The Finnish parliament has been unicameral since 1907. The parliamentary reform carried out in the early 20th century made it possible to grant universal and equal suffrage to all adult Finnish citizens. Two hundred elected MPs assemble each year for the annual session consisting of the spring and autumn terms. General elections are held every 4 years, following a system of proportional representation. Both political parties and elec- toral organizations can nominate candidates for a general election.
However, it is unusual for a candidate nominated by an electoral organ- ization to be elected to parliament; in practice all MPs are elected from lists compiled by the various political parties. In 2005, eight parties were represented in parliament.
Use of Social Scientific Information in Parliamentary Discussion 139
The current Finnish political system can be characterized as consensual democracy. Its main features include proportional representation, coalition governments and effective minority protection. The principal characteristics of parliamentary work in democracies of this type are the need to cooperate, to reconcile various views and to seek common goals (Steiner, Ba¨chtiger, Spo¨rndli, & Steenbergen, 2004). In this democratic model – as opposed to majority parliamentarianism of the Westminster style – the parties of the government and the parties of the opposition must reconcile their views in order to carry out extensive social reforms. Political discussions in consen- sual parliaments are more conciliatory and more compromise seeking than in countries with a system based on majority parliamentarianism.
By nature, political speech includes presentations of alternative interpre- tations. Politics as an activity ceases when there are no longer any alterna- tives to present (Palonen, 1997). The plenary session serves as a forum where MPs can publicly speak their minds on issues, for example, the government’s actions. Presentation of these alternatives is only restricted by form, not by content. According to the constitution of Finland, a MP shall ‘‘conduct himself or herself with dignity and decorum’’. In practice, the members’
freedom of speech is only restricted by the requirement to keep to the point and to the order of the day.
Parliamentary speech is steered by the principle of claims and counter- claims. Although in the Finnish model of democracy, parties represented in parliament usually strive to find as extensive support as possible for proposals, political issues become polarized easily as disputes between opposing views. Even in consensual democracies, parliamentary discussion follows the principle of rhetoric from the Renaissance:in utramque partem, issues are explored from both sides. Parliamentary practices are based on speaking for and against an issue. Parliamentary discussion involves asking questions, presenting alternatives and bringing up counterarguments (Palonen, 2005).
Even though parliamentary speech is ritualistic speech, it must be under- standable to voters, i.e., political language must be recognizable and acces- sible to many types of people coming from various social backgrounds (Pocock, 1987). Thus, parliamentary speech can never be completely monopolized by, for example, a certain profession. However, in recent years modern parliaments have shown clear signs of the separation and professionalization of language use. For example, discussions concerning the application of natural sciences have often become so specialized that only MPs with a natural scientific education have ventured to participate in them (Turja, 2003).
Since MPs represent the people, they must be able to address their own supporters. A typical feature of parliamentary discussions is that MPs often direct their speeches to an audience outside of parliament. Although an MP is explicitly answering a claim made by another MP during a discussion, the implicit targets of the argument may be elsewhere: the speech may primarily be aimed at the supporters of the member’s own party or at voters in the member’s constituency.
The rhetorical situation in a debate between two MPs is never fully sym- metrical, because each of them may freely utilize linguistic resources of different types or may intentionally talk past each other. Owing to the asymmetric character of political discussion, there are seldom clear winners or losers in parliamentary debates. In fact, many MPs have said that speeches given in parliament have hardly any effect on other MPs. Although MPs are able to appeal to their opponents by using rhetorical means, it is difficult for them to influence each other’s real decisions and, for instance, the voting behavior that is guided by party discipline. Although the impact of rhetoric on the actual decisions made by MPs always falls short, parliamentary discussion has wider social significance. Parliamentary speech gives information about the social factors underlying decisions and defines central values and norms in society. In this sense, parliaments have been considered to be the most important arenas for social debate within nations.
From the perspective of discursive information use, MPs repeatedly refer to various cognitive authorities in order to strengthen or weaken arguments.
A wide scope of rhetorical resources is a typical feature of political speech.
Politicians make much more varied use of diverse cognitive authorities than, for instance, researchers and scientists, whose speech is guided by the established traditions and practices of science. In political speech, for example, the authority of natural sciences can be questioned by means of moral or religious arguments.
Political speech has many features that resemble the legal speech used at courts of law: both types of discourse are based on the evaluation of evidence from opposing views. In parliamentary discussion, MPs present various types of evidence to support their own views, and give critical accounts of the weight and credibility of their opponents’ arguments.Table 1illustrates the argument types that are conventional in parliamentary discussion. Most of the examples have been taken from discussions held during plenary sessions at the Finnish parliament.
The abundance of rhetorical resources characteristic of political language gives MPs the opportunity to present varied evidence during discussions at plenary sessions. In a debate between two MPs, one can base his argument Use of Social Scientific Information in Parliamentary Discussion 141
Table 1. Supporting and Undermining the Cognitive Authority of Different Kinds of Sources of Evidence and Information During
Parliamentary Discussion.
Evidence Category An Example in Favor of the Argument
An Example Against the Argument Personal experience and
observations
‘‘When visiting the countryside, I have seen how people have lost their faith in the future.’’
‘‘My fellow Representative has been traveling in the wrong areas – where I come from, people are very optimistic.’’
Personal expertise ‘‘As an expert in education, I know how a child should be protected.’’
‘‘The Representative’s experience of raising horses does not make him competent to evaluate the raising of children.’’
Historical experience ‘‘History teaches us that Finland should stay outside conflicts between major powers.’’
‘‘Times have changed; the old lessons of history no longer hold.’’
Statistics ‘‘Statistics give an objective account of the situation: the employment rate has plummeted.’’
‘‘Statistics can be read in any which way: we now have more people in the active workforce than at any time during the past ten years.’’
Popular opinion ‘‘People know that prices have risen after the introduction of the euro.’’
‘‘It’s easy to use opinion polls to manipulate people; in reality, prices have fallen.’’
Experts’ views ‘‘The expert heard by the committee was against the Bill.’’
‘‘Most experts interviewed by the committee were in favor of the Bill.’’
Voters’ views ‘‘I represent farmers; therefore I’m in favor of raising the duties on food.’’
‘‘The interests of only one occupational group cannot decide duties.’’
Moral code or moral authority
‘‘According to the Bible, you should obey authority – for this reason, non-military service is not a good option.’’
‘‘Christianity is a religion of peace; non-military service should therefore be supported.’’
Institutions ‘‘Science has proven that stem cell research will help cure many diseases in future.’’
‘‘Scientists have made mistakes before, they are making mistakes today, and they will certainly make mistakes in future.’’
General concepts ‘‘Economic resources must be taken into account when making major social reforms.’’
‘‘Politics cannot be made only on the terms of the economy.’’
Truisms ‘‘Politics is managing common
affairs.’’
‘‘For many Representatives, politics seems to be only looking after one’s own affairs and interests.’’
on popular opinion, the other on experts’ views or on a quote from liter- ature included in the cultural canon. The general discursive structure of parliamentary speeches is multilayered: in one and the same speech, MPs may use evidence from different categories. For instance, they may refer to truisms, moral codes, popular opinion and experts’ views. In the following example, an MP refers to an important historian and peace activist, to the declarations of an international organization and to the words of a religious and political leader:
‘‘The human mind is built to be a missile launch pad,’’ said E. P. Thompson, the most quoted historian of the 20th century and the leading peace activist in Europe in the 1980s. He also believed that if each person behaved as though a nuclear-weapons-free Europe were a reality, it would soon be reality. In UNESCO’s words ‘‘peace begins in the minds of people’’ and in Gandhi’s words, ‘‘there is no road to peace, peace is the road’’. Thus, the security and defense policy is deeply seated in culture, in people’s mental images and in historical memory. (Taipale, Ilkka,Parliamentary Documents, 2001, Minutes: 2650)
The openness of parliamentary discourse distinguishes it as a linguistic type of its own, which cannot be equated with more closed linguistic systems, such as the language games of various professions. MPs are unusually free to use language: the highest cognitive authority is the law, which MPs can change with their own decisions.