Preliminary Programme

In the first phases on the global pandemic, special attention was paid to precautionary measures carried out by different countries. In Finland, politicians and civil servants emphasized that Finland had a long history of strong preparedness and extensive security of supply. With a wide media coverage National Emergency Supply Agency opened its security stockpiles, only to be discovered that much-needed protective equipment stockpiled for health care workers were both insufficient and expired. Although Finland has a wide administration and organization for crisis preparedness, their focus has been on different kinds of crises.

Finnish crisis management in covid-19 has proven to be relatively efficient in many fields. Yet with the likelihood of crises growing in the future, it is important to critically examine the level of preparedness for society to cope with crises of a different kind. To what kind of crises are our societies prepared? What kind of knowledge are decisions on preparedness and crisis management planning based on?

To answer these questions, it is essential to look into the roots of civil crisis preparedness. This presentation will focus on the elementary change that took place in national preparing for crises in Finland. Until the beginning of 1970s the sole focus of preparedness was for wartime crises and the military hold the exclusive agency in preparedness. In the 1970s the notion of the state of emergency changed. This shift took place both in legislation and governmental security policy. Initiative shifted gradually from armed forces to civilians.

How did the change take place and why did it occur? This presentation will look on which factors enabled the shift in the ways of thinking about crisis management and preparedness. Particular attention will be paid to the questions of knowledge. The evolution of preparedness will also be contextualized with the broader developments of central government (Show less)

Epidemics or pandemics like COVID-19 are in some ways apocalyptic; events after which something has changed, and we cannot return to normal politics. These kinds of events can lead to dramatic reconsiderations of relationships among citizens and between them and the state. To learn from a pandemic, it is essential to understand how citizens are reimagining their relationship to government, and how political leadership responds.

In this presentation epidemics - AIDS, and COVID-19 in particular - are reflected through the eyes of Finnish and Swedish parliamentarians. In dealing with the pandemics, do they resort to time-honored rhetoric and past solutions. Has the understanding of responsibility changed over time and how? How have the MPs reconciled individual’s claim to autonomy and liberty with the community’s concern with safety? Are there to be found ideological or partisan differences in how individual rights and the public good are pursued simultaneously?

Parliamentary speeches provide an opportunity to investigate longitudinal continuity and change on the use of knowledge and understanding the underlying beliefs when responding to epidemics. Speeches given in parliament provide a vast primary source for charting the modes of representation of reality and understanding the social processes of dealing with epidemics, and responses reflecting the conciliation of individual democratic rights and society’s attempts to control and curtail an epidemic (Show less)

Paper examines the traditions of legalism, democracy and expertise in political culture of Finland with contrasting remarks to other Nordic countries, especially Denmark. The analysis focuses on the intersections of law and politics - asking how the two dimensions have got entangled with one another in the managing of 2020-2022 covid-19 crisis, and what role has expertise been left in these connections, Finally, what have been the dominant understanding of democracy raised in these connections and what type of broader politico cultural continuities/breaks may these indicate? (Show less)