There is a risk of affluent pressure groups trying to dominate the democratic system in Switzerland according to Vatter
zvg
Switzerland’s direct democracy will come under increased pressure in the future because of the acceleration effect from digitalisation and globalisation, according to Adrian Vatter, a professor of political science at the University of Bern.
This content was published on
7 minutes
Renat Künzi, swissinfo.ch
Deutsch
de
“Es wird Blockaden im Schweizer Politsystem geben”
Original
Slowing down to allow participation conflicts with the need to act quickly in an interconnected world.
Reforms, however, are only promising if that the political elite makes proposals that will be supported by everyone, Vatter argues.
swissinfo.ch: Let’s begin with some bookkeeping with regards to direct democracy. What are its biggest benefits and disadvantages?
Adrian VatterExternal link: With regard to people’s rights, I see the advantages in the education of the citizenry.
To be more concrete, wherever there is a well-developed form of direct democracy such as in certain cantons and communes in Switzerland, civic knowledge, political awareness, as well as trust in the political system is much higher than areas where direct democracy is less robust.
I think this is one of the system’s main benefits.
I see disadvantages in the threat that financially powerfully interest groups could control the propaganda.
As a result, people’s rights – direct democracy – are paradoxically transformed into the rights of interest groups. This is appealing for those groups with an organisation that is capable of quickly collecting the necessary signatures for a nationwide vote. There is a need for action here.
swissinfo.ch: What possibilities do you see?
A.V.: There are several different options. The most radical solution would be the one we know from Germany. Its constitution is comprised of fundamental and human rights that are sacrosanct.
Since August 2009, he has been professor at the institute of political science in Bern and chair for Swiss politics.
The 50-year-old political scientist from Bern was previously a professor at the University of Constance in Germany and Zurich University.
His main areas of research include democracy research and direct democracy.
We could move in this direction, enshrining certain fundamental rights within the Swiss constitution, in particular those of minorities.
But one doesn’t have to go so far. It is also conceivable that important information could be prominently featured in the run-up to elections and on the ballot itself.
In particular, that approval for a proposal would hurt certain fundamental and human rights, or international agreements.
swissinfo.ch: You mentioned that trust in the political system and its institutions are among direct democracy’s greatest strengths. As far as the government is concerned, however, there is an intriguing discrepancy right now. While the cabinet has lost a number of important votes recently, it still enjoys the highest level of trust among the people in 15 years. How can you explain this?
A.V.: Swiss people can definitely distinguish between the various participants – cabinet on the one hand, direct democracy on the other – and their respective roles and purpose.
As far as trust is concerned, the government hit a low between 2003 and 2007. The cabinet at the time was newly formed and members quarrelled with each other.
In the past few years, the cabinet appears united once again. The seven members are more harmonious and uphold the principle of collegiality. Voters appreciate this.
However, voters sometimes don’t share the same opinion as the government on one or another issue.
swissinfo.ch: Let’s now turn our attention the digital revolution and its impact on direct democracy. To start with, it has an enormous, global acceleration effect in almost all areas. Democracy in Switzerland, on the other hand, is designed to be measured, even slow. Will it stay this way?
A.V.: It is completely appropriate that direct democracy has led to a slowdown of our decision processes. This is a consequence of the system of concordance and the need for consensus. This makes everything a bit slower in Swiss politics.
This does have an advantage, however, in that one doesn’t necessarily make mistakes that need to be corrected later on.
A certain level of continuity and slower pace of change can by all means have benefits. For example, it can provide a certain amount of predictability, which is very important for economic stakeholders.
Digitalisation itself will not be without consequences for direct democracy.
E-voting, new forms of information and their dissemination, or propaganda distribution will be carried out more and more through social media, that is, digital channels. This again has an influence on citizens who either go to the polls or choose to stay at home.
swissinfo.ch: Will digital acceleration also changed the Swiss system of parliamentary democracy, with its finely tuned balance of direct and indirect elements?
A.V.: The pressure from the acceleration effect doesn’t just come from digitalisation.
A general pressure, which we feel here in Switzerland, results from Europeanization and globalisation. Switzerland has to react when the European Union or international organisations make decisions quickly.
It is here where we have this conflict of objectives. On one side, we have direct democracy in which everyone wants to participate. This takes time.
On the other side, there are rapid economic developments such as the 2008/2009 financial crisis, which require a prompt response from the government.
In the future, this is where we may have conflicts and even gridlock within the political system.
In some cases, this could lead to pressure for reform with the direct democracy system. For example, we could have fierce debates in the future regarding the relationship between nationwide votes and international agreements.
swissinfo.ch: What other reforms of the direct democratic system could or should Switzerland tackle in the next five years?
A.V.: It is basically difficult to reform direct democracy. It is even more difficult to put an end to certain people’s rights.
To be sure, there were occasions such as the abolition of the general initiative in which signatures could be collected not for only a concrete constitutional article but rather for a general suggestion regarding a constitutional amendment.
These possibilities, however, were not used by anyone. This goes to show that changes are absolutely possible.
This presupposes, however, that the political elite, including the government and large parties, presents a united front and make proposals that will be supported by everyone.
Fundamentally to this day, however, our semi-direct democracy system is functioning well and enjoys a high degree of legitimacy.
Adapted from German by Catherine McLean
Popular Stories
More
Swiss Politics
Why cars still reign supreme in ‘rail-nation’ Switzerland
If you want to start a conversation about a topic raised in this article or want to report factual errors, email us at english@swissinfo.ch.
Read more
More
Democracy is the ‘best of all bad forms of government’
This content was published on
Can Swiss direct democracy handle the complexity of some of society's current problems? swissinfo.ch talks to political scientists Claude Longchamp and Martina Imfeld about the state of direct democracy in Switzerland.
This content was published on
In the following interview with swissinfo.ch, Stutzer says a global comparisonExternal link by the IMD business school shows countries where forms of direct democracy are exercised doing very well both in terms of economic well-being and competitive edge. Stutzer, a professor of economics at the University of BaselExternal link, says political stability is crucial for…
This content was published on
The number of issues put to vote has increased considerably since the 1970s. The graphics present more than 600 nationwide votes since 1848.
‘Voter verdicts smooths path for diplomatic talks’
This content was published on
Experience with direct democracy in Switzerland has shown that it can be a burden at home, and create tensions abroad. Citizen’s participation in foreign policy has been causing some headaches for the government over the past two decades. The implementation of an initiative from February 2014 to curb immigration from the European Union is just…
This content was published on
To stop the most important instrument in Switzerland’s direct democracy turning into a farce, reforms are urgently needed to improve the effectiveness of initiatives while preventing their abuse. The initiative, that keystone of Swiss direct democracy, has become distanced from its true function as a tool for expressing popular opposition. Its purpose today has turned…
‘Initiatives must not be an excuse to play with fire‘
This content was published on
Idealising the sovereign rights of the people is taking its toll on Swiss democracy, says philosopher Katja Gentinetta. Many disgruntled voters are not aware of the political impact of controversial initiatives approved at the ballot box.
She argues that political and economic developments, notably a trend towards globalisation over the past 20 years, have changed Switzerland’s political culture.
swissinfo.ch: Swiss citizens can decide on political issues more than any other in the world. Are you proud of this?
Katja Gentinetta: It is not a question of pride because I had no role in it. The right to vote and elect is a gift of history. It is something singular that deserves being acknowledged and taken care of by active participation.
swissinfo.ch: There is a strong trend among younger people to take an interest in vintage things and old values. Is the system of direct democracy, which gives the people the final say, – and which the rightwing Swiss People’s Party virtually declares as absolute – the transformation of this phenomenon into politics?
K.G.: On the contrary. This party is including the communication tools of the modern media society very consistently in its political work. It is not resorting to the past but using new possibilities. Traditional Switzerland is at the centre of course but this is another story…
swissinfo.ch: You have described voters’ approval of immigration curbs on February 2014 as a ‘tyranny of the minority’. How can a direct democratic decision become a ‘tyranny of the minority’?
K.G.: I meant the Swiss People’s Party, which is supported by only about 30% of voters. But with such initiatives it succeeds in in winning a majority – albeit an extremely thin majority.
This is one of the key issues of the system. Direct democracy depends on no single political party having absolute power but the need to find compromises with other parties.
The People’s Party, which is very successful at the moment, systematically aims for the majority, using problematic people’s initiatives.
swissinfo.ch: Why is the party so successful with its political power play against the government, parliament and other political players, which used to be decisive?
K.G.: The world has changed a lot in the past two decades that’s for sure.
Voters in 1992 rejected a proposal for Switzerland to join the European Economic Area – a halfway house of European Union membership. We live in a globalised world where borders and markets have become more open.
It is also a world where it is no longer possible to a separate domestic and foreign policy according to strict rules.
For a long time foreign policy used to be in the hands of the Radical Party, while the People’s Party dominated the agricultural issues. This is no longer possible nowadays with the World Trade Organization being the key player.
The People’s Party was most successful in going back to its grassroots. It has continually recruited personnel over the past two decades and sent it out to talk to the people. What’s more it has had great financial means to this day.
These 20 years have changed Switzerland’s political culture.
swissinfo.ch: What about the other parties?
K.G.: It would not be fair to put the ‘blame’ on the People’s Party only. The others also pursued a policy in their own interest. The questions are: Why are they weaker? Did they have the wrong methods? Was their profile too low? Or did they not have enough money?
The growing complexity in a globalised world did certainly play a part. People tend to be intimidated by it and become unhappy.
It is easier to play on fears in politics than to point out possibilities and new options.
swissinfo.ch: Figures show that Switzerland has done better than its European neighbours in a globalised economy following the 2008/09 financial crisis.
K.G.: Until that point the reasoning was ‘If it’s good for the economy it’s good for Switzerland’.
But this no longer applies since the state had to save the bank UBS from collapse, and voters approved of caps on excessive manager salaries.
These two developments have marked a turning point in Swiss politics and we still have not learned to cope with.
swissinfo.ch: Switzerland as a multi-cultural country has a democracy with a carefully-balanced system which ensures compromise, common sense, security, cohesion, stability and prosperity. Is it necessary to fine-tune this system of checks and balances?
K.G.: It is a fundamental question. I do not want to limit the system of direct democracy and even less abolish it.
Still, in my opinion a proposal by the former Federal Chancellor Annemarie Huber-Hotz is highly commendable for Switzerland: to go back to the roots of the initiatives.
The right to call for a constitutional amendment was introduced in 1891 to give those parts of society, which are not sufficiently represented in parliament and administration a way to influence politics. It was not meant as a tool for political parties in power.
I’d like to add the idea of a constitutional court even though it is something unimaginable.
The French political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville’s work, Democracy in America, [published in 1835 and 1840] remains a brilliant analysis to this day. He concludes that democracy is a wonderful institution as long as it has brakes built in. The constitutional court is such a brake that can stop such things, which he described as ‘tyranny of the majority’.
swissinfo.ch: When exactly is this brake supposed to apply?
K.G.: Certain principles are non-negotiable according to the constitutional court.
The Swiss system suffers from an idealisation of the principle that the people are sovereign.
It is taken for granted that the people can and must have the final say on everything.
The discussion currently focuses on whether national or international law should be given priority.
This is ultimately the question. Can we and should we vote democratically on human rights and how can they be applied.
The limits have been reached in the debate. We need such limits to agree on the basics in our society.
swissinfo.ch: You are saying that consensus and compromise are no longer the cornerstones of Swiss politics. Instead it is a trend towards more radicalism and more populism. What can we do to strengthen compromise and consensus in the face of the successful People’s Party with its highly antagonising political proposals?
K.G.: All political actors, that is the governments and parliaments on national, cantonal and communal levels, as well as the parties, political associations and organisations and, not least of all, the citizens have to start thinking what type of Switzerland they want and what the preconditions are to achieve that goal.
One thing is clear. Initiatives with an impact on the constitution must not be an excuse to play with fire and or to teach somebody a lesson.
Angry Swiss voters who seek to vent their frustration, probably inspired by citizens in other countries, are unaware of the consequences. They don’t teach any lessons but they approve a constitutional amendment.
It is time to learn once again the difference and to better acknowledge the impact of such ballot box decisions.
swissinfo.ch: Is Switzerland’s democracy facing a turning point?
K.G.: I think so. By the very fact that the debate over initiatives has taken on a new quality. And this is a good thing.
Katja Gentinetta
Gentinatta has been working as an independent political consultant for companies, organisations and individuals together with her business partner Heike Scholten since 2011.
She has written several books about the welfare state and Switzerland’s policy on Europe and currently teaches as a lecturer at Swiss universities and colleges.
Geninetta has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Zurich University and has studied in Paris and Salzburg, Austria, and at Harvard.
She also presented an intellectual talk show on public television and was a leading member of the think-tank Avenir Suisse in Zurich.
This content was published on
The debate over ideas and the direct participation of citizens in political decisions at the ballot box – including elections and votes – must not be given up, she says. Piffaretti, a former editor-in-chief, lives in the Italian-speaking part of Switzerland. swissinfo.ch: President Simonetta Sommaruga says direct democracy depends on the political culture. In what…
You can find an overview of ongoing debates with our journalists here . Please join us!
If you want to start a conversation about a topic raised in this article or want to report factual errors, email us at english@swissinfo.ch.