The Imatra City Council in southeastern Finland has distributed a new guidebook to its members that advises against criticizing local businesses on social media. The manual, intended as orientation material for new council members, contains instructions about appropriate conduct for elected officials.
Council Chair Anna Helminen confirmed the guidebook includes specific guidance about business criticism following feedback from local entrepreneurs. She explained that when council members criticize companies online, their comments can be misinterpreted as representing the city's official position rather than personal opinions.
"We've received feedback from downtown businesses," Helminen said. "If some decision-makers start criticizing a company, it's easily perceived as a broader opinion than just one person's view."
The city of Imatra has been struggling with economic challenges following the closure of the Russian border, making business vitality a key strategic priority. Helminen emphasized that listening to companies with sensitivity doesn't mean excluding different opinions or perspectives from public discussion.
However, constitutional law experts have raised concerns about the guidebook's approach. Public law professor Tomi Voutilainen described the manual as problematic because it mixes legal requirements, good governance practices, and political customs in ways that may overreach.
City council members in Finland are not municipal employees, meaning neither the city administration nor the council majority can legally restrict elected officials' freedom of speech by appealing to good governance or political customs. This distinction between elected representatives and administrative staff is fundamental to Finland's democratic system.
The guidebook also contains guidance for media interactions, suggesting that the council should "wash its dirty laundry internally, not on newspaper pages." This raises questions about transparency in decision-making and whether such guidance might limit public debate about municipal affairs.
Helminen defended this approach, stating it's not about restricting discussion but about how conversations are conducted. She referenced difficult situations in recent years where council members had made excessive statements about how they addressed each other publicly.
Similar debates about the boundaries between elected officials' personal expression and institutional representation have emerged in other Nordic municipalities recently. The tension between maintaining constructive business relationships and preserving democratic debate reflects broader challenges facing local governments across the region.
The situation in Imatra highlights how Finnish municipalities are navigating their relationships with local businesses while maintaining democratic principles. As economic pressures increase in border regions affected by geopolitical changes, these balancing acts become increasingly complex for local decision-makers.
What happens next in Imatra may influence how other Finnish municipalities approach similar challenges. The council's experience could set precedents for how elected officials balance their roles as community representatives with their rights as private citizens to express opinions.