The Sámis are European’s only recognised indigenous community residing in Sámi Country (Sápmi) which stretches across the northern parts of Sweden, Norway and Finland, and Russia’s Kola Peninsula. The Sámis have faced decades of discrimination and assimilation. The Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian Constitutions has recognized certain rights of the group. Norway and Finland have advanced on this right and has also constitutionally recognized their status as an indigenous population. The Finland Government recently came under scrutiny for their approach to the Sámi Parliament Act, which Finland’s Prime Minister Sanna Martin had promised to pass in their current legislative programme. The Sámi Parliament Act would, among other things, enshrine the right of self-determination for Sámi into Finnish law. The United Nations had repeatedly highlighted this lacuna in Finnish Law in the Scandinavian Country, otherwise highly applauded for their policies and human rights approaches.
Sámi Parliament
The Sámi Parliaments are democratically elected by Sámi People to represent the interest of the indigenous community. Sámi Parliaments in Finland, Sweden, and Norway act as consultative bodies who purpose is to promote and preserve Sámi culture. The ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (No. 169 refers to a state’s obligations to consult indigenous peoples and consider their customs when applying national laws, and the Sámi Parliament act as a bridge between the Sámis and the Government. The recognition of the Sámi Parliament is often regarded as a huge win for the indigenous community, especially when other indigenous groups around the globe fight for basic human rights and representation. The Sámi Parliament has often been envisaged as a model for other States to integrate the voice of their ethnic minorities and ethnic minority management (with the Australian Government looking into similar bodies for the Aboriginals of Australia).
Why is Finland’s Government under pressure?
The Finnish were the first to establish the Sámi Parliament. The Constitution of Finland recognizes the Sámi and their right to self-regulation regarding their language and culture. However, the Sámi Parliament Act would lay out norms on how the Finnish Government would interact with the Sámi Parliament in matters concerning the population. The Finish Government is a five-party coalition, with one of the parties actively opposing the passing of the bill. However, it is rumoured that the other four aren’t all too happy with the act and are hiding behind the fifth’s disagreement as the Prime Minister can push the bill without the unanimous support of all parties. The Centre Party argues that their aim is to protect the ‘minorities within the minorities’.
The Root Cause
The crux of the matter boils down to Sámi identity, with Finland’s Supreme Administrative Court ruling that who identify themselves as a Sámi (in this case Kemi Sámis) must be added to the electoral roll. However, the Sámi people that the Sámi’s themselves should have the power to decide on the issue. Since the Sámi identity is highly preserved and cherished, the community insists that people who do not have a strong affiliation with the Sámi and associate with the culture and practice must not be granted the identity. This view is also supported by the United Nations. The Sámis believe that granting Kemi Sámis (or who they just call Finns) would dilute the Sámi Parliament and would eventually no longer represent the interest of the people. While dealing with such a sensitive topic, Governments are often at crossroads. However, International Law and International Organizations can be a guiding force. The United Nations Committee on Racial Discrimination found the ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court violative of thee International Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD).
However, the issue is more political for Finland. With general elections coming up in April 2023, the Democratic Party is sure to lose without the support of the Conservatives. Fueling the Act without the support of the Conservatives may prove fatal for Martin’s Career. However, she has depicted an image of someone who values the rights of the indigenous population but her acts are often politically motivated. At this juncture, Martin must contemplate between honouring her promises and the legacy she is leaving behind or play it safe at the cost of pushing back years of progress in the field of indigenous rights in Finland.
By The European Institute for International Law and International Relations.
