An important question concerns the objectivity of the interpretation of the Constitution Is its interpretation a value-neutral activity or is there room for political opinions? If interpretations are Parliament, it is, I believe, obvious that interpretations can also contain strong political If one talks about, for example, freedom of speech, it is clear that the interpreters cannot ultimately avoid value opinions. Very often the courts are also in the situation where they must say something about the values of the Constitution Of course there are two sides in this matter: some interpreters want to say a lot about the values of the Constitution, whereas others want to be quiet and do not want to take an explicit standpoint concerning the case at hand In the case of courts this is called either judicial activism or judicial self-restraint. (13) arry holmstrom has researched the political role of the courts in great Germany. He noticed that the political role of the courts varies greatly when the question is about their role as political actors and authoritative political decision-makers who formulate the values of society. The importance of the courts has, according to Holmstrom, grown remarkably in last few decades and the activity of the courts also has connections to party politics. Holmstrom states that people accept the political role of the courts, because there has been 'chronic impotence in the actions of parliaments to realise democracy. In Germany and France, so it became clear, political attitudes affect the choice of judges more than their competence in the field of law does, although the latter is still an important factor (14) The picture Holmstrom paints is quite dark from the erspective of democracy. I do not know whether the situation is the same in Finland and Norway, but it seems likely that the political aspects of the courts could have some connections with the politics of the parties 4. Who are the authoritative interpreters of the Constitution in Finland? In Finland, there are some persons, such as the President of the Republic (Tasavallan presidentti), the Speaker of Parliament(Eduskunnan puhemies), the Parliamentary ombudsman(Eduskunnan oikeusasiamies) and the Attorney General of the Government(Valtioneuvoston oikeuskansleri) who can be called some kind of authoritative interpreter of the Constitution. Also, the highest courts-the Supreme Court(Korkein oikeus)and the Supreme Administrative Court(Korkein hallinto-oikeus)-should be mentioned. Traditionally, courts did not have a significant role in the interpretation of the Constitution, but this position changed after the reform of basic rights in 1995 and it is also expected that the new Section 106 of the Constitution-which includes a demand for the priority of the Constitution in the courts- may make the role of the courts more important Still there are many researchers who are very critical, and doubt whether Section 106 will have an important role at all. (15) However. it can be stated that the Finnish parliament's constitutional committee Perustuslakivaliokunta) is the most authoritative interpreting body of the Constitution in Finland This is a fact that has also been expressed both in the travaux preparatoires of the new Constitution( Suomen Perustuslaki 731/1999)as well as in Finnish legal writing In the draft of the new Perustuslaki(which came into force on March lst, 2000), there is a provision that throwsAn important question concerns the objectivity of the interpretation of the Constitution. Is its interpretation a value-neutral activity or is there room for political opinions? If interpretations are made in Parliament, it is, I believe, obvious that interpretations can also contain strong political features. If one talks about, for example, freedom of speech, it is clear that the interpreters cannot ultimately avoid value opinions. Very often the courts are also in the situation where they must say something about the values of the Constitution. Of course, there are two sides in this matter: some interpreters want to say a lot about the values of the Constitution, whereas others want to be quiet and do not want to take an explicit standpoint concerning the case at hand. In the case of courts, this is called either judicial activism or judicial self-restraint.(13) Barry Holmström has researched the political role of the courts in Great Britain, France and Germany. He noticed that the political role of the courts varies greatly when the question is about their role as political actors and authoritative political decision-makers who formulate the values of society. The importance of the courts has, according to Holmström, grown remarkably in last few decades and the activity of the courts also has connections to party politics. Holmström states that people accept the political role of the courts, because there has been 'chronic impotence' in the actions of parliaments to realise democracy. In Germany and France, so it became clear, political attitudes affect the choice of judges more than their competence in the field of law does, although the latter is still an important factor.(14) The picture Holmström paints is quite dark from the perspective of democracy. I do not know whether the situation is the same in Finland and Norway, but it seems likely that the political aspects of the courts could have some connections with the politics of the parties. 4. Who are the authoritative interpreters of the Constitution in Finland? In Finland, there are some persons, such as the President of the Republic (Tasavallan presidentti), the Speaker of Parliament (Eduskunnan puhemies), the Parliamentary ombudsman (Eduskunnan oikeusasiamies) and the Attorney General of the Government (Valtioneuvoston oikeuskansleri) who can be called some kind of authoritative interpreter of the Constitution. Also, the highest courts - the Supreme Court (Korkein oikeus) and the Supreme Administrative Court (Korkein hallinto-oikeus) - should be mentioned. Traditionally, courts did not have a significant role in the interpretation of the Constitution, but this position changed after the reform of basic rights in 1995 and it is also expected that the new Section 106 of the Constitution - which includes a demand for the priority of the Constitution in the courts - may make the role of the courts more important. Still, there are many researchers who are very critical, and doubt whether Section 106 will have an important role at all.(15) However, it can be stated that the Finnish Parliament's constitutional committee (Perustuslakivaliokunta) is the most authoritative interpreting body of the Constitution in Finland. This is a fact that has also been expressed both in the travaux préparatoires of the new Constitution (Suomen Perustuslaki 731/1999) as well as in Finnish legal writing. In the draft of the new Perustuslaki (which came into force on March 1st, 2000), there is a provision that throws