1. Kyösti Pekonen The Problem of Representation and the Role of Talk in the Finnish Parliament How the role of talk is understood in the present-day Finnish Parliament? Main argument: The tradition of belittling political rhetoric is little by little changing. Empirical material: Interviews made in the Finnish Parliament in 2001 to 2003 in the project Finnish Parliament – One Hundred Years. The content of the lecture: I Tension between public political talk and professional talk behind closed doors II ‘Government by discussion’ and public political talk in plenary sessions -‘Government by discussion’ -The role of parliament and its committee system -The problem of representation and the role of talk in parliament -Talk in plenary session III Apolitical professional talk in parliamentary committees

2. I Tension between public political talk and professional talk behind closed doors (1) ‘Government by discussion’ Talk is the most important duty of any parliament in representative democracy. Walter Bagehot (The English Constitution, 1872): ’No State can be first-rate which has not a Government by discussion.’ ‘Representative assemblies are often taunted by their enemies with being places of mere talk and bavardage. There has seldom been more misplaced derision. I know not how a representative assembly can more usefully employ itself than in talk, when the subject of talk is the great public interests of the country, and every sentence of it represents the opinion either of some important body of persons in the nation, or of an individual in whom some such body have reposed their confidence. A place where every interest and shade of opinion in the country can have its cause even passionately pleaded, in the face of the government and of all other interests and opinions, can compel them to listen, and either comply, or state clearly why they do not, is in itself, if it answered no other purpose, one of the most important political institutions that can exist any where, and one of the foremost benefits of free government.’ (John Stuart Mill, Considerations on Representative Government, 1861) (2) ‘Real work in the Finnish Parliament is made in the committees of the parliament.’ Committee meetings are closed and, accordingly, talk is not public.

3. II ‘Government by discussion’ and public political talk in plenary sessions (1) Kari Palonen; government by discussion and the parliamentary style of politics: - Rhetoric in the mode of speaking pro et contra in the presence of adversaries, should play a paradigmatic role in politics as far as we prefer parliamentary style of politics to other ways and forms of political representation. Prerequisite: Debaters are willing to listen to each other and see in the Millian sense the general importance of discussion. A more tight Habermasian prerequisite would be that debaters are in addition able and willing to alter their standpoints on the merit of argument. (2) The role of parliament and its committees The Finnish political system belongs to the “party discipline” models so characteristic of much of Europe. (Two Figures here)

4. (3) The problem of representation and the role of talk in parliament Jane Mansbridge, ‘Rethinking Representation.’ American Political Science Review Vol. 97, No. 4 November 2003. Promissory model of representation; During election campaigns representatives make promises to constituents, which they then keep or fail to keep in parliament and government. The model follows the classic principal-agent format. Anticipatory representation; Representatives focus on what they think their constituents will approve at the next election, not on what they promised to do at the last election (the idea of retrospective voting). Surrogate representation; Representatives represent constituents outside their own districts. Gyroscopic representation; People often try merely to select a “good type,” with the characteristics of having similar policy preferences to the voter, being honest and principled, and being sufficiently skilled.

5. The form of representation and deliberation in parliament: A general remark: In promissory and anticipatory models of representation the problem of deliberation is considered first of all as a relationship between representatives and voters, and not between representatives. Promissory representation; Leaves least room for open-minded deliberation in the legislature between representatives, because representatives’ goals have been bound by their promises to the voters. Gyroscopic representation; Facilitates good legislative deliberation by the selection of individuals likely to deliberate well in parliament and leaving them free to pursue that goal as they think fit.

6. (4) Talk in plenary session (quotations from the interviews): Belittling the role of talk; ‘Reading in the plenary session is merely the finale of a decision making process. It is not the most important place to influence, but only a place for public registration of political standpoints. Undoubtedly, the plenary session offers an appetising and in fact the only platform of making politics for small groups and protest- minded individual MPs.’ Endeavours to strengthen the role of talk in plenary session; The Secretary General of Parliament: ‘Speaker’s tool box has been improved in the leading plenary session, and this is especially linked to the idea that parliament would take shape as an arena of central political discussion and that the most essential addresses would be held in parliament. … It seems to me that nowadays we can really call the discussion in the plenum as discussion. Before it was more or less presenting addresses that bypassed each other.’

7. III Apolitical professional talk in parliamentary committees The real work in the committees means apolitical, fair, factual, professional talk behind closed doors, between committee members who trust each other (consensus politics). Talk in committees is still closer to negotiation than deliberation. Quotations from the interviews (italics mine): ‘Action in a rather small closed group is seen to convey to a more confidential, businesslike, and compromise-minded way of action and to have faster and better results. Discussion by a small group sitting around a common table gets generally another overtone as public talk in plenary sessions; the aforesaid arrangement favours dispassionate and businesslike deliberation without leaving much space for political demagogy. Addresses in committees are more deliberative than in plenary sessions, because a small closed circle does not encourage using words that are demagogical and miss the point.’ (Jaakko Nousiainen in the 1970s) ‘Experience taught me to understand that different interests exist and that it is impossible to take care of these matters with unnecessary aggravating quarrels and mere talk, but these are persistent affairs and questions of negotiation in which one can quickly reach a desired goal by performing skilfully rather than by using harsh words.’

8. ‘In my opinion, it is also essential that committees are still closed because it then gives the opportunity for open and fair discussion.’ ‘In committees, a political struggle is not waged but things are discussed. Fair co-operative relations bridging party, government and opposition lines are created in this way in committees.’ ‘Under no circumstances should committee meetings be opened to the public. In parliament there must be a place where affairs can be scrutinised and no-one needs to be afraid of the consequences. Even difficult affairs can be discussed in a closed meeting without politicising them too much.’ ‘As far as I can see, a definite majority agrees that the committee meeting is not public. It’s my opinion as well that it should be closed because there is a great danger that politicians would utilise the situation in order to show their politics and give propaganda to the media, and the affair itself will be forgotten or become distorted. Instead, if members of parliament can say in peace whatever comes to the representative’s mind and what she or he in truth thinks about the affair when the doors are closed and what is said does not get out, this is the best way to handle the affair.’

9. The meaning of politics – ‘politicise’, ‘make politics’, and ‘politician’ in the quotations! Discrepancy between two kinds of talk and between two kinds of ideas of representation: - Public political talk in plenary sessions addressed to the general public with the intent of explaining the behaviour of representatives to the represented, and - Apolitical professional talk in parliamentary committees addressed to other members in the committee with the intent of finding best possible solutions (compromises) to problems in hand. According to the quotations, “politics” may harm representative professional talk and, therefore, unnecessary politicising public political talk should be left exclusively to public plenary sessions.

10. The tension between public political talk and professional talk behind closed doors still exists: ‘One could imagine that … talk in committees could have an influence, at least in the technical sense, in the sense that … a better, more flexible and accurate enunciating could be introduced. However, I think that one cannot even in committees influence committee members when the question is about important principled policy lines because lines are taken following political backgrounds.’ ‘In committees representatives get to know each other as persons, and, because of this, discussions can be made shorter; … they do not begin to subordinate each other and believe that one can have an influence in the committee by speaking so that a person’s attitudes completely change.’

11. Concluding argument: Anyway, the role of political talk and rhetoric is strengthening in the Finnish Parliament so that - There are proper places and chances for real debate and deliberation in parliament. - Debaters are willing to listen to each other, and they can even alter their standpoints as a result of debate. Because: The role of the parliament is strengthening: ‘At least, this has changed so that nowadays everyone must by herself or himself know the matters. The group discipline was much harder in the 1970s, acting and thinking as a group in the way that things were pondered as a group and conclusions were made as a group. Nowadays, instead, this kind of individuality has strengthened strongly which I view as good.’ (The interviews of the Left-Wing MP Esko-Juhani Tennilä on 11 June and 18 June 2002) The model of representation is changing towards gyroscopic representation.