Ilkka Ruostetsaari, Professor of Political Science, and Johanna Vuorelma, Postdoctoral Researcher, link the turmoil around cultural cuts to, among other things, the change in political publicity.
Government pain from funding for cultural actors and other Veikkaus beneficiaries progressed from the end of the week to the point where the Prime Minister Sanna Marin (sd) criticized publicly the Minister of Science and Culture of his own government Antti Kurvista (center) because this had ignored Marini’s hopes of canceling the surgery information.
Parliamentary Question Time was seen in turn special situation, when instead of the opposition, the government itself challenged the government for cultural cuts.
At a news conference held after the five talks on Friday night, Prime Minister Marin said that the government has decided to cancel the cuts by Veikkaus beneficiaries.
Read more: Prime Minister Marin: The cuts of Veikkaus beneficiaries will be reversed 100% – “We recognize that the corona situation has been very difficult”
HS asked the experts before learning about the agreement, what the turmoil seen in recent days shows.
Professor of Political Science Ilkka Ruostetsaari The University of Tampere described the debate as exceptional in Finnish politics.
“Yes, one could say that this is exceptional because we have a tradition of the prime minister always supporting his ministers, and that is a pretty long tradition,” he said.
“Now the Prime Minister directly criticized Kurvi, and that is exceptional in our practices.”
The situation escalated when Kurvinen organized a press conference in the early part of the week, right after Marin’s party for music industry influencers, in which he told about the targets of the cuts agreed by the government in the spring.
Marin had said he had asked to cancel the press conference because the savings were still being discussed. Kurvinen did not do so, as he considered that the matter would come to the public in any case after the information requested by Parliament on the matter and the opportunity had already been convened. Marin and Kurvinen had a public discussion about their differing views.
Read more: Prime Minister Marin: The cuts of Veikkaus beneficiaries will be reversed 100% – “We recognize that the corona situation has been very difficult”
If the escalation of the controversy in public is looking for reasons beyond the events themselves, one of which may be the upcoming elections, Ruostetsaari speculated. Regional elections are scheduled for January.
“
Public pecking can also be seen as a sign of a change in the political field.
If you look at the turmoil from an even broader angle, it and other government public cries can also be seen as a sign of a change in the political field.
In recent years, forming a government was easier when there were three major parties and the government usually had two of them, Ruostetsaari times. They were able to form a majority in parliament.
With several smaller parties now required of the government, there are more views to reconcile. In addition, parties have a desire and a need to profile themselves in public.
“Today, the parties are smaller in number of seats, and that may increase this inter-party competition and desire for visibility,” Ruostetsaari said.
Also political scientist, postdoctoral researcher Johanna Vuorelma The University of Helsinki highlighted the exceptional nature of the board’s internal pecking. Political controversy within the government through the public has not traditionally been part of Finnish political culture, he says.
Vuorelma linked events to, for example, the upheaval of political publicity. In today’s world of social media, one needs to react quickly and strive to keep the power of definition from what has happened and the interpretation to oneself, he pondered. In this case, situations can escalate more easily than before.
“It seeks to quickly take over the story and identify the culprits who are critically focused.”
Cultural cuts In this case, there has been much debate about the government reversing its funding decisions as public pressure has intensified.
Is public pressure during social media also different and louder than before?
“
“I think some publicity here has certainly played a part in making an impact.”
Vuorelma believes that the changed nature of publicity has made similar political debates potentially more intense than before. The same was raised by Ruostetsaari.
“I think some publicity here has certainly played a part in making an impact,” he said.
“The various parties will have their views made public more quickly and, above all, more directly, without the mediation of journalists.”
Read more: Public pressure has led the Marin government to reverse any decision remotely reminiscent of surgery
Neither of the scholars, in a situation where the formation of an agreement was not yet known, did not predict that the debate would escalate into a government crisis, even though the voices were loud. In addition to Marin and Kurvinen, there are others on the board ventilated their feelings.
However, Vuorelma estimates that it would not be impossible for the situation to escalate. He recalled that government crises are always difficult to predict, as chance, emotions and psychology often play a major role. In many cases, it is a matter of trust rather than content issues.
“
“Yes, the internal confidence of the government is eroded in any case by such a public debate.”
So it would not necessarily be essential for the crisis to arise that the debate was initially about a relatively small issue, the EUR 18 million cuts and their cancellation, Vuorelma said. This is a small amount in relation to the billions in the general government deficit.
Indeed, he saw that the possibility of a government crisis existed because “so much distrust signaling” has been in the public eye.
“It’s really clear, and there’s been so much that at some point, there’s a growing risk that mistrust will increase and conclusions will be drawn,” he said.
Rust Island recalled that it is not in the interests of the ruling parties to get into a crisis. Multi-party support is in the doldrums, and new elections are certainly not welcome.
He said it was difficult to predict where the situation was leading.
“Yes, the internal confidence of the government is eroded in any case by such a public debate, there is nowhere to be found. It always gives the opposition more opportunities to play. ”
.
