanctions, i.e. the right to impose fines or withdraw operating licences. Naturally these tools are at the same time the most problematic and most dangerous. It means that some institution has been given the unique power not only to think, but also to act in a legally binding way, using their veto and threatening with juridical sanctions in the name of people who do not even exist. That means taking such strong action that it will preclude action by a legislative, governmental or administrative authority that has a legitimate right to work on behalf of the people.

As long as the institutions working for the good of future generations are part of a solid and legal system of power and law and use the visionary power that comes through exchanging ideas and opinions, discussion, conceptualisation and innovation, I do not see a problem. To these positive, active power tools belong also the right to propose laws. But when power includes an entitlement to make binding decisions, which override or rescind the exercise of power by those institutions of the legal system to which such matters have been entrusted, we are on a dangerous path. The credibility of the official political-administrative system begins to weaken. The responsibility of officials and their ethos vanish.

Ultimately, what lies in the background to differences between legal systems is the question of the culture of ruling, governing and administration. In some countries, people have over the centuries become accustomed to being no more than a humble timid subject before official power, whereas in others citizens have for a lot longer time felt that they were free, independent and knowledgeable and aware of their rights and duties. There are differences between countries’ history, major political decisions that increased equality and models of administration. All we share the history of poverty, even famine. But serfdom hardly existed at all in the Nordic countries. In Finland, many profound and broad land reforms have been carried out, with the result that land ownership is still today decisively more evenly distributed than in many other European countries. Half of the population, the women, have enjoyed equality for longer than elsewhere. They became independent with respect to ownership, education and rights to engage in professions and societal affairs considerably earlier than anywhere else in the world. It is no coincidence that women in Finland were the first in the world in 1906 to be given the vote and the right to stand for election to public office. As early as the Middle Ages, a pastor had a duty to ensure that everyone learned to read and write. Towards this end, an effective sanction in those days was cleverly used: the law said that otherwise a licence to marry could not be granted. Looking back the last 100 years, I personally as a women, give a big value to those political decisions which have saved my country from occupation.

In the role of gardener I would point out the importance of governing. I do not mean governing in the sense of a government or governmental bodies. I mean governing issues in the world, continent, nation, village, workplace, home - but not only from an institutional point of view. Governing means governing issues as phenomena. It means thinking, evaluating, handling, planning, taking care of issues – also on the level of the oldest institution – a family. You have to govern more and more issues and all kind of things in your own life in this complex world. It is not an easy job, think only IT/Internet/digitalization, but you cannot escape it, because it is everywhere.

The Nordic welfare model is based on an equal society- no difference of class. Nordic countries are so-called low-hierarchy countries. This applies to politics, administration, business life and social life. There are few hierarchies and even they are very low and flexibly surmountable. The political-administrative system is founded on trust – the default assumption is always that the entire official apparatus will operate in accordance with the law and for the common good. Finally I would like to emphasise the public service ethos. This, too, is linked to the question of independence, but in the Nordic countries from a slightly different starting point than is perhaps generally the case. The administration has always been modest; the civil servants highly educated, and democratic, a mentality of equality has been dominant. For this reason most civil servants deal with their matters from the beginning until the decision, personally, without the

15 interference of superiors. Civil servants are responsible for their actions in vertical and horizontal dimensions.

Admittedly, the old legalistic administrative model with its principles and operational methods is giving way in many countries. With privatisation and outsourcing, operational models from the world of business have also been embraced. Anyway, in every case accountability is essential for good governance. The ombudsman institution operating in the public sector has been adopted in many countries for that reason. Ombudsmen play a critical role in the fight against incompetence, injustice and corruption. The problem is whether this model really works when more and more state tasks or public services are totally privatised, outsourced or otherwise transferred to public-private institutions. The profit is more important than the common good. Citizens are more like customers than citizens. The role of the state is totally different as well. It is certainly more difficult to give rights to ombudsmen, also ombudsmen in coming generations, in the context of the New Public Management.

Back to tools of power. On the system level, the veto system is strong in especially countries with case-by- case legal systems. What is involved is fundamentally the same phenomenon. The point of departure in them is the same case-by-case concept of society based on the basic security of the individual; society is directed and guided with the individual as the central point of reference and through case-by-case solutions. In a system founded on codified law the legislator specifies, in advance, the norms to be complied with in implementation. These norms can also be focused far into the future. As a contrast to a system of general law and good and dependable actions by the authorities, law is written and justice and fairness are sought especially through case law as is done in Anglo-American systems. It is through cases, which are generally adjudicated on by supreme courts, that justice is achieved. This is referred to as judicial states. Where the individual is concerned, a case-by-case veto means that by appealing and taking one’s own case to outside independent appeals bodies for adjudication, justice can be obtained. On the system level, some or other outside independent body is given a right of veto over a law or its implementation. In the business world, various forms of mediation and courts of arbitration are in the same position. The European way of legal thinking based on codified law and an established court system and the Anglo-American one that is founded on case-by-case judgements and separate appeals bodies have collided, in particular with regard to the way disputes are resolved, in drafting a new trade agreement between the EU and the USA. Approaches and differences of view have a long history.

In the Nordic countries we have a strong legal, written law and a state-based ruling and governance system. The roles and positions of government bodies are based on law and are clear. But at the same time on the level of the rights of citizens we have an old tradition of also entrusting strong positions to the Chancellor of Justice and the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The roots of the present ombudsman system go back to the early 19th century. In Sweden the first Ombudsman was nominated in 1809, in Finland in 1920, in Danmark in 1955 and in Norway in 1962. Ancient China had an institution called the “Censorate”, the mandate of which was to monitor governing bodies in the name of the rights of the people. In Finland, the Chancellor of Justice exercises oversight to ensure that in the Government decision-making is legal, whilst the Parliamentary Ombudsman handles complaints from ordinary people. Both are independent in their work. They have all the tools and rights they need to investigate and to act. They are, at the same time, the highest and most highly regarded jurists in Finland. But, it is important to know that both these old institutions are for advice and for recommendations – they cannot change decisions of other institutions.

In the second half of the 20th century the Ombudsman institution has had an outstanding carrier. The New Zealand was the first country to follow the Nordic countries – in 1962 was nominated the first Ombudsman. Presently in more than 150 countries around the world ombudsmen are protecting different fields of human rights. In America in the mid-1950s scholars, lawyers and politicians began examining the ombudsman system. In late 1960´s the system expanded very widely first inside the public sector and then also into the private sector. Ombudsman offices investigated all kind of complaints, not only against malfeasance on the part of government agencies, but also the behaviour of all kinds of service institutions and corporations. Eventually all sectors of life were covered. In the American system citizens were more taken care as consumers than in Europe. After invasion of the ombudsman in the US it was adopted in Asia. As Asian Development Bank has (in the report Strengthening the Ombudsman institution in Asia 2011) analysed the

16

American model is in use in most of countries, the Asian Ombudsman Association has expanded during 10- 15 years its membership to 31. The difference with the European system is that in Asia some Ombudsmen are granted prosecutorial and adjudicative functions in addition to the usual investigative powers. They can even freeze bank accounts, impose fines, prosecute persons in court and suspend them from their jobs pending investigation. But on the other hand some ombudsmen are evaluated to be “a toothless tiger with no power of sanction” as expressed in the report of the Asian Development Bank.

New Zealand’s Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment was unique in 1986. Since the mid-1980s many countries have got the same kind of bodies. The independence is mainly understood in New Zealand mean to have a status of independence of being Officers of Parliament, independence of the government of the day. As an Officer of Parliament, the Commissioner is seen fully independent of the executive branch of government and is seen obliged to execute his or her functions, duties and powers without political bias or direction. The Commissioner has no enforcement powers, influence is limited to recommendations. The old Nordic Ombudsman system must have been as a model.

Individual-centred governance is reflected also in how the task of members of parliaments are thought of. In Finland, a Representative is not someone who advocates or takes care of the matters and interests of private persons. That is something that is even found fault with. In a state-centred system a Representatives strives in their work for a career as statespersons, to pursue from the beginning and in everything the common and general interest of the state in anything that is at the same time thought of as being the best for the nation. Taking a historically different political development, it is natural that in the USA citizens quite often assume a priori that the Representative for their district, their “own” Representative, is someone will also act as it were as the supreme advocate of their and their families and relatives’, their friends’ and neighbours’ interests, and who has a big legal office in Washington DC.

Condensing the foregoing, I conclude that an “Ombudsman for Coming Generations” could be a high-level general advocate of the major interests of future generations, one without strong legal rights. But he or she could not be a prosecutor, in general a wielder of judicial power or especially an exerciser of punitive and coercive power. Not case-by-case on the level of the individual or the system. Parliaments chosen in elections and the governments responsible to them can delegate power acceptably only downwards to bodies that are in turn responsible to them, not upwards to independent bodies. As per the tripartite separation, judicial power is naturally always separate.

Based on 20 years’ experience with my Committee for the Future, I can say it is clear that an ombudsman cannot be a very radical institution; it cannot start a revolution. Independence is a political issue in the final analysis. In the same way as a parliamentary committee, an ombudsman or a commissioner is created and dominated by politics. No parliament or government can tolerate having an oversight body that can override its legislative, political, economic, executive or judicial functions. A body for coming generations cannot dictate its national or international interests. This applies only to matters in the here and now; tomorrow is a different thing. There is a huge need for forerunners. A body dealing with the future should never be an institution that deradicalises politics or preserves the status quo. In the best case an independent active ombudsman can maintain a dynamic balance of power among and between different bodies of the state and its sectors and individuals. It can be a strong pillar of principle of checks and balance, but also a pillar of intergenerational solidarity and justice. All this because we know there are several futures full of choice.

It is made several proposals to integrate the quardian-activitity for the next generations into the Office of the European Ombudsman institution. The EU parliament elected after the Maastricht Treaty in 1995 the first EU Ombudsman. Its role is to investigate and report about maladministration in the EU bodies. It’s another role is the promotion of good governance in general. The ombudsman has wide powers to investigation. The EU Ombudsman cannot deal with complaints concerning national, regional or local administration of the EU member states.

If I summarize these proposals the ombudsman would be empowered 1) to report observations concerning the EU policy-makings and legislation on issues with long-term consequences for the next generations, including sustainable development and common human cultural heritage and also on all these issues 2) to

17 receive and evaluate claims, opinions, petitions and proposals referred by any natural or legal person residing or with registered office in the EU 3) to conduct inquiries 4) to observe and to make statements on policies for the EU’s Member 5) to express a preliminary opinion on the draft of the EU’s international agreement 6) to consult with bodies and institutions of the EU and the Member States 6) to submit recommendation and initiative actions for better understanding and 7) to issue annual reports on its activities.

I have handled already problems of independence, legal rights and status of institutions which use power over other institutions in the name of coming generations. The situation will be the same with the European Ombudsman or the UN High Commissioner for next generations. This do not mean that we forget that it is a very old tradition in all civilised societies that persons who are legally incompetent, such as minors, are protected by special institutions from those who might exploit their disadvantage. The rights of animals and the whole nature have got the special status of care later. Unfortunately perhaps too late we have admitted that the greatest danger is that we destroy living resources essential for human survival. But, in summary: the guardian-type Ombudsman for Future could appear before the EU-institutions, bringing out the long-term implications and presenting alternatives. It could plead for future generations. It would have right to put forward arguments on behalf of future generations. It could always introduce a new dimension, the time horizon, into the resolution of issues traditionally confined to here and now.

The oldest Commissioner of Environment in New Zealand or the newest one in the Wales does not provide for a veto. In Germany, there are four different kind of environmental Councils, but none of them have the power to stop laws which are looked to threaten the well-being of coming generations. In Israel and in Hungary there were some such elements in the rights of the former Commission/Commissioners for Future Generations. The Israeli parliament had proposed as one of the firsts in the world a strong power to Commission/Commissioner to protect the rights of future generations at the parliamentary and governmental level. The right to veto was important. Independence was a major problem already in the very beginning: in the original bill compared to the later version (actually enacted) the Commission/Commissioner was planned to have much more independence from parliament and from government. In 2002 there was a “Brain Storm” discussion. One clear conclusion was that not having been elected the Commissioner was not allowed to stop legislation. Later on the Commissioner’s power was reduced and the whole concept is no longer in action as planned.

In Hungary, the Commissioner’s (later Ombudsman’s) rights were in the beginning in 2000 wide, but reduced in 2011. According to original conception, the Ombudsman for Future Generations should have been independent also from the Ombudsman Offices. The competence was planned wide, especially investigations, so wide that investigations of the Commissioner would have extended to economic actors. The Commissioner was planned to be also strong pro-actively. Firstly, the preliminary examination of bills introduced so that the MPs cannot accept laws at odds with the fundamental interests of descendants. Secondly, the Commissioner could actively initiate the creation of laws promoting the enforcement of the rights of succeeding generations, and could harmonise the legal system with the principle of sustainability. Brief web-pages-information from Hungary tells a bit the same kind story as in Israel:

The Commissioner for Future Generation is empowered to carry out investigations in relation to all issues that may affect citizens’ constitutional right to a healthy environment. These do not only concern typical issues pertaining to air, water, waste, etc., but also all cases with a likely impact on the long term sustainability of the environment in the broadest sense. Thus the field of competence of the Commissioner also extends to the protection of world heritage sites, historic monuments, environmental health issues, energy and transport policy, greening of the public budget, etc. The very broad competences of the Commissioner can be broken down into the following activities: investigation, policy advocacy, strategy-making and research. … The Ombudsman Act provides the Commissioner with a wide range of measures to redress the “impropriety” discovered. The typical individual measure taken by the Commissioner is recommendations. Recommendations, addressed to the competent authorities, their supervisory authorities or private parties, are non-binding and cannot be challenged in court. If recommendations are responded to, the Commissioner may request the Parliament to investigate the case. In addition to “soft” recommendations the Commissioner may also undertake measures of direct legal effect. First, the Commissioner may seek the suspension of the execution of administrative decisions if prima facie it appears illegal and its implementation may result in irreversible damage to the environment. Second, the Commissioner may call on any person or organisation to stop any activity that harms the environment. The person addressed has to respond within a deadline set by the Commissioner. In the case of an unsatisfactory response, the Commissioner may seek the suspension of the activity in court. Third, the Commissioner may initiate or

18 participate in all applicable administrative and judicial review procedures. He may appeal against any environmental administrative decision and/or seek the judicial review thereof. He may intervene in court procedures on behalf any party seeking the review of administrative decisions relating to the environment. Furthermore, the Commissioner may undertake measures of general legal effect. It may issue general recommendations, initiate the constitutional review of any legal norm with the Constitutional Court or suggest the national or municipal legislator to amend existing or adopt new legislation. The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner – comprising the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Civil Rights, the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the National and Ethnic Minorities Rights and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Future Generations, according to the Act 111 of 2011 on the Hungarian Commissioner for Fundamental Rights, has ceased to exist. From 1 January 2012 its tasks were overtaken by its legal successor, the Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights. Its tasks cover a wide range, but its rights to act, tools and measures at its disposal are not so strong.

I do not know the reasons for this re-thinking of the Ombudsman’s rights, and it is not perhaps relevant in this context to know the details, but I am sure some representatives and scholars of democracy have shared the same basic problems of representation and legitimacy I have discussed in this article.

Comparable problems will be encountered if an attempt is made in the electoral system to violate the one- vote-per-person principle. Finland experts were looking at ways to give more influence with respect to the rights of coming generations to those who know better than others. They arrived at proposals that some people should get extra votes. On what grounds would someone’s vote be worth more than someone else’s? It has been proposed several times during discussion of the rights of children in Finland that parents of small children should have an extra vote in elections. As a mother and a grandmother of four, I wonder why only parents of small children and why only parents. Anyway, I am against these proposals.

Some of these proposals are based on strong values of individualism. Its concept of man starts from the assumption that people think only of themselves, of their own interests in the shorter term, of the direct benefit that they will themselves gain. In a consumer society full of individual rights and desires it can be even true, but it is people’s right. It is simply democratic. My own concept of man is considerably more positive. A sense of responsibility for the future, especially the future of children and grandchildren has always been an inherent part of human nature. By the way, you have perhaps already noticed that my concept of politics and politicians is also positive.

If we start giving special rights to some, more votes or the right to walk over the legal system – no matter how good the reason or intention may be – we shall have walked into a quagmire. The next step would be that we give extra power to those who have the best scientific education and experience. For instance: in the future genes will be so important in many sectors of society that it would be wise to give more power to experts in gene technology or gene medicine on the ground that they know what is best for us and for unborn generations. There will be a lot of other kind of super-knowledge which could justify their extra power. Let us, however, not forget the proverb “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

To conclude, after dealing with institutional and organisational issues which actually led to some very critical points, I want to stress that work for coming generations is very important. Forerunning and foresight are extremely valuable in governance and in business, but also nowadays in the family and in the life of every citizen. I shall cite only one example: Bill Gates. He had a vision of very many of the major innovations of our time, which are not only technological ones. Gates did not only see futures; he also shaped a big part of the future. With this positive picture in mind, I want to handle a bit content of our future work in the Committee for the Future. I will give you in the appendix an idea of two themes that we discussed in our Committee during the last parliamentary term and which I believe are, alongside the future of democracy, more important than others for coming generations. They are the role of the state and radical technologies that will change a lot of things in my country and perhaps also in the world.

Appendix: Two themes relating to coming generations

19

a) The role of the State

Focusing to the level nations the tasks performed by the state in Finland have been growing and increasing in scope throughout the period since the 1960s. New benefits have been granted to both citizens and their associations and companies as part of a better tomorrow. In the early years of the 21st century on the theme of the state’s tasks, the emphasis has been on the pressures that change in the demographic structure is placing on the public sector’s long-term sustainability, especially in funding pensions. Especially young politicians understand that next generation inherit the debt. The solutions proposed have been to raise the retirement age, increase the efficiency of public services production, new funding models for wellbeing programmes and bringing social security systems up to date. Privatisation and private services production have divided opinions.

Re-evaluations of public spending have been carried out in several countries: the Program Review in Canada in 1994-1999, the Fundamental Expenditure Reviews programme in the Netherlands in 2009-2010 and the Spending Review Framework programme in the UK in 2010. The matter examined within these programmes was whether the tasks assigned to the state at that time were still within the sphere of public interest, in accordance with it and if the role of the state is justified and essential. Also looked at were alternative ways of organising functions – private, public or indirect public activities, can a task currently now entrusted to the state be performed by a party outside the state system or should it be transferred to citizens themselves either entirely or in cooperation with the state. Several different funding models for tasks were also developed within the programmes.

Plenty of different kinds of pressures from many directions are being focused on re-evaluation of the tasks of the state. A political assessment of the role and tasks of the state in the future must be made. This assessment task, which is work for coming generations, lends itself best to being done parliamentarily.

b) Radical Technology

Technology assessment is one task of the Committee for the Future. During the last parliamentary term (2011-2015) the Committee developed a new anticipation/evaluation method, which it called the Radical Technology Inquirer. It is based on new ways of working in democracy: systematic study of open data sources of the Internet, evaluations of experts and crowdsourcing. The first list of 100 promising technological solutions was found based on facilitated Facebook discussion. In the beginning 800 persons registered to participate on the discussion site, then about 1400. About 100 real activists have suggested promising Internet sources of technological breakthroughs. It is a lot in the country of 5 million people.

Based on 25 indicators, a list of the 100 most promising technological breakthroughs was built. To simplify the matter a lot, the star status is based on the sum of the impacts on the 20 global value-producing networks multiplied by the sum of the values of the other indicators. In the English edition, a comparison is presented between the globally most promising technological breakthroughs (23 indicators) and the most promising from the Finnish perspective (25 indicators).

Global Finland 2.72 Extremely dense processors that take quantum phenomena into account 1 5 2.19 Open data and big data 2 1 2.13 Freely organising remote work and organisations that form on the Internet 3 2 2.22 Glasses of augmented reality 4 3 2.12 Schools in the cloud 5 6 2.20 Gamification 6 4

20

2.02 Biochips and biosensors able to diagnose diseases inexpensively and rapidly, physiological states and genetic features of organisms 7 8 2.28 Cloud computing 8 10 2.56 3D printing of goods 9 9 2.45 Self-driving car 10 7

And again, as with democracy technology (science) is based on long-term and careful gardening. Since the 1990s, the Committee has anticipated and evaluated the social impacts of new technologies. These parliamentary technology assessment activities have benefited much from the international cooperation and especially from the common activities of the network called Epta (European Parliamentary Technology Assessment network).

Finland has traditionally been a land of pioneers and eager embracers of innovations. Finns like to discuss the future, also and especially the future of technology. As long ago as the 19th century, Finland was one of the leading countries in the adoption of new inventions. It was among the first countries in Europe to have electric light and telephones. Nokia’s success as a developer of telephone technology was more than just a fortunate coincidence. Even the world’s first commercial microcomputer was built by Digelius Elektroniikka in 1973.

The Finnish pioneering spirit in technological development was still alive and thriving in the 1980s and 1990s. In the 1990s Finland was a shop window for the world after it had been faster than others to embrace the Internet and mobile technology. Nokia prospered and Finland shone at or near the head of competitiveness comparison tables. Almost imperceptibly, however, the pioneering spirit ebbed in the first decade of the new century, although there was much talk of innovation. In the intoxication of success, the perspective from which technology and its possibilities were viewed narrowed and, alongside Nokia, many companies concentrated on enjoying their technological achievements. Others caught up with and overtook us, especially when it came to seizing the opportunities that new radical technologies presented.

The ebbing pioneering spirit and narrowing perspective have been noticed by our Committee, the basic tasks of which include assessing the impacts of technology and technology foresight. The Committee now has a tool using which it may be possible to arouse the pioneering spirit again. The technology foresight model called “Radical Technologies” is a tool for the wellbeing of coming generations. At the top of the list are technologies which will change a lot of things in the world. There are great prospects of a success. In addition, the model makes it possible to examine the technologies at the bottom of the list as weak signals and competence needs in the future.

About gardening. Finland must have up-to-date competence in these technologies with the potential to change the world significantly in the next few decades. Developments in radical technological possibilities must be monitored constantly and alertly and methods developed by means of which up-to-date assessments continuously and enthusingly spread into society, leading to experimentation with new possibilities and a rapid response as the operating environment changes. If we get into action only when technologies are already mature and certain, we are hopelessly late. Playing a pioneering role in technology presupposes vision and boldness, and that is what our Committee has striven for by creating its own technology foresight model.

The Committee used its model to arrange the radical technologies that it had identified in order of importance. From the point of view of Finland, the list of most important technologies looked like this in 2013:

Radical technological solutions in sectors with the strongest export preparedness

Antibacterial and other dirt-rejecting materials and surfaces Nanocellulose and cellulose microfibre

21

Wireless transmission at 2.5 terabits per second (vortex beam) Production of liquid fuels with the aid of enzymes, bacteria and algae

Top Ten radical technological solutions in the sector with good capability to export

Gamification of cooperation and society Robot car 3D printing of goods Printable and similar inexpensive sensors Rapidly cheapening solar energy Personal analyser for own body Medication to prevent dementia Light and efficient rapidly chargeable batteries and condensers Haptic user interfaces Movement-based drive controllers

Top Ten radical technological solutions in the sector with limited export capabilities

Open data and Big Data Freely organisable distance work and organisations that form on the Internet Expanded reality instruments Reorganisation of learning Biochips or biosensors that quickly and cheaply recognise diseases, physiological states and the properties of organisms Cloud computing, massive concentrated data and processing power Routine comprehensive DNA reading Material radar Modular robotics Real-time 3D environment modelling

Top Ten radical technological solutions in the scientifically most interesting sectors

Extremely dense processors that take quantum phenomena into account Biochips or biosensors that quickly and cheaply recognise diseases, physiological states and the properties of organisms Routine comprehensive DNA reading Medication to prevent dementia Genetics-based medicines Life simulation on the cellular level and artificial cells Genetically modified organisms as producers of multi-use materials Prolonging life and slowing ageing Repair and re-growth of organs, cell cultivation Nanocarbons in removing salt or bacteria and other separation techniques

Top Ten radical promises at laboratory test level

Wireless transmission at 2.5 terabits per second (vortex beam) Life simulation on the cellular level and artificial cells Piezoelectric energy sources, harnessing kinetic energy Prolonging life and slowing ageing 3D printing of buildings

22

Repairing brains and enhancing abilities Efficient light solar panels 3D and 4D printing of materials Repair and re-growth of organs, cell cultivation Self-organising virtual world from Internet 3D data

The Committee recommends that Finland be active in the development and adoption of technology and channel resources into promoting and applying the above-mentioned technologies in research, product development and training and education. It is equally important to continuously monitor and predict changes in how promising radical technological solutions are spreading. The technology foresight model developed for this purpose by the Committee must be maintained and developed in cooperation with various producers and users of foresight information as a part of a new national foresight operational method.

The Committee has stated in its earlier submission on the Government’s budget for 2014 that inputs into research and development in Finland are quite high: research, training and innovation expenditure accounted for 3.65% of Finnish GDP in 2012. At the same time, however, the inputs made by the Finnish public sector into incentives for companies’ research, training and innovation activities are among the lowest in the OECD countries. The public R&D funding that companies receive in Finland is just under 3% (2010) of their own spending, while it is about 7% in the OECD countries. The contradiction stems from the fact that the biggest part of public funding in Finland is channelled into the kind of research that is not aimed at achieving benefits for business life. Only about 40% of the around €2 billion total paid out of public funds provided has the direct aim of yielding benefits for the national economy or business life. As a proportion of GDP, public incentives paid to companies for R&D in Finland are only a third what they are in the USA, two-thirds what they are in Sweden and half the EU level. Unlike the situation in most of our competitor countries, these inputs have been declining further in Finland in recent years.

The target amount set in the Programme for Government for research, development and innovation is 4% of GDP. This has not yet been achieved. The Committee calls for the target to be achieved as a matter of urgency. In addition, it recommends that the special focus of inputs into research, development and innovation be on growth-oriented companies and basic research.

23