The Constitution is intended for the entire nation, not only for lawyers and institutions

When Laura Reinila was the Ambassador to Ukraine in 2003-07, she stayed in close contact with the newspaper Den/The Day. She visited our editorial office the other day together with Pekka HALLBERG, Doctor of Social Sciences, former President of the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland, in order to discuss the situation in Ukraine with the editor-in-chief Larysa Ivshyna. Although Mr. Hallberg had a heavy schedule, he kindly agreed to grant an exclusive interview to our newspaper.

“This is first time for me to be in Ukraine, but I am really interested in the Constitution, reforms, and rule of law. If I can tell about our experiences in that respect which will be available for you, I will be happy.”

Mr. Hallberg, you worked in the countries of Central Asia for several years. And what aroused your current interest in Ukraine?

“I have been a chairman of the constitutional committees in Finland and made most of reforms there. I am here just to tell about our experience, because Finland is like a laboratory: it is a small country, we had a mixed Constitution, a very strong ruler, and the most modern first parliament in the world, and then step by step, we have reformed our Constitution, so that it is a parliamentarian Western country’s well-functioning Constitution now. And that is, maybe, the reason that we think it might be a good idea to tell how we did it. But we will be not teachers or active consultants. You know, Finnish people are more listening and pragmatic. But there are so many similarities between Ukraine and Finland, so that I think we could discuss these things.”

As you mentioned constitutional reforms, could you say what they consisted in?

“The first Finnish Constitution was enacted in 1919, and it took over 50 years before we made the first reforms. They were on how to make the president more depending on the proposals of the government, how to strengthen the position of the government and the prime minister, how to reform fundamental rights of citizens. These things: parliamentary topics and fundamental rights are the two main issues.

“It [Constitution] was untouched, unchanged for 50 years. But that was written in a flexible way, so it could function in different circumstances. When we became a member of the European Union and globalized market, we needed a more modern constitutional umbrella; that was the reason of the 1995 reform of the fundamental rights chapter.”

Do you have an opinion on Ukrainian Constitution?

“It would be too much to say that I have any opinion on that, but I noticed that you need some more parliamentarian influence, perhaps, election mechanisms could guarantee somewhat bigger election districts for candidates. And I think the fundamental rights reform, not only freedoms, but some guidelines on how to develop social, cultural rights. That was very important in Finland especially, and also some other countries, to have the constitution a little bit closer to the people, not only the sections concerning relations between the state institutions. The constitution is written not only for lawyers and institutions, but for the whole nation.”

Which political setup – unitary or federative – do you think is better for the people?

“It is a good question. In one of my books I had some comparative studies on federation, which the US and Germany are. Big states could be federal, but small countries, like Finland, Sweden, Scandinavian countries, are unique, homogenous states, so that we cannot think about any federalist system. Under the discussions we have had, I would be very careful to open the state system to federal one. It is more important to guarantee, for example, the right to use your own language, the right to bring your identity in municipal level, and then how to organize the cooperation of oblast and regional administrations with central administration, and at the same time, with municipal administration. So, there are many federal models, or course, but it is another thing. It’s universal, you are a unified state.”

What is the best way to exercise language rights in a unitary state? Is it obligatory to introduce a second official language (Russian), taking into account that we have a lot of national minorities?

“It is necessary that everyone has right to use their mother tongue. That one was very important for the Finnish language, which in 1863 got an official position when most of people living in Finland were Finns. At the same time, we had to guarantee, of course, the position of Swedish-speaking Finns. I think it is good not only for those who speak different languages, but also for the economic route, identity in the country. Language is one part of identity. I do not know if I can say more, but I am now the chairman of the language board in our country, it is a kind of think tank within our government. Even in Helsinki, there are 143 languages spoken. Of course, we cannot guarantee these languages in the Constitution. In the Constitution, we have only Finnish, Swedish, and the Saami languages. It is a kind of identity question, of course.”

Finnish expert Arkady Moshes recently said at a Kyiv Security Forum, commenting on the proposal of Brzezinski and Kissinger to resolve the Ukrainian crisis by “Finlandizing” Ukraine, that this word is an insult to both countries. What will you say to this?

Pekka HALLBERG: “If you ask what the advice for Ukraine should be, I would say, fight against corruption, strengthen the rule of law principles, because the rule of law is the best basement for economy and sustainable living standards.”

“Finland is a sovereign republic and has very strong rule-of-law principles. I know that some Americans used the term ‘Finlandization’ after the World War II. But nowadays, if you look at what this small country of Finland has done… We are number one in freedom of speech indexes, number one among the least corrupted countries, and our living standards are quite high.

“If you ask what the advice for Ukraine should be, I would say, fight against corruption, strengthen the rule of law principles, because the rule of law is the best basement for economy and sustainable living standards. A well-functioning constitution, the rule-of-law principle, access to justice, independent court system, and open administration is the best way to fight corruption.”

Did this very system make the Finnish people incorruptible?

“Many ask about that. If we go back in the history, Finland and Sweden together at that time, that was the first country to have freedom of speech in 1766, much earlier than other Nordic countries, or even the US First Amendment, or the US Constitution. At the same time, there was a principle that citizens had a right to access information and ask for official documents. It is a very old principle. And nowadays we have a quite modern law which guarantees this right: everyone can come to the administrative bodies and ask for official documents, and they will receive a copy. This system is the best remedy against corruption. Criminal sanctions are necessary, of course, but they do not help, somebody will be corrupted or take money, only shedding light on them can help.”

In the light of the latest events, particularly after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the Kremlin’s attempts to destabilize the situation in eastern Ukraine, some officials in Sweden and Finland began to speak about the possibility of these countries’ accession to NATO. In particular, your country’s Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen has said that opposition of the Finnish public is not a valid reason why NATO membership should be declined because the populace cannot know about these matters better than politicians can. What will you say to that?

“Of course, the leaders bear the responsibility for what kind of decisions will be made. But also, politicians listen much more to what media, newspapers, and ordinary people will say, so that it is necessary to see and have the perspective in the past and in the future. I have been, for example, a chairman of the National Defense Courses, it is a system that delegates its leaders and parliamentarians, so we will have some more education in security policy. We have now over seven thousand members in that association, and we have had many nice forums and discussions. I view these questions much more carefully than our daily politics. There must be more perspective and preparations. It is easy to say that, but after that you have to calculate the cost of the proceedings, and it means also some reforms concerning the national defense organization, and so on. My opinion is that the national defense system we have in Finland also makes social capital. That is one of the reasons we as a small country have done it so well, actually. We have also written in the Constitution that it is every man’s responsibility to serve in the military forces. We are the only Western European country, where the atmosphere is so positive in the sense of protecting one’s own country.”

And are you not afraid that one day Russia will choose to regain Finland as part of itself? For some of the Russian MPs are talking about this.

“I do not think that way. Maybe, I am too optimistic, and you know much better in Ukraine after having these heavy weeks and months, but I think that even in Russia – I have been quite many times there, published some books, have good friends at the court – I do hope that democratic movements also will play some more role. There are quite many civilized persons who see that this kind of politics cannot continue forever. And that is the reason why I think that we have to have some contacts. I will publish rule-of-law books in Russia, some say that this is of no use, but that is for the future. I am a realist, I am not too much of an idealist.”