Weakening civil society threatens Finland's internal security

Finland's civil society organizations are facing a critical juncture, subjected to political and financial decisions that are narrowing their capacity to foster security and social inclusion. This trend extends beyond mere budget adjustments, indicating a broader shift that diminishes the vital role these groups play in society. The situation is particularly concerning as it echoes restrictive measures observed in Russia, where civil society's influence and critical voices are being systematically silenced.

The impact of these cuts is most acutely felt by organizations dedicated to human rights, peace, minority rights, equality, and the rule of law. The essay argues that state funding should not be used as a tool to reward compliant voices or punish dissent. Instead, an independent civil society is essential for challenging decision-makers, highlighting the insecurities faced by vulnerable populations, and defending fundamental rights. The work of peace organizations, global education initiatives, and advocates for non-violence are presented as foundational to a democratic society's security.

By reducing the resources for these organizations, Finland weakens its own capacity for open dialogue on security and its international responsibilities. The author stresses that civil society is not a mere expenditure but the core of a society's crisis resilience, inclusivity, and internal security. These organizations connect with individuals often beyond the reach of official channels, building trust, combating loneliness, supporting mental health, assisting those affected by violence and substance abuse, bolstering young people's hope for the future, and offering avenues for participation.

The cuts have hit peace movements and social and health organizations the hardest, impacting their work with children, youth, the elderly, people with disabilities, those facing mental health and substance abuse issues, victims of violence, the unemployed, and the lonely. The essay warns that the loss of preventative support will inevitably lead to increased problems, escalating both human and financial costs. Internal security, it concludes, is built not only on police, borders, and surveillance but also on public trust, strong communities, and the feeling of being heard. The author contends that these cuts cannot be justified by public finance issues, as they may paradoxically increase spending on public social and health services, while simultaneously increasing support for organizations bolstering military defense and reservist activities.