Does the formula need a new objective magic?

There are 52 days or 1,248 hours between the parliamentary elections, which take place almost exactly one year later, and the elections to the Federal Council. Since 1959, seats have been distributed among the four parties with the most votes, according to a so-called magic formula. Adjustments in this voluntary model have taken place only in terms of shifts within these four parties. A form of government that offered stability, reliability, and continuity.

But what if several parties are increasingly converging in voter share, and additional parties are vying for a seat on the Federal Council after parliamentary elections due to changes in party structure?

In 2020, the CVP (Die Mitte) launched an alignment summit. However, it was not possible to reconcile the views of the parties. There is certainly a consensus that the key parties should be represented in the Bundesrat. But what does significant mean? Ultimately, this remains a matter of political interpretation.

Example of Upper Austria

Changes in the existing model of the party-political composition of the Federal Council with the aim of integrating further political forces into the government have not found a majority to date: neither an increase in the number, nor popular elections of Federal Councilors. Thus, the magic formula remains with us.

52 days or 1248 hours – is there enough time to clarify what the composition of the Federation Council should be? You can specify an objectified, written down “magic formula”. Such models exist. In our neighboring Austria, for example, in the federal state of Upper Austria, in addition to the head of government (first among equals in Switzerland), the government of eight members consists of proportional representation (for mathematically enthusiastic readers: this is calculated by the D’Hondt method, one of several possible ways to calculate the share). Out of a certain number of seats in parliament, the party receives at least one seat in the government. As in Switzerland, the motive is to form a government from the respective parties represented in parliament. However, discussions after the parliamentary elections about the party-political composition of the executive power are superfluous.

Also a model for Switzerland?

The counterargument would be that the composition of the Federal Council is not a purely mathematical matter, but rather factors such as the will to cooperate, a certain style of politicization, the ability to reach consensus, etc. Values ​​that would certainly continue to exist with a fixed proportional representation – after all they primarily depend on the elected person.

Another objection: the parties must at least prove their success in the next elections, only then it will even be possible to think about whether they are eligible for a seat in the Federal Council (in the future). Moreover, the non-re-election of the previous federal adviser is inexpedient, and the succession of personnel in the government is a sign of quality. But: Fixed proportional representation means that parties will only be in the executive branch from a certain threshold. Voter movements were supposed to cause a tectonic shift in order for another government to emerge. The party-political and personal continuity will be preserved, as well as the important electoral function of the parliament. Because: Even with fixed proportional representation, there should be no compulsion to vote.

Fixed proportional representation would be a relief

Clear, mandatory regulation can have a facilitating effect. As soon as the results of the poll are published, disputes immediately begin about whether one or another party claims a seat in the Federal Council at the expense of another. Or this or that political camp has to share places among themselves. As in a bazaar, arguments are traded on both sides. Applicable, such as seats in the Council of States (which would be a logical consequence of an equal bicameral system). But also very contrived. The impression remains ambiguous: is the energy and attention invested in such discussions in the interests of the country, given the current political situation and indeed numerous and diverse challenges?

Parliamentary elections are of great importance in terms of democratic politics. As a result, the results of the parties with the most votes are reflected in the party policy of the Bundesrat. Which brings us back to the beginning of the article: 52 days, 1248 hours – and then? With the transition from a voluntary magic formula to a fixed proportional representation (the calculation method needs to be determined), the desire to integrate the relevant parties into the Bundesrat will become more objective. The “magic” of unity in this respect would remain, proportional representation would be an expression of the typical Swiss political system as a democracy of consensus and referendum. The focus of parliamentary elections may shift from the Federal Council to current issues and party-political responses. In my opinion, it would be better for the interests of the country.

*Michael Strebel holds a PhD in political science, specializing in parliamentarism and political systems. Among other things, he teaches at the Fernuniversität Hagen and the Berlin School of Economics and Law, and works in various parliaments.