I seem to remeber that New Zealand gave women only the right to vote not to represent. If so, Finland is the first truly democratic country in the world, giving all its citizens all political rights (excluding the under-aged and such who don’t have all political rights even today) … or am I missing something?

Yes, Finland was the first country *in Europe* to give women universal and equal suffrage.

Here’s a timeline – voting rights or ability to stand for office depending on social or marital status really don’t qualify as “universal and equal” suffrage.

1.6.1906

oops

If some flagwaving is allowed, we were also the first country in Europe to arrange free elections after the WWII.

Apropos, what are these talks about having the same kind list voting system in the parliamentary elections, as they have in Sweden. That sucks big time and the whole system will be completely zombified, if the parties decide, who will be on the top going in first according to the votes for that list. If they do that, I’m going to turn into anarchist and quit voting. Screw the parliament.

antti: Osku Pajamäki for one wants those lists because he feels the baby boomers (something he calls the greedy generation) are too well represented in the parliament. He thinks with lists the parties could decide that younger people (maybe he thinks he’d already be in parliament if we had lists – he used to lead demarinuoret) get elected. It’s tough to get so many younger candidates elected since older people have a much higher turnout. Also both baby boomers and their parents have tended to vote for baby boomer (suuret ikäluokat) candidates, whereas only younger people vote for younger (and often less experienced) candidates. The baby boomer generation is of course by nature larger than the smaller generations and only party leaderships could prevent the natural magic of numbers.

I think the lists suck because I want to decide which candidate I support. To me the person has always been very important.

Yes, Finland was the first country *in Europe* to give women universal and equal suffrage.

Yes, and Finland was, I think, the first truly democratic country in the world because the right to vote isn’t enough, the citizens should have full political rights, of course. But then again, come to think of it, Finland wasn’t really a “country” at the time but a Grand Dutchy, more than, say, a province but less than an independent country, perhaps something like a state in the US – and didn’t some of those grant full political rights earlier? The timeline refered to above doesn’t tell.

Well, being a “country” and not being one. So Canada is an “independent Country” even it has Queen Elizabeth II sending a General Governor to “rule” the country???

Finland as a Grand Duchy had:
- own parliament
- own legislation..
- own money
- own passport (Russians needed a permit to settle)
- own religion
- own military (to an extent and integrated to the Russian Imperial forces)
- own official language(s)
- own university

Granted though, Finland was quite closely tied to Russia, and the Russification policies of the 1900′s changed a lot. But I’d put the “Grand Duchy” somewhere above a state in limbo still.

Hank: the Queen of England has a lot less say in ruling her own country (not to speak of Canada) than the Czar had in ruling Finland. As a Grand Duchy Finland also had the Grand Duke (the Czar) who could tell the newly elected parliamentarians to go home and to the people to elect a new parliament. This is something the Grand Duke liked to do, exercise his privileges. Of later rulers of Finland Kekkonen obviously liked to do the same (stage a dissolution of Eduskunta for no apparent reason) but with more restraint and not so often. Still, it’s interesting how Kekkonen’s behavior reminded of that of the Grand Duke and after decades of democracy and independence.

I guess Finland was a nation within Russia in a similar way that Åland is within Finland. In some ways Åland is probably more independent now than Finland was then.

Regardless of the status of Finland in 1906 and obstacles that the process of democratization faced during the Czar era (or during the Brezhnev era which coincided with the later years of the Kekkonen presidency, sometimes called “Kekkoslovakia”) we should be really proud of the 100 years of democracy.

Regarding the Finland vs. New Zealand woman suffrage debate: being a woman was no longer an obstacle for voting in NZ after 1893 (there were other obstacles, though). Women could stand for NZ parliament for the first time twenty-six years after they got the vote, in 1919. The first woman who succeeded to get elected was Elizabeth McCombs in a 1933 by-election (forty years after women getting the vote). The electoral system has a lot to do with why this was so. Because of proportional representation it was easier for Finland to get some women elected right away when women got the right to stand for parliament (which right they got at the same time as they got to vote, not 26 years later as in NZ).

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/Gallery/parlt-hist/mps-women.html

Sorry for my previous comment on NZ about the suffrage not being universal “there were other obstacles, though”. It was actually my high school history teacher in Helsinki who told several years ago in class that there was this property restriction for New Zealand women, not all women got the vote there in 1893.

As far as I can see by searching the web (it still of interest to me whether my teacher was wrong years ago), NZ women and men were granted UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE in 1893 (and they did this before Finland, Finland was the first in Europe, not in the world). But the big issue was that although all adult women could vote, they could not stand for election.

However, a woman could be elected mayor in New Zealand in 1893 (NZ woman Elizabeth Yates became the first woman mayor in the British Empire that very year). Ironically, in municipal elections in Finland there were both property restrictions for suffrage and no woman suffrage until 1918 (women could vote for Eduskunta but not for city council). In New Zealand, women with property could vote in local elections as early as 1873:

http://library.christchurch.org.nz/Reference/NZPoliticsTimeline/1873-1893/

About US states: Wyoming territorial legislature granted woman suffrage in 1869 but Wyoming was not a US state back then. In 1890 Wyoming became the first US state with woman suffrage when the Wyoming territory was granted statehood.

Well, atleast we had parliamentary elections. I wouldn’t say though I’d be so proud of “Kekkoslovakia” of the 1970′s – the “emergency law” of Kekkonen continuing as president in 1973, his dissolving the parliament in 1975 and ruling with a caretaker government…

How could it happen that a woman was elected mayor in New Zealand when it after all, wasn’t possible for women to stand for parliament?

Elizabeth Yates happened to be the wife of former mayor Michael Yates, who had to resign due to ill health in 1892. Elizabeth had already assisted her husband in doing the job when he was mayor. This happened in Onehunga, a borough of Auckland.

Elizabeth Yates was elected mayor of Onehunga borough on 29 November 1893, sworn in as mayor on 16 January 1894 and roundly defeated in her quest to seek re-election on 28 November 1894. This is what the “Dictionary of New Zealand Biography” says of what it was like for the first woman mayor and justice of the peace in the British Empire:

http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/dnzb/default.asp?Find_Quick.asp?PersonEssay=2Y1

“However, there was a hard core of male opposition to a woman filling these two traditionally male offices. Four councillors and the town clerk resigned immediately. Meetings were disrupted by unseemly altercations, and three councillors conducted an orchestrated policy of opposition to all proposals submitted by the mayor. Elizabeth Yates’s tactless, dictatorial manner and partial disregard for established rules of procedure further exacerbated the situation. At times spectators crammed the small council chamber and interrupted proceedings, while outside the chamber unruly elements hooted and jeered. Newspapers published verbatim accounts of these ‘disgraceful’ scenes for the delectation of their readers.”

Helsinkian made a number of good points, in posting 9, including:

“I guess Finland was a nation within Russia in a similar way that Åland is within Finland. In some ways Åland is probably more independent now than Finland was then.”

Through no fault of their own, Finland was not a democracy until it became a democratic independent country and elected its own head of state and officials who were empowered to enforce the laws enacted by its duly elected Parliament covering all aspects of their country’s internal and external relations.

It doesn’t sound like Finns were living in a democracy when they had a foreign despot as their head of state, who could cancel Parliament at will if this legislative body displeased him for any reason.

It may be that Finnish women could vote for their members of Parliament and even be one in 1906, but could Finnish females or Finnish males vote on who the Czar (or the Grand Duke of Finland) was.

And, in any case, the Grand Duke could not have been a Finnish woman or Finnish man.

And Finland almost threw away its democracy just when it started when the Finnish Parliament elected a German prince to be its King and head of state.

One could make the agrument that Finnish democracy truly was established after the Civil War, although many real and important democratic features were in place as early as 1906, and the desire for true independence and democracy existed before that date, but was denied by external factors.

The other Nordic countries are Kingdoms still. Is the King of Sweden a Despot? Though the Finnish president inherited much of the “royal rights” of the Grand Duke or proposed King.

What about this then: Finland was the first country in the world to grant full political rights to all its citizens on a state level in 1906 – if Finland can be cosidered to have been a country back then Then again this “country thing” doesn’t seem to be a problem when people are talking about the women’s suffrage (Finland being the first in Europe) In 1918 (right after the independence) Finland apparently was the first to grant the rights on both state and local levels along with Austria, Estonia (the republican side in the civil war), Germany, Latvia, and Poland (Russia is also mentioned in Wikipedia but in a one-party system one can’t have full political rights).

I have always found Finnish history very interesting, especially the pivotal points like the 1917 to 1923 period, the WWII period to the immediate post war period, and then some later Cold War periods.

One thing, which I always wanted to know more about was this German Prince of Hesse thing.

For example, why was he appointed? As some form of German counterweight to unstable revolutionary Russia next door?

And when he was offered the title and position, what was his job description. Was he going to be honorary chairman of the board (a figure head), or a real ceo (with loose oversight by Parliament)?

I got really interested when a Finnish friend told me that his “castle” was going to be the building where the Labour Court is now. This nice but small building is across the street from the Catholic Church in Eira.

Anyway, does anyone know good sources of information about this very interesting footnote in Finnish history?

They were just drunk, Peter.

What I always find ironic is that the parliament of Finland was the first deomcratic forum within the Russian Empire where socialists had any say

Well, at that time this part of Europe was rather bipolar, one pole being St.Petersburg and the other pole Berlin. Now the finns wanted to get away from the influence of St.Petersburg, where to get support? From the other pole, of course. From 1915, many finns had secretly travelled to Germany for military training (jäger-movement) and german troops participated in 1918 war, which was supposed to be the independence war, but it turned ugly.

After 1918 there was lot of debate, whether the country should be kingdom or republic. Most of the right wing was for kingdom, even J.K. Paasikivi, who did later a heck of a job as a president. Left wing was for the republic. The right wing was actually winning first and to gain counterweight for St. Petersburg, they asked the prince of Hessen for the job, but as Germany had just lost the WWI, the prince was wise enough to decline the offer. After this the “republicans” won.

Yes, the king was supposed to have some real power. The great power of the president in StÃ¥hlberg’s constitution was some kind of appeasement for the royalists. The exploitation of this potential to full extent by Kekkonen clearly demonstrates, that the king would not have been just a fancy ribbon cutter (unless he really wanted that).

All the modern day royalists can check out, what the crown of Väinö I looks like at the gem museum in Kemi.

“The other Nordic countries are Kingdoms still.”

Iceland is republic, not kingdom.

The idea was of course to have a non-political person in charge. That’s not particularly surprising taking into account where partisan politics had lead to earlier. Although the king concept was abondoned the constitution gave the president the kind of power that was planned to be given to the king. So, Finland had till the 90s a president that had almost as much power than the US or French presidents still have. Nowadays it just seems too unlikely that somebody would start a civil war or something even if we didn’t have this overwhelmingly strong executive power. Knock on wood.

Off the subject here, because Helsinkian is starting to piss me off. Every now and then I politely suggest to you to start your own blog. You are some kind of walking encylopedia and you are opionated to boot. So, what the hell are you waiting for? Give me the straight goods so I can get off your back, will you?

One way of looking at the Grand Duchy is that Finland was an (semi-)independent state in personal union with Russia: they had the same head of state but otherwise Finland and Russia were effectively different states. The personal union of England and Scotland before United Kingdom was founded is a similar case.

It is a bit revisionist history but who cares

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5036602.stm

“I guess Finland was a nation within Russia in a similar way that Åland is within Finland. In some ways Åland is probably more independent now than Finland was then.”

Hmm.. Is that so? Their autonomy is limited and by quickly checking Hank’s list (from post you can easily find that Åland doesn’t have:

- own money
- own passport
- own religion
- own military
- own official language(s)
- own university

[Edit: "(from post 8 )", not "(from post 8)".]

Re: why a German prince:
The Germans had a very ad hoc, not terribly well thought out approach to their Eastern policy, but at least the Baltics were also supposed to get German monarchs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Duchy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindaugas_II_of_Lithuania

And of course there were plenty of precedents still reigning at the time: the ruling dynasties of Rumania and Bulgaria were both of German origin.

Prince of Darkness:

Good historical stuff. Very interesting references.

I know that I am going off topic abit, but…

In reading about Finland and the Baltic States independence in 1918, one German general was crucial. He could almost be called one of the founders of Finnish and Baltic Independence, although his motives were not exactly pure.

His name is Rüdiger von der Goltz, and he led the German troops that landed in Hango and then marched to and drove the Reds out of Helsinki a few dsys later. Without his intervention, could Finland have become independent, or would the political landscape in Finland been totally different?

He then moved onto the Baltics, and with a hodgepodge group of German troops, Baltic Germans, White Russians and some Baltic locals defeated the Red Army, with the tacit consent of the Allies who had just defeated Germany in WWI. The Allies and the recently defeated Germans were uncomfortable bedfellows for a time in the Baltics in 1918 against the Russian Reds in the Baltics.

However, Rüdiger von der Goltz tried to enable the Baltic Germans to reclaim their priviledges in the Baltic countries, and he was eventually defeated by Estonian forces in northern Latvia.

Again, he helped Baltic independence by removing the Red influence from the Baltics, and inadvertantly led to the demise of the German Baltic influence by losing the crucial battle against the Estonians.

This guy was really a pivotal character for the Baltic region but since he was not politically correct to the subsequent histories of Finland and the Baltic countries, his role – again for perhaps the wrong motives – in the independence movements is largely unknown.

It would also be interesting to find a thread started on the residual impact of the Finnish Civil War on subsequent Finnish history. And just how bloody was it? I read somewhere that Kekkonen might have had some involvement, although denied, in some summary executions of Red prisoners.

Again, sorry for being abit off topic.

Peter: von der Goltz wrote a book about his operations in Finland and the Baltic Countries (“Toimintani Suomessa ja Baltian maissa”, WSOY 1920). I just saw that book at the window of some antiquarian bookstore. I bet some libraries have it too. In German it’s called “Meine Sendung in Finnland und im Baltikum” (Leipzig: Koehler 1920, a new 1936 version of his memoirs from 1918-19 is called “Als politischer General im Osten”).

Well, the 1918 war cost the lives of about 37000 people. People were dying in the prison camps for hunger and diseases well to the 20′s. Murder of the cabinet member Heikki Ritavuori, noted by Hank W. in the other thread, was related to this, as he was working to improve the prisoners conditions and pissed off some right-wing extremists.

What I know about Kekkonen’s involvement in the Civil War is that he was a young corporal at the time and was ordered to lead a firing squad.

I think he has some notes in his diaries from that time. He was probably seeking for some reconciliation, as later, Kekkonen was a member of nationalistic AKS (Academic Karelia Society). Although AKS was an extreme right-wing movement with its plans of Greater Finland with the eastern Karelia, they were socially moderate and considered the treatment of the red prisoners bad for the national unity. These ideas are visible also in Kekkonen’s book “Onko maallamme malttia vaurastua?” (“Is Finland patient enough to get wealthy?”) and Pekka Kuusi’s “60-luvun sosiaalipolitiikka” (Social policy for the 60′s), which is considered the intellectual cornerstone of the finnish welfare model.

“He [von der Goltz] could almost be called one of the founders of Finnish and Baltic Independence” (Peter)

An interesting alternative to Lenin, who used to be praised for ‘giving Finland her independence’.
I’d give the credit for Finnish, Baltic and Polish independence to
1) the Great War, which broke first Russia and then Germany, creating a power vacuum in which new states could be created,
2) the nations in question themselves (Ukraine and Belarus did not become independent for any length of time, the Transcaucasian republics caved in in 1920-21),
3) the Bolshevik Revolution and victory in the Russian Civil War, which made the Allied powers support tiny breakaway states they would never otherwise have even recognized.

Of course, association with lost causes is best forgotten.
Most Finnish right-wingers were loyal to the Czar until the revolution of 1917 (the Jägers were an illegal and irresponsible group of nationalist extremists).
Most of the Finnish right supported the pro-German policy in 1918 (Mannerheim was a rare exception).
Then there’s WWII, plus our perhaps excessively friendly policy towards the Soviets.
What’s the next thing we’ll have to actively forget? Our EU policy? At least we seem to have missed the GWOT madness…

#28: I guess no editions are in English of von der Goltz’s memoirs. Would be an interesting read for this English speaking guy this summer.

#29: Kekkonen was a very complex personality. I didn’t know that he was a “Greater Finland” guy at one time. What did he do to get Stalin and his successors to have such a high comfort level with him, a former Greater Finland supporter, of all people?

# 24 Åboy
you can easily find that Åland has:

- own passport (residence/landowner rights on Åland)
- own military (or rather *no* military, and exemption from service)
- own official language (Finland is bilingual, Åland is constitutionally Swedish-speaking)

- own money… well, even they are in the euro-zone Åland is “outside EU tax zone”, so could say 50-50

BTW I forgot from both Grand Duchy and Åland:  own postage stamps

On #31, Kekkonen began to move towards center in his view of the Soviet Union already during the early years of the continuation war. Later, he worked with Paasikivi, who was respected by Stalin et al. so nobody in the Soviets paid attention to his “youth sins” anymore in the 50′s, when he was in more prominent positions, than in the 40′s or 30′s. Kekkonen was a student of Macchiavelli, so he didn’t consider occasional flip-flopping a major vice.

Of the Soviet leaders, Kekkonen came best along with Nikita Khrushchev. There are some funny documentaries of those two fooling around with huge fur hats or fishing, hunting and apparently boozing somewhere. He was not at all comfortable with Leonid Brezhnev.

There is actually a minority of Ã¥landers who’d like to see Åland become independent. The majority however realize that it wouldn’t work. Their economy is totally dependent on mainland subsidies.

prince of dorkness: I think it’s debatable whether Ukraine became independent for any length of time during the Russian Civil War. There were several Ukrainian governments between 1917 and 1920, for varying periods of time and above all with widely varying territories. The situation was a bit like Somalia of these latest years, a chaotic failed state with competing warlords. Although it’s hard to say which state was the failed one, since there hadn’t been a well-established Ukrainian state at that time. One of the key figures was Symon Petlura (or Petliura/Petlyura, in Finnish Petljura):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symon_Petlura

He was briefly President of Ukraine, leading the Ukrainian People’s Republic and recognized by Poland as the official government of Ukraine. Tens of thousands of Jews were murdered during his rule and about 40% of them may have been murdered by forces loyal to him. After the Polish-Russian war the country was divided between Poland and Russia, with Petlura briefly leading a government-in-exile in Poland. He was assassinated by a Jewish anarchist named Sholom Schwartzbard in 1926 in Paris:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sholom_Schwartzbard

Schwartzbard’s defense was based on that he avenged the victims of the pogroms. Already when arrested he said: “You can’t arrest me, I’ve killed a murderer.” Schwartzbard was acquitted by a French jury and moved to the United States after the acquittal.

On the history of the Ukrainian People’s Republic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_People%27s_Republic

Wow. How much this blog changes when Phil is gone…

What do you lot think about the truly interesting issue concerning this parlamentary celebration, Heidi Hautala’s speech about Russian democracy? She even compared today’s Duma to that under Czar’s rule.

A bold move I’d say although she was clearly trying to get headlines (which she got).

Pave: Phil is still actually posting quite often from America.

Yeah, Heidi Hautala wanted her headlines and got them. Her remarks might have been expected from a politician from a Baltic country but not from Finland. Her point about the Duma was very interesting.

I think there were two main reasons for her critics to come out with harsh words: 1) They felt the occasion was inappropriate – if she had said the exact same words somewhere else with no journalists present it would’ve been ok. Ceremonial occasions are seen to be especially bad for anything else than polite speeches. 2) Some thought it is not ok for Finnish politicians to criticize Russia at all since Finland is small and Russia is large and neighbourly relations are more important than the values of the Council of Europe (a community of democratic nations of which both Finland and Russia are members).

I heard a rumor that Finns really didn’t achieve universal suffrage in 1906 since social welfare recipients did not get the right to vote. Is this true or is this just something that had to do with the property restrictions of the suffrage in local elections?

Helsinkian,

I’m commenting Hautala’s great speech and Lipponen’s outrageous behaviour also under the thread on Suomen Sisu.

Has anyobody alse noticed that it’s not only Hautala that has not given an entirely polite speech in the session?

Listing just a few examples (anybody can read the speeches themselves at http://www.eduskunta.fi):

- Backman (SDP) criticized – without naming the USA but in a way which is appernt to everybody – the undemocratic export of democracy
- Vistbacka (PS) opposed Finland’s membership in the EU
- last but not least, Korhonen (Vasemmistoliitto) criticized UPM-Kymmene’s decision to close down the Voikkaa Paper Mill.

I just wonder why it was exactly Hautala who had many people angered. The excerpts above also are annoying to some people, for example, what’s a private company’s decision got to do with 100 years of the Finnish Parliament? Yet, Korhonen and the rest above have the right to use the occasion to put afore problems as well, not just polite words. It’s the people urging them to shut up that should shut up themselves, especially Lipponen who hasn’t uttered a sensible word since I remember.

And of course we have now, in the great Vanhanen way, already somebody apologizing. This time it’s Mikko Immonen (Vasemmistoliitto) who told in today’s Turun Sanomat that the speech is dangerous to the economic relations and that he apologized Hautala’s speech to the Russian delegation who didn’t even take stance to the speech.

Where on Earth do all these Lipponens, Immonens and Vanhanens come from? All those spineless people willing to apologize and defend others before anyone even gets insulted?

This is outrageous.

MM

Gee, with all this self-congratulatory talk going on, maybe it’s time to examine the other side of the argument:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1595230092/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/002-2271222-3764837?n=283155

Finnpundit never disappoints.
Although I do sort of wish he’d come out of the closet and admit he just hates democracy. It would improve the quality of his arguments no end.

Oh gnoe! Feminists!!!11

Peter: “His name is Rüdiger von der Goltz, and he led the German troops that landed in Hango and then marched to and drove the Reds out of Helsinki a few dsys later. Without his intervention, could Finland have become independent, or would the political landscape in Finland been totally different?”

Although the intervention by the German Baltic Division undoubtably speeded up the collapse of Red power, by the time the Germans arrived at Hanko (3.3.) the Battle of Tampere was practically decided and the Red government had lost most its strenght. After this point, the White side would have won even without the Germans. It would have taken a bit longer, maybe (say) max 2 months more time. We would have seen a much more bitter end to the war and maybe an even more gruesome fate for the Red prisoners int the camps.

Finland would have become independent, and it would have been a pro-German nation at first (remember the Jägers!). German officers would probably have been called in to built up the Finnish Army anyway.

Maybe we would have seen a more divided nation for a longer time (up to the Thirties), more appeal for the extreme right and more percecution of Socialists/Communists. Even so, I would not say it would have been a “totally different” political landscape. There could have been more problems for creating a national unity for fighting against the Soviets in the Winter War (if it indeed would have happened the same way), though…

“…by the time the Germans arrived at Hanko (3.3.)”

Should have of course been “(3.4.)”…

Kekkonen’s main achievement during the latter part of hte war was something that would have been deemed a treason had the USSR (the Allies) not won the war; that is, he worked behind parliament’s and government’s back for the enemy’s benefit, trying to convince all possible parties – among them the Soviets – that the war was lost. Luckly enough, the government had guts, not to give in, but to fight Stalin a few more weeks till he realised that Finland could not be won.

That’s why the Soviets trusted him; he was just the kind of double-faced opportunist Stalin liked in neighboring countries – or so they believed.

Fortunately Kekkonen always believed in democracy, after all.

hahahaa