Pekka Haavisto, on the other hand, brings a different perspective to the table. As a member of the Green League, Haavisto is known for advocating environmental causes and championing human rights. His tenure as foreign minister has earned him respect for his diplomatic skills and his ability to navigate Finland’s foreign policy with a humanitarian approach. His decision to run as an independent in this election is seen as a strategic move to broaden his appeal beyond his party’s traditional voter base. Haavisto’s campaign has focused on a vision of a sustainable and secure Finland, placing emphasis on addressing climate change, promoting equality, and maintaining a strong welfare state, while also supporting NATO membership. Haavisto’s appeal to the voters lies in his diplomatic experience and his promise to balance Finland’s security needs with a commitment to progressive values and social justice.

The Finnish president’s role has been largely ceremonial, with the majority of executive power resting with the prime minister and the government. However, the president still holds sway in foreign policy and defense, roles that have become more pronounced since the country’s bid to join NATO. The president’s input in shaping Finland’s strategic alliances and defense policy will be critical as the country adapt just to its new status as a NATO member. The accession to NATO marks a significant shift in Finland’s security posture, a move prompted by heightened concerns over regional stability after Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine. The president will need to navigate the complex dynamics of the alliance, ensuring that Finland’s interests are well-represented while contributing to the collective defense framework. Both Stubb and Haavisto have expressed support for NATO membership, but their approaches to international relations and defense policy differ, reflecting their respective political backgrounds.

In the final stretch leading up to the election, both candidates have intensified their campaigns, reaching out to undecided voters who will play a crucial role in determining the outcome. Stubb’s lead in the polls indicates a preference among many Finns for a leader with a strong understanding of European and international politics, as well as a clear stance on defense issues. Stubb’s message has been one of strength and unity, seeking to reassure citizens that Finland will stand firm in the face of any potential threats. Haavisto, meanwhile, has appealed to voters’ desire for a president who can balance security needs with a deep commitment to environmental and social issues. His campaign has worked to close the gap revealed by the polls, emphasizing his track record in diplomacy and negotiation, skills that could prove invaluable in the complex environment of international defense politics.

Despite differences in policy and approach, both candidates agree on the fundamental importance of Finland’s NATO membership in securing the country’s future. The debate has thus shifted from whether Finland should be part of NATO to how the country should position itself within the alliance and the broader international community. The outcome of the Finnish presidential election will have implications not only for Finland’s domestic policies but also for its relations with other NATO members, the European Union, and neighboring Russia. The president-elect will be tasked with the delicate balancing act of asserting Finland’s sovereignty and security interests while fostering cooperation and harmony within the NATO framework.

As Sunday approaches, Finnish voters are faced with a choice that will shape their country’s future for years to come. Whether they opt for the experienced hand of Alexander Stubb or the diplomatic finesse of Pekka Haavisto, the election is a testament to Finland’s robust democratic process and its citizens’ engagement with the critical issues of security, sustainability, and international relations. In this era of geopolitical shifts and heightened security concerns, the Finnish presidential election is more than a national event; it is a bellwether for how smaller nations can assert their agency and priorities within larger international alliances. Finland’s choice will be watched closely by friends and foes alike, as the world waits to see the direction the country will take under its new president.

By Paul Bumman