Nuori konservatiivi : Tuure Junnila ja hänen poliittinen toimintansa vuoteen 1956

Tuure Junnila, PhD (1910-1999) was one of Finland's most renowned conservative politicians of the post-war period. Junnila is remembered primarily as a persistent opponent of Urho Kekkonen, a long-term Member of Parliament, a conspicuous opposition member and a prolific political writer. Junnila's ideologies and political views were conservative, and he is one of the most outstanding figures in the history of the National Coalition Party. Junnila also made an extensive career outside of politics, first as an economist and then as an executive of Finland's leading commercial bank Kansallis-Osake-Pankki. The Young Conservative is a partial biography written using traditional historical research methods, which examines Junnila's personal history and his activity in public life up to 1956. The study begins by investigating Junnila's background through his childhood, school years, university studies and early professional career. It also looks at Junnila's work as an economist and practical banker. Particular attention is paid to Junnila's political work, constantly focusing on the following five often overlapping areas: (1) economic policy, (2) domestic policy, (3) foreign and security policy, (4) Junnila and Urho Kekkonen, (5) Junnila, the Coalition Party and Finnish conservatism. In his economic policy, Junnila emphasised the importance of economic stability, opposed socialisation and the growth of public expenditure, defended the free market system and private entrepreneurship, and demanded tax cuts. This policy was very popular within the Coalition Party during the early 1950s, making Junnila the leading conservative economic politician of the time. In terms of domestic policy, Junnila demanded as early as the 1940s that a "third force" should be established in Finland to counterbalance the agrarian and labour parties by uniting conservative and liberal ideologies under the same roof. Foreign and security policy is the area of Junnila's political activity which is most clearly situated after the mid-1950s. However, Junnila's early speeches and writings already show a striving towards the unconditional neutrality modelled by Switzerland and Sweden and a strong emphasis on Finland's right to internal self-determination. Junnila, as did the Coalition Party as a whole, adopted a consistently critical approach towards Urho Kekkonen between 1951 and 1956, but this attitude was not as bluntly negative and all-round antagonistic as many previous studies have implied. Junnila was one of the leading Finnish conservatives of the early 1950s and in all essence his views were analogous to the general alignment of the Coalition Party at the time: conservative in ideology and general policy, and liberal in economic policy.

Small State Cultures of Consensus : State Traditions and Consensus-Seeking in the Neo-Corporatist and Neutrality Policies in Post-1945 Austria and Finland

Austria and Finland are persistently referred to as the “success stories” of post-1945 European history. Notwithstanding their different points of departure, in the course of the Cold War both countries portrayed themselves as small and neutral border-states in the world dictated by superpower politics. By the 1970s, both countries frequently ranked at the top end in various international classifications regarding economic development and well-being in society. This trend continues today. The study takes under scrutiny the concept of consensus which figures centrally in the two national narratives of post-1945 success. Given that the two domestic contexts as such only share few direct links with one another and are more obviously different than similar in terms of their geographical location, historical experiences and politico-cultural traditions, the analogies and variations in the anatomies of the post-1945 “cultures of consensus” provide an interesting topic for a historical comparative and cross-national examination. The main research question concerns the identification and analysis of the conceptual and procedural convergence points of the concepts of the state and consensus. The thesis is divided into six main chapters. After the introduction, the second chapter presents the theoretical framework in more detail by focusing on the key concepts of the study – the state and consensus. Chapter two also introduces the comparative historical and cross-national research angles. Chapter three grounds the key concepts of the state and consensus in the historical contexts of Austria and Finland by discussing the state, the nation and democracy in a longer term comparative perspective. The fourth and fifth chapter present case studies on the two policy fields, the “pillars”, upon which the post-1945 Austrian and Finnish cultures of consensus are argued to have rested. Chapter four deals with neo-corporatist features in the economic policy making and chapter five discusses the building up of domestic consensus regarding the key concepts of neutrality policies in the 1950s and 1960s. The study concludes that it was not consensus as such but the strikingly intense preoccupation with the theme of domestic consensus that cross-cut, in a curiously analogous manner, the policy-making processes studied. The main challenge for the post-1945 architects of Austrian and Finnish cultures of consensus was to find strategies and concepts for consensus-building which would be compatible with the principles of democracy. Discussed at the level of procedures, the most important finding of the study concerns the triangular mechanism of coordination, consultation and cooperation that set into motion and facilitated a new type of search for consensus in both post-war societies. In this triangle, the agency of the state was central, though in varying ways. The new conceptions concerning a small state’s position in the Cold War world also prompted cross-nationally perceivable willingness to reconsider inherited concepts and procedures of the state and the nation. At the same time, the ways of understanding the role of the state and its relation to society remained profoundly different in Austria and Finland and this basic difference was in many ways reflected in the concepts and procedures deployed in the search for consensus and management of domestic conflicts. For more detailed information, please consult the author.