class=”sc-3778e872-0 cKDKQr”>
What was so urgent and so important that parliament held an extraordinary session last week in a federal city? What business couldn’t wait? How did it happen that even notorious truants rode the Aare and held a meeting in the Federal Palace until three in the morning, when nothing had any consequences and the decree of the Federal Council of March 16 irreversibly entered into force?
What prompted the session? Election campaign? Is an extraordinary session a viable means of stimulating the will of the voters? Shouldn’t we be afraid that after this zero number, political disillusionment will grow?
Or was it about emptying the goiter, about public and personal mental hygiene? Do we need this gathering of the victims around the campfire, since after the departure of the blue light organizations there is nothing more to discuss?
Session as mourning work?
And where does the anger of parliamentarians come from? If you think that the legal framework is inadequate and banks need to be kept on a short leash, then why doesn’t parliament pass the relevant laws? Because he had already passed these laws after the penultimate bailout of a major bank from bankruptcy, and because there was nothing he could do if the Federal Council refrained from enforcing them in an emergency?
Did Parliament search for the truth last week to clear up the facts? Its’ his job? Isn’t it up to the court to establish the fact? Shouldn’t the Federal Supreme Court be the appellate body? Why is there no constitutional jurisdiction in Switzerland? Why is there no appeal against the ruling of Thursday, March 16, 2023?
When will Parliament appeal these and similar future rulings? Why not refer to the European Convention on Human Rights, which defines such remedies as a fundamental right? And what does this absence mean? End of legality? End of separation of powers, checks and balances?
Or is the guarantee of legal remedies secondary in the opinion of Parliament?
And if so, should it remain so?
Or does parliament think that the Bundesrat, this sluggish body, despite all the reservations and almost scandals, is still the board of directors, the government of this country, and should do just that if the worst happens: take matters into their own hands? to show with his own hands where Bartley gets Mosht, and save Switzerland from flooding? What is left for Parliament? The role of stormy chat? Isn’t that frustrating? Doesn’t this contradict the federal constitution, which defines this parliament as the highest body of the federal government?
If Parliament is angry or upset that the Federal Council has presented it with a fait accompli or, if you like, has been deceived again and again, will not this disappointment find an outlet through the passage of laws? Do you shy away from it because you can’t find the majority? Isn’t it strange that the right and left throats united in a jeremiad about evil bankers during this special session?
Parliament does not want or not? Why doesn’t Parliament touch its democratic powers? Because you’re afraid of it?
And if the Federal Council argues that the legal basis of Articles 184 and 185 is sufficient for a ruling, can the constitutional complaint be mitigated?
Has the danger now been averted after this emergency meeting? Or is there still a threat of doom, and the risk has just moved through the Zurich Paradeplatz to the UBS headquarters? How big would the damage to the national economy be if UBS went bankrupt instead of fifteen years ago when today’s savior had to be bailed out? Does anyone know this number What measures would then be appropriate? Will it then be four hundred billion, twice that, maybe one trillion?
Were there elections in the Federal Council? What would she look like? Had he, along with the lower authorities, simply resigned himself to the inevitable? Wouldn’t he then have become like the heroes of an ancient tragedy, thrown at the mercy of the gods? Will this decree still be an expression of power, but rather impotence?
Or is the problem not in the Federal Council and not in Parliament? Since one so often insists on direct democracy, on the people as sovereign, as the first and last instance of the state, should it not therefore be the responsibility of the people? Or are we, the so-called people, just as helpless and powerless? Can we, as citizens, even think of our freedom as an opportunity? Was this past week, this special session, this magic of democracy, this exhibit, proof of the failure of this society? Can we citizens think about freedom at all, or have we capitulated to the power of fact, that is, of capital?
Then wouldn’t it be cheap to be angry at the banks, at the managers, at the authorities and at the irresponsibility, if they just do what we allow them to do?
And wasn’t this sad man with glasses and the right tie that we were all allowed to watch that Sunday evening, March 19, live at the Berne media conference, the man sitting on the podium, like a schoolboy with ears, stretched and raised himself when he was asked who is to blame for this disorder, answered so sincerely, so childishly innocent that it was always easy to look back – was he not fundamentally right, despite his insolence? Shouldn’t it be difficult for those on the threshold to look forward to the future? Anyone doubt that this was the case with the last head of a large bank with 150 years of history, but does anyone think that he was alone? Who is standing on the abyss? Banks? Switzerland? Policy? We all?
Could this banking crash, this new crash, be related to the rest of the politics of this country? Can it be argued that the Federal Council, in its decision of March 16, 2023, decided in favor of neutrality? Isn’t sovereignty a condition of neutrality? Isn’t it natural that governments all over the world are praising the Swiss solution because they don’t have to pay for it?
And isn’t it clear when certain governments exercise their influence, and wasn’t the American government in the past the first to set the pace for this Switzerland or, whoever wants, disrupt the march?
Isn’t it a bittersweet point in the independence right’s rhetoric how often the pressure from Washington makes Bern bounce? Who dares to give examples? Doesn’t this testify to the double helplessness of Switzerland? situation and interests? And if one seems too complicated and the other too overwhelming, doesn’t this helplessness look like the helplessness of the subject, or, in more modern terms, does it not describe the colonial situation? Or are we still a free nation of brothers and the like? Who believes in it?
Then what is required for this? The idea that inspires, the social force that propels it, the institutions that make it happen? And who will ask where it could come from? From consciousness, of course, like any idea, but consciousness needs education, in conditions, it does not arise from nothing, and will the political question arise, how to create these conditions?
Wouldn’t it be better to ask how this can happen, what conditions we must create to bring about this change? Isn’t the task formulated simply? Not about destroying the power of the banks, the power over our lives, over our freedom? Who doubts the desire to do this?
And if the parliament of the current legislature is not ready for this law, then shouldn’t citizens look around to see if there are people who support the political project?
Do these people even exist and are there citizens who would vote for them? Or is the sovereign resigned to the general situation, his main concern is whether his own share of prosperity will only increase? Wouldn’t that be the definition of resignation? Doesn’t such an attitude contradict democracy? Does democracy mean rule by the people or rule by the people? And shouldn’t one get the impression that this submissiveness is characteristic not only for dealing with unfortunate banks, but also for other enterprises? In European politics, with negotiations on a framework agreement and a Brussels exit in 2021? And in social policy in cutting benefits and raising the retirement age? Don’t we need other solutions, and shouldn’t they be extraordinary?
And why is the decision dated Thursday, March 16, and not March 19, when the Federal Council allegedly only then made a decision? Can someone explain to me?
Source: Blick
I am David Miller, a highly experienced news reporter and author for 24 Instant News. I specialize in opinion pieces and have written extensively on current events, politics, social issues, and more. My writing has been featured in major publications such as The New York Times, The Guardian, and BBC News. I strive to be fair-minded while also producing thought-provoking content that encourages readers to engage with the topics I discuss.
