Processing the reforms at the Diet of Finland
Women's suffrage was first discussed at the Diet in 1897. In the appeal submitted to the Burghers it was suggested that women who fulfilled the conditions set for wealth would be granted equal suffrage. It has been assumed that writer Minna Canth was a force behind the appeal that corresponded to the views of the liberal bourgeois women's right movement. Although the appeal was endorsed at the legal committee, the majority decided to reject it, which gave rise to a dissenting opinion being added to the decision.
The proposition of the Senate, issued for the 1904–1905 Diet, concerned the extension of male suffrage within the Burghers and Peasant estates. Four appeals had been submitted for the estates with the starting point of equal treatment of women in terms of suffrage. Adoption of the eligibility to stand for election divided opinions, and not a single word was spoken of a unicameral Parliament.
If the proposition of the Senate and the appeals had been carried out, Finland would have gone in the direction paved by the western countries, but the matter did not advance at the Diet. With the Noble and Burgher estates boycotting the matter, claiming that its legality should be restored, the matter was put on the table for the next Diet. The reform being renounced had a radicalising effect that led the crowds to support the demand of universal suffrage.
General strike forces reforms
The peaceful, gradual suffrage reform, advocated by the estates, lost its appeal in the radical climate of the general strike. The pressure put on by the labour movement and the fear of violent outbursts turned the rest of the undecided groups into supporters of universal suffrage. The only alternative left to appease the situation, which foreshadowed revolution, was to accept a suffrage reform. Women's rights were no longer a separate topic of discussion, as they were included in the main cause.
A parliamentary reform committee was established to prepare the reform; its starting point was universal suffrage pledged by the Emperor. The committee discussion addressed women's right to vote and stand for elections on a principal level, but the opposing statements were weak. The committee's proposal for a new Parliament Act was presented to the Emperor in February and was discussed by the Estates in May, 1906.
The Estates approved
the Parliament Act and Elections Act on 1 June, and the Emperor's confirmation was granted in July. The fundamentally radical reform was conducted at a notably fast pace.
The higher estates opposed the transition to a unicameral system and removing the criteria of right to vote, not as much the political rights being extended to apply to women. They yielded to the reforms because of, on one hand, the pressure from the crowds but also due to the situation in Russia.
If the reform had not been conducted instantly, the favourable historical moment could have slipped away. The consent to a reform that made void the privileges of the estates, took place as a result of the unexceptional circumstances that came to be due to the democracy of the streets and the fear of Russia growing stronger.
Who were not granted the right to vote?
The labour movement feared that the estates proceedings would vitiate the radical suffrage reform. This did not happen, albeit the higher estates did push through a few reservations: The voting age was raised to 24 years and the Grand Committee was established to compensate the upper chamber. Completely without the right to vote were left the very poorest: those relying on poor relief, vagrants, individuals under guardianship or without civil rights and persons in permanent military service.
However, the actual obstacle standing in the way of real representational democracy was the Tsar's right to order extraordinary parliamentary elections and to veto any laws enacted by the Parliament.