Learn Hardcore Finnish: On epäreilua, jos vain yksi puolue saa päättää kaikesta. - It is unfair if only one party gets to decide everything.

On epäreilua literally means “Is unfair”, but is understood as “It is unfair”.
The subject is left out because we are talking about a general situation, not a specific thing.

You can say Se on epäreilua, and it’s also correct, but:

On epäreilua feels more impersonal and general, like making a general statement about fairness.
Se on epäreilua points more to a specific situation that’s already known from context:
- Se on epäreilua, että vain yksi puolue saa päättää kaikesta.
  “It is unfair that only one party gets to decide everything.”

Why is it epäreilua and not epäreilu?

Epäreilua is the partitive form of the adjective epäreilu (“unfair”). In sentences like this, Finnish often puts the predicative adjective (the adjective used with olla = “to be”) in the partitive case when:

The statement is general, indefinite, or abstract, not about a specific, clearly delimited thing.
You’re expressing something like “It is (a kind of) unfairness” rather than “This particular thing is unfair (in a closed, definite way).”

Compare:

On epäreilua, jos…
General statement: “It is unfair if…”
Tämä päätös on epäreilu.
“This decision is unfair.” (Here epäreilu is nominative, describing a specific decision.)

So the partitive epäreilua here matches the idea of “unfair in general / unfair as a type of thing”.

Is the comma before jos necessary? Why is it there?

Yes, the comma is required here by Finnish punctuation rules.

Jos vain yksi puolue saa päättää kaikesta is a subordinate clause (a conditional “if”-clause).
In Finnish, when a subordinate clause follows the main clause, it is usually separated by a comma.

So:

On epäreilua, jos vain yksi puolue saa päättää kaikesta. ✅
Writing it without the comma would normally be considered incorrect in standard written Finnish.

What exactly does jos mean here, and how is it different from kun?

Here jos means “if” in a conditional sense:

On epäreilua, jos vain yksi puolue saa päättää kaikesta.
“It is unfair if only one party gets to decide everything.”
→ This talks about a possible situation or condition.

Kun usually means:

“when” (in time) or
sometimes “since/when” in an explanatory sense.

For example:

On epäreilua, kun vain yksi puolue saa päättää kaikesta.
This sounds more like: “It is unfair when/since only one party gets to decide everything.”
→ Suggests that this is actually happening (a factual complaint), not just a hypothetical condition.

So:

jos = if (conditional, hypothetical or general condition)
kun = when/since (factual or temporal).

What does vain do here, and why is it placed before yksi?

Vain means “only”. Its usual position is right before the word or phrase it limits.

vain yksi puolue = only one party (not two, not many).

If you moved vain somewhere else, it would sound strange or change the meaning. For example:

yksi vain puolue is not natural Finnish.
vain puolue saa päättää kaikesta would mean “only the party gets to decide everything” (as opposed to some other actor), and even that would want clarifying context.

So the normal way to say “only one party” is vain yksi puolue.

What kind of “party” is puolue? Could it also mean a birthday party?

No. Puolue specifically means a (political) party.

yksi puolue = “one (political) party”
puoluejärjestelmä = party system
puoluejohtaja = party leader

For a social party (birthday party, house party, etc.), Finnish typically uses:

juhlat = party, celebration (e.g. syntymäpäiväjuhlat = birthday party)

So here, the sentence is about politics, not about, say, one birthday party making all decisions.

How does saa päättää work? Why use saada plus an infinitive?

Saada plus the basic form (infinitive) of a verb often expresses permission or the right to do something.

saada päättää = “to be allowed to decide”, “to have the right to decide”, or more idiomatically: “to get to decide”.

So:

yksi puolue saa päättää kaikesta
≈ “one party gets to decide everything / is allowed to decide everything / has the power to decide everything.”

Compare:

voi päättää = “can decide” (ability/possibility)
päättää alone = “decides”

Using saa päättää emphasizes permission / power given to them, not just abstract ability.

Why is it kaikesta and not kaikki or kaikesta asiasta?

The noun phrase kaikesta is in the elative case (ending -sta/-stä), which often corresponds to English “about / of / from” in certain verb constructions.

The verb päättää (“to decide”) commonly takes the elative:

päättää jostakin = “to decide about something”, “to make a decision on something”.

So:

päättää kaikesta = “decide about everything” / “decide on everything”.

You could also say:

päättää kaikista asioista = “decide about all (the) matters/things”

But kaikesta alone is short, natural, and idiomatic here, and kaikki (nominative) would be grammatically wrong after päättää in this sense.

Could I say On epäreilua, että vain yksi puolue saa päättää kaikesta instead of using jos? What’s the difference?

Yes, that sentence is also correct, but the nuance changes.

On epäreilua, jos vain yksi puolue saa päättää kaikesta.
“It is unfair if only one party gets to decide everything.”
→ Conditional / hypothetical or general rule: Whenever this situation happens, it is unfair.
On epäreilua, että vain yksi puolue saa päättää kaikesta.
“It is unfair that only one party gets to decide everything.”
→ Statement about a fact: This is how things actually are (or are presented), and I call it unfair.

So:

jos = framing it as a condition (“in any situation where this is true, it’s unfair”).
että = framing it as a fact being commented on (“the fact that X is unfair”).

Could I say Tämä on epäreilua instead of On epäreilua here?

You could, but it would sound a bit different:

On epäreilua, jos vain yksi puolue saa päättää kaikesta.
General rule: “It is unfair if only one party gets to decide everything” (impersonal, like a principle).
Tämä on epäreilua, jos vain yksi puolue saa päättää kaikesta.
“This is unfair if only one party gets to decide everything.”
→ Sounds more like you are referring to a specific situation or proposal (“this [case] is unfair if…”).

In most contexts where you’re making a general political or moral statement, the impersonal On epäreilua is more natural.

Why is yksi puolue in the nominative and not in some other case?

Yksi puolue (“one party”) is the subject of the verb phrase saa päättää (“gets to decide”).

Subjects in Finnish are usually in the nominative case (the “dictionary form”), especially in simple active sentences:
- yksi puolue saa päättää
- kansanedustajat äänestävät (“the MPs vote”)
- lapsi nukkuu (“the child sleeps”).

If you changed the form of yksi puolue (for example, to partitive), you would be changing its function in the sentence, so nominative is the correct choice here.