Oh our land, Finland, fatherland, echo loudly, golden word!
No valley, no hill, no water, shore more dear than this northern homeland,
this precious land of our fathers.
One day from your bud you will bloom;
From our love shall rise your hope, glorious joy, and once your song, fatherland
higher still will ring.
Maamme [Our Land], Finnish national anthem.
Words by J.L. Runeberg 1846, translation unknown
In the aftermath of the First World War and the Russian Revolution, in December 1917 Finland’s Parliament issued a declaration of independence.
The new Soviet government was the first to recognize the new fledgling state77. A pro-German government in line with a greatly diminished parliament wanted a Hessian prince to be the king of the Finnish state, but as Germany lost the war, this plan was abandoned. Instead in July, 1919 the new constitution came into force, making Finland a semi-presidential republic (Nousiainen, 2001).
The declaration of independence was followed by a violent civil war (or liberation war, as it has also been called), to which the collapse of Russia naturally contributed to (for a discussion of the geographical effects of state collapse, see Iqbal and Starr, 2008). Between February-May, 36943 people died (War Victims of Finland 1914-1922). There is a vast literature describing what happened, and the debate over the interpretation of the events is still continuing (cf. Häkkinen, 2008; Jutikkala, 2007; Korpisaari, 2009; Tikka, 2006). It is outside the scope of the present study to enter more fully into these debates, but for a comparison with other civil wars, see Hanski (2007), and Casanova (2000)78.
77 The British for instance waited till WW I was over; for motives see Gerrard, 2000.
78 For a general discussion on civil wars, see Sambanis, 2004; Lockyer 2010, and the Journal of Conflict Resolution (2002) issue on civil war, 46 (1), which was dedicated to civil war.
There is also a growing body of research on the long term effects of civil wars, e.g. on civil casualties and national health issues (Ghobarah, Huth &
Russett 2003, 2004); on war-traumas (Kienzler, 2008); on detrimental effects on the economy (Collier & Sambanis, 2002), the further elaboration of which remains outside the scope of the present study.
The war froze the already existing fault lines between the so called Whites (the winners of the war, representing the bourgeoisie, political pro-German right wing) and the Reds (workers, leftist political inclinations and leaning on Russian help79). However, as Kissane and Sitter (2005) point out, the negotiation of the aftermath of the war was, nevertheless, such that it allowed a democratic state to come into existence in a fairly stable way. This was largely due to the already existing governmental structure that had been evolving under the Russian rule.
The 1918 war colored also the national and international politics for nearly a century, and it is only recently that a more evenhanded representation of the events of 1918 is beginning to emerge, both in academic and in popular discussions.
In 1919, after new elections and the new constitution being established, K.J. Ståhlberg was elected by the Parliament the first President of Finland.
The next decades, 1920s and 1930s were marked by increasing hostility towards communists. It culminated with the escalation to a nearly full-blown right-wing coup by the so called Lapua-movement. The Mäntsälä –rebellion in 1932 was the end of their direct endeavors: the army high command refused to back the rebels, and a direct intervention of President Svinhufvud officially dismantled the movement, which, however, continued its political agenda in a more muted form through the right-wing Patriotic People’s Movement (Isänmaallinen Kansanliike, IKL) 1932-1944. It had, however, managed to achieve its main aim: the banning of all communist activity.
These events led to the celebration of the so called Reconciliatory Weeks at the end of the year (the first time was in 1935), at the end of which the president (in 1935 President Svinhufvud) gave a New Year’s Speech. These speeches thus began in 1935 as a symbol of national unity, aiming at the healing of the deep divisions left in the nation by the civil war and the anti-communist movements. A second cause of the rift was the deeply felt antagonism surrounding language politics, which had also dominated much of the Finnish political debates of the 19th century. Swedish and Finnish had been established by the constitution in 1919 as equal national languages, but in the 1930s the debate was still strongly felt, being perceived also as a political matter.
The sense of national unity was tested in the three wars Finland fought as part of the raging World War II. In 1939-40 there was the Winter War: the Soviet Red Army attacked Finland in November 1939, and agreed to sign a
79 This made them to be considered traitors by the Whites, who viewed Russians as threatening the internal political and democratic order of Finland (Loima, 2007).
peace treaty 13.3.1940, according to which Finland ceded the Karelian Isthmus. This then led to the Continuation War fought in 1941-44. Finland re-entered the war after Soviet air attacks, fighting as a co-belligerent of Germany. Armistice agreement was signed in September 1944 (signed by the Soviet Union, Great Britain and Finland). As Finland agreed to clear the country of German troops, this led to the third war, the War of Lapland 1944-45.
After the war an Allied Control Commission was established in Helsinki to oversee that the conditions of the peace treaty were observed80. A significant part of these conditions were the massive reparations payments Finland had to make to Russia from 1945-52. The estimate of the total amount was around 4.4 billion Euros (in the currency of 2012), which at the time meant that the payments counted for 5-16% of the national expenditure. The positive effect of this otherwise extremely taxing task was that it in effect helped to kick-start much of the metallurgical post-war industry. This was often also used as a rhetorical resource; emphasizing the future use this experience had given Finnish industry and people (e.g. Kekkonen, 1952). It is to be noted that of all the nations which were sentenced to pay war reparations, Finland was the only country in the world that actually paid them all, thus paving the way also for future positive relations with the former Allied countries.
The other conditions demanded by the Allies included the proscription of organizations deemed anti-Soviet (including the women’s 200 000 members strong unarmed defense organization called Lotta Svärd). In the ensuing enforcement of the restoration of 1940 frontiers Finland lost in total more than 10% of its land.
These three wars left in their wake 91.500 dead, about 200 000 wounded (of which severely wounded were about 90 000), and some 30 000 widows, and 50 000 orphans. Also, there had been some 70 000 children sent to safety mainly to Sweden during the war. Some 20% of these children remained in their foster families even after the war. The psychological cost of this forced separation might also be one of the factors contributing to the significant emigration in the 1960s (Korppi-Tommola, 2008), apart from causing post-traumatic stress symptoms on a more massive scale, still visible after 60 years of the separation (Andersson, 2011), as well as increasing depressive symptoms (Pesonen et al., 2007) and severe mental disorders (Räikkönen et al., 2011), and a host of even physiological consequences (Pesonen & Räikkönen, 2012).
In addition, the cession of the Karelian Isthmus meant that some 410 000 people (12% of the population) were left homeless, and in an act of unprecedented organization and efficacy, these people were relocated in what was left of Finland and given homesteads. The evacuees were helped by the Government, granting them land or money in compensation for the property
80 see Palokangas et al., 1997
they had had to leave behind in Karelia. The private owners of the lands that had been given to the Karelians received monetary compensation.
The final peace treaty for WWII was signed in 1947 in Paris. Due to the concerns voiced by Soviets, Finland decided not to accept the Marshal Aid, but instead in 1948, Finland signed the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance (FCMA) with the Soviet Union. This formed the basis for the Finnish-Soviet relations for the duration of the Cold War. It was replaced by other political and economic agreements between Finland and the newly formed Russia in 1992.
The proof of Finland being in the good graces of the world-wide community was the fact that the 1952 Olympic Games were held in Helsinki, and indeed few years afterwards (in 1955) Finland joined both the United Nations as well as the Nordic Council. In 1961 Finland became part of the EFTA (European Free Trade Association), which in turn escalated the already strained relations with the Soviet Union.
The Cold War was impacting the relationship Finland had with the Soviet Union, and especially in the end of 1950s –beginning of 1960s there was a real fear and concern that a third world war would break out or that Finland would be taken over by the Soviets. This period, the so called “night-frost crises” marked the consolidation of power of President Kekkonen (elected first time in 1956) as he was viewed as the only trusted interlocutor by the Soviets. Kekkonen era also produced a high profile success in Finland’s efforts to act as a peacemaker in global politics as in 1975 the first Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe was hosted in Helsinki.
After a fairly prosperous decade of the 1980s, Finland faced its most severe economic post-war crisis in the early 1990s. The recession lasted 1991-1993, and in its aftermath the banking system and economic structure was re-organized.
The electoral law underwent fundamental change, so that in 1994 the President was elected for the first time directly by the people. The election was won by the future Nobel Peace Laureate, Martti Ahtisaari. Under him Finland joined the EU in 1995, after a national referendum in which about 60% were in favor of joining.
In 1999 the Parliament approved the new constitution which strongly curbed the presidential powers, substantially changing the president’s role in internal and external politics, at the same time raising the importance of the Prime Minister. It entered into force a year later, in the beginning of 2000.
The present study is therefore also limited by the end of the 1919 constitution and the presidential powers granted under it. In the presidential elections of 2000, Tarja Halonen became the first woman to be elected president.