Moving from Movement to Government: The Transformation of the Finnish Greens

Moving from Movement to Government: The Transformation of the Finnish Greens Jan Sundberg & Niklas Wilhelmsson University of Helsinki, Department of Political Science Jan.Sundberg@Helsinki.fi Niklas.Wilhelmsson@Helsinki.fi Prepared for the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, 13-18 April, 2004 Workshop 6: New Parties in Government Introduction The lifespan of new and small parties has met a lot of attention as the dominance of established political parties in European democracies increasingly has been challenged. Parties from the far right, populist parties and Green parties are among those who have been the most successful in elections (Lane and Ersson 1999, 98-103). Figures show that in average the parties at far right and populist parties have been more successful than Green parties. Nevertheless, no clear signs of system shift have appeared yet (Kitchelt 1997, 131-150). Only occasionally these parties have won government seats, this observation is certainly valid for the Green parties, though some striking deviant cases occur in the member countries of European Union. Most new parties in Finland are small with a bounded influence. It is only the Christian League and the Greens who have been successful over time during the past decades. Others, like the populist Finnish Rural Party, have vanished (now True Finns) after two landslide elections in 1970 and 1983. As a result, the effective number in terms of votes and seats has only modestly increased. The number of parties has increased from 6 to 10 in Parliament, from the first general election in 1907 to 1999, and the effective number of seats from 3.57 to 5.15 during the same period (Sundberg 2002, 85-87). However, totally 18 parties contested the 1999 election out of which 9 were successful. The 10 th party MP mandate is represented by the autonomous Åland, which constitute a one-member constituency. One of these successes is the Finnish Greens. The party was founded in 1987, won its first Parliament seats in 1983 when still a movement, and joined the 1

government coalition after the 1995 election. Four years later after the 1999 election the Greens prolonged its membership in government. Its career in the coalition ended abruptly when the party resigned from government in late May 2002. The decision was taken by the party Council and the Parliamentary Party in protest against the Cabinet amendment and the majority of the Parliament who favoured to build a fifth nuclear plant. As a result the Greens joined the opposition in Parliament and managed in the 2003 election to win more votes and seats. However, the party was not accepted in the new coalition cabinet. Now the Green party is less visible than during the years in Cabinet and it has found back its career as an active opposition party. The aim with this study is to discuss how the Greens managed to get a successful lifespan and move form a movement in the 1980s to a political party who contest elections, who wins seats in elections, gets access to Cabinet, resigns voluntarily, and continues to be successful in elections. The Framework Organisations tend to persist, wrote James Q. Wilson three decades ago (Wilson 1995, 30). Right or wrong, the rational argument behind this observation was that the incentives for the members should be higher than the costs. Therefore sooner or later organisations who seek conflict with others have to accommodate with the environment as the costs to be borne are too high for the members. The political party who contest elections is perhaps even more open to the environment as without electoral success it cannot provide much incentives neither to its members nor to its voters. Studies show that new and small parties succeed better in some political systems than in others. Some preconditions are needed to promote growth of small parties. Small party vote is greater in proportional than less proportional systems. In addition, small parties tend to take advantage of electoral volatility and high turnout (Mair 1991, 41-70). These preconditions are important but not enough as parties have to pass certain thresholds to become successful. Mogens Pedersen has pointed out, on the contrary to Wilson, that small parties are mortal organisations, though they seldom totally disappear. Small and new parties tend to fluctuate in strength from one election to another, and in this process they have to pass or try to avoid some important thresholds. First parties have to pass the 2

threshold of declaration, that is, when a political group declares its intention to participate in elections and becomes a party according to some definitions. Secondly, parties have to pass the threshold of authorisation, that is, legal regulations on what requirements have to be met to participate in electoral campaigns, elections and to nominate candidates. Thirdly, parties have to pass the threshold of representation, that is, to cross barriers to obtain seats in the legislature. It defines the ins and outs in the party system. Fourthly, parties have to pass the threshold of relevance, that is, when parties have impact and become influential, at best as a ruling party in government. Following Pedersen, he suggests that the electoral fluctuation of these small parties can be categorised in four different life span curves. Firstly the modality dimension, when small parties pass all four thresholds once or several times in their lifespan. Secondly, the dispersion dimension which informs whether small parties persist over decades or vanish after one or two elections. Thirdly, the flatness dimension when small parties have either an extended or a short lifespan. Fourthly, the skewness dimension, which describes the symmetry of the lifespan curve. Small parties suddenly appear and gradually disappear in a positively skewed lifespan curve. Small parties gradually appear and suddenly disappear in negatively skewed lifespan curve (Pedersen 1982, 1-16; Pedersen 1991, 95-114). Pedersen gives a heuristic explanation, which takes into account institutional and political conditions for understanding the persistence of small parties. He does not take into account electoral systems, party systems, access to power, and electoral success. However, the thresholds emphasised by Pedersen is useful in combination with these external factors listed above. The discussion departs with an overview of all new parties who have contested Parliament elections from the 1960s onwards. In the following stages we focus on the Green Party success from one threshold to another. Finally the life span is discussed based on interview data from the 2003 election study. The success of new parties in the Finnish party system The effective threshold for parties to get seats in Parliament in 1995 was 12.5 in the smallest constituency and 3.1 in the biggest (Sundberg 2002, 67-99). However, as parties have the option to enter electoral alliances, small and new parties may well be 3

successful in getting their candidates elected. During the period from early 1960s as many as 23 new parties have contested Parliament elections. A number of these parties have made substantial changes in their name and organisation, others have only made minor changes (not included here as new parties). The most substantial change has faced the Greens who apart from the other parties was not officially registered as a party until 1988. Table 1. The support for new Parties contesting Parliament elections since 1962 Parties 1962 1966 1970 1972 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 1. True Finns* 2.2 1.0 10.5 9.2 3.6 4.6 9.7 6.3 4.8 1.3 1.0 1.6 2. Christian Democrats** 0.4 1.1 2.5 3.3 4.8 3.0 2.6 3.1 3.0 4.2 5.3 3. Union for Democracy*** 1.7 0.3 0.1-4. Private Entrepreneurs Party 0.4 0.0-5. Constitutional Party 1.6 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.3-6. Greens 1.4 4.0 6.8 6.5 7.3 8.0 7. Democratic Alternative 4.2-8. Pensioner s Party 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.2-9. Women s Party 0.5 0.3-10. Communist Worker s Party 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 11. Pensioners for the People**** 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 12. Ecological Party 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 13. Humanity Party 0.1-14. Joint Responsibility Party***** 0.1 0.1-0.0 15. Progressive Finnish Party 2.8 1.0-16. Alliance for Free Finland 1.0 0.4-17. Natural Law Party 0.2 0.1-18. Reform Group 1.1-19. Forces for Change in Finland 0.4 20. For the Poor 0.1 21. Finland Rises 0.1 22. Finnish People s Blue-Whites 0.2 23. United People in Great Finland 0.1 *Until 1995 Rural Party, and until 1966 Small Holders Party **Until 1999 Christian League ***Until 1983 Unification Party of the Finnish People ****Until 1995 Independent Pensioners *****Until 1995 Party for Pensioners and Green Mutual Responsibility 4

When the Greens for the first time contested elections in the 1980s many predicted them a similar fate as for the Union for Democracy, Private Entrepreneur s Party and the Constitutional Party, that is, some curious success in the beginning and the vanish after a few elections. In fact, after the entrance of the Greens on the electoral arena 15 new parties have tried to do the same. The 1991 election seems to have been boom for new parties when six new parties for the first times contested elections. In 1995 three newcomers nominated candidates, in 1999 one party, and in the 2003 election four newcomers did the same. Very few of all 23 parties have a good long term record of electoral support. Most of the parties appear only twice and sometimes only once. Others try several times with poor results. The True Finns and its predecessors have the longest record with sharp ups and downs. Since the 1987 election this populist party has performed with meagre success. It is only the Christian Democrats and the Greens who have managed to establish a stabile electoral base in elections. Of these two it is so far only the Greens who have managed to increase their share of votes from one election to another, except for the 1995 election when the support was unchanged. Table 2. New party seats in Parliament and time when entering cabinet (in bold) Parties 1962 1966 1970 1972 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 1. True Finns 0 1 18 2 7 7 17 9 7 1 1 3 2. Christian Democrats 0 1 4 9 9 3 5 8 7 10 7 3. Union for Democracy 1 0 0 4. Constitutional Party 1 0 1 0 0 5. Greens 2 4 10 9 11 14 6. Democratic Alternative 4 7. Ecological Party 0 1 0 0 8. Progressive Finnish Party 2 0 9. Reform Group 1 Nine of the new parties have managed to win seats in parliament of which four have won seats more than once. One of these parties has passed the threshold to parliament only twice, whereas the three others have done it permanently from the early beginning of their career. In addition, all these successful new parties have passed the threshold to become a cabinet party. The True Finns was first to be adopted in a coalition in 1983. Before that they had spent five election periods in parliament with 5

various number of MPs. The seventh election they contested in 1983 gave them 17 seats in parliament and 2 seats in cabinet. In the following election the party lost 8 seats which gave them one seat in cabinet. When their single minister retired in the mid of the cabinet period the party lost even more credibility in elections. Since then the True Finns play only a marginal role in parliament. The Christian Democrats spent six periods in parliament. After 8 contested elections the party was offered a cabinet seat in1991. As in the former case the Christian Democrat minister retired in the mid of the cabinet period. The party has still managed to keep its position in parliament without any significant losses. In contrast to the two other new parties, the Greens had only spent three election periods in parliament when the party was offered one seat after the 1995 election. After the 1999 election they were offered one and a half seat in cabinet. As in the two former cases the Green ministers retired during the mid of the period. However, the retirement has not negatively affected the party in elections. The number of seats in parliament has continued to increase at a steady rate. During the late 1960s the cabinet policy changed in Finland when the policy was to integrate the communists. The policy was partly successful as the majority accepted to be integrated and the rest (the orthodox communists) strongly resisted, resulting later in party split. A similar policy was adopted to integrate the populist Rural Party (later True Finns) who through the integration lost much of its credibility in the eyes of the voters. This strategy did apply neither to the Christian Democrats nor to the Greens. In the case of the Greens the retirement of the Green ministers was rightly timed. The threshold of forming the Green Party To found a party in Finland is not only a matter of organising people, it is also affected by what formal institutional constrains are put on the foundation of a party. The formal threshold to found a party in Finland is higher than in most other democracies. From 1919 political organisations in Finland were regulated by an Act of Associations, and in 1969 these regulations were completed in a new Party Act. When the law came into force a party register was established by the Ministry of Justice, with the task of dealing with party applications and to control that the regulations in the party law were followed. To be accepted as a party, an application must include a list of 5000 enfranchised adherents. In addition, the party is obliged to 6

have written rules following democratic principles in internal decision-making and in running the organisation. Similarly, the party is obliged to have a written program (Partilag 10/1969). All foreigners were prohibited membership in parties until 1989 when the right was extended to cover Nordic citizens living in Finland (Lag om föreningar 1/1919; Föreningslag 503/1989). Changes in party rules and party programs are not enforced before the formal acceptance and registration in the party register. A party will be struck off the register if it fails to get at least one candidate elected in two subsequent parliamentary elections. A court may dissolve a registered party if it acts against the law (also the party law) or against the intentions in its own rules. Before 1990 the Ministry of the Interior could issue a complaint to the court, since then the right has been extended to the general prosecutor and a single party member (Lag om föreningar 1/1919; Föreningslag 503/1989). Finally, a party is given the right, after application to the Ministry of Justice, to be deleted from the party register. The regulations in the Party Act include the central party organisation whereas the Act of Associations includes the central party organisation, as well as all membership associations on the sub national and local level. The Act of Associations also includes the ancillary and affiliated organisations. All party branches, municipal organisations, and sub national organisations are registered in a public register of associations administered by the Ministry of Justice. To be accepted in the register, the association has to make a detailed application including information on its purpose, forms of activity, and the rules of the organisation. According to regulations in the Act of Associations, every organisation must be run on the principle of majority rule and democratic representation. An organisation can be deleted from the register of associations on the same basis as a party from the party register (Lag om föreningar 1/1919; Föreningslag 503/1989). To register a party in Finland requires a lot of costs in terms of signatures, a common program, detailed rules, and a much paper work to get the party registered. As a result of these regulations parties in Finland are closely controlled by the state. In addition, the introduction of public subsidies in 1967 also strengthened parties dependent of the state. It is only in a comparative perspective possible to state whether the formal threshold to found a party is higher in Finland than in Germany, and to what extent the threshold is lower in other democracies. Hypothetically it makes sense if the threshold is high or low when movements and organisations 7

transform to parties. Of course this is related to the advantage of becoming a party. When the advantage is considered to be higher than the costs measures are taken to register a party. It took exceptionally many years before the Greens could find an agreement on to transform from a movement(s) to a party. The party was registered in 1988 but already in 1983 the Green movement nominated candidates in 8 constituencies. Of the 46 candidates 2 were elected. However, the Election Act gives the opportunity for voters associations to nominate candidates. These associations must be registered and 100 signatures are required for every candidate. This paperwork must be done before every election. Established parties don t need to go through the process of signatures once the party is founded. On the other hand, the Election Act regulates that the nomination process must follow a democratic process, which includes a popular vote among the members. In case a party lacks rules of how to nominate it is obliged to follow the rules stipulated in detail in the law (Vallag 1998/714). The Green voting associations which nominated green candidates won 1.4 per cent of all national votes and two candidates were elected. Four years later in the Parliament election of 1987 the green voters associations won 4 per cent of the votes and four candidates were elected. As the voters associations operated independently without any organisational and financial support from a national campaign machine the results were impressing. The potential according to polls and the opinion in media was favourable for the Greens. In addition, parties have the right according to the Electoral Law to enter electoral alliances with other parties. Small parties prefer to take advantage from big ones or to enter alliance with several small parties. This is the reason why some new and small parties have managed to win seats in Parliament. The Ecological party won a seat in 1995 with an electoral support of only 0.3 per cent. All new parties who have managed to win seats in Parliament have used the option on electoral alliances either in all constituencies or in a selected number of constituencies. However, the Greens are different as they have avoided bargaining with other parties, as the Greens have made it clear to their voters that every vote goes to them and not to any other party. This policy of honesty to the voters was, however, expelled in the 1999 election when the Greens joined electoral alliances in four constituencies out of 14 with different parties ranging from the Left Wing Alliance (former communists) on the left to the Progressive Finnish Party on the right. In the 8

2003 election the Greens joined electoral alliances in two constituencies, one with the Left-Wing Alliance and the Social Democrats, in the other with the Centre Party. It was under expectations of even bigger electoral success the pressure grew to found a party. The process was also reinforced by the fact that the four Green MPs did not receive any public subsidy as it is only given to party organisations. However, to found a party was not easy although the electoral success was given. Internal conflicts characterised the Green activists during the years before and even soon after the foundation the Green party. First there was a strong antipathy against becoming a party as they were seen as relics from the past, which only rarely bring to discussion important matters (Paastela 1987, 26-37). In addition, the formal rules in the Party Law were seen as an instrument to institutionalise and integrate the Greens into the public order. Of all organisational solutions discussed and quarrelled, the foundation of a party was only one alternative. Then among those who could think about a party much disputes was spilled on form and content. One proposal was to found an ecological party and the other was to found a more general Green alternative party. The first to propose a foundation of an ecological party was made by the fisherman and former urban intellectual Pertti Linkola. According to his view there will soon be an ecological catastrophe and human life will end. He advocated terrorism by urging to kill factory leaders before they kill us with pollution. In addition he pleased Hitler and his concentration camps as an acceptable demographic policy. The population should radically be reduced in order to survive (Harakka 1998, 116-119). To get more attention he published a pamphlet with a programme where he stated the prerogatives with a totalitarian state, including population reduction and the necessity to turn back to small scale agricultural production using horses and human energy (Paastela 1987, 37-46). His vision of an eco-fascist party did not gain much support but his programme got much medial attention. For a couple of years no other green program existed except for Linkola s. When the more moderate supporters around Linkola aimed to found an ecological party the Green association of movements had to react. The Green party was founded, which signalled a rift in the Green movements between the ecologists and those who advocated more moderate alternatives. Before that a Green League was founded to assemble different green and alternative movements under one umbrella. This alternative form of organisation did not work and after a year the Green party was founded. By this move the Green party for the first time got public subsidies and 9

it become possible to write a programme, hire party bureaucrats, build up the organisation, and to make it an efficient campaign machine. In contrast to these advantages, only a small number of activists joined the party and still in the beginning of this millennium only around one thousand five hundred members are registered in the party. The maximisation of Green votes The Green party was founded during a year of election. In the 1988 municipal elections two green parties competed of which one of them later took the name Ecological Party the Greens. The voters choice was utterly complicated as different green voters associations nominated candidates. As result of the internal conflict the Greens lost votes and managed only to get 2.2 per cent of the total votes. The Ecological party got only 0.2 per cent of the votes. It was a disappointment for the Greens who until now had been pushed forward by polls and media. It was also a remainder of that the Greens have to organise and act like an efficient party in elections. To cope with coming national and local elections the party had to widen its narrow ecological profile, and to reorganise according to common party principles. In 1991 it was the first time Greens contested Parliament elections as a registered party. Its programme was based on five pillars: 1) Ecological balance in economy, 2) partnership between nature and human beings, 3) partnership between people, 4) nonviolence, and 5) government by the people (Vihreä lanka 1990). A chairman who could not be a Member of Parliament ran the party. The executive power was in the hands of the party meeting. With this still narrow ecological programme and egalitarian organisation the foresights were not the best for the Greens in the coming election. However, the 1991 election was a victory for the Greens who won 6.8 per cent of the votes. As a result of proportional representation the party got 10 seats in Parliament (5 female and 5 male MPs). In the 1992 municipal elections the success continued and the party won 6.9 per cent of the votes, which was a dramatic increase as compared to the 1988 municipal elections. After the Parliament election the Greens were invited to negotiate with the Centre party about the formation of a new cabinet coalition. They raised demands of environment taxes and claimed an annual two-percentage reduction of energy 10

consumption. As the Greens left no room for negotiations a cabinet coalition membership was never seriously considered. Already in 1992 the rule which prevented an MP from becoming party chairman was changed. The egalitarian intentions did not work well in a context where all competing party leaders combined these functions. By the end of 1993 the party was organised in three levels national, sub national, and local. At the national level an executive was introduced led by the chairman. The members are elected according to a quota rule, which balances the share of women and men. To support the executive a party council was introduced, which follows the same quota rule as the executive. Formally the highest party unit is the annual party meeting, and between these meetings the party is run by the council and the executive (Vihreä liitto r.p.: säännöt ja ohjesääntö). By this change in rules the Greens lost parts of its former egalitarian impression (Sundberg 1997, 97-117), and have got similar hierarchical characteristics as the established parties. During the early 1990s the party programme retained its original ecological image but it was enlarged to cover a much broader spectrum of issues. The party had become general insofar as it no longer coped only with environmental issues. Among other things the work of the ten parliamentary party members put pressure on the party to widen its programme in theory and practice. In addition, in 1994 the EUmembership issue divided citizen s opinions in the referendum. The Greens were also deeply divided, and the party could only give their adherents free hands to choice, although the party in principle was against membership. An agreement was however made to follow the results of the referendum. In contrast to the more sceptic Greens in other European democracies, the Finnish Greens became supporters of the European Union. One important part in the integration process was the active Green opposition politics, which in form and content resembled the tactics of other opposition parties. The party had to come with an alternative budget; it had to take concerns in social, cultural, and a wide range of other matters in the legislative process. This process was like a school for the Greens who could no longer continue to discuss their illusions and criticise the government without formulating tangible alternatives. In the 1995 election campaign the party had to be concrete and defend its EU membership decision. The result was something like a chock for the Greens who lost votes and one seat in Parliament. 11

The threshold of relevance: in and out After the 1995 Parliament election the opinions in the Greens were not satisfied with the previous period in opposition. During this four-year period the Greens had concretised their view on agriculture, economy, social policy, and environmental protection. As the Greens were now more open for compromise these programmes could be better utilised in government than in opposition. In the cabinet negotiations the coming Social Democratic Prime Minister Lipponen offered a minister chair in the grand coalition. The Greens accepted with a relatively low profile. Lipponen s five party cabinet included the former communists Left-Wing Alliance, the Social Democratic Party, the Greens, the Swedish People s Party, and the conservative National Coalition. As the coalition included parties from the left to the right it was named the rainbow cabinet. In the cabinet programme the parties agreed among other things to cut at least 3.3 billion Euros from the budget during the coming four years, and to join the European Monetary Union. As compensation the Greens got the minister post of environment, which according to their view gave them a real chance to implement green environment policy. The party leadership had few real problems in defending the Green cabinet policy for its members and adherents. Some of the members wanted the Greens to move back to its original roots, as the party in government has changed to resemble the other established parties. The Green minister and the party leadership defended their cabinet membership as being successful in preventing the government from building new nuclear plants, and in implementing environmental consciousness among cabinet members. In 1996, more than one year after the cabinet entrance, the popularity of the Greens was tested in the combined municipal and European Parliament elections. The result from the municipal election was a slight loss as compared to the previous local elections. Only 6.3 per cent of the votes were given to the Greens, which was 0.6 per cent less than in 1992. The result from the European 12

Parliament election was more promising as the party won 7.6 per cent of the votes and one seat in the European Parliament. After four years in cabinet the Greens contested for the first time Parliament elections in the position of a government party. In the campaign the party had the role of defending the government and not criticising, which was more familiar to them and their voters. The campaign therefore started with more uncertainty than usual. Perhaps as to warrant for a defeat the Greens entered for the first time electoral alliances with other parties in four of its weak constituencies. Although these four alliances did not pay off, the total outcome was a success as the Greens won 7.3 per cent of the votes, which gave them two new seats in Parliament. The total number rose to 11 seats. The party profile of the Greens has changed since the 1987 election. In 1987 40 per cent of the Green candidates were female, in 2003 it was 52 per cent. Female Green candidates got 47, 9 percent of the votes in 1987 and 66.6 percent in 2003. In 1987 all elected Green Mps were male, in 2003 election 78.6 percent were female (Statistics Finland 1987; 2003). As compared to the early years of Green activists the profile has changed not only in content but also among their electorate and their elected candidates. The party has become a party for feminists and other female dominated alternative movements such as peace activists, solidarity groups with developing countries, Attack, Amnesty International, and of course the environmental activists. As a result the party is popular among well-educated young urban people. The average age of Members of Parliament in 2003 was 47.9 years whereas the average for the Greens was 41.8 years. Old age seems to be more prominent among the Green male MPs (average 51.3 years) as compared to the female MPs (39.2 years). After the 1999 election the Greens accepted the offer to be member of cabinet without any hesitation. The threshold from before has almost totally eroded. Now the party got one seat in cabinet (Minister of Environment) and a partially the Ministry of Health and Social Service, which the party shares with the Swedish People s Party following the principle of rotation. Soon after the cabinet investiture in April the European Parliament elections were held in June. Again the Greens made good success and increased the proportion votes with 5.8 per cent to 13.4 percent of the votes. As a result of this electoral success the Greens now hold two seats in the European Parliament. Later the same year the Greens nominated for the first time a President candidate. Although the Greens did not succeed well in this election it 13

showed that the party was ready to compete for the highest elected mandate in the republic. The biggest conflict facing the rainbow Cabinet and the Parliament during the period were in year 2002, when a decision had to be taken whether to build a fifth nuclear plant or not. An amendment to build a fifth nuclear plant was already issued in 1993. At that time the amendment was rejected by the Parliament although the cabinet coalition should had won the vote. The amendment split the most cabinet parties, and as a result the nuclear plant plans were put aside from the agenda. However, representatives for the industry continued to push their aims and they got more arguments when the consumption of electric energy continued to increase after the economic recession in the early 1990s. An amendment was raised again against the protest from the Greens in cabinet, including the Left-Wing Alliance chairman. The vote in Parliament took place on 24th of May and the amendment was accepted by 107 yes votes and 92 no votes. As the important vote got much media attention none of the Mps were absent, only the chairman who led the session was hindered to vote. The vote split all the parties except for the Greens who all voted against. Nuclear energy is not popular in Europe where governments have faced demands to reduce and not to increase the number of nuclear plants. In Finland the result of the vote put the Greens into a problematic dilemma: whether to stay loyal to the cabinet or to exit. To stay loyal could be hard to explain to their electorate and to their Green sister parties in Europe. The choice of exit, on the other hand, had already been announced by the Prime Minister as an act of disloyalty, which could be turned against the Greens in the next cabinet coalition negotiations after the 2003 Parliament election. Two days later the Green party council and the Parliamentary party met to consider the situation. Few arguments were found to continue in cabinet and the overwhelming majority favoured an exit from the cabinet against the will of the party chairman Osmo Soininvaara. As a result of this meeting the decision was put in effect immediately. As a result, the Greens went on in opposition and contested the 2003 election with good results. They managed to increase their representation with three seats in Parliament. The Greens are now stronger than ever before but their relevance as a coalition partner seems to have vanished. In the new Centre Party led coalition there was no room for the Greens. The era of rainbow coalition with most parties involved is over. In fact there seems to be few arguments for such a broad government any 14

longer. Now the cabinet is led by the Centre party with the Social Democrats, and the Swedish People s Party which was surprisingly included as a balancing force. A party with a strong profile has a smaller chance to be offered cabinet seats with these premises. This does not imply that the Greens are put off side by the voters in elections. Their resignation from the cabinet in 2002 gave them much attention, positive and negative. The decision to resign was positively met by their adherents and negatively by their coalition partners. In addition, the resignation seems to have got positive response among the voters as the results from the 2003 election gave more wind in the Green sails. However, their visibility and political influence is now less prominent than during the cabinet years. The life span curve and its bases The life span of a party is dependent of many factors. In this section we will emphasize the social bases of the party. Studies show that a stable social base is a better guarantee of the persistence of a political party than ideological consensus. If ideological issues dominate, the risk of disputes increases and changes in the environment will easily be neglected resulting in a failure to adapt. Social loyalties maintain party cohesion even in times when the party faces political differences (Rose and Mackie 1988, 533-558). The Greens still maintain an ideology where environmentalism is a key stone. However, during the process from a movement to government party the Greens have been forced to face and have an opinion on a wide range of issues from social policy to foreign affairs. In this process the Greens have tried to find out a way how these different issues can be combined with an environmentalist ideology. Even in environment related issues the Greens have been forces to make compromises with other cabinet parties. As ideology no longer has divided the party, the explanation behind cohesion and party growth must be found from other factors. The party is known for attracting young, urban, mainly female, and well educated voters. If these characteristics can be verified there is ground for a social base which can generate loyalties between the growing number of voters and the relatively few members. Table 3 in here 15

To get a view of the social base of the Greens the party is compared to other mayor parties. However the number of respondents is low for the True Finns (PS) which makes a comparison with them problematic for most variables. This makes no real difference as the party is small and the organisation unstable. The comparison is made on the following variables: gender, age, education, profession and place of residence. Starting with the first, is seems to be true that the Green voters are predominantly female. Other parties like the Christian Democrats (KD) and the Swedish People s Party (SFP) are even more female. This does not erode the fact that the Greens have a stronger influx of female voters than parties in average. The proportion of female voters among the big established parties is clearly lower. More than 80 percent of the Green voters are less than 44 years old. None of the other parties comes close to that. Voters who have passed the age of 65 compose a substantial share of the votes in all other parties except for the Greens who totally miss this category. Also the category of middle age voters is much smaller among the Green voters than among the other party voters. The educational level is not clearly different from the other parties. Voters with only basic education are rare among the Greens and the high school educated are far more represented among the Greens than in any other party. A university degree is also more common among the Green voters than the average. In addition, breaking down the voters by profession gives some additional information. Students seem to be most likely to vote for the Greens, as compared to other parties, farmers are not. Officials and workers also seem to prefer the Greens, but their share does not differ from the average. Thus, Green votes are composed from almost all categories of professions. A categorisation by social class can therefore not be done. Place of residence makes sense for the Greens. Only a minor part of the voters are resident in rural municipals or country towns. Around 60 per cent of the votes are cast in the Helsinki region and in two other major cities in southern Finland. No other of the big established parties comes close to that the degree of urban votes. In sum, there seems to be evidences for that the Green voters are urban, relatively young, often female, better educated than the average voter, but spread over different categories of professions. In the following table solely the Green voters are broken down over time according to the same variables as above. During the period 1987 to 2003 only in 1991 and in 2003 have election studies been conducted. The three other studies have 16

been conducted close to the elections but not for the purpose of research. Nevertheless, they are professionally done, though the number of observations is low in the 1987 study when the Greens were still under making. Table 4 in here The development from 1987 seems to verify the observations from the 2003 election study. From the very beginning the Greens have had a profile that attracts female voters. The party has also managed to continuously appeal to young voters, though there is signs of an increasing age among them. In addition, the level of education has slightly turned to higher degrees with meagre effects on their professional career. It looks like there is a rank imbalance between level of education and level of profession. High education does not automatically promote high status jobs. Many Green voters seem to have this characteristic in common. Also the urban characteristic among the Green voters have slightly increased during the years, and their rural votes have almost totally disappeared. Conclusions In the case of the Finnish Greens the four steps emphasised by Pedersen was not taken in that order listed buy him. The Greens won representation in Parliament without passing the threshold of becoming a party. The institutional threshold to found a party in Finland is big. However, the internal threshold seems to have been bigger from them, as they did not want to become like other parties. Reality in forms of nonpayment of public subsidies grew stronger when their number of MPs grew from two to four. The fourth threshold of relevance was passed when the party got influence as a member of cabinet. Since the party resigned from cabinet it has not lost all influence. All established parties keep an extra eye on the Greens as they have the potential to attract categories of voters who have lost their confidence in party politics. The Greens have a social base, which is essential for their persistence. They are often female, young, urban, educated but not employed in top jobs. The combination of education and other qualifications with relatively low paid employment is a well 17

known experience for women. A similar characteristic seems often to be valid for the Green voters female and male. This rank imbalance can give fuel to a common loyalty. Most of the other 22 new parties lack a social base of loyalty, and their life span are accordingly short. One exception is the Christian Democrats who share a common faith. In addition, environmentalism is no longer an issue for exclusively the Greens. All parties admit the environmental problem; few are ready to pay the full price to restore the nature. It goes beyond the limits of this paper to state to what extent there is a conflict between green values and materialist values, as we do not know the complexity behind these values. It is in any case sure that the Finnish Greens have changed and broadened their ideological profile while their social base has remained more or less unchanged. This is an indication of that green values are more complex than just environmentalism. In sum, the life span of the Finnish Greens seems not be in a danger, as the party has established itself among the bigger ones without loosing its vitality. The party has not ceased to be influential, though the biggest parties can well manage without the Greens in coming coalitions. This is due to the fact that the barrier between socialist and non-socialist parties in Finnish politics is ambiguous. The situation can, however, change if the Greens continue to win elections. Winning big parties cannot be neglected in the long run. In the capital of Helsinki the Greens are now one of the biggest parties in the city government. The situation has changed in a similar direction in other big urban cities as well. The Greens are offensive while the old established parties have been pushed in defence without any viable means to find a way out from the dilemma. 18

References Harakka, Timo 1998, Viemärirotta. Helsinki: Kustannusosakeythiö Otava Kitchelt, Herbert 1997, European Party Systems: Conmtinuity and Change. In Martin Rhodes, Paul Heywood and Vincent Wright (eds.), Developments in West European Politics. London: Macmillan Press Lane, Jan Erik & Ersson, Svante 1999, Politics and Society in Western Europe. London: Sage Publications Mair, Peter 1991, The Electoral Universe of Small Parties in Postwar Western Europe. In Ferdinand Müller-Rommel and Geoffy Pridham (eds.), Small Parties in Western Europe. London: Sage Publications Paastela, Jukka 1987, Finland s New Social Movements. University of Tampere, Research Reports 86 Pedersen, Mogens 1991, The Birth, Life and Death of Small Parties in the Netherlands. In Ferdinand Müller-Rommel and Geoffy Pridham (eds.), Small Parties in Western Europe. London: Sage Publications Pedersen, Mogens 1982, Towards a New Typology of Party Lifespans and Minor Parties. Scandinavian Political Studies Vol. 5 Rose, Richard & Mackie, Thomas 1988, Fo Parties Persist or Fail? The Big Trade-off Facing Organizations. In Kay Lawson and Peter H. Merkl (eds.), When Parties Fail. Princeton: Princeton University Press Sundberg, Jan 2002. The Electoral System of Finland: Old, and Working Well. In Bernard Grofman and Arend Lijphart (eds.), The Evolution of Electoral and Party Systems in the Nordic Countries. New York: Agathon Press Sundberg, Jan 1997, Compulsory Party Democracy: Finland as a Deviant Case in Scandinavia. Party Politics, Vol. 3 Vihreä Lanka 19/1999 Wilson, James Q 1995, Political Organizations. Princeton: Princeton University Press 19

www.vihrealiitto.fi/saannot www.vihrealitto.fi/historia Föreningslag 503/1989 Lag om föreningar 1/1919 Partilag 10/1969 Vallag 1998/714 Statistics Finland, Parliament Elections 1962-2003 20

KESK SDP KOK LEFT GREENS KD SFP PS OTHER Table 3 Voter characteristics in the parliamentary elections 2003 Total (n) Gender Men 49,5 % 50,2 % 53,1 % 55,4 % 45,2 % 32,4 % 43,8 % 44,4 % 72,7 % 502 Women 51,5 % 49,8 % 46,9 % 44,6 % 54,8 % 67,6 % 56,2 % 55,6 % 27,3 % 519 TOTAL (194) (235) (128) ( (83) (73) (68) (121) (9) (22) 1021 Age 18-24 11,3 % 5,5 % 15,7 % 9,3 % 21,9 % 17,4 % 10,7 % 22,2 % 8,7 % 108 25-44 34,5 % 27,2 % 33,1 % 25,6 % 60,3 % 33,3 % 31,4 % 55,6 % 43,5 % 315 45-64 37,1 % 46,4 % 33,9 % 52,3 % 17,8 % 26,1 % 36,3 % 11,1 % 39,1 % 354 65-17 % 20,9 % 17,3 % 12,8 % 0 % 23,2 % 21,5 % 11,1 % 8,7 % 160 TOTAL (194) (235) (127) (86) (73) (69) (121) (9) (23) 937 Education Basic education 30,9 % 34 % 12,5 % 31,3 % 6,8 % 27,9 % 18,1 % 44,4 % 31,8 % 239 Vocational 29,4 % 28,9 % 15,6 % 28,9 % 17,8 % 23,5 % 11,6 % 44,4 % 31,8 % 223 training High 12,4 % 8,1 % 13,3 % 9,6 % 30,1 % 13,2 % 14 % 0 % 4,5 % 117 School Diploma level 11,3 % 16,6 % 25,8 % 15,7 % 17,8 % 19,1 % 21,5 % 11,1 % 29,1 % 162 Polytechnic 4,1 % 5,1 % 18 % 6 % 11 % 5,9 % 13,2 % 0 % 9,1 % 78 University 11,9 % 7,2 % 14,8 % 7,2 % 16,4 % 10,3 % 21,5 % 0 % 13,6 % 113 TOTAL (194) (235) (128) (83) (73) (68) (121) (9) (22) 933 Profession Farmer 12,4% 0,4 % 1,6 % 0 % 0 % 4,4 % 2,5 % 0 % 0 % 33 Entrepreneur 5,7 % 2,6 % 8,6 % 3,6 % 4,1 % 1,5 % 10,7 % 11,1 % 9,1 % 51 Leading position 9,3 % 10,6 % 20,3 % 3,6 % 13,7 % 8,8 % 14 % 0 % 4,5 % 106 Senior Official Official 9,8 % 14,9 % 14,8 % 13,3 % 19,2 % 14,7 % 14 % 11,1 % 9,1 % 128 Worker 26,3 % 34,5 % 19,5 % 34,9 % 21,9 % 27,9 % 14 % 33,3 % 45,5 % 251 Retired 22,7 % 29,8 % 22,7 % 31,3 % 6,8 % 23,5 % 24,8 % 22,2 % 18,2 % 226 Student 10,8 % 6,4 % 11,7 % 9,6 % 28,8 % 13,2 % 15,7 % 22,2 % 9,1 % 112 Home mum/dad 2,1 % 0,4 % 0,8 % 1,2 % 2,7 % 4,4 % 2,5 % 0 % 0 % 15 Other 1 % 0,4 % 0 % 2,4 % 2,7 % 1,5 % 1,5 % 0 % 4,5 % 11 TOTAL (194) (235) (128) (83) (73) (68) (121) (9) (22) 933 21

KESK SDP KOK LEFT GREENS KD SFP PS OTHER Total (n) Place of residence Helsinki region 12 % 24,2 % 32,8 % 22,4 % 45,1 % 28,3 % - 55,6 % 42,9 % 211 Tampere, Turku 3,8 % 9,8 % 5 % 9,2 % 14,1 % 13,3 % - 0 % 19 % 69 Other city 47,8 % 43,7 % 42,9 % 43,4 % 28,2 % 38,3 % - 22,2 % 23,8 % 354 Country town 26,1 % 18,6 % 16,8 % 23,7 % 8,5 % 15 % - 0 % 9,5 % 166 Country side 10,3 % 3,7 % 2,5 % 1,3 % 4,2 % 5 % - 22,2 % 4,8 % 41 Total (184) (215) (119) (76) (71) (60) - (9) (21) 841 (KESK=Centre Party of Finland, SDP= Social Democratic Party of Finland, KOK= National Coalition Party, LEFT= Left Wing Alliance, GREENS= Green League, KD= Christian Democrats in Finland, SFP= Swedish People s Party in Finland, PS= True Finns) 22

1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 Tabel 4, The Green voters in parliamentary elections 1987-2003 Gender Men 45,8 % 40,7 % 28,7 % 31,7 % 45,2 % Women 54,2 % 59,3 % 71,3 % 68,3 % 54,8 % TOTAL (24) (86) (87) (101) (73) Age 18-24 34,8 % 23,3 % 4,6 % 12,9 % 21,9 % 25-44 65,2 % 67,4 % 70,1 % 60,4 % 60,3 % 45-64 0 % 9,3 % 23 % 24,8 % 17,8 % 65-0 % 0 % 2,3 % 2 % 0 % TOTAL (23) (86) (87) (101) (73) Education Basic education 26,3 % 23 % 15,9 % 7,8 % 6,8 % Vocational 15,8 % 17,8 % 16,6 % 17,9 % 17,8 % Training High School 36,8% 33,6 % 33,1 % 30,7 % 30,1 % Diploma level 10,5 % 8,6 % 17,2 % 17,9 % 17,8 % Polytechnic - - - 17,3 % 11 % University 10,5 % 17,2 % 10,8 % 8,4 % 16,4 % TOTAL (38) (152) (157) (179) (73) Profession Farmer 0 % 2,3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Entrepreneur 0 % 8,1 % 9,2 % 5 % 4,1 % Leading position 15 % 23,3 % 13,8 % 13,9 % 13,7 % Senior Official Officer 26,1 % 20,9 % 26,4 % 15,8 % 19,2 % Worker 39,1 % 15,1 % 18,4 % 34,7 % 21,9 % Retired 0 % 1,2 % 5,7 % 6,9 % 6,8 % Student 21,7 % 17,4 % 6,9 % 11,9 % 28,8 % Home mum/dad 0 7 % 3,4 % 4 % 2,7 % Other 0 4,7 % 16,1 % 7,9 % 2,7 % TOTAL (23) (86) (87) (101) (73) 23

1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 Place of residence Helsinki region 34,8 % * 50 % 45,5 % 45,1 % Tampere, Turku 13 % * 7,1 % 5 % 14,1 % Other city 39,1 % * 27,4 % 26,7 % 36,6 % Country side 13 % 18,6 % 15,5 % 22,8 % 4,2 % Total (23) (86) (84) (101) (71) * in 1991 the question concerning the place of residence was grouped in a different way than for the rest of the material. In 1991 35 ( 40,7 %) of the Green voters were living in a city with more than 35.000 inhabitants and exactly the same number in cities with less than 35.000 inhabitants. 24