Fundamental constitutional rights and freedoms – participation, trust and public debate as conditions for Democracy
Mr Pekka RAVI, First Deputy Speaker of the Eduskunta, Parliament of Finland
Mr President,
In this day and age we must recognize the fact that the context and environment of political debate and participation in it has drastically changed. The trust in political institutions among citizens is perhaps record low. The background paper gives us a good overview of the reasons behind this development.
I would personally like to add one aspect to this. The emerging role of social networking and information flood has created a phenomenon that sometimes reminds more of a cacophonic noise than civilized discussion. It is all the more difficult to “govern” this, and maybe we should not even try. Social media and other social networking in fact make people talk and follow politics and this should be welcomed. It is a paradox that, according to several researches and surveys, the interest in issues of public concern has increased at the same time that interest and trust in the institutions of representative democracy have declined.
I see the future of democracy in strengthening and empowering the civil society. Here the future lies in the hands of the young generation.
International and national decision making processes seek legitimacy through the instrument of civil society. Non-governmental organizations are the driving force behind international cooperation through active mobilization of public support in all spheres of society. The NGOs assess and monitor the influence of the voice of citizens in political decision making.
However, at the same time we need to safeguard the preconditions for representative democracy in order to govern the complexity of societal issues. Representative democracy also has the responsibility to take into account those people that, for one reason or another, do not have the voice to express themselves in public debate. In other words, the institutions of representative democracy must interact with civil society but they cannot outsource accountability and responsibility for actual decision making.
In this context I would like to raise one topical issue in Finland. The law on the so called citizens’ initiative came into force year 2012. A minimum of 50,000 Finnish citizens can now submit an initiative to the Parliament to enact a law. This possibility was received with mixed feelings. It was, on the one hand, feared that it might end up a dead letter adding further distrust in the political system. Others suspected that the Parliament would be filled with shady and unpleasant initiatives. Neither of these fears has at least totally materialized. It has proved to be not so much of an alternative route to enact laws but rather a way to raise issues in public debate. The citizens’ initiative may well lead to changes in legislation in the future. Just as well it may, however, lead to a conclusion that there is not enough public support for the ideas expressed in the initiative. In any case, all of the initiatives have been widely discussed both in the Parliament and the public sphere in general. I think that the citizens´ initiative – as other ways of the so called direct democracy - are an excellent supplement to representative democracy.
This was just an example. In the future we need to be innovative in finding new ways for the interaction between citizens and decision-makers. This poses huge demands for the political institutions, not least Parliaments. Let me just remind you that the role of serious media and social research is fundamental in this respect.
Thank you very much, Mr President.
European Conference of
Presidents of Parliament
Oslo 11-12 September 2014