1

2 Finland and present day conflicts

3 The separation of powers The Finnish Constitution is based on the separation of powers that was proposed by the Enlightenment philosopher the Baron de Montesquieu, mainly in his De l'Esprit des Lois (The Spirit of the Laws). The separation of powers, which all liberal democracies uphold, is a three-way mutual separation between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. In Finland legislative power is wielded by the Parliament (Eduskunta), and governmental power is exercised jointly by the President (Tasavallan Presidentti) and the Cabinet (valtioneuvosto). Judicial power is held and exercised by the Supreme Court (Korkein oikeus) and the lower courts. That is, all three branches of government operate independently of each other. The opposite to separation of powers is centralization of power. The extreme case of centralized power is dictatorship, where ultimate power is in the hands of concentrated in one body (an individual or small group). Dictatorship and oligarchy – meaning the rule of the few – allow for quick and efficient decision-making. But all forms of dictatorship, including oligarchy, have severe moral and practical flaws. In fragile states that are either still suffering violent conflict or are beginning to recover from it, political power is often centralized. For example, the judiciary might not necessarily be independent, with some e.g. religious group, political party or other quarter influencing it more or less covertly. In such situations, recovery from the conflict and the establishment of a more lasting peace requires the three-way separation of powers discussed. Questions and topics for discussion: Why is the separation of powers necessary? What is the role of the independent judiciary in Finland? Compare Finland to some country that is controlled by an oligarchy or dictatorship. What are the pros and cons of each case? In each case, what is the risk of political power being used against the country’s own citizenry, and how might this happen? Give examples of dictators and of how they use their power. Think about and discuss whether it is possible to have some form of government that is intermediate between republicanism and dictatorship. Do real examples of such forms of government exist? What might they be? What might be the problems with them? What are the most important characteristics and abilities of a good republican leader?

4 Why is power separated? The Finnish Constitution is based on the separation of powers that was proposed by the Enlightenment philosopher the Baron de Montesquieu, mainly in his De l'Esprit des Lois (The Spirit of the Laws). The separation of powers, which all liberal democracies uphold, is a three-way mutual separation between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. In Finland legislative power is wielded by the Parliament (Eduskunta), and governmental power is exercised jointly by the President (Tasavallan Presidentti) and the Cabinet (valtioneuvosto). Judicial power is held and exercised by the Supreme Court (Korkein oikeus) and the lower courts. That is, all three branches of government operate independently of each other. The opposite to separation of powers is centralization of power. The extreme case of centralized power is dictatorship, where ultimate power is in the hands of concentrated in one body (an individual or small group). Dictatorship and oligarchy – meaning the rule of the few – allow for quick and efficient decision-making. But all forms of dictatorship, including oligarchy, have severe moral and practical flaws. In fragile states that are either still suffering violent conflict or are beginning to recover from it, political power is often centralized. For example, the judiciary might not necessarily be independent, with some e.g. religious group, political party or other quarter influencing it more or less covertly. In such situations, recovery from the conflict and the establishment of a more lasting peace requires the three-way separation of powers discussed. Questions and topics for discussion: Why is the separation of powers necessary? What is the role of the independent judiciary in Finland? Compare Finland to some country that is controlled by an oligarchy or dictatorship. What are the pros and cons of each case? In each case, what is the risk of political power being used against the country’s own citizenry, and how might this happen? Give examples of dictators and of how they use their power. Think about and discuss whether it is possible to have some form of government that is intermediate between republicanism and dictatorship. Do real examples of such forms of government exist? What might they be? What might be the problems with them? What are the most important characteristics and abilities of a good republican leader?

5 How can power be used against citizens?The Finnish Constitution is based on the separation of powers that was proposed by the Enlightenment philosopher the Baron de Montesquieu, mainly in his De l'Esprit des Lois (The Spirit of the Laws). The separation of powers, which all liberal democracies uphold, is a three-way mutual separation between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. In Finland legislative power is wielded by the Parliament (Eduskunta), and governmental power is exercised jointly by the President (Tasavallan Presidentti) and the Cabinet (valtioneuvosto). Judicial power is held and exercised by the Supreme Court (Korkein oikeus) and the lower courts. That is, all three branches of government operate independently of each other. The opposite to separation of powers is centralization of power. The extreme case of centralized power is dictatorship, where ultimate power is in the hands of concentrated in one body (an individual or small group). Dictatorship and oligarchy – meaning the rule of the few – allow for quick and efficient decision-making. But all forms of dictatorship, including oligarchy, have severe moral and practical flaws. In fragile states that are either still suffering violent conflict or are beginning to recover from it, political power is often centralized. For example, the judiciary might not necessarily be independent, with some e.g. religious group, political party or other quarter influencing it more or less covertly. In such situations, recovery from the conflict and the establishment of a more lasting peace requires the three-way separation of powers discussed. Questions and topics for discussion: Why is the separation of powers necessary? What is the role of the independent judiciary in Finland? Compare Finland to some country that is controlled by an oligarchy or dictatorship. What are the pros and cons of each case? In each case, what is the risk of political power being used against the country’s own citizenry, and how might this happen? Give examples of dictators and of how they use their power. Think about and discuss whether it is possible to have some form of government that is intermediate between republicanism and dictatorship. Do real examples of such forms of government exist? What might they be? What might be the problems with them? What are the most important characteristics and abilities of a good republican leader?

6 Basic rights of citizensThe idea of human rights that are universally enjoyed by each and every human being, regardless of age, sex, religion, political ideology, etc. originated in Europe in the 18th century. Basic rights are based on human rights. However, unlike human rights, basic rights for all are guaranteed by the Finnish Constitution. Basic rights are divided into negative and positive rights. Negative rights ensure that the bearer of those rights remains free from something. For example, universal negative rights include the right not to be unjustly imprisoned, and the right not to be physically violated in any other way either. In general, democracies do well in ensuring that the negative rights of their citizens are met. Basic positive rights give everyone the possibility of a good life. These rights include the rights to a certain level of education and a certain level of social services. In all the countries of the European Union negative rights are generally well provided for. But because each EU country is free to decide for itself the level or positive rights it provides, the quality and extent of these vary widely within the EU. Usually, fragile states do not guarantee basic rights to all of their citizens. The most general reason for this is that the state has collapsed (partly or even entirely), or the state is functional but has no interest in treating all citizens equally. Because of this, in fragile states (e.g. under Apartheid) not all people may be treated equally in the eyes of the law. For example, the State can violate the basic, universal human right to freedom, inviolability and security of the individual. The differences between the Nordic political model and fragile states emerge from the very outset: citizens of fragile states rarely have the extensive positive rights that citizens of Finland and the other Nordic states enjoy. These positive rights include the right to social security, right to medical care, and so on. Questions and topics for discussion: Why do human rights violations occur more frequently in so-called fragile states? What are the basic principles of the welfare state model? Why are these principles not upheld in, for example, fragile states? Might the Nordic welfare state model work in any African countries? If so, which ones? And what would be needed to make this work? Justify and explain your answers.

7 Are basic rights realized in Finland?The idea of human rights that are universally enjoyed by each and every human being, regardless of age, sex, religion, political ideology, etc. originated in Europe in the 18th century. Basic rights are based on human rights. However, unlike human rights, basic rights for all are guaranteed by the Finnish Constitution. Basic rights are divided into negative and positive rights. Negative rights ensure that the bearer of those rights remains free from something. For example, universal negative rights include the right not to be unjustly imprisoned, and the right not to be physically violated in any other way either. In general, democracies do well in ensuring that the negative rights of their citizens are met. Basic positive rights give everyone the possibility of a good life. These rights include the rights to a certain level of education and a certain level of social services. In all the countries of the European Union negative rights are generally well provided for. But because each EU country is free to decide for itself the level or positive rights it provides, the quality and extent of these vary widely within the EU. Usually, fragile states do not guarantee basic rights to all of their citizens. The most general reason for this is that the state has collapsed (partly or even entirely), or the state is functional but has no interest in treating all citizens equally. Because of this, in fragile states (e.g. under Apartheid) not all people may be treated equally in the eyes of the law. For example, the State can violate the basic, universal human right to freedom, inviolability and security of the individual. The differences between the Nordic political model and fragile states emerge from the very outset: citizens of fragile states rarely have the extensive positive rights that citizens of Finland and the other Nordic states enjoy. These positive rights include the right to social security, right to medical care, and so on. Questions and topics for discussion: Why do human rights violations occur more frequently in so-called fragile states? What are the basic principles of the welfare state model? Why are these principles not upheld in, for example, fragile states? Might the Nordic welfare state model work in any African countries? If so, which ones? And what would be needed to make this work? Justify and explain your answers.

8 Would the Nordic welfare model work in Africa?The idea of human rights that are universally enjoyed by each and every human being, regardless of age, sex, religion, political ideology, etc. originated in Europe in the 18th century. Basic rights are based on human rights. However, unlike human rights, basic rights for all are guaranteed by the Finnish Constitution. Basic rights are divided into negative and positive rights. Negative rights ensure that the bearer of those rights remains free from something. For example, universal negative rights include the right not to be unjustly imprisoned, and the right not to be physically violated in any other way either. In general, democracies do well in ensuring that the negative rights of their citizens are met. Basic positive rights give everyone the possibility of a good life. These rights include the rights to a certain level of education and a certain level of social services. In all the countries of the European Union negative rights are generally well provided for. But because each EU country is free to decide for itself the level or positive rights it provides, the quality and extent of these vary widely within the EU. Usually, fragile states do not guarantee basic rights to all of their citizens. The most general reason for this is that the state has collapsed (partly or even entirely), or the state is functional but has no interest in treating all citizens equally. Because of this, in fragile states (e.g. under Apartheid) not all people may be treated equally in the eyes of the law. For example, the State can violate the basic, universal human right to freedom, inviolability and security of the individual. The differences between the Nordic political model and fragile states emerge from the very outset: citizens of fragile states rarely have the extensive positive rights that citizens of Finland and the other Nordic states enjoy. These positive rights include the right to social security, right to medical care, and so on. Questions and topics for discussion: Why do human rights violations occur more frequently in so-called fragile states? What are the basic principles of the welfare state model? Why are these principles not upheld in, for example, fragile states? Might the Nordic welfare state model work in any African countries? If so, which ones? And what would be needed to make this work? Justify and explain your answers.

9 Gender equality  Finland is widely considered a pioneer in equality between the sexes. Finland was the first country to grant (in 1906) women the right to vote and to run for political office. In Finland, women now have a relatively strong position in politics. One of the few female presidents that the world has so far seen is Tarja Halonen, who was President of Finland from 2000 to The level of female employment in Finland is relatively high, and women and girls have equal opportunities for education. However, inequality of the sexes still exists in Finland, for example in working life. The average wage for women in Finland is lower than for men. Another sign of sex inequality in Finland is the relative rarity of women in leading positions in organizations of all kinds. According to a report by the Save the Children charity, Finland is currently the second-best country in the world to be born a girl. Sweden ranked first. The ranking took account of many factors, including amongst others whether, and to what extent, each country has cases of child marriage, teenage births, maternal deaths in childbirth, the male-to-female ratio of middle-school (junior high) graduates, and the ratio of male to female members of parliament. The status and welfare of women and girls is usually weakest of all in countries where there is violent conflict. Due to violence and the threat or high risk of violence against women and girls, they are denied basic services (such as health and education), and are generally excluded from paid work and political participation. Rape and other sexual violence (such as forced prostitution and sex trafficking) are also widely inflicted on women and girls in countries at conflict, both as weapons of war and as side effects of it. In all our projects throughout the world, CMI works to ensure that the position and roles of women in peace processes can become better than they currently are. Improving the welfare of women and girls is a question of universal human rights, and is also an essential contributor to lasting peace. Questions and topics for discussion: Why does equality of the sexes matter? How can it be promoted? Compare the position of women and girls in Finland to that in countries at conflict. How can equality of the sexes be promoted and maintained in countries at conflict? What are the benefits of strengthening women’s position in peace talks and of giving women a meaningful role in the talks?

10 Why does equality matter? Finland is widely considered a pioneer in equality between the sexes. Finland was the first country to grant (in 1906) women the right to vote and to run for political office. In Finland, women now have a relatively strong position in politics. One of the few female presidents that the world has so far seen is Tarja Halonen, who was President of Finland from 2000 to The level of female employment in Finland is relatively high, and women and girls have equal opportunities for education. However, inequality of the sexes still exists in Finland, for example in working life. The average wage for women in Finland is lower than for men. Another sign of sex inequality in Finland is the relative rarity of women in leading positions in organizations of all kinds. According to a report by the Save the Children charity, Finland is currently the second-best country in the world to be born a girl. Sweden ranked first. The ranking took account of many factors, including amongst others whether, and to what extent, each country has cases of child marriage, teenage births, maternal deaths in childbirth, the male-to-female ratio of middle-school (junior high) graduates, and the ratio of male to female members of parliament. The status and welfare of women and girls is usually weakest of all in countries where there is violent conflict. Due to violence and the threat or high risk of violence against women and girls, they are denied basic services (such as health and education), and are generally excluded from paid work and political participation. Rape and other sexual violence (such as forced prostitution and sex trafficking) are also widely inflicted on women and girls in countries at conflict, both as weapons of war and as side effects of it. In all our projects throughout the world, CMI works to ensure that the position and roles of women in peace processes can become better than they currently are. Improving the welfare of women and girls is a question of universal human rights, and is also an essential contributor to lasting peace. Questions and topics for discussion: Why does equality of the sexes matter? How can it be promoted? Compare the position of women and girls in Finland to that in countries at conflict. How can equality of the sexes be promoted and maintained in countries at conflict? What are the benefits of strengthening women’s position in peace talks and of giving women a meaningful role in the talks?

11 How could equality be promoted in conflict countries?Finland is widely considered a pioneer in equality between the sexes. Finland was the first country to grant (in 1906) women the right to vote and to run for political office. In Finland, women now have a relatively strong position in politics. One of the few female presidents that the world has so far seen is Tarja Halonen, who was President of Finland from 2000 to The level of female employment in Finland is relatively high, and women and girls have equal opportunities for education. However, inequality of the sexes still exists in Finland, for example in working life. The average wage for women in Finland is lower than for men. Another sign of sex inequality in Finland is the relative rarity of women in leading positions in organizations of all kinds. According to a report by the Save the Children charity, Finland is currently the second-best country in the world to be born a girl. Sweden ranked first. The ranking took account of many factors, including amongst others whether, and to what extent, each country has cases of child marriage, teenage births, maternal deaths in childbirth, the male-to-female ratio of middle-school (junior high) graduates, and the ratio of male to female members of parliament. The status and welfare of women and girls is usually weakest of all in countries where there is violent conflict. Due to violence and the threat or high risk of violence against women and girls, they are denied basic services (such as health and education), and are generally excluded from paid work and political participation. Rape and other sexual violence (such as forced prostitution and sex trafficking) are also widely inflicted on women and girls in countries at conflict, both as weapons of war and as side effects of it. In all our projects throughout the world, CMI works to ensure that the position and roles of women in peace processes can become better than they currently are. Improving the welfare of women and girls is a question of universal human rights, and is also an essential contributor to lasting peace. Questions and topics for discussion: Why does equality of the sexes matter? How can it be promoted? Compare the position of women and girls in Finland to that in countries at conflict. How can equality of the sexes be promoted and maintained in countries at conflict? What are the benefits of strengthening women’s position in peace talks and of giving women a meaningful role in the talks?

12 Media and freedom of speechA free media is a vital part of any democracy. In 2015 Finland was chosen by Reporters Without Borders as the country with the highest degree of media freedom. This is the sixth consecutive year that Finland has topped the list. The basic freedom underlying a free media is the universal positive human right of freedom of speech. In Finland, every person has extensive freedom of expression, including extensive freedom to receive and distribute information in all forms. Freedom of speech also includes freedom from preventive censorship. However, freedom of speech is not absolute – it is justifiably limited by the need to guarantee other fundamental rights. These include the right to live without the use or threat of violence, and the right not to be discriminated against or endangered because of one’s opinions, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, and so on. These limitations are maintained in Finland also. In addition, freedom of religion and freedom from defamation are also provided for by Finnish law, as they are by the laws of other liberal democracies. It is the task of the judicial branch – the lower courts and ultimately the Supreme Court – to determine whether freedom of speech has been misused in a particular case (and indeed whether freedom of speech has been unjustly denied in some case). In addition to legal regulation of freedom speech and freedom of the media, Finland is (for the time being at least) in having an organization called the Council for Mass Media (Julkisen sanan neuvosto). This is an independent body made up of media representatives (editors, journalists, etc.) that together decide on matters relating to freedom of publication in all forms. In general, the JSN interprets good professional practice and defends the freedom of speech and publication. Any person who feels that some media body has violated the standards of good professional practice can complain to the JSN, which will then decide on the complaint and make the necessary recommendations. It is typical of states at conflict that power is concentrated in the hands of relatively few people. This included freedom of speech, freedom to publish and other media freedoms. Because, there are very few if any local publications, TV or radio channels, websites etc. in these countries. The reverse situation is also often true – that is, lack of freedom of speech and media freedom can make violent conflict more likely or can contribute to worsening it. This can include false or inflammatory allegations being published about some person or group, or some person or group being denied from making its voice heard. Very often, authoritarian rulers find control of the media to be a very effective way of maintaining and increasing their control over the country. One important indicator of the dangers related to freedom of speech and to media freedom is the frequency with which journalists are attacked and even killed in many countries. It is also very common in many countries for journalists to be unjustly imprisoned, detained and otherwise punished through misuse of the legal system. All in all, countries at conflict lack the journalistic traditions and freedoms that are enjoyed (although to somewhat varying degrees) in Western countries. At the very least, in countries at conflict the basic conditions of a free media might not be widely known or understood. And the quality of the media on offer can also be very poor, due for reasons such as lack of adequate journalistic training and resources. The media can have a crucial role in supporting peace processes, for instance by promoting mutual understanding between all the conflicting parties. Questions and topics for discussion: - What are the major tasks of the media? - How has Finland become the leading country for freedom of the press? - Why is a free press an essential condition for a functioning democracy? Why is it so common for countries at conflict to have a bad record on freedom of speech and media freedom? - What role or roles can the media have in preventing conflict and in promoting peace negotiations?

13 How did Finland become the leading country forfreedom of the press? A free media is a vital part of any democracy. In 2015 Finland was chosen by Reporters Without Borders as the country with the highest degree of media freedom. This is the sixth consecutive year that Finland has topped the list. The basic freedom underlying a free media is the universal positive human right of freedom of speech. In Finland, every person has extensive freedom of expression, including extensive freedom to receive and distribute information in all forms. Freedom of speech also includes freedom from preventive censorship. However, freedom of speech is not absolute – it is justifiably limited by the need to guarantee other fundamental rights. These include the right to live without the use or threat of violence, and the right not to be discriminated against or endangered because of one’s opinions, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, and so on. These limitations are maintained in Finland also. In addition, freedom of religion and freedom from defamation are also provided for by Finnish law, as they are by the laws of other liberal democracies. It is the task of the judicial branch – the lower courts and ultimately the Supreme Court – to determine whether freedom of speech has been misused in a particular case (and indeed whether freedom of speech has been unjustly denied in some case). In addition to legal regulation of freedom speech and freedom of the media, Finland is (for the time being at least) in having an organization called the Council for Mass Media (Julkisen sanan neuvosto). This is an independent body made up of media representatives (editors, journalists, etc.) that together decide on matters relating to freedom of publication in all forms. In general, the JSN interprets good professional practice and defends the freedom of speech and publication. Any person who feels that some media body has violated the standards of good professional practice can complain to the JSN, which will then decide on the complaint and make the necessary recommendations. It is typical of states at conflict that power is concentrated in the hands of relatively few people. This included freedom of speech, freedom to publish and other media freedoms. Because, there are very few if any local publications, TV or radio channels, websites etc. in these countries. The reverse situation is also often true – that is, lack of freedom of speech and media freedom can make violent conflict more likely or can contribute to worsening it. This can include false or inflammatory allegations being published about some person or group, or some person or group being denied from making its voice heard. Very often, authoritarian rulers find control of the media to be a very effective way of maintaining and increasing their control over the country. One important indicator of the dangers related to freedom of speech and to media freedom is the frequency with which journalists are attacked and even killed in many countries. It is also very common in many countries for journalists to be unjustly imprisoned, detained and otherwise punished through misuse of the legal system. All in all, countries at conflict lack the journalistic traditions and freedoms that are enjoyed (although to somewhat varying degrees) in Western countries. At the very least, in countries at conflict the basic conditions of a free media might not be widely known or understood. And the quality of the media on offer can also be very poor, due for reasons such as lack of adequate journalistic training and resources. The media can have a crucial role in supporting peace processes, for instance by promoting mutual understanding between all the conflicting parties. Questions and topics for discussion: - What are the major tasks of the media? - How has Finland become the leading country for freedom of the press? - Why is a free press an essential condition for a functioning democracy? Why is it so common for countries at conflict to have a bad record on freedom of speech and media freedom? - What role or roles can the media have in preventing conflict and in promoting peace negotiations?

14 Why is freedom of speech and media rare in conflict countries?A free media is a vital part of any democracy. In 2015 Finland was chosen by Reporters Without Borders as the country with the highest degree of media freedom. This is the sixth consecutive year that Finland has topped the list. The basic freedom underlying a free media is the universal positive human right of freedom of speech. In Finland, every person has extensive freedom of expression, including extensive freedom to receive and distribute information in all forms. Freedom of speech also includes freedom from preventive censorship. However, freedom of speech is not absolute – it is justifiably limited by the need to guarantee other fundamental rights. These include the right to live without the use or threat of violence, and the right not to be discriminated against or endangered because of one’s opinions, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, and so on. These limitations are maintained in Finland also. In addition, freedom of religion and freedom from defamation are also provided for by Finnish law, as they are by the laws of other liberal democracies. It is the task of the judicial branch – the lower courts and ultimately the Supreme Court – to determine whether freedom of speech has been misused in a particular case (and indeed whether freedom of speech has been unjustly denied in some case). In addition to legal regulation of freedom speech and freedom of the media, Finland is (for the time being at least) in having an organization called the Council for Mass Media (Julkisen sanan neuvosto). This is an independent body made up of media representatives (editors, journalists, etc.) that together decide on matters relating to freedom of publication in all forms. In general, the JSN interprets good professional practice and defends the freedom of speech and publication. Any person who feels that some media body has violated the standards of good professional practice can complain to the JSN, which will then decide on the complaint and make the necessary recommendations. It is typical of states at conflict that power is concentrated in the hands of relatively few people. This included freedom of speech, freedom to publish and other media freedoms. Because, there are very few if any local publications, TV or radio channels, websites etc. in these countries. The reverse situation is also often true – that is, lack of freedom of speech and media freedom can make violent conflict more likely or can contribute to worsening it. This can include false or inflammatory allegations being published about some person or group, or some person or group being denied from making its voice heard. Very often, authoritarian rulers find control of the media to be a very effective way of maintaining and increasing their control over the country. One important indicator of the dangers related to freedom of speech and to media freedom is the frequency with which journalists are attacked and even killed in many countries. It is also very common in many countries for journalists to be unjustly imprisoned, detained and otherwise punished through misuse of the legal system. All in all, countries at conflict lack the journalistic traditions and freedoms that are enjoyed (although to somewhat varying degrees) in Western countries. At the very least, in countries at conflict the basic conditions of a free media might not be widely known or understood. And the quality of the media on offer can also be very poor, due for reasons such as lack of adequate journalistic training and resources. The media can have a crucial role in supporting peace processes, for instance by promoting mutual understanding between all the conflicting parties. Questions and topics for discussion: - What are the major tasks of the media? - How has Finland become the leading country for freedom of the press? - Why is a free press an essential condition for a functioning democracy? Why is it so common for countries at conflict to have a bad record on freedom of speech and media freedom? - What role or roles can the media have in preventing conflict and in promoting peace negotiations?

15 Nordic welfare state In the Nordic welfare state model, the public authority – that is, the State and the municipal (local) authorities – guarantee the wellbeing of each and every citizen. All citizens are guaranteed a basic standard of living, with healthcare, various social services, and education. The purpose of economic redistribution is to ensure that the essential needs of every person are met. Some services and forms of economic distribution, such as the child benefit supplement (lapsilisä), are intended to be the same for everybody, regardless of income. The money for welfare services and economic redistribution (e.g. unemployment support) are collected above all through taxes. The Nordic welfare model is considered highly egalitarian. This is because it goes further than any other existing social model towards ensuring that everyone has a basic minimum standard of security, even if one is unemployed or in low-paid work. Another basic function of the welfare state in general (both in the Nordic model and in other, less generous or less comprehensive forms) is to ensure that social stability. The effects of serious inequality can be seen in many developing countries, where the lack of basic services for many often leads to conflict. Although the welfare model is very effective in ensuring social cohesion and peace, there are also some problems with it, including with the Nordic welfare model. Most obviously, it is very expensive to maintain. Some argue that high levels of income taxation are partly caused by the cost of the welfare state, and taxes could – they argue – be lowered most effectively by cutting back on the welfare state. Another commonly made criticism of the welfare state is that it encourages dependency and lack of entrepreneurial spirit on the part of recipients. In many countries, the social model is very different from the basic welfare state model, and even more so from the Nordic model. In non-welfare state countries, the state typically provides very little economic distribution, and little beyond the minimal of social services. However, in many non-welfare states the unwillingness or inability of the public authority to provide for the basic needs of its citizens is a common source of conflict. And in fragile states, even taxation – the most basic requirement for ensuring a minimum standard of wellbeing for all – is impaired or absent altogether due to inefficiency or corruption. In fragile States, the family and other collectives are often charged with providing what the State is either unwilling or unable to provide. This can be seen in, for example, childcare and care of those elderly people who are incapable of caring for themselves. This can place a lot of responsibility and strain on families and relatives. But on the other hand it can also give to the sort of community spirit that is mostly absent in Finland. Questions and topics for discussion: How did the Nordic welfare state model come about? What are its merits and downsides? The inability of a State to meet the basic needs of its citizens one major cause of conflict. Why might this be? What things might Finns be able to learn from developing countries?

16 Is the welfare state in crisis?In the Nordic welfare state model, the public authority – that is, the State and the municipal (local) authorities – guarantee the wellbeing of each and every citizen. All citizens are guaranteed a basic standard of living, with healthcare, various social services, and education. The purpose of economic redistribution is to ensure that the essential needs of every person are met. Some services and forms of economic distribution, such as the child benefit supplement (lapsilisä), are intended to be the same for everybody, regardless of income. The money for welfare services and economic redistribution (e.g. unemployment support) are collected above all through taxes. The Nordic welfare model is considered highly egalitarian. This is because it goes further than any other existing social model towards ensuring that everyone has a basic minimum standard of security, even if one is unemployed or in low-paid work. Another basic function of the welfare state in general (both in the Nordic model and in other, less generous or less comprehensive forms) is to ensure that social stability. The effects of serious inequality can be seen in many developing countries, where the lack of basic services for many often leads to conflict. Although the welfare model is very effective in ensuring social cohesion and peace, there are also some problems with it, including with the Nordic welfare model. Most obviously, it is very expensive to maintain. Some argue that high levels of income taxation are partly caused by the cost of the welfare state, and taxes could – they argue – be lowered most effectively by cutting back on the welfare state. Another commonly made criticism of the welfare state is that it encourages dependency and lack of entrepreneurial spirit on the part of recipients. In many countries, the social model is very different from the basic welfare state model, and even more so from the Nordic model. In non-welfare state countries, the state typically provides very little economic distribution, and little beyond the minimal of social services. However, in many non-welfare states the unwillingness or inability of the public authority to provide for the basic needs of its citizens is a common source of conflict. And in fragile states, even taxation – the most basic requirement for ensuring a minimum standard of wellbeing for all – is impaired or absent altogether due to inefficiency or corruption. In fragile States, the family and other collectives are often charged with providing what the State is either unwilling or unable to provide. This can be seen in, for example, childcare and care of those elderly people who are incapable of caring for themselves. This can place a lot of responsibility and strain on families and relatives. But on the other hand it can also give to the sort of community spirit that is mostly absent in Finland. Questions and topics for discussion: How did the Nordic welfare state model come about? What are its merits and downsides? The inability of a State to meet the basic needs of its citizens one major cause of conflict. Why might this be? What things might Finns be able to learn from developing countries?

17 What might Finns be able to learn from developing countries?In the Nordic welfare state model, the public authority – that is, the State and the municipal (local) authorities – guarantee the wellbeing of each and every citizen. All citizens are guaranteed a basic standard of living, with healthcare, various social services, and education. The purpose of economic redistribution is to ensure that the essential needs of every person are met. Some services and forms of economic distribution, such as the child benefit supplement (lapsilisä), are intended to be the same for everybody, regardless of income. The money for welfare services and economic redistribution (e.g. unemployment support) are collected above all through taxes. The Nordic welfare model is considered highly egalitarian. This is because it goes further than any other existing social model towards ensuring that everyone has a basic minimum standard of security, even if one is unemployed or in low-paid work. Another basic function of the welfare state in general (both in the Nordic model and in other, less generous or less comprehensive forms) is to ensure that social stability. The effects of serious inequality can be seen in many developing countries, where the lack of basic services for many often leads to conflict. Although the welfare model is very effective in ensuring social cohesion and peace, there are also some problems with it, including with the Nordic welfare model. Most obviously, it is very expensive to maintain. Some argue that high levels of income taxation are partly caused by the cost of the welfare state, and taxes could – they argue – be lowered most effectively by cutting back on the welfare state. Another commonly made criticism of the welfare state is that it encourages dependency and lack of entrepreneurial spirit on the part of recipients. In many countries, the social model is very different from the basic welfare state model, and even more so from the Nordic model. In non-welfare state countries, the state typically provides very little economic distribution, and little beyond the minimal of social services. However, in many non-welfare states the unwillingness or inability of the public authority to provide for the basic needs of its citizens is a common source of conflict. And in fragile states, even taxation – the most basic requirement for ensuring a minimum standard of wellbeing for all – is impaired or absent altogether due to inefficiency or corruption. In fragile States, the family and other collectives are often charged with providing what the State is either unwilling or unable to provide. This can be seen in, for example, childcare and care of those elderly people who are incapable of caring for themselves. This can place a lot of responsibility and strain on families and relatives. But on the other hand it can also give to the sort of community spirit that is mostly absent in Finland. Questions and topics for discussion: How did the Nordic welfare state model come about? What are its merits and downsides? The inability of a State to meet the basic needs of its citizens one major cause of conflict. Why might this be? What things might Finns be able to learn from developing countries?

18 Finland and South SudanThe differences between prosperous countries and countries with ongoing conflict can be clearly demonstrated by comparing Finland and South Sudan. In 2017 Finland celebrates its centenary as an independent republic. South Sudan on the other hand is the world’s newest state, having achieved independence from Sudan on 9 July 2011. There are similarities in how the two states began independent life. Soon after Finland’s declaration of independence on 6 December 1917, civil war broke out. For South Sudan, violence that began decades ago under Sudanese rule continues still. The obstacles to South Sudan’s peaceful development are enormous. But it’s important to remember that newly independent Finland was also a very poor and unequal country. Finland is now one of the world’s most prosperous countries. Based on the Human Development Index produced annually by the United Nations Development Programme, Finland is ranked currently 24th. South Sudan is in 169th place. There are many reasons for South Sudan’s current position in the Index, including the following: Life expectancy: 55.7 years. (Finland: 80.8) Child mortality (average per 1000 births): 64.1 (Finland: 2.1) Average expected number of years of education: 7.6 (Finland: 17.1, 125% greater than the South Sudanese average) Gross domestic product per person: (average per person, in US dollars): 2332 (Finland: 38694). Although GDP is a very rough measure, it suggests that the average Finn is roughly 17 times wealthier than the average South Sudanese. Reporters Without Borders media freedom ranking: 140 (Finland: 1). As the old saying goes, truth is the first casualty of war. This is the case too in South Sudan. Transparency International non-corruption ranking: 163 (Finland: 2). In other words, South Sudan is one of the world’s most corrupt countries. Corruption is a major cause of poverty, and of the inequality that breeds violent conflict. Questions and topics for discussion: What do Finland and South Sudan have in common? What are the major differences between them? Have things always been this good for Finland? What were conditions generally like in Finland upon gaining independence? Discuss together how Finnish society has been developed. What are the most important foundations on which Finland’s prosperity has been built? What things might Finland be able to learn from South Sudan? What effects, if any, does geography have on how a country develops? What are the main effect of corruption? What kind of leader or leaders does a newly independent country need? Sources: the UN Human Development Index, Reporters Without Borders, Transparency International

19 Finland and South SudanLife expectancy 81 / 56 Child mortality (average per 1000 births) 2 / 64 Average number of years of education 17 / 8 GDP ($) / 2 332 Media freedom ranking 1  / 140 Non-corruption ranking 2 / 163 The differences between prosperous countries and countries with ongoing conflict can be clearly demonstrated by comparing Finland and South Sudan. In 2017 Finland celebrates its centenary as an independent republic. South Sudan on the other hand is the world’s newest state, having achieved independence from Sudan on 9 July 2011. There are similarities in how the two states began independent life. Soon after Finland’s declaration of independence on 6 December 1917, civil war broke out. For South Sudan, violence that began decades ago under Sudanese rule continues still. The obstacles to South Sudan’s peaceful development are enormous. But it’s important to remember that newly independent Finland was also a very poor and unequal country. Finland is now one of the world’s most prosperous countries. Based on the Human Development Index produced annually by the United Nations Development Programme, Finland is ranked currently 24th. South Sudan is in 169th place. There are many reasons for South Sudan’s current position in the Index, including the following: Life expectancy: 55.7 years. (Finland: 80.8) Child mortality (average per 1000 births): 64.1 (Finland: 2.1) Average expected number of years of education: 7.6 (Finland: 17.1, 125% greater than the South Sudanese average) Gross domestic product per person: (average per person, in US dollars): 2332 (Finland: 38694). Although GDP is a very rough measure, it suggests that the average Finn is roughly 17 times wealthier than the average South Sudanese. Reporters Without Borders media freedom ranking: 140 (Finland: 1). As the old saying goes, truth is the first casualty of war. This is the case too in South Sudan. Transparency International non-corruption ranking: 163 (Finland: 2). In other words, South Sudan is one of the world’s most corrupt countries. Corruption is a major cause of poverty, and of the inequality that breeds violent conflict. Questions and topics for discussion: What do Finland and South Sudan have in common? What are the major differences between them? Have things always been this good for Finland? What were conditions generally like in Finland upon gaining independence? Discuss together how Finnish society has been developed. What are the most important foundations on which Finland’s prosperity has been built? What things might Finland be able to learn from South Sudan? What effects, if any, does geography have on how a country develops? What are the main effect of corruption? What kind of leader or leaders does a newly independent country need? Sources: the UN Human Development Index, Reporters Without Borders, Transparency International

20 Development aid Development aid is the giving or lending of public funds from one country to another, poorer country for the purpose of alleviating poverty. The main providers of development aid are the wealthy Western countries. Development aid is provided and implemented by governments and non-governmental organizations. Development cooperation has had mixed outcomes. The differences between countries and regions in pace and current state of development are very large. However, it’s generally recognized that development makes an important contribution in improving health and providing education. These in turn are important in reducing poverty. Based on the evidence, development aid has been and continues to be important in establishing services and guaranteeing a basic minimum level of welfare when the State itself is unable to do this. Development cooperation has long been heavily criticized for many reasons. For example, some complain that certain forms of development aid create dependency and make it harder for individuals and small companies in recipient countries to make a living. And despite the billions of euros that have been spent on development aid, in Sub-Saharan Africa in particular the results have been underwhelming. The problem in those countries above all is that extreme poverty has not been eradicated by development aid. Over the decades there has been a great amount of practical experience with and studies of development aid. The general consensus is that at its best, development aid can be an important contributor to the social, political and economic development of a country. Of the other factors that contribute to development, two major ones are trade and investment. About one-fifth of the world’s population lives in countries violent conflict is either ongoing or has only recently ended. At the same time, extreme poverty is becoming increasingly concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa. As has been widely proven and acknowledged, conflict is one of the primary barriers to development. In recognition of this basic fact, Finland has in recent years begun directed an increasingly large proportion of its development aid to fragile states. CMI continues to have an active and important role in helping to solve ad prevent conflicts in these countries. CMI is one of 16 organizations that work in partnership with the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to promote development. This is complex and demanding work, and the payoff can take a long time to become apparent. According to an independent report commissioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and published in autumn 2016, CMI is highly effective at what it does. This is despite the major cuts to development aid imposed by the Finnish government. CMI’s work is also extremely demanding in that we work in the midst of some of the world’s toughest conflicts. Like other non-governmental organizations, CMI was also heavily affected by the budget cuts. The cuts can be seen as part of the trend in which the amount of development aid from wealthy countries is falling further and further behind the goals set by the United Nations. The UN goal is for wealthy countries to allocate at least 0.7% of their gross domestic product to development aid. In 2017, Finland will allocate only 0.4% of its GDP to development aid. The government claims, however, that its long-term goals is indeed to use 0.7% of annual GDP as development aid. Of the Nordic countries, the 0.7% minimum has been exceeded by Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. Questions and topics for discussion: Discuss the effects of development aid. What are the main benefits and harms of development aid? Development aid should be concentrated on fragile states. Why? What sorts of development aid are most necessary in fragile states?

21 What are the outcomes of development aid?Development aid is the giving or lending of public funds from one country to another, poorer country for the purpose of alleviating poverty. The main providers of development aid are the wealthy Western countries. Development aid is provided and implemented by governments and non-governmental organizations. Development cooperation has had mixed outcomes. The differences between countries and regions in pace and current state of development are very large. However, it’s generally recognized that development makes an important contribution in improving health and providing education. These in turn are important in reducing poverty. Based on the evidence, development aid has been and continues to be important in establishing services and guaranteeing a basic minimum level of welfare when the State itself is unable to do this. Development cooperation has long been heavily criticized for many reasons. For example, some complain that certain forms of development aid create dependency and make it harder for individuals and small companies in recipient countries to make a living. And despite the billions of euros that have been spent on development aid, in Sub-Saharan Africa in particular the results have been underwhelming. The problem in those countries above all is that extreme poverty has not been eradicated by development aid. Over the decades there has been a great amount of practical experience with and studies of development aid. The general consensus is that at its best, development aid can be an important contributor to the social, political and economic development of a country. Of the other factors that contribute to development, two major ones are trade and investment. About one-fifth of the world’s population lives in countries violent conflict is either ongoing or has only recently ended. At the same time, extreme poverty is becoming increasingly concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa. As has been widely proven and acknowledged, conflict is one of the primary barriers to development. In recognition of this basic fact, Finland has in recent years begun directed an increasingly large proportion of its development aid to fragile states. CMI continues to have an active and important role in helping to solve ad prevent conflicts in these countries. CMI is one of 16 organizations that work in partnership with the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to promote development. This is complex and demanding work, and the payoff can take a long time to become apparent. According to an independent report commissioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and published in autumn 2016, CMI is highly effective at what it does. This is despite the major cuts to development aid imposed by the Finnish government. CMI’s work is also extremely demanding in that we work in the midst of some of the world’s toughest conflicts. Like other non-governmental organizations, CMI was also heavily affected by the budget cuts. The cuts can be seen as part of the trend in which the amount of development aid from wealthy countries is falling further and further behind the goals set by the United Nations. The UN goal is for wealthy countries to allocate at least 0.7% of their gross domestic product to development aid. In 2017, Finland will allocate only 0.4% of its GDP to development aid. The government claims, however, that its long-term goals is indeed to use 0.7% of annual GDP as development aid. Of the Nordic countries, the 0.7% minimum has been exceeded by Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. Questions and topics for discussion: Discuss the effects of development aid. What are the main benefits and harms of development aid? Development aid should be concentrated on fragile states. Why? What sorts of development aid are most necessary in fragile states?

22 Why should development aid be done in conflict countries?Development aid is the giving or lending of public funds from one country to another, poorer country for the purpose of alleviating poverty. The main providers of development aid are the wealthy Western countries. Development aid is provided and implemented by governments and non-governmental organizations. Development cooperation has had mixed outcomes. The differences between countries and regions in pace and current state of development are very large. However, it’s generally recognized that development makes an important contribution in improving health and providing education. These in turn are important in reducing poverty. Based on the evidence, development aid has been and continues to be important in establishing services and guaranteeing a basic minimum level of welfare when the State itself is unable to do this. Development cooperation has long been heavily criticized for many reasons. For example, some complain that certain forms of development aid create dependency and make it harder for individuals and small companies in recipient countries to make a living. And despite the billions of euros that have been spent on development aid, in Sub-Saharan Africa in particular the results have been underwhelming. The problem in those countries above all is that extreme poverty has not been eradicated by development aid. Over the decades there has been a great amount of practical experience with and studies of development aid. The general consensus is that at its best, development aid can be an important contributor to the social, political and economic development of a country. Of the other factors that contribute to development, two major ones are trade and investment. About one-fifth of the world’s population lives in countries violent conflict is either ongoing or has only recently ended. At the same time, extreme poverty is becoming increasingly concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa. As has been widely proven and acknowledged, conflict is one of the primary barriers to development. In recognition of this basic fact, Finland has in recent years begun directed an increasingly large proportion of its development aid to fragile states. CMI continues to have an active and important role in helping to solve ad prevent conflicts in these countries. CMI is one of 16 organizations that work in partnership with the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to promote development. This is complex and demanding work, and the payoff can take a long time to become apparent. According to an independent report commissioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and published in autumn 2016, CMI is highly effective at what it does. This is despite the major cuts to development aid imposed by the Finnish government. CMI’s work is also extremely demanding in that we work in the midst of some of the world’s toughest conflicts. Like other non-governmental organizations, CMI was also heavily affected by the budget cuts. The cuts can be seen as part of the trend in which the amount of development aid from wealthy countries is falling further and further behind the goals set by the United Nations. The UN goal is for wealthy countries to allocate at least 0.7% of their gross domestic product to development aid. In 2017, Finland will allocate only 0.4% of its GDP to development aid. The government claims, however, that its long-term goals is indeed to use 0.7% of annual GDP as development aid. Of the Nordic countries, the 0.7% minimum has been exceeded by Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. Questions and topics for discussion: Discuss the effects of development aid. What are the main benefits and harms of development aid? Development aid should be concentrated on fragile states. Why? What sorts of development aid are most necessary in fragile states?

23