Shortly after proclamation of Finland’s independence, Eduskunta became, for the short period of time, the highest authority in the Finnish state. It decided to appoint P.E. Svinhufvud to the position of regent and to invite German prince Frederick Charles of Hesse to the Finnish throne. Due to military defeat of Germany and their erroneous geopolitical concepts both Svinhufvud and Frederick Charles resigned. On December 14th 1919, Carl G. Mannerheim became the new regent. In March 1919 the parliamentary majority (composed of Social-Democrats and Agrarians) agreed on that the Finland should become a republic. On July 19th 1919, Eduskunta adopted the Form of Government, the Swedish-type basic law, regarded to be most important part of the Finnish constitutional regulations. According to this act, Eduskunta exercised the people’s sovereignty. It performed the main role within sphere of legislative power, although in conjunction with the President of Republic (who was granted the right of legislative initiative as well as the right to suspensory veto). Eduskunta – the unicameral parliament, was elected by all citizens (including women) in general, direct, equal and proportional ballot for a three-year term. The division of powers and the method of election of the President (by electoral college independent from Eduskunta and also elected in general ballot) excluded the supremacy of Eduskunta over the President. The President’s status as the “highest executive power”, his long-lasting six-years term in office as well as the strong personalities of many Finnish presidents (like K.J. Ståhlberg, P.E. Svinhufvud, C.G. Mannerheim, J.K. Paasikivi and finally Urho K. Kekkonen) contributed to consolidation of the President’s position as a stable pillar of Finnish politics. But on the other hand, Eduskunta rescued its powers of the central law-making body. It could not only pass ordinary laws, but, with special procedure, it could also amend or modify the constitutional acts. The ongoing political practice caused, in the situation of some constitutional understatements and, in addition, because of lack of stability of many coalition cabinets, the necessity of several “improvements” of constitutional rules dealing with relations between Eduskunta, the Council of State and the President. The new constitutional provisions (36a–36c) gave to Eduskunta basis for assessment of the Cabinet’s programme, both at moment of its primary construction and when significant reconstructions were on their way to be introduced. They confirmed the requirement of parliamentary confidence both to the cabinet in corpore as well as to its individual members. But due to the competencies and the President’s real influence, Finland remained to be the combination of the parliamentary system mixed with numerous components of the semi-presidential one. At the beginning of the 1990s, Eduskunta initiated the constitutional reform aiming on re-defining the balance of “powers” and on strengthening of the Eduskunta’s position vis-à-vis the Cabinet as well as in relations to the President. After long-lasting discussions, the Constitutional Committee of Eduskunta decided to merge dispersed (four) constitutional acts. On February 6th 1998 the new (second) modified draft was presented to Eduskunta and six days later it was approved (with some modifications) under the new name of Suomen perustuslaki (Constitution of Finland). The Constitution was voted once again (after the new Eduskunta election) on June 11th 1999 and it entered into force on March 1st 2000. The New Constitution enhanced the competencies of Eduskunta and consolidated its position as the sole legislative (statute-making) organ. The President has rescued his right to suspensory veto, but it may be quite easily turned down by Eduskunta. The President lost his previous competences to appoint the prime minister (transmitted to the Speaker of Eduskunta). The Cabinet (Council of State) must enjoy the confidence of Eduskunta and the dismissal of the prime minister results in the Cabinet’s resignation. Eduskunta has received some new competencies in the sphere of European and foreign policy and, in particular, over the international treaties.