핀란드 헌법의 권력 구조에서 대통령의 과거, 현재 그리고 미래

After a brutal civil war between the left and the right, the left-wing demanded a parliamentary system, whereas the right wing attempted the revival of the right-wing monarchy. As a result, the framer of the Finnish Constitution compromised mixed elements of the presidential and parliamentary systems. The executive power was shared by the president, elected by the people, and the prime minister, supported by the parliament. The role of the president under the Constitution of Finland was to protect the fundamental values ​​of the republic by preventing the parliamentary system based on left-wing populism from deteriorating into a majority-party dictatorship. However, in reality, it originated from the strategic consideration of the right-wing sectors to protect their established privileges against a series of social reformation policies led by the Social Democratic Party, which dominates the parliament. However, the political influence of successive Finnish presidents on real politics showed different patterns depending on their characters as politicians. Presidents elected before World War II respected the value of a parliamentary system and refrained from appearing at the forefront of politics. However, things changed after World War II; Finland, defeated in World War II, was at the stake of becoming a quasi-satellite state with the emerging power of the Soviet Union. President Kekkonen actively intervened in domestic politics with the Soviet Union on his back. He used his constitutional powers to exert considerable influence behind the scenes in highly fragmented party politics. Amid the fear of an authoritarian president during the postwar period, the 2000 revision of the Constitution drastically reduced the president's powers and strengthened the elements of the parliamentary system. Even so, it seems unlikely that Finland's presidential system will disappear or become obsolete. The reason is that as the phenomenon of alienating the majority of the public in Finland's political party politics based on the elitist consensualism has intensified, the tendency to prefer a direct president as an alternative is still strong enough it cannot be ignored.