The Finnish case is in many ways illustrative of the complexities of democratisation after World War I. Finland found itself at the nexus of a Swedish constitutional tradition, legalism and ideological controversies adopted from Imperial Germany, the radicalised Russian Revolution, and Western parliamentary democracy. After having been a model for reformers demanding women’s suffrage, for instance, the country found itself in autumn 1918 going in the opposite direction to almost all other European countries. This article analyses the fragility of Finnish parliamentary democracy then, contrasting it with longer-term trends supportive of democratisation. ‘Democracy’ had been the goal for most Finnish political parties since the adoption of universal suffrage in 1906, but the meaning of the concept remained contested and became increasingly so after the Russian Revolution in disputes concerning parliamentary sovereignty, the declaration of independence, a civil war, monarchical reaction, and the search for a republican compromise. For as long as Germany was expected to win the war, democracy in Finland remained fragile, challenged from within first by the revolutionary far-left and then by the reactionary right. The victory of ‘Western democracies’ forced both the left and the right to rethink their opposition to ‘Western’ parliamentary democracy and to adapt to a constitutional compromise. The ideological contestability of democracy remained but confrontations were confined by extremism’s loss of credibility, the growing influence of centrist groups, and a shared determination to avoid another civil war.

中文翻译：

---

普鲁士主义垮台时芬兰议会民主的脆弱性

芬兰的案例在许多方面说明了第一次世界大战后民主化的复杂性。芬兰发现自己处于瑞典宪政传统、德意志帝国所采用的法制主义和意识形态争议、激进的俄罗斯革命和西方议会民主之间的联系。例如，在成为要求妇女选举权的改革者的榜样之后，该国在 1918 年秋季发现自己走向了与几乎所有其他欧洲国家相反的方向。本文分析了芬兰议会民主的脆弱性，并将其与支持民主化的长期趋势进行了对比。自 1906 年实行普选以来，“民主”一直是大多数芬兰政党的目标，但是这个概念的含义仍然存在争议，并且在俄国革命之后在议会主权、独立宣言、内战、君主制反动和寻求共和妥协的争论中变得越来越激烈。只要德国有望赢得战争，芬兰的民主就仍然脆弱，首先受到革命极左派和反动右派的来自内部的挑战。“西方民主国家”的胜利迫使左翼和右翼重新思考他们对“西方”议会民主的反对，并适应宪法妥协。民主在意识形态上的可竞争性仍然存在，但由于极端主义的可信度丧失、中间派团体的影响力越来越大以及避免另一场内战的共同决心，对抗受到了限制。