Search results

Marxismin mukaan kapitalistisen yhteiskunnan jäsenet jakaantuvat kolmeen luokkaan: porvaristoon, keskiluokkaan ja työväenluokkaan. Jotkut marxismin tukijat jakavat keskiluokan talonpojistoon ja muuhun keskiluokkaan. Talonpojisto on vähenevä luokka. Koska marxismin luokkateorian mukaan poliittiset puolueet vaalivat yhteiskuntaluokien intressejä, tutkin pitääkö tämä väite paikkansa. Ensin selvitin marxilaisen teorian luokista ja niiden intresseistä eli eduista, joiden puolustamiseski luokat järjestäytyvät poliittisiksi puolueiksi. Ne laativat itselleen yhteiskuntapoliittiset ohjelmansa, joita ne pyrkivät politiikansa avulla toteuttamaan. Tutkimusaineistona käytän Suomen eduskunnassa tutkimusvuosina edustettina olelleiden puolueiden tavoite- ja yleisohjelmia, joista selvitän sisällön analyysiä käyttäen niiden sisällön ja julkilausutut tavoitteet. Erityisesti pyrin selvittämään orientoituvatko puolueet ohjelmissaan tiettyjen luokkien etujen puolustajiksi vai missä määrin ne esiintyvät yhteiskunnan yleisten etujen vaalijoina. Tutkimus tapahtuu toisaalta puolueiden eduskuntoimintaa selvittämällä. Tällöin pyrin saamaan selville sen toimivatko puolueet periaate- ja tavoiteohjelmiensa mukaisesti laatiessaan lakialoitteita eduskunnassa. Kolmantena tutkimuskohteena on hallituksen esitysten sisällön eritteleminen intressiorientaation pojalta. Kysymys kuuluu palvelevatko hallituksen esitykset yleistä vai luokkien erityisetuja. Tutkimuksessa selvisi, että puolueet niin ohjelmalausumissaan kuin eduskuntatoiminnassaan vaalivat sekä yleistä etu, josta käytän nimitystä luokkien yhteisetu, että luokkien erityisetuja. Eniten puolueet vaalivat yhteisetua. Erityiseduista puolueet vaalivat kukin tiettyä luokkaetua enemmän kuin toista. Tämän perusteella puolueet jakaantuvat ensijaisesti porvariston, keskiluokan ja työväenluokanetuja vaaliviksi. Hallituksen esityksissä luokkaorientaatio on heikompaa kuin kansanedustajien lakialoitteissa. Tutkimustuloksistani selviää myös se, että vaikka puolueet ovat viime vuosikymmeninä ottaneet vaaliakseen aikaisempaa enemmän kaikkien luokkien intressejä ja niiden yleispuolueominaisuudet ovat lisääntyneet, tietty luokkaorientaatio on säilynyt. ; Classes continually alter and influence party strategies and also the behaviour of voters. The members of classes form economic, professional and political organisations. Every class aims to exert the greatest influence upon the state with the help of its political party. This study researches the class basis of political competition, the effect of class interests on the policies of nine Finnish parties in their political programmes and initiative work in the Parliament. The investigation is based on historical materialism and its class structure theory developed by Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and other Marxists. The aim of study is to estimate how appropriate the class schema of historical materialism is for analysing the political partisanships and ideological conflicts in advanced industrial society. The statements and aims of political party programmes are put into practice in Parliament. This research analyses how parties represent their aims in their political programmes and what their parliamentarians do in Parliament. Is a party the representative of one class or does it equally promote the interests of many classes? Is it a class party or a generally oriented party? As in historical materialism, the programmes and legislative initiatives have been classified into five groups. The first group contains general class interest, oriented towards the common good. The next four groups comprise bills with a specific class interest orientation: bourgeoisie, the middle class, farmers and workers. The parties investigated are The National Coalition Party /The Conservative Party, The Swedish People`s Party, The Finnish Centre Party, The Finnish Social Democratic Party, The Left Alliance, The Liberals, The True Finns, The Christian Democratic Party and The Greens. The changes in politics and in party relationships over thirty years are investigated by comparing the parliamentary actions of parties from the 1960´s to the 1990´s. The study concerns the legislative initiatives of the years 1965, 1972, 1988 and 1999. The data on the programmes were collected from the two political programmes of nine parties from the years 1950 2003. The programmes of political parties are the public flag of the party as Engels expressed it, although their programmes have lost some of their class orientation. In the programmes of all nine political parties the contents aiming at the common good are the first, most important aim, the percentages being 76 98 %. Differences in the programmes of the political parties can still be found. The political parties emphasise their interests and aims in their own ways. The Conservative Party, The Swedish People´s Party and The Liberals have the next important interest in the bourgeoisie. The Swedish People´s Party, The Finnish Centre Party and The True Finns emphasise the middle class and the farmers. The Finnish Social Democratic Party, The Left Alliance and The Greens take care of working class. The main task of Parliament is to enact legislation. Bills can be submitted to Parliament by the Government or as private members bills. In this process the class interests notably emerge in private members bills of plenary sessions. The main Finnish political parties took into consideration the interests of all classes. All nine parties have made in the largest extent common good legislative initiatives. For all nine parties, the most prevalent type of legislative initiatives was those for the common good (84 -67 %). At the same time they tended to favour special class interests. The least specific class parties were The Christian Democratic Party, The Green Party and The Swedish People´s Party. Among special class interests all the parties oriented more to middle class interests in Parliament than in their declared objectives (18.8 7.0 %). The Liberals, The Conservative Party, The Social Democratic Party, The Left Alliance and The True Finns had the strongest middle class orientation. The Conservative Party were the most bourgeois party (10.2%). The strongest working class interest was found in The Left Alliance, The Social Democratic Party and The Green Party (18.8 13.1 %). The Finnish Centre Party and The Social Democratic party, The Left Alliance and The True Finns were closest to working class interests. Are there class oriented differences in the contents of the legislative initiatives and political programmes of the nine political parties? The contents were classified into eleven groups: administration, civil rights, nature conservation, economics, occupation structure, social policy, public health, education, culture, labour market and international affairs. All nine parties have the same three most important contents of legislative initiatives. These were finance/economics, social policy and administration systems. And all nine parties were more interested in financial and economic aims than their political manifestos suggest. The fourth important content for The Conservative Party, The Swedish People`s Party, The Liberals and The Christian Democratic Party was education. Employment was the fourth aim of The Finnish Centre Party and The True Finns. The Labour Market was also important to The Finnish Social Democratic Party, The Left Alliance and The Greens. Nature conservation was important to The Greens, too. The contents of government bills are more oriented towards the common good than are the private members bills. The conclusion is that the main Finnish political parties took the interests of all classes into consideration. At the same time they reveal preferences for special class interests. This emerges in political manifestos and legislative initiatives and government proposals. The Finnish political parties are not purely general parties devoid of class background. Finance and economics was the basis upon which the people arranged their lives and formed political opinions. The class structure of historical materialism is suitable to demonstrate political partisanship in Finland during the second half of the twentieth century. Social changes affect both the class structures and the political aims of parties and give rise to social and ideological conflicts in advanced industrial societies. The consensus policy is one appearance of civilized class struggle.

Kansalaisosallistuminen YVA-menettelyssä Ympäristövaikutusten arviointimenettelyn (YVA) yksi keskeinen tavoite on lisätä kansalaisten tiedonsaantia ja osallistumista ympäristövaikutuksiltaan merkittävissä hankkeissa. YVA-menettelyllä pyritään tuomaan kansalaisten näkemykset, huolet ja toiveet mukaan suunnitteluun ja päätöksentekoon mahdollisimman varhaisessa vaiheessa. YVA edustaa väitöstutkimuksessa modernia vuorovaikutteista ympäristöpolitiikan ohjauskeinoa ja osallistumisen välinettä. Väitöstyön ensimmäisenä tutkimustehtävänä oli luoda YVAan osallistumisen analyysille teoreettinen viitekehys: millaista demokratia- ja suunnitteluideaa YVA voi edustaa ja millainen politiikkaverkosto YVA on kansalaisosallistumisen kannalta. Toisena tutkimustehtävänä analysoitiin YVAan osallistumisen historiallista kehittymistä ja muutoksia Suomessa. Kolmantena tutkimustehtävänä tarkasteltiin osallistumisen käytännön toteutusta sekä arvioitiin osallistumisen vaikuttavuutta. Lisäksi analysoitiin vaikuttavuuden mahdollisia esteitä, miten läpinäkyviä ja avoimia YVA-menettelyt ovat ja miten hyväksyttävänä osallistumisvälineenä YVAa pidetään. Osallistumisen kannalta olennainen seikka on YVAn institutionaalisuus: se on julkishallinnon luoma väline, jonka lisäksi toimenharjoittajalla on keskeinen YVA-menettelyn käytännön toteuttajan rooli. Tämä luo osallistumisen kannalta rakenteita, joissa korostuu toimijoiden väliset epäsymmetriset valta-asemat. YVA-menettelystä tulee helposti kaikille osapuolille vallan käytön ja politiikan tekemisen väline ja niin osallistumisen järjestämistä kuin itse osallistumista ohjaavat toimijoiden poliittiset intressit ja tavoitteet. YVA on parhaimmillaan eri osapuolten välinen avoin keskusteluareena, joka lisää suunnittelun ja päätöksenteon läpinäkyvyyttä, mutta YVA on myös poliittisen kamppailun areena. Suomen YVA-lainsäädännössä osallistumisella on aina ollut tärkeä rooli. Suomalaisessa YVA-järjestelmässä on korostettu kansalaisten osallistumismahdollisuuksia. Ajan saatossa myös kriittisyys laajaa osallistumisoikeutta ja useita osallistumismahdollisuuksia kohtaan on lieventynyt. Haaste on kuitenkin siinä, että osallistumisen toteutus määritellään laissa väljästi, eikä lainsäädäntö takaa laadukasta osallistumista tai varsinkaan sen vaikuttavuutta. Toinen havaittu haaste on YVAn ja osallistumisen suhde päätöksentekoon. YVAn ulkopuoliset päätöksentekojärjestelmät ja edustuksellisen vallankäytön rakenteet eivät ole muuttuneet, ja siksi YVAn vaikuttavuus voi jäädä vähäiseksi. Vaikka YVA edustaisikin osallistuvaa demokratiaa ja toteuttaisi vuorovaikutteista ja moniäänistä suunnittelua, voi osallistumisen merkitys vesittyä ja kansalaisten osallistumisaktiivisuus hiipua. Ilmiöön liittyy myös tarpeetonta kriittisyyttä. Osallistumisen vaikuttavuus ei ole kertaluonteista, vaan se on usein välillistä ja ajoittuu prosessin eri vaiheisiin. Osallistumisen merkitystä ja vaikutuksia ei aina tunnisteta. YVAsta ei ole muodostunut Suomessa laajojen joukkojen osallistumisvälinettä. Ennemminkin YVAan osallistuvat tyypillisesti harvat kansalaisaktiivit, jotka hyödyntävät YVAn lisäksi lukuisia muitakin osallistumisen ja vaikuttamisen keinoja. Osallistujien määrän sijaan huomio tulee kuitenkin kiinnittää sisältöön ja suunnittelun moniäänisyyteen. Olennainen kysymys on se, millaisen roolin kansalaiset ja maallikkoasiantuntijuus voivat saada perinteisesti asiantuntijavetoisessa suunnittelukulttuurissa. ; Public participation in environmental impact assessment Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a policy instrument based in law and used to prevent harmful environmental impacts, increase public information access, and improve public participation opportunities. EIA is an open process for discussion and participation of different actors: it increases the transparency and broadens the information base of environmental policy planning and decision making. One aim of EIA is to incorporate citizens views and opinions, concerns and desires into planning at an early stage. EIA is a process of identifying and evaluating potential impacts from proposed activities. It is also an interactive and communicative policy instrument and should facilitate direct participation. EIA is an example in the development process of direct participation in Finland during 1990 s. In this study EIA is approached as a participation instrument. Public participation is the perspective from which the EIA-process is analysed. The aim of the research is to examine participation in EIA both a theoretical and empirical way, and to interpret and explain the operation logic and efficacy of participation. There are three main research tasks in the study. The first task is to create a theoretical framework for analysis of public participation in EIA. For this purpose, the theoretical and methodological triangulation is made in the study. There are four main parts in the triangulation. Firstly, the elements of participative and deliberative democracy and communicative planning theories are combined. This theoretical discussion shows what kind of democracy and planning EIA can represents. Secondly, network analysis and evaluation are integrated in the methodological triangulation. The concepts of policy networks and intervention theory are used in theoretical and methodological manner. The outcomes of theoretical and methodological triangulation are criteria of deliberative EIA and four policy network models of EIA as an instrument of public participation: 1) EIA as a negotiation process; 2) EIA as a technical process of information collection, 3) EIA as an information instrument; and 4) EIA as tool for controlling of participation. While the theoretical part of the thesis has its own analytical objectives, these policy network models are utilized with evaluation criteria in the empirical part of the study. The second research task is to analyse the historical development of participation in Finnish EIA legislation. The focus of this part is on the long lasting political process and arguments behind the enacting of Finnish EIA Act in 1980 s and 1990 s. The most important amendments of EIA legislation and the international and national reasons behind them are also considered. According to results of this part of thesis, the role of participation has been central to the Finnish EIA system. Even if the EIA Act was implemented in Finland relatively late in 1994, the legislative foundation for public participation has always been strong. Though the implementation of participation is defined in a flexible way, Finnish EIA legislation supports public participation and in principle creates possibilities for deliberative democracy. The third research task is to evaluate public participation in two case studies. This part includes following questions: 1) what kind of objectives do different actors seek from participation; 2) how does participation impact EIA and what are the obstacles of effective participation; and 3) how transparent and acceptable is the EIA process? The two cases used, the EIA of a road project and the final disposal of nuclear waste, show how much the aims, the implementation and the effectiveness of public participation can not only vary between different projects, but also during the planning process in one certain project. Notably, in the nuclear waste case, the nature of top-down instrument of EIA was clearly observed, while the developer of the project assumed a dominant role. The three elements of policy network (actors, arenas and agenda) were defined by the developer. Even if participation was carried out with great visibility, professional implementation and sufficient resources, the impact of public participation and lay people expertise was not so essential, while the economic and political interests of the project and the role of experts were in central role. In this case study EIA represents the policy network model of controlling of participation: the role of governance was more important than deliberative participation. In the road case the planning situation was more open. There did not seem to be the same need to define and control participation and the agenda of the EIA. The contribution of citizens was used in planning in a more effective manner. The EIA assumed a more traditional role ­ as an information distribution tool, and as a place for open discussion and effective participation. The case studies suggest that the legislative base can not alone guarantee the effectiveness of public participation. Most important factor is the attitude of main actors. Each EIA process is unique and general theories of participation in EIA are difficult to create. In practice, the EIA is more or less an institutional process of power division between different actors, and the developer has the central role. EIA is an open arena that allows political disagreements to form and emerge into the open. However, EIA can also be used to promote political interests. EIA and participation can be harnessed by the proponent, but EIA can also feed the so called NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) phenomenon. It is also possible, that policy instruments like EIA create a new elite ­ active lay experts. Theoretical ideas of deliberative democracy or communicative planning are challenging to implement in practice. At the same time it is important to estimate the criteria and expectations concerning participation. One can see, that EIA has lot of deliberative potential, but the main challenges are in the relationship between EIA and decision making, and in the structures of political power and decision making outside of EIA.