The unbearable difficulty of giving up power
Rarely has power in Finland been so concentrated in a few institutions and a small number of people as it is today. In fact, the situation is quite exceptional for at least the last forty years. The problem we face, however, is that it is extremely difficult for those who have acquired a taste for near-absolute power to give it up, and this will slow down the process of restoring things to normal.
People running for politics and public office are rarely motivated by personal financial success. Work motivation is more often found in big societal incentives, from promoting better policy-making to solving societal problems. Many politicians or civil servants feel a burning passion for a particular issue area on which they focus their efforts to bring about change.
There are two kinds of power, visible and invisible. The former is often associated with statutory power and the latter is the underlying and informal exercise of power. Over the decades, the separation of powers has sought to strike different balances. In the past, the role of the Council of State and Parliament has been strengthened in relation to that of the President. Because of the Korona, past balances have fluctuated throughout our system of power. The positions of power in local and regional government, inter-ministerial government and government and parliament have been in flux.
The crisis situation has required a redistribution of power to get things done. But how can the balance of power be restored after a crisis situation? It is difficult to redistribute power that is concentrated in institutions and individuals. So I argue that, even if we regain control of the health crisis, the changed power structure will remain for a long time as a kind of ghost of the crisis. Today, the most significant concentration of power is in the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (MoH), which is the practical centre of power for Finland in terms of the openness of borders, the movement of people, the pursuit of various economic activities and leisure opportunities. The STM, together with other health institutions, defines not only our present but also our future expectations with regard to these activities.
Why would the STM and health actors be prepared to hand back the power they have gained in a crisis to other actors? Does our political or administrative system have the means to restore the balance of power without a strong conflict with the STM and health institutions?
I would argue that the answer to the above is that neither change will happen without conflict and that both changes will take a long time. Therefore, health determinants are likely to be overemphasised issues in our societal debate over the coming years.
Why is this essential? The social arena can only deal with a reasonable number of relevant issues at a time. In recent decades, we identify issues such as climate change mitigation, ageing pressures and work change as major themes. Therefore, the emergence of health and, above all, the interest rate as a defining factor in the political agenda is a significant change from the past.
The battle for power is fought every day and every single moment. Today, it seems that other institutions of power are not yet ready to challenge the supremacy of health institutions. But that moment is fast approaching. The essential question is how the redistribution of power will take place and how long it will take. And above all: where will that shifting power go next?
Niilo Mustonen
The author is a co-founder and managing partner of Blic, which closely follows political developments.