Finland & anti-democracy

Finland has a proud history of antidemocratic tendencies. During the cold war, with its heightened expression during the Kekkonen era of the 60's and the 70's, foreign policy was characterized by "finlandization", by a compliant & yielding relationship with the Soviet Union. In combination with this, Finland has a tradition of delegating politics to civil servants and bureaucrats, and at the same time parties of different political branches (social democrats and right-wing parties) are usually co-operating in the same government. This time around, we have the green party and the kokoomus (which is to the right) governing the country together. Party politics, even politics in general, does not occupy a very important role in this country.

As the newspapers are flooded with warning words about the coming recession, the Finnish bend of "anti-politics" is even more evident. A representative of some investment bank talks about tax politics & inflation in a recent column in Husis. She worries about the risks of inflation, but at the same time economic growth has to be secured. How is this done? Relieved taxes, along with balancing measures, she suggests. When reading accounts of Finnish day-to-day politics, it is a similar picture of politics that appears. Politics manages economic realities so that the outcome is optimal (not stagnation, not inflation, etc.). The main task for politicians is to govern the nation's finances so that future growth is made possible.

What has this to do with democracy, with political choices? Very little, almost nothing. But even so, left wing and right wing politicians alike are in agreement that economics is the backbone of politics (we have an imbecile prime minister who thinks media discusses poverty too much). How is economics described among politicans? As a mixture of magic, a domain for crystal balls and spells, something over and above interventions; or it is a domain for experts, for people who can do the analyses right, who will see the big pattern, who will reconcile different & conflicting economic thrusts. Political ideas, about justice, about concrete human beings, will only appear to be harmful here. Very rarely is economics an integral part of thinking about what kind of society we should live in. The most common perspectives when it comes to Finnish politics & economics is survival : the nation has to get by somehow, and for that, we need a rational economic policy, and here, we should not care too much about small things like poverty & hardship. All of it will be resolved in the long run, all of it will be solved by means of a balanced economy.

Just think of the following right-wing mantra: "work must pay off economically" (det måste löna sig att arbeta!). How many times have we not heard this? It seems to mean something like this: if the economic compensation for a job does not exceed the unemployment subsidies, then people, poor, lazy people, will choose the idle life. But with the possibility of consumption (by means of work) in view, even these idlers will be set in motion, and an ideal outcome will be reached: they will (re)turn and thus to work and thus to consumption which is the final goal (I've read some Zygmunt Bauman lately). And if it is not this, it is: if high-income workers are taxed harshly, they will flee the country and their money will no contribute to the national economy. Thus, they must feel that "working pays off". What do these mantras show? The all-inclusive idea about economy & consumption as the most important thing in life (which is only threatened by poor people's lack of morals, their subversive laziness).

Why do we think of economics as an independent subject matter? Why do newspaper have an "economics" section, that is, why is it separated from politics? Why do universities teach stuff like microeconomics and macroeconomics and not economy as a part of day-to-day activities, political ideals, anthropology, philosophy - etc (that is, economics as matemathics on a bed of utilitarian axioms about the nature of man & rationality)? Maybe these are stupid & naive questions, but I've been thinking a bit about them lately. I wonder what I should read to understand these things better. Maybe Deirdre McCloskey, maybe Thorstein Veblen & his followers in institutional political economy, maybe something else. Maybe I should do it the bloody hard way and learn all the traditional stuff. But as it is now, I am simply badly confused & understand almost nothing about contemporary politics (I have this theory, and I insist, it is not at a conspiracy theory, that politics are done in a way so that we should not understand, that it should, when addressing the "common people", be restrained to mantras about "how much more you will get in your wallet due to the tax policy our party has supported" and "kokoomus is the new working class party" or "Matti has a new girlfriend!!!!" - more on this sooon.).