The missing line

It has been over a week since Finnish prime minister Sanna Marin was dragged into controversy over a partying video recorded at her residence, but the questions triggered by the incident are not yet settled. The fuss around the party video has allegedly exposed the irony of the young and female-led government in Finland. More importantly, it has raised, once again, the universal question of drawing a line between public and private life of a public figure. 36-year-old Sanna Marin rose from a humble background to acquire the top office in the corridors of power. This, beyond being her individual achievement, was a triumph for Finnish democracy. Moreover, Sanna Marin of the Social Democratic party is not an oddity in Finland's national politics. Other parties in the ruling coalition — the Centre party, Greens, Left Alliance and Swedish People's party — are also led by women in their thirties. It might not be apt to equate the castigation against Sanna Marin to misogyny and sexism. Comparison of the treatment she received with that meted out to Boris Johnson, for similar public behaviour, may also be erroneous. The difference in political and societal tolerance between the United Kingdom and Finland is huge. Finland has been conventionally tough on its politicians when it comes to maintaining a 'morality' of sorts. In 2008, 60-year-old male foreign minister, Ilkka Kanerva, was forced to exit for sending suggestive text messages to an erotic dancer he met on a plane. Furthermore, a male prime minister was dragged into a similar controversy for wearing shorts to a press conference. This is no way to suggest that misogyny and sexism don't exist as problems in Finland. But inflating a political issue into gendered stereotypes might be a misrepresentation of facts, and won't serve any purpose at all. A group of strong women running Finland is indeed reassuring in a world plagued by sharp gender disparity. The wider problem, however, is that political systems are struggling to evolve to present-day requirements. This is not just a case with Finland but with other countries as well. Social media, as a tool for gaining soft power among people, is emerging incredibly. Leaders like Marin have excelled in the use of this not-so-new but 'new' platform. For new-age political leaders, it is a strong medium to communicate the traits of their individual character with a personal touch. Leaders have managed to wield this tool to create an army of prompt defenders whenever a controversy is erupted. At the same time, such tools have also made them vulnerable to quick and frequent public scrutiny. To clarify a bit, the problem is not really with social media platforms or the individual leaders per se. The line between freedoms and constraints of an individual enjoying widespread social media influence is not yet defined. A seemingly invasive question is, should Sanna Marin have been thoughtful of her leisure activity turning into a topic of global debate? Being fully aware of how carefully crafted social media campaigns can attract public acceptance, Sanna Marin must also be aware what act of hers will stir what kind of response, nationally and globally, some argue. This argument may have a slight element of truth. It is Marin's tech-savviness and widespread social media presence that enables her to stand up against institutions, with a strong individual identity, and this strength should be respected by her. But the thing is where is that line that distinguishes between what is socio-politically acceptable and what is not. A shift from a hardwired image of politicians to a more flexible one is a welcome thing. It had to come and it will come. Sanna Marin's emphasis that she is a "human" and that she also needs "joy, light and fun amidst the dark clouds" is an indicator that the process of change is already kickstarted. It may get acceptance over time. Though desirable, this change may not be feasible without reinventing concrete notions of security and morality. Marin had to apologise, probably considering the elections next year. However, leaders like her are on a path to redefine public life. Rather than seeing this row as a passing fad, institutions should start drawing justified lines to ensure that the transition is smooth.