How Finland Defeated Fascism: A Historical Lesson for Democracy
Finland recently captured international headlines for a heartbreaking near-miss in sports, as its men's hockey team narrowly lost to Canada in the Olympic semifinals due to a last-minute goal. However, nearly a century ago, the nation faced a far more consequential near-miss—a democratic crisis where it almost succumbed to fascism, only to emerge stronger and more resilient.
The Rise of the Lapua Movement
Modern Finland was established in 1919 following a brutal civil war between socialist "Reds" and conservative "Whites." Even after the Whites' victory, a profound fear of communism lingered, festering throughout the 1920s. By the end of the decade, this anxiety had crystallized into a far-right, authoritarian faction known as the Lapua movement. The movement took its name from a violent confrontation in the town of Lapua, where local farmers clashed with a communist youth group.
The Lapua movement rapidly gained widespread populist support across Finland. It attracted not only far-right radicals but also moderate center-right politicians, professionals, bankers, and prominent industrialists who saw an opportunity to benefit from its growing popularity. In the summer of 1930, approximately 12,000 Lapua members marched on Helsinki, emulating Benito Mussolini's 1922 March on Rome, which had successfully installed fascists in power in Italy.
Democratic Erosion and Violent Escalation
While the Helsinki march did not directly overthrow Finland's democratic government, it exerted immense pressure. The ruling conservative party, sympathetic to the Lapua movement, enacted a series of undemocratic "reforms" aimed at curtailing the speech and political participation of Finnish communists. Despite these concessions, extremists within the movement remained unsatisfied, and their attacks on Finnish democracy grew increasingly violent.
Lapua radicals became notorious for symbolic political kidnappings, abducting political rivals from their homes and abandoning them at the border with the Soviet Union. In a shocking escalation in 1930, they kidnapped former president Kaarlo Juho Ståhlberg, the first democratically elected head of the Finnish republic. This act, as noted by Oula Silvennoinen, a researcher at the University of Helsinki, "went against the sense of decency of most of their supporters," alienating many moderate and center-right figures who had previously aligned with the far-right movement.
The Turning Point and Democratic Recovery
Finland's far-right was not yet defeated. In 1932, they attempted an armed attack on the capital from the nearby town of Mäntsälä, calling on the country's civil guard—an auxiliary force sympathetic to the anti-communist cause—to join their uprising against the central government. Instead, most civil guard members stood down, while judges and mainstream conservative politicians moved decisively to marginalize the radicals.
Finland's conservative president, once considered a darling of the Lapua movement, declared a state of emergency, demanded the arrest of the movement's leaders, and broadcast a nationwide radio appeal ordering its members to return home. He stated, "Throughout my long life, I have fought to uphold the law and justice. And I cannot allow the law to now be trampled underfoot." The movement quickly fizzled out, and by 1937, a stable center-left coalition had secured power in Finland.
Finland's Democratic Legacy Today
Today, Finland stands as a beacon of democratic resilience, scoring a perfect 100/100 on Freedom House's political rights and civil liberties index. In comparison, the United States scored 84 last year, and Canada scored 97. Silvennoinen emphasizes that Finland's experience is not unique, noting, "We remember the fascists of Italy and the Nazis of Germany, but in reality almost every European country had their own far-right movements and organizations ... and almost all of them failed."
Finland's story demonstrates that democracy can prevail, even when threats loom large, but only if politicians who stand to benefit from extremism refuse to enable it. This historical lesson remains profoundly relevant in today's global political landscape, offering hope and guidance for nations grappling with similar challenges.
