The nonprofit organization Freedom House has long monitored the state of democracy, freedom and human rights around the world. Finland ranks among the freest countries in the world, receiving a perfect score of 100 out of 100. Estonia is part of the same group, with a score of 96.

As a general rule, free countries are democratic countries, yet democracy itself is not doing particularly well globally. There is clear backsliding, and the health of democracy is now said to be at roughly the same level as it was in 1978. Expanding autocracies are providing increasingly strong competition.

Of the world's countries, 92 are currently classified as autocracies, home to 74 percent of the global population, or about six billion people. 87 countries are considered democracies, but only 29 of them are liberal democracies. The remaining 58 are electoral democracies, where elections take place but are often subject to significant controls.

Seven percent of the world's population lives in liberal democracies and 17 percent in electoral democracies. Finland and Estonia therefore belong to a global minority.

Many reasons have been offered for democracy's decline, but one is certainly the perceived success of China as an autocracy. Many countries, especially in the Global South, view it as a model worth emulating. Among democracies, the United States is worth noting as the country whose democratic institutions have been weakened most rapidly during Donald Trump's time in power.

Whatever the reasons, concern for the health of democracy is warranted, and it deserves protection wherever possible. Democracy is likely one of those things whose absence is felt most sharply only when it is no longer there.

This commentary is based on a review of the state of democracy in Finland conducted by the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, as well as the discussion that followed the report's publication. The report is in Finnish, though its English-language introduction provides several useful points of reference.

Researchers from four Finnish universities and the Finnish Institute of International Affairs studied the resilience of liberal democracy in Finland. Liberal democracy is a political system that combines representative democracy and free, fair elections with the protection of civil and human rights, an independent judiciary and constitutional limits on the exercise of power by both governments and electoral majorities. While majorities have the right to govern, their power is not unlimited. The rule of law, civil liberties and the continuity of the democratic process must also be protected from the majority's power.

The study presented three groups of respondents with 10 statements and asked them to indicate their level of agreement on a five-point scale. The groups were ordinary citizens, politicians and civil servants.

In brief, based on average responses, 53 percent of ordinary citizens viewed democracy as functioning properly, compared with 62 percent of politicians and 72 percent of civil servants. On most statements, ordinary citizens were the most critical and civil servants the most positive. According to the report, this was the first time in Finland that the health of democracy had been assessed across different dimensions. Public satisfaction with democracy has been measured before, but generally with a simple question asking whether respondents were satisfied with how democracy functions in Finland. Overall satisfaction levels have remained relatively high and stable at around 70 percent.

In the new survey, only the opinions of civil servants reached that level. As was also noted in subsequent discussions, this represents clear regression, particularly among ordinary citizens.

Because a similar study would be interesting in Estonia, it is worth recalling some of the criticism directed at the Finnish project. First, some argued that respondents should also have been asked whether they consider democracy necessary in general. Observers have noted that, particularly among young men, there is a growing number who believe democratic principles can be set aside if doing so helps achieve a desired goal.

Critics also pointed out the absence of journalists and the media both among the respondent groups and among the survey topics. It would also have been useful to ask about respondents' party preferences and whether they vote at all.

The condition of the media and the judiciary is a particularly important issue, especially considering the experiences of Hungary and Poland. Once the media and judicial system are brought under political control through coercive means, restoring the rule of law while adhering to democratic principles becomes very difficult, as the experiences of those countries demonstrate.

A separate issue, relevant in both Finland and Estonia, concerns the extent to which civil servants and politicians are genuinely free to express their views under current conditions. There is a risk that within government institutions or political circles only the opinion of a single individual or small group is considered acceptable. At its core, this is a question of freedom of expression for civil servants and politicians as well.

While politicians have the option of simply leaving their party, a civil servant seeking career advancement may instead choose silence rather than express criticism or views that differ from the officially accepted position.

Returning to the survey, the strongest consensus, or rather opposition, concerned the statement that large campaign donations do not influence political decision-making. All three groups were skeptical and did not believe the claim. Respondents were also generally critical of the statement that election winners seek compromises with other political parties.

The most positive responses, and those with the least variation between groups, concerned the freedom of elections and the integrity of vote counting. Respondents also strongly supported the statement that all citizens in Finland have equal political and legal rights. The largest differences emerged regarding the statement that civil servants do not use their positions for personal gain. Ordinary citizens were clearly the most critical, civil servants unsurprisingly agreed most strongly, and politicians fell somewhere in between.

As for the effects of age, gender and education, men were more positive than women about how democracy functions. More highly educated respondents were more positive than those with less education. Age had virtually no effect on responses.

Public perceptions of how the political system functions are important for democratic stability. For that reason, it would be welcome if a similar study were carried out in Estonia alongside Põhimõtte Koda (The Principles Think Tank) report on strengthening democracy.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!