Kokonaisuudistus - osittaisuudistus

Kirjoittajat

• Kauko Sipponen

Abstrakti

In many countries such as Switzerland and Austria, a distinction is made between total and partial constitutional reform; indeed, the legislative process is somewhat different for each, though it has proved difficult to differentiate between the two in form and content. — In Finland, as well as for example in the Federal Republic of Germany, total and partial constitutional reform are handled in the same legislative order. The Finnish Constitution provides for no special protection of fundamental constitutional principles. All this facilitates concentration on content in discussions of constitutional reform. — Study of developments in other countries indicates that, though there are many strong logical arguments for total reform, the resistence of societal forces makes if difficult to carry out, barring change in the entire governmental system. In constitutional (as in administrative) reform, incrementalism would appear to be the most practical policy. The Finnish policy of partial reform now adopted does produce results; it remains to be seen whether total reform can eventually be achieved though a series of partial reforms. — Constitutional reform in Finland should continue as in the past to proceed by statutory law, and should not be left to more or less random impulses, or to practical and restricted interpretations. 1