Swiss democracy at risk from populism, media and globalisation
Switzerland’s system of direct democracy is being undermined by growing populism, the role of the media and globalisation, warns Moroccan-born Swiss researcher Abdelmoula Lamhangar.
This content was published on
7 minutes
Abdel-Hafidh Al-Abdali in Lausanne
At stake are extended citizen participation in the management of public affairs and the autonomy of the local policy decision process, he says in an interview with swissinfo.
The 51-year-old expert on Islam in Switzerland is a former member of the local parliament for the leftwing Social Democratic Party in the town of Romont in western Switzerland.
swissinfo.ch: Direct democracy is controversial even in Switzerland. Some believe that Switzerland is stable and rich thanks to direct democracy. Others argue that the country’s prosperity is regardless of citizen participation in politics. Who’s right?
Abdelmoula Lamhangar: Direct democracy is a deeply rooted element of the Swiss identity. In 1848, the first constitution of modern-day Switzerland contributed to the creation of a society and a method of managing public affairs that ensures a balanced distribution of power between the people and their elites, between cities and rural regions, and between minorities and the majority.
It is not a coincidence that the results of any nationwide ballot on an initiative need both a majority of votes of the electorate, as well as the majority [of the country’s 26] cantons, regardless of their size.
Direct democracy enables minorities to express their views so that the majority cannot dominate or monopolise public affairs.
swissinfo.ch: Switzerland’s relations with the world, especially in the 20th century, were characterised by strongly perceived threats from the outside. To what extent has this affected the practice of direct democracy?
A.L.: Switzerland’s foreign policy has often opted for a neutral and impartial stand. This attitude has helped to strengthen and consolidate the cohesion of the country.
It also allowed Switzerland to gain a special status as an international mediator and to play a leading role in managing and solving different conflicts in other parts of the world.
It was a temporary refuge for many dissidents [e.g. Russian revolutionary Lenin and Yasser Arafat, leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization PLO] and became the seat of the European headquarters of the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross ICRC, to mention just a few.
swissinfo.ch: What is the relation between direct democracy in Switzerland, – which means more freedom, equality, and participation -, and attempts to impose restrictions on minorities and curb solidarity?
A.L.: Switzerland is not a country where minorities face restrictions or discrimination, in my view. The problem is a certain lack of checks and balances in current politics.
Certain strong conservative right parties are having recourse to a populist discourse, pretending to be able to solve all types of problems, but their real aim is to shape public views and opinions.
In doing so, they misuse and undermine the process of direct democracy.
The same goes for some of the leftwing parties, I must admit. Both sides are involved in committing the same political mistake while dealing with the issue of direct democracy.
The second factor that threatens direct democracy in Switzerland is the impact of the media.
Taking advantage of free speech and the wide margin of freedom, journalists spare no efforts in spreading negative and biased attitudes about foreigners: their views, behaviour, culture and religion.
In doing so, the media has become a ‘political power’ that influences the public opinion and voting intentions: of course in favour of rightwing parties and organisations.
But, no matter how hard both the right and the left may try to misuse direct democracy, Switzerland remains that country where every citizen enjoys his full rights.
swissinfo.ch: You have mentioned the populist tendency of the right. How dangerous is this for society in general?
A.L.: Western democracies risk giving up the most important democratic principles of human rights. These principles have come under pressure under the pretext of fighting terrorism [the anti-terror law known as ‘Patriot Act’ in the United States, and the anti-terror laws in France, Germany].
At the same time, there is a political elite in these democracies, represented in parliaments, that raises populist slogans to win elections or support for their parties.
This risks damaging the democratic process, whether it is direct or representative, and goes beyond the political competition in the interest of voters. Nevertheless, Switzerland remains a state based on the rule of law.
Switzerland faces a problematic trend among conservative right parties which increasingly impose their agenda on centrist as well as leftwing parties.
The conservative right provides populist answers that fuel emotions but it does not change anything in reality. Yet it is difficult for other political forces to compete in elections and votes.
The dilemma is that the right sends direct democracy off its course.
swissinfo.ch: Is this the real agenda of those who say ‘Switzerland cannot accommodate all the misery of the world’?
A.L.: This discourse is unacceptable and unrealistic, because it ignores historical facts. In past centuries when Europe was living in misery, it sent huge numbers of its population to America, Australia and Africa.
Take canton Valais for instance. Driven by famines, one-third of the population from that region emigrated to Argentina.
Protesters in canton Fribourg opposing the opening of asylum shelters should remember that thousands of families had left Fribourg [in the 19th century] in search of a better life in Brazil.
swissinfo.ch: The processes of policy- and decision-making have become more complicated, because of increasing international cooperation and coordination. So, what is the point of consulting voters at a national level?
A.L.: Recent political events in Spain and Greece or the last general elections in Italy give a very valuable lesson for direct democracy.
More than ever, there is a need for more public consultations.
The discussions that followed the Arab Spring and the emergence of the ‘indignant movement’ and others have one thing in common: they demand that citizens are given more power of decision-making.
This is because the representative democracy, in their view, has deviated from its principles and lacks transparency, especially with the growing role of lobbies, thus emptying democracy of its real significance.
swissinfo.ch; this translation is a shortened and adapted version of an interview conducted in Arabic.
Popular Stories
More
Culture
Wealth is not all: how gentrification in Zurich has led to housing shortage
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 a complex and vulnerable process’
This content was published on
Speaking on the International Day of Democracy on Tuesday, Burkhalter said such a system is complex and fragile, and takes time to develop. “Working for democracy is a constant work in progress for all of us. Democracy is not a static framework, it is a system driven by the people, changing accordingly; it is as…
This content was published on
Moritz Leuenberger and Pascal Couchepin were both dominant figures in the government from the mid-1990s for more than a decade. They served as interior, economic and transport ministers in the seven-member cabinet. They retired more than five years ago but regularly comment on politics, also adding their voice to ongoing discussions about direct democracy and…
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.
‘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
At her keynote address at the Europa Forum, which regularly brings European leaders together to discuss key political, economic and societal issues, Sommaruga compared discussions about Switzerland’s direct democracy to discussions over rules in the game of football.In sports as in politics, she said, people who question certain rules aren’t proposing removing the underlying system…
This content was published on
Fifteen years after leaving government, Adolf Ogi is still a strong believer in consensus democracy. Yet this kind of thinking leaves the still popular 72-year-old pretty much isolated in his own political fold, the conservative rightwing Swiss People’s Party.
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.