by Maria Filippenkova, University of Helsinki
During the spring Finnish elections, the streets were filled with eager candidates trying to catch pedestrians’ attention, give them fliers, and earn a much-needed vote. This sight looked like a clear display of open democracy that is resilient enough to withstand differing political opinions, where the political representatives are able to perform their campaigns in close proximity to each other. Many people enjoy election time, filling out questionnaires and looking for a perfect candidate. Some, on the other hand, might not care and look to their family and friends to help them make a decision. As for people who were born in the Soviet times, institutional distrust seems to play a big role in the way they view elections. Perhaps there could be a need for more research about children and grandchildren of immigrants as a democratic resource in the political field.
Adapting to new social security systems in new home countries is always difficult, especially if the systems are fragmented or differ from what immigrants are used to.
Families that emigrate to Finland from a Soviet or Russian background might often have preconceived notions or distrust of their new home country’s institutions simply based on how the institutions in their previous country failed them.
These institutions can include everything from healthcare and childcare institutions to democratic and political institutions. Institutional distrust refers to the lack of confidence or faith that people have in established organizations, such as governments, corporations, media outlets, and other societal institutions. Institutional distrust can arise due to a variety of factors, such as past failures or scandals, a perceived lack of transparency or accountability, or a general sense that these institutions are not serving the public’s best interests. Institutional distrust can be harmful to democracy and society as a whole, as it can lead to a breakdown in communication and cooperation between institutions and the public, erode trust in the democratic process, and undermine the legitimacy of government and other institutions.
Democratic distrust, on the other hand, is a more specific form of institutional distrust that focuses on people’s lack of trust in the democratic system itself. Democratic distrust can arise when people perceive that their voices are not being heard, that their votes do not matter, or that the political process is rigged in favor of certain groups or interests. Like institutional distrust, democratic distrust can be harmful to democracy and can lead to a lack of civic engagement, political apathy, and a breakdown in trust between citizens and their government.
By recommending who to vote for in the elections, the younger generations look after their own and their community’s rights, and thus may be a part of rebuilding institutional trust for the older generation as well.
Young people with second or third-generation immigrant backgrounds are rebuilding democratic trust and resilience by truly being éminences grises for older generations that have suffered from the intergenerational trauma of the Soviet Union.
- This blog is a part of a blog series written by the BAMSE Riga intensive course students. The blog series analyses the concept of resilience from five different viewpoints: democracy in crises, regional responses, social consequences, relevance of history politics and cultural approaches. This blog belongs to the social consequences part of the blog series. Read more about the blog series on Bamse News & Events website.