Monthly Supplement | Ahtisaari, Halonen, Niinistö and Stubb would not have become president if the election method had not been changed in the 1990s, claims Unto Hämäläinen

Finns have elected the president of the republic in direct popular elections six times. Previously, the choice was made by 300 electors or the parliament, if there was an exceptional situation. The transition to a new election method was considered for almost ten years.

Politicians, i.e. ministers and MPs, feared for their own power. A “too strong” president could be a threat to the people’s power, even though he was elected by the people. Therefore, when moving directly to the election, the power of the president was significantly limited.

There was another concern in the inner circles of the parties: What if the people vote incorrectly? What if an irresponsible populist or even an outsider is elected?

In the old system, this danger did not exist, because the choice was completely in the hands of the parties. The electors, almost all of them politicians, were able to find a president that fit the system. One could not be so sure of the three million voters.

On the first one all at once the worst fears came true. There were two unwanted candidates in the 1994 final, Sdp’s Martti Ahtisaari and Rkp Elisabeth Rehn. Ahtisaari was the previously feared outsider who had returned to Finland from world tours and won Kalevi Sorsan in the primary election of Democrats, which was open to all interested parties. The rapid and sharp rise of Rehn’s popularity, on the other hand, confused the bourgeois.

The postgame, a twist from the position of president, lasted the whole season and the frustrated Ahtisaari did not want to go and strive for another season.

The 2000 elections already went according to the parties’ notes. The ex-prime minister and the chairman of the center made it to the finals Esko Aho and Foreign Minister Sdp Tarja Halonen. Behind both were the bastions of power, in Aho the Eteläranta of the employer organizations and in Halona of the employee organizations Hakaniemi.

However, the candidates had one big difference. In the old electorate system, it would have been possible to agree on Aho’s election among the bourgeois parties and find a majority. An edgy left-wing politician like Halonen, let alone a woman, would not have gotten the majority of male voters behind her.

Tarja Halonen’s victory was only possible in a direct national election. The same thing happened again in 2006, when the center and the coalition tried to oust Halonen with an old-fashioned party agreement.

Would it Sauli Niinistö became president in 2012, if the president had been elected with the old system?

Niinistö was an experienced politician, former coalition leader, minister and speaker of the parliament, but he was unpopular among other politicians. The dislike was visible in the election of the Speaker of the Parliament held in February 2010. Niinistö only got 89 votes, while speakers usually get 150-160 votes in these votes.

There was also great suspicion Alexander Stubbia towards. The opposition from the coalition’s parliamentary group and district leaders was fierce when the candidate was appointed last August. Antti Häkkänen the supporters were sure that Häkkänen would have won Stubb’s membership vote, if not the chairman Petteri Orpo would have threatened Stubb as a candidate by threatening to resign.

Thirty from a year’s experience, we dare to say that three million voters have made a different choice than 300 electors would have made if they had been able to make a decision.

If the election method hadn’t been changed, we would have had Mauno Koiviston after completely different presidents.

Ahtisaari and Stubb probably wouldn’t even have been allowed to run under the old system. Halonen and Niinistö would not have found a majority at the meeting of the selectors. However, they were acceptable to the voters, so the people’s power has spoken and the grumbles are gone.