Finnish Constitution of 1919
The Finnish Constitution of 1919 was the first constitution of the Republic of Finland , which became independent on December 6, 1917 . It came into force on July 17, 1919 and replaced the Gustavian constitution of 1772 , which dates back to Swedish times . Its essential features remained unchanged until it was replaced by a new constitution on March 1, 2000 . As a result of a long dispute between republican and monarchist currents, the republican constitution provided for a head of state with extensive rights that were based on the earlier monarchical rights.
History of origin
The process leading to the adoption of the 1919 Constitution was initiated by the abdication of the Russian Tsar Nicholas II . The following constitutional debates revolved primarily around the relationship with Russia, the question of the form of government and the position of parliament. Political developments both internally and externally gave the debate new directions, until finally on July 17, 1919 a republican constitution with an unusually strong presidency came into force and the Republic of Finland came into being.
Belonging to Russia as a constitutional question
Finland had been an autonomous grand duchy in the Russian Empire since 1809 . During this time, the constitution from the earlier Swedish period was essentially in effect. It consisted primarily of the under King Gustav III. enacted constitution of 1772 , supplemented by the changes made in 1789 by the so-called Unification and Security Letter. The representative body of the people, the estates-based Reichstag, which was introduced in the Swedish era, was replaced with the Reichstag order of 1906 by a unicameral parliament elected by the same election . The highest administrative body in Finland was the Senate , whose members were appointed and responsible to the Tsar. The Senate consisted of two departments, the legal department and the economic department. The former acted as the highest court, the latter was a kind of government.
Tsar Nicholas II, head of state of the Grand Duchy and the entire empire, renounced the throne on March 15, 1917 as a result of the February Revolution . The government was taken over by a parliamentary appointed Provisional Government . This immediately raised the constitutional question in Finland after the traditional Swedish constitution was based centrally on the presence of a monarch. Politically and legally, it was initially primarily controversial how the loss of the Grand Duke would affect Finland's membership of the Russian Empire.
The Provisional Government rigorously insisted that the union between Russia and Finland was still binding and that it could only be dissolved by an express treaty. The majority of Finnish politicians in all parties, however, saw no basis for a union without a common monarch. However, the majority in the bourgeois parties favored a negotiated solution with the Russian government. This cooperative standpoint was supported by legal reports by the constitutional lawyer and politician Rabbe Axel Wrede , according to which there was a legitimate constitutional link between Finland and the Russian Empire even without the tsar. The more radical advocates of independence were able to rely on the constitutional report of the well-known Professor Rafael Erich , in whose opinion the relationship with Russia was a pure personal union, which should be regarded as dissolved after the Tsar's abdication.
Under parliamentary power to independence
The legal discussion was soon overwhelmed by political developments. The Finnish Parliament, led by a Social Democratic majority, passed the "State Law" on July 18, 1917, with which it declared that it would now exercise supreme power in Finland itself. The Russian Provisional Government, which had meanwhile been strengthened again, dissolved parliament in agreement with the Finnish bourgeoisie, and the Senate, which was made up of equal numbers of Social Democrats and bourgeoisie, bowed to this decision against the resistance of the Socialists. The latter lost their majority in the new election in October. At the same time, the Provisional Government in Russia fell and the Bolsheviks seized power.
Even the bourgeois politicians of Finland, who had previously pressed for cooperation with Russia, did not want to see Lenin's government as heirs to imperial power. The central point of contention now became the question in whose hands the power previously granted to the tsar should be placed. While the Social Democrats insisted that the supreme state power be exercised by parliament in accordance with state law, the Conservatives invoked Section 38 of the constitution of 1772. This provision, created in the event of a ruling house being extinguished, provided for an imperial administrators' committee for the transitional period should hold the royal powers.
At the session of Parliament on November 9th, three proposals faced each other. The social democrats demanded the retroactive enactment of the state law, which at the same time would have meant the illegality of the new parliament. The conservative parties applied for the establishment of a Reich Governors' Committee. The compromise proposal by Santeri Alkio from the Landbund provided for the ratification of the state law without retroactive effect. The agenda stipulated that in the first vote between the two variants of the state law, the winner of this vote should compete against the Reich administrator variant. On that day, the Conservatives succeeded in getting their proposal through by voting in favor of the Social Democratic proposal in the first ballot, thus ensuring that only one alternative was available as a counter-proposal in the second ballot, which the Landbund could not agree to.
The final appointment of the Reichsverweser was postponed. Meanwhile, the unrest in the country had become more and more threatening. On November 14th, the labor movement called a general strike. Under the impression of the strike and numerous related acts of violence, parliament met again on November 15. With the votes of the Social Democrats and moderate conservatives, it finally passed a new compromise proposal by Alcius:
"Since the Reichsverweserausschuss, in whose hands the parliament has decided to place the highest governmental authority in Finland, could not yet be elected, the parliament decides to temporarily itself exercise the authority that was granted to the Tsar and Grand Duke according to the applicable regulations."
Finland remained without a formal head of state for the time being, but at the same time had effectively broken away from Russia. The formal declaration of independence of the Finnish parliament on December 6, 1917 and the recognition of the sovereignty of Finland by Soviet Russia on January 4, 1918 completed the process of detachment.
Monarchist development in 1918
Apart from the adoption of monarchical rights by parliament, the old institutions initially remained. The government was formed by the Senate, whose economic department was headed by Pehr Evind Svinhufvud as head of government . The further clarification of the constitutional questions was pushed into the background by internal tensions and the civil war that broke out on January 27, 1918 . When the civil war was finally over, parliament met with a new face on May 15: all but one member of the Social Democratic people were absent.
The bourgeois parties that remained among themselves agreed that it was not compatible with the Gustavian constitution that was still in force for the people to exercise supreme authority. Instead, the constitution required the election of a new king. As a transitional solution, the parliament was based on the practice common in the outgoing Kalmar Union of appointing an imperial administrator as the king's deputy. Without officially using this title, the parliament appointed Senate Chairman Svinhufvud as the bearer of the highest state authority. He appointed Juho Kusti Paasikivi as the new chairman of the Senate .
Both Svinhufvud and Paasikivi were staunch monarchists . The new Senate began preparing a new, monarchist constitution. In addition to the political convictions of the protagonists, there were also foreign policy reasons for this decision. The bourgeois government had received substantial help from the German army during the civil war and, in the process, also contractually bound itself closely to Germany. The new Finnish king should also come from the German imperial family. After Prince Oskar von Prussia , son of Emperor Wilhelm II , had refused, the choice fell on Friedrich Karl von Hessen, who was related to the imperial family .
The monarchist tendency was not without controversy among the parliamentary parties. In particular, the Landbund under Santeri Alkio was emphatically republican , but parts of the Young Finnish Party , leading among them Kaarlo Juho Ståhlberg, belonged to the republican camp. This could refer in particular to the declaration of independence of December 6, 1917, in which a republican constitution was expressly announced. In June, the Senate submitted the draft of a monarchist constitution to parliament, but the strong republican opposition prevented the necessary five-sixth majority in three ballots by August. The Senate then invoked the still valid constitution of 1772 and had a king election carried out on its basis. Friedrich Karl was elected King of Finland on October 9, 1918.
Republic with a monarchist influence
Once again, the constitutional debate was overtaken by external events. The collapse of the German warfare and the abdication of Emperor Wilhelm II on November 9, 1918 pulled the soil out of the Finnish crown of the German Friedrich Karl. Svinhufvud and Paasikivi now turned to the former commander-in-chief of the army , Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim , who had submitted his resignation in May due to his critical stance on the German orientation of the government and was now supposed to improve relations with the Entente powers . Paasikivi's Senate was replaced on November 27 by a new government under Lauri Ingman . For the first time, the government was no longer called the Senate, but the Council of State (valtioneuvosto) , and Ingman acted as Prime Minister. On December 12th, Svinhufvud resigned and Mannerheim became the new imperial administrator. Two days later, Friedrich Karl officially renounced his crown.
At the same time, the fundamental differences in the question of the form of government led to a rearrangement of the bourgeois party landscape. Most of the Young Finnish Party and the small People's Party were absorbed into the Republican National Progressive Party , while the Young Finnish monarchists and most of the Finnish Party founded the National Collection Party . The Landbund and the Social Democrats were also Republican. Under pressure from the Entente powers, parliamentary elections were held in March 1919, which gave the Republican parties an overwhelming majority. The Reichsverweser Kaarlo Castrén from the Progressive Party appointed the new Prime Minister .
In this political situation it was now obvious that Finland's new constitution would be a republican one. The parliamentary majority consisting of the Social Democrats, the Landbund and the Progress Party advocated a solution that emphasized popular sovereignty, in which power would be concentrated on parliament. The previous monarchists, on the other hand, demanded that the state should be headed by a strong head of state, whether that be a king or a president. They relied on Montesquieu 's doctrine of the separation of powers and on the view that an independent head of state could prevent selfish and rash decisions.
The Reichstag regulations stipulated that a constitutional amendment would be passed with a simple majority and, after another parliamentary election, would have to be confirmed by the next parliament with a two-thirds majority. Without an interim election, the resolution required a five-sixth majority. Therefore, the monarchists with around 50 of the 200 MPs were able to postpone the constitution until after another parliamentary election. Until then, not even a president would be able to be elected. Since the fragile foreign policy situation made such a limbo appear dangerous, the monarchists were made significant concessions. On June 21, 1919, the parliament passed a constitution based on the draft drawn up in 1917 by a commission headed by Kaarlo Juho Ståhlberg and on the compromise proposal by Heikki Ritavuori, which, with the strong president at the helm, showed monarchist traits. After a brief hesitation, the monarchist-minded Reichsverweser Mannerheim signed the constitution on July 17th, which came into force.
Other constitutional laws and duration
The tug-of-war over the correct constitution and the ultimately hasty adoption of the constitution meant that not all the relevant provisions of the state constitution were laid down in the constitutional law passed in 1919 (as in Sweden called "form of government", hallitusmuoto ). The Reichstag order (valtiopäiväjärjestys) of 1906, which contained provisions belonging to the core area of constitutional law such as the legislative procedure, remained in force until it was renewed in 1928 and adapted to the needs of the republic. A few other areas had remained unregulated in 1919, and so in 1922 two more laws were added to the Constitution, one on the control and accountability of members of the government, the other on the State Court.
These four laws had the same constitutional status and their amendment could only be made in the constitutional process. During the entire period of validity of the 1919 constitution, one of the peculiarities of Finnish constitutional law (shared with neighboring Sweden) was that the constitution was contained in four legal documents rather than one. It remained in force with a few changes until it was replaced by the new Finnish constitution with effect from March 1, 2000 .
Basic features of the Finnish constitutional order 1919–2000
The constitutional order created by the constitution of 1919 remained in its main features until 2000. It was based on the legislative power of parliament on the one hand and a strong administrative position of the president on the other. Many of the essential features of the constitutional order were based on the institutions in force in the Grand Duchy of Finland.
houses of Parliament
The supreme power in the state assigned the constitution of 1919 to the parliament, which in Finnish the name parliament ( eduskunta , literally "representative body") adopted in 1906 , in Swedish, however , the name Reichstag from the time of King Gustav I. Wasa (riksdag) led. Parliament was the central legislative body. Legislative initiatives could come from the State Council, but also from individual MPs. The parliamentary term of office was originally three years. It was extended by one year in 1954.
The parliament consisting of 200 members was elected in a universal and equal vote by all male and female citizens from the age of 24. The age limit was reduced to 21 in 1945, to 20 in 1970 and finally to 18 in 1975. All eligible voters were also passively eligible to vote. The electoral system was based on a division into constituencies, from which a number of deputies corresponding to the population of the constituency was elected using proportional representation. Since 1948, the autonomous province of Åland formed its own constituency, which sent a representative regardless of the number of inhabitants.
In the elections, the voter did not vote for a party, but rather directly individual candidates. The total number of votes given to candidates from a party in a constituency determined the number of MPs to be sent by this party from the constituency, the distribution being carried out according to the D'Hondt method . The party's seats were taken by the candidates with the most individual votes.
President and Government
The strong position of the Finnish president , which bore clear features of the previous monarchist system, was one of the defining characteristics of the Finnish constitution of 1919. The president was the commander-in-chief of the army. In times of war he could transfer the order to someone else, but was not obliged to do so. The foreign policy was under the authority of the President, but for decisions on war and peace he needed the consent of Parliament. He had the right at any time to dissolve parliament at his own discretion and to call new elections. Laws passed by parliament generally require the signature of the president. If he refused to issue it, the law could only be passed again by the new parliament after the next parliamentary elections. In this case it came into force even without the President's copy.
The government of the country was represented by the State Council. This stood in the continuity of the economic department of the Senate from the time of the Grand Duchy. The Prime Minister presided over it. Like the Senate in the past, the Council of State was not elected by parliament, but appointed by the president. The new constitution stipulated that the State Council had to enjoy the confidence of parliament. In constitutional practice, it was considered sufficient that Parliament did not issue an express vote of no confidence in the State Council . By its nature, the Council of State was thus above all an auxiliary body of the presidential administration. In practice, the extent to which the president exerts influence on the formation of a government, as well as the exercise of his other powers, has varied considerably.
The election of the president took place through a 300-person electoral body directly elected by the people. In two rounds of voting, the election required an absolute majority of the electors. If no candidate achieved this majority, the two candidates with the most votes were cast in the third ballot. This system was replaced in 1988 by a mixed procedure. The people voted directly on the presidential candidates, but at the same time voted 300 electors. The electoral body carried out the election unless one of the presidential candidates received an absolute majority of the votes. From 1994 the presidential election was finally switched to a direct popular election, if necessary with a casting vote in the second ballot.
So that the state life of the new Republic of Finland could get going without further delays, the constitution provided for an exception for the election of the first president. This was elected directly by parliament on July 27, 1919. The candidate of the left and middle political spectrum, Kaarlo Juho Ståhlberg, prevailed with 143 to 50 votes against Gustaf Mannerheim, who stood for the conservatives.
The president's term of office was six years. Originally, the incumbent president could run again as often as he wanted. In 1994, a constitutional amendment limited the term of office to two consecutive terms.
Constitution and Legislation
The amendment of the provisions laid down in the four constitutional laws required a special legislative procedure. After the parliament passed the law in the third reading with a simple majority, the law had to be suspended beyond the next parliamentary election and then approved by the new parliament with a two-thirds majority. In an urgent procedure, constitutional laws could be passed with a five-sixth majority without an interim election.
As a constitutional legacy from the time of the Grand Duchy, constitutional laws did not need to change the text of the constitutional laws. Rather, any regular law could contain provisions that conflicted with the constitution. Such a law, known as an exception law, had to be passed in the same legislative process as a law that directly amends the constitution. The institute of exceptional laws had developed during the period of Russian rule, as the old Swedish constitutional laws continued to apply at that time, but according to its understanding of the time, these could not be changed immediately by the Finnish state organs. The Finnish legislators had to make do with the indirect amendment of the regulations through exceptional laws.
The control of the constitutionality of laws was already exercised in Russian times by a legal committee of the Finnish estates. This tradition continued in independent Finland in the Parliament's Constitutional Committee. This body, made up of members of parliament, issued opinions on constitutional issues in the respective legislative process. The aim of the prior checking was primarily to find the right legislative procedure: as long as the exceptional law procedure was complied with, a law according to Finnish understanding could not violate the constitution. It was only in the last decade of the 1919 constitution that practice shifted towards adjusting the content of the law.
The constitutional committee was not expressly provided for in the 1919 constitution and was only included in the constitutional text in 1995 as part of the reform of fundamental rights. Nonetheless, it was the sole supervisory authority. The constitution did not provide for a constitutional court , nor did the Finnish courts have the authority to reject simple laws for violating the constitution or to leave them unapplied.
Fundamental rights
The second chapter of the 1919 Constitution contained a number of fundamental rights, including freedom of the person, the principle of equality , freedom of expression and the press , freedom of assembly and association, and freedom of belief . The regulations on fundamental rights were brief and in many cases were limited to listing the law and stating that the use of the fundamental right is determined by law. In practice, therefore, concrete principles of application have been difficult to develop, primarily through the work of the constitutional committee. In the courts, the direct application of fundamental rights remained a rare exception. In 1995, the fundamental rights were revised in a comprehensive reform and adapted to international standards. Even after the reform, however, it remained that the fundamental rights did not grant individual protection against formal laws of the parliament that violated fundamental rights.
The constitution stipulated that the Finnish and Swedish languages are common national languages and are fundamentally equal to each other. The constitution thus represented a first end to the language dispute that had been bitter for decades .
Detachment
Since the 1970s, the Finnish constitution has been under increasing pressure to modernize. Many individual reforms, the most important of them the reform of fundamental rights, were carried out by changing individual constitutional provisions. Increasingly, however, the opinion gained the upper hand that the constitution, scattered in various basic laws, cannot be modernized in a satisfactory manner in the long term. In 1990 parliament called on the government to prepare a new Basic Law. The Constitutional Commission followed this position the following year. In 1992 Parliament expressed its view that, in particular, the President needed to be more closely linked to Parliament. In 1998 the State Council presented the draft of the new constitution , which was adopted in a modified form on June 1, 1999. It came into force on March 1, 2000, repealing all four previous constitutional laws.
literature
- Helen Endemann: The Finnish system of government: the Finnish form of government from 1919 compared to the Weimar constitution. Lang, Frankfurt am Main 1999. [European University Papers: Series 2, Law], ISBN 3-631-34568-2 .
- Martin Scheinin : Valtiosääntöoikeus yes erisoikeudet . In: Pekka Timonen (ed.): Johdatus Suomen oikeusjärjestelmään. Nide 2. Rikos- ja prosessioikeus sekä julkisoikeus. Lakimiesliiton Kustannus , Helsinki 1999, ISBN 952-14-0001-3 (pp. 234-274, cited: Scheinin ).
- Pentti Virrankoski: Suomen historia 2 . SKS, Helsinki 2001, ISBN 951-746-342-1 (quoted: Virrankoski ).
- Ingrid Bohn: Finland - From the beginning to the present. Verlag Friedrich Pustet, Regensburg 2005, ISBN 3-7917-1910-6 .
Individual evidence
- ↑ Virrankoski, p. 705.
- ↑ Anthony F. Upton: vallankumous Suomessa 1917-1918, I osa . Kirjayhtymä, Helsinki 1980, ISBN 951-26-1828-1 , pp. 268-274.
- ↑ quoted from Anthony F. Upton: Vallankumous Suomessa 1917-1918, I osa . Kirjayhtymä, Helsinki 1980, ISBN 951-26-1828-1 , p. 296; Translation by the author.
- ↑ Virrankoski, p. 754.
- ↑ Virrankoski, p. 756 f.
- ↑ Virrankoski, p. 756 f.
- ↑ Virrankoski, pp. 764-766.
- ↑ Virrankoski, p. 770.
- ↑ Virrankoski, pp. 770 f., 773.
- ^ Scheinin, p. 249.
- ↑ Scheinin, p. 241.
- ↑ Scheinin, p. 241 f.
- ↑ Scheinin, p. 254 f.
- ↑ Bill for the new constitution, HE 1/1998.
