ABSTRACT
The Finnish party system was described by Olavi Borg and myself in 1983 as an example of ‘polarized pluralism’ (Borg and Paastela 1983, 105). We did make a reservation that the system did not fit all the criteria of this model of Giovanni Sartori. By 2008, however, the transformation of the system has been so thorough that Sartori’s model is not valid any more. Sartori’s eight criteria are: first, the existence of relevant anti-system parties; second, bilateral oppositions; third, the centre placement of one party; fourth, ideological distance, that is, polarization; fifth, centrifugal drives; sixth, ideological patterning; seventh, irresponsible oppositions; eighth, politics of outbidding, that is, over-promising (Sartori 1976, 132-9). Nowadays there is no meaningful anti-system party in Finland, oppositions are not simply bilateral, ideological distances, centrifugal drives and over-promising are all lessened and irresponsible oppositions are small or perhaps non-existent.1 However, the Finnish party system remains fragmented: Klaus von Beyme rightly states that the case of Finland is one that approaches his pattern of ten parties (liberals, conservatives, workers’, agrarian, regional, Christian, communist, fascist, protest and ecology parties) (Von Beyme 1985, 23-4). There are eight groups in the Finnish parliament. Only a fascist party is lacking, about the rest we can at least argue.
