SPEECH BY PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC MARTTI AHTISAARI AT THE

POLITICS & INTERNET CONGRESS ON 6.1.1999

In the 1990s we have seen more and more features of an information society appear alongside those of the traditional industrial society. So far, however, we have been doing things on technology's terms; now it is time for people to assume the leading role.

We must give some deep thought to what the change means for people's lives and their wellbeing. For example: the relationship between work and livelihood will not necessarily be the same in the future as it is now. The assumptions that have traditionally been made by social scientists are no longer valid everywhere. We are facing a similar search for the new in social policy. The old means of political guidance have already lost some of their effectiveness.

Regrettably often, we have conceived of the information society mainly in terms of technology. Our thinking has been that the changes accompanying technology are in themselves the force that transforms society.

In recent years, however, we have begun to understand that when factors like the Internet eliminate the barriers of time and place, what we are dealing with is not just technology. A bigger change is taking place in the structures of organisations and in the ways they function.

We generally make two mistakes when we predict the future. We overestimate short-term changes, and we underestimate the long-term ones. Talking about the information society against a time frame of a couple of decades is unrealistic. Now there is a greater danger of our not being able to understand the magnitude of the challenges awaiting us.

The information society has no value if we understand it only in terms of technology. The only things that make it worth striving for are that it could dismantle the old hierarchical structures, increase people's freedom and make genuinely sustainable development possible. The Internet is a new tool, which in itself solves nothing. What is more important is the use to which the tool is put. We need insight and skill in relation to politics, economics, culture and media before a network economy and a network culture are born of the information web.

Big social questions always affect the individual. One central concern relating to people's future is work. Will the information society provide enough work for everyone and will everyone be able to take part in the work of the information society? How will we be able to take care of those citizens who possess less knowledge and skills so that they too will be guaranteed the right to play a role and be useful, something that is a basic human need.

This is a problem that scientists and politicians share, although for the former it is on the level of theory and for the latter very much a practical one.

Worries about jobs disappearing are often well-founded. If rationalisation and automation, in both the private and the public sectors, are carried through as quickly and thoroughly in the major EU countries as has been done in Finland, it is possible that millions of people will become redundant in so-called sunset industries over the next few years.

Global competition makes it just as essential to boost the efficiency of the economy and production on the European level as we have done in Finland. Change in society has always spawned also new jobs and opportunities for wealth creation. The problem is one of ensuring that different segments of the population are able to adjust to this change.

In a more general context, we must ponder how we can keep all citizens involved in fast-paced change. We can prevent the division of societies into the well-off and the deprived only if we can succeed in drawing everyone, irrespective of age, education and wealth, within the compass of the abilities and potential of the information society.

There is an old tradition of popular education in Finland. All citizens have a basic right to learn. This same ideal of popular education is needed now both here in Finland and everywhere in the world.

It is not just children and young adults who have a right to learn. The same right applies just as much to those adults who are in danger of being left behind in the onward rush of development.

It is shocking to note that our society has changed so profoundly that in the parlance of officialdom we have begun calling the over-45s "elderly employees". Does this mean that experience, wisdom and the importance of guidance have been completely forgotten in our modern society?

We are now having to test our own values. It is a tough challenge, at least for us Nordics who respect equality in society. If we want to ensure that all citizens are adequately prepared to cope in an economy and society founded on knowledge and skill, we must take special measures. Yet there is an obvious danger that only the strong and the capable will do well.

Can it be that the old means of ensuring equality are not enough? It is time to reflect open-mindedly, and without mutual recrimination, what structural reforms - of a kind affecting all citizens - would be needed for the information society. What abilities are demanded of people? What kinds of tools should they have?

I shall take one example of a matter on which I have not yet reached a conclusion of my own. In order to increase equality, it might be a good idea to begin teaching all Finnish children aged 3 - 4 English alongside their mother tongue at kindergartens. If we think of the best interests of the nation as a whole, a good command of English could be nearly as important a precondition for equality in the digital global economy of the 21^st century as universal literacy and elementary education for all were in the past.

However, this idea also prompts doubts. Will competition be so tough in the future that we shall have to harness our children into intensive training while they are still toddlers? What does it reveal if we say that the most useful way children can spend their time is learning English? I hope this congress will devote some of its time to such matters.

The American Professor Amitai Etzioni, who recently visited Finland, has already expressed his deep concern about the ability of people to cope with the technological-economic race. He argues that in their scramble for efficiency the Americans have lost the joy of work and also many of the other enjoyments of life. Life has become a forced pace.

I would like you to reflect on whether there are any alternatives to this.

We are living in an information society, but our ways of doing things, our machinery of administration, our economic thinking and our management methods are still rooted in the hierarchical models of the industrial society. Indeed, some of them can even be traced back to the days when the realm was stratified into estates.

Both as an international official and now as President, I have tried to do my bit to increase equality and freedom. I have found it important to bring societies closer together, but also to increase openness and flexibility within them. I have, however, noticed that hierarchical structures can never be dismantled without resistance. A tendency to oppose change is deeply ingrained in all of us.

In the new society, esteem and a position of leadership no longer derive from status, but rather from the respect that flows from will and skill. Leadership means a capacity for cooperation and an ability to change rigid structures into open ones. Leadership means allowing also others space.

It is in this that the great democratic potential of the new society lies. People's own initiative, their ability to become and remain involved in information and economic networks is the only real counterweight to the oligarchy that always lurks in the background.

Unfortunately, we do not yet know how this opportunity should be used. What we do know in Finland is how to come up with technological innovations. Among the sectors that are the focus of reform efforts, there is, however, one that has received rather little attention: democracy.

Considering the revolutionary changes that the late decades of the 20^th century have brought in the world economy, science, technology, and data transmission, it is hardly unreasonable to expect that the political system underlying everything be modified as we make the transition to the Third Millennium.

Parallel to technological innovation we need social reforms. To produce them we need many kinds of people: researchers, public officials, politicians and - of course, active citizens.

In this respect, the ideas of one of the keynote speakers at this congress, Professor Benjamin Barber, are very interesting. They will certainly prompt a discourse that will continue after this meeting has ended.

I am glad that today we can take also concrete steps in the development of new models of democracy. For this we can thank - naturally - young people, for whom conceiving new ideas is the same thing as building their own future. Today, as it happens, we shall see the introduction and inauguration in Helsinki's neighbour Espoo of an Internet version of the "Teledemocracy" experiment launched by the city's Youth Council. I believe that the experience gained will attract interest also beyond the borders of Finland.

The idea behind this second Politics & Internet congress has been from the outset to get citizens involved in many ways, both directly and through their representatives. The arrangement of a conference on so many levels has certainly not been easy. But democracy is such a wonderful thing that making an effort to increase it is always worth while.

I wish you success in your work.