Finland: a democratic dictatorship

 

Have you ever heard of Santa’s elves initiating a bloody revolt against Santa’s authoritarian and nepotistic management? No. And yet, some elves enjoy certain priviledges, while the others do the job. But no, no protest. And for a simple reason: in Finland, we do not contest (arbitrary) decisions emanating from higher hierarchical levels, under the risk of serious reprisals, potentially on a national scale.

I have had a hard time learning this almost implicit rule, firmly anchored in everyday life. At the beginning, there is hostile and harassing behavior from my direct superior ("N+1") towards me (2022-2023). The hostility culminated in the summer of 2023 where she has hidden an external funding granted for one of my scientific research projects (I am a research group leader at the University of Eastern Finland - UEF), followed by the destruction of this project, the falsification of a laboratory notebook and an attempt to export the project to the research group of her main collaborator at another university. All this is, of course, contrary to the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, you will agree. At worst, you will agree that it is not very respectful of colleagues, and would have deserved some form of appropriate sanction, especially since my N+1 is accustomed to hindering scientific integrity (something I learned later on).

So at the beginning, there is a jealous and ambitious professor who tries to steal a project from her direct subordinate. Although this type of behavior is interesting to study in itself, as it is nowadays spreading dangerously throughout the academic world, it is not the subject of this post.

The subject is that following these repeated attacks from my N+1, I had the misfortune to pull several threads revealing a post-democratic governance on a national scale. A misfortune for my career, but a chance for you, readers: I can testify that Finland, in many aspects, functions like a "soft dictatorship”. I am a researcher therefore the majority of concrete examples I may provide are related to the academic sector, however my case has overflowed more widely to the level of the government, government Ombudsmen, the work inspection, the police, the institutions for monitoring scientific integrity, etc.

A soft dictatorship is essentially characterised by the presence of power imbalances, reduced freedom of speech for citizens and the press, increased censorship, allocation of key positions based on loyalty rather than merit (nepotism), restriction of political opposition, lack of transparency and openness, lack of accountability of politicians, manipulation of control institutions and civil societies that are largely co-opted, use of nationalist rhetoric to justify authoritarian measures (“you are a danger to the group so we crucify you”) and selective application of the law.

As unlikely as it may seem, given the polished image of Nordic countries, I have experienced myself all of these characteristics in snowy Finland, and have heard from others who have experienced similar things. I was sanctioned by the UEF for expressing my opinions, and in particular for expressing my disagreement with the decisions of the UEF management that cleared my N+1 despite the overwhelming evidence I provided against her. I was censored by colleagues in the pay of the management, defamed by the management who spread the unfounded rumor that I would scare the staff, systematically hindered in my work and then, finally, dismissed for absurd reasons (some of which were found after the dismissal). As soon as the dismissal was notified, without respecting any notice, my access to my work rooms was cut off and a few colleagues in the pay of the management followed me in the corridors to monitor my actions. My professional email account was reopened after I left the university, in clear violation of the GDPR rules for the protection of private data. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, the UEF turned my life into a hell for 18 months after I revealed the behavior of my N+1.

My colleagues were instructed not to speak to me freely after my dismissal was announced, which made it difficult to pass on my research projects to others and to find solutions for my students and research group members. When I found a solution at Tampere University (TAU) with collaborators of mine who were very enthusiastic about taking over one of my research projects, their Faculty management opposed the transfer of the project without any valid reason, forcing my colleagues to turn back or face reprisals. I note here that the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine of TAU and I have never had any contact before, and that my project aligns with one of the research priorities of his Faculty. What could he have based his decision on? Defamatory gossip, without the shadow of a doubt.

On my last day at work, most of the colleagues with whom I had very good working relationships did not know whether they had the right to say goodbye to me or not. UEF uses defamatory rhetoric against me, as if I am a threat to the group, someone people are afraid of, which is on the one hand false and on the other hand based on no concrete threat from me. My N+3, director of the Department of Medicine at UEF, even told me during a meeting (sic): "For research and education, you are very qualified. But when the question of renewing your contract comes, I will not sign the renewal, because we are looking for people for this group, for this society." And this, despite all my contributions to the social life of the department during the first 2.5 years of my contract at UEF. This rhetoric, which is similar to nationalist propaganda rhetoric such as "we punish this category of the population because they are a threat to national unity", is relayed by middle managers who know me personally, including for example my N+2 who even invited me to dance at the last Christmas dinner. Inviting the Antechrist for a dance? ridiculous. And scary.

Beyond the hostile and illegal attitude of my management, what struck me the most was the fear, obedience and resignation of all the witnesses and bystanders: they are used to it, "that's the way it is". A young researcher who worked for almost 10 years with my N+1 even confided to me that "the scientific misconduct of [my N+1] is known throughout Finland, why are you making all this fuss?" (sic). So we have to suffer and keep quiet. My colleagues at the UEF saw their freedom to speak to whomever they want violated by the instructions of the management. My colleagues in Tampere have had their academic freedom (freedom to choose their research topics and their collaborators) violated, but preferred to follow the (harsh and unfair) rule to avoid upsetting their management. The unions are powerless to intervene in situations involving the Faculty or Rectoral levels, according to the most experienced union representative I spoke to. I have spoken to many journalists, very interested in my story, whose enthusiasm to publish suddenly disappeared when they told their editorial staff: attacking universities “scares”. But why would anyone be outraged, when in the end he/she would risk being, just like me, fired, slandered and blacklisted nationwide in his/her professional branch?

At UEF, the Rector and the Chief Legal officer who handled my complaint of violation of scientific integrity, and who therefore acknowledged on behalf of UEF that it was acceptable to falsify a laboratory notebook (among other things), were decorated in the following few months with the Finnish White Rose and the Order of the Lion of Finland respectively. For services rendered to the country. They are not sanctioned for their calamitous management, they are congratulated and decorated, probably for their loyalty.

Only the academic sector, you might say? The local police, various Ombudsmen attached to the government (non-discrimination, parliamentary, data protection), the work inspection (2 regional branches), the Ministry of Education and Culture and the body in charge of monitoring scientific integrity, all sided with the decisions of the UEF management, constituting implicit support. The associations for the defense of foreigners have also shone by their inaction. It is true that the last two rectors are married to Members of Parliament, but from there to canceling any investigation… there is a step that fully democratic countries would not take. So yes, Finland (at least through the institutions listed above), ticks 9 points out of the 12 that define a soft dictatorship according to AI. We should see according to the European Court of Human Rights.

If you have made it this far in reading this text, you must be thinking: “Isn’t this guy a bit insane?”. Unfortunately, I am not. My N+1 lied in her statements during the internal procedures. I have demonstrated this with irrefutable written and audio evidence. This fact alone should have triggered a more in-depth investigation by the university: “why is she lying? What is behind it?”. It didn’t. When the other institutions, external to UEF, were informed of this simple fact, they should have asked themselves the question: “why isn’t UEF investigating this case seriously? What is behind it?”. They didn’t. So now it’s my turn to ask the question: “Why is no one in Finland bothering to investigate this case? What is behind it?”.

In my humble opinion, behind lies collusion, nepotism, post-democracy, and failing control institutions. People learn to live with it and accept it, to preserve their peace, to the detriment of their freedom of choice and speech, and their freedom to participate in public debate. And for you, what does all this mean?