Finland: Reform of the Sámi Act

The Society for Threatened Peoples (STP) welcomes the decision of the Finnish parliament to bring about a reform of the Sámi Parliament Act. Among other things, the reform would mean that voting rights will in future be based on language – and appeals will be outsourced to an independent body. The reform would get rid of the so-called “Laplanders Clause”, according to which historical register entries were sufficient to be able to claim a place on the electoral list.

“This strengthens the rights of the Finnish Sámi and addresses a core issue of Sámi self-determination. By finally providing a clear definition regarding the voting rights, Finland is protecting the democratic representation of the Indigenous people,” explained Gerrit Hofert, STP human rights expert, in Göttingen on Thursday. In Finland, there has been a dispute for years about the criteria according to which people are recognized as Sámi and, thus, granted the right to vote. This was repeatedly criticized UN Human Rights Committee.

At the same time, the reform makes it clear that Helsinki’s ambitions are primarily of a technical nature: the law is mainly intended to ease electoral disputes, not to establish comprehensive self-governance. “As long as the Finnish government is not willing to grant the Sámi population a binding right to co-determination regarding land and resource issues, the fundamental demands for Sámi self-government will remain unfulfilled,” Hofert added. Also, the ratification of ILO Convention 169 is still pending – even though it is the only binding international legal treaty that guarantees such rights.

According to the STP, Finland is sending a positive signal to the entire Sápmi region with the planned reform – also to Sweden and Norway: “If Finland depoliticizes its electoral law and implements international standards, there will also be more pressure on Stockholm and Oslo to finally proceed with a long overdue reform of the legal system,” Hofert said. In Sweden, the Sameting is so far only an advisory capacity – without binding co-determination rights, for example in the approval of major projects. “The northern governments must finally acknowledge that symbolic participation is not enough. Real co-determination is a human rights minimum,” Hofert emphasized.