175 years of federal government: Swiss politics needs these updates

Switzerland is actually an ‘impossible’ structure. In a relatively small area, people from different language and cultural areas live peacefully together in a political system that gives them more say than in almost any other country. And that has been the case since the federal state was founded exactly 175 years ago.

After the defeat of the conservative cantons in the short and relatively bloodless Sonderbund War, a committee of 23 men drafted a constitution in just 51 days, which was adopted by the legislature on September 12, 1848. The anniversary will be celebrated next Tuesday with a ceremony in the Federal Palace.

Switzerland was not a pioneer, as the first modern constitution in the spirit of the Enlightenment in Europe was drawn up in Poland as early as 1791. The great powers reacted violently. Only two years later, Russia and Prussia divided the proud country between themselves. Switzerland was spared such a fate, even though it was also a thorn in the side of the monarchies.

She was very fortunate that in 1848 people were revolting in many European countries and the great powers were busy with themselves. Later, Switzerland was threatened militarily, but with luck and cleverness it overcame all challenges and was able to assert itself as the first stable democracy in Europe.

She was never flawless. The 1848 constitution already contained deficits. Women were excluded from politics and Jews remained second-class citizens. While the former bothered virtually no one (a women’s rights movement only emerged towards the end of the 19th century), Switzerland came under pressure from the US and France for discrimination against Jews when it wanted to conclude trade agreements with these countries.

With the total revision of the federal constitution of 1874, Jews were given full equality. It also contained the direct democratic elements that made Switzerland what it is today. However, it took almost 100 years for women to gain the right to vote, and during that time it became an embarrassing bottom position among democracies.

Nevertheless, it is nothing short of a miracle that Switzerland has retained its foundations to this day. But this stability has a downside. Switzerland is having a hard time with reforms. The late introduction of women’s suffrage is the most striking example of this. It often only started moving after it came under pressure from abroad.

This seems to be increasing in the ‘globalized’ 21st century. In the anniversary year of the federal state, three updates for Swiss politics should therefore be considered:

“27% of municipalities in Switzerland grant foreigners the right to vote at the municipal level.” This sentence was already on posters a few months ago. He was part of a campaign by the right-liberal Institute for Swiss Economic Policy (IWP) at the University of Lucerne under the motto “Facts instead of opinions”.

The statement is factually correct, but still borders on opinion formation. Because these communities occur almost exclusively in Western Switzerland. In the Jura and Neuchâtel, foreigners can even have a say at cantonal level. However, in German-speaking Switzerland, only a few municipalities in Appenzell Ausserrhoden and Graubünden grant foreigners the right to vote.

In fact, when the voting rights of foreigners are voted on in German-speaking Switzerland, the rejection is usually massive. It is said that foreigners should be naturalized. This argument comes from political circles that often struggle to make naturalization easier or even want to make it more difficult.

The differences between parts of the country are not just cultural. The Romans themselves are in the minority in this country and understand the need for the foreign population, whose share is more than 25 percent, to have a say. If she has to pay taxes, she should at least have a say at the local level.

Thirty years ago, as a young journalist, I interviewed Hans Jörg Huber, the CVP State Councilor of Aargau, in his office. He showed me the mountains of paper he received every day from Bern. Nowadays you can submit them electronically, but the effort has not diminished. Phenomena such as cybercrime have made the world more complex.

In fact, more and more national and state council members are professional politicians. But Switzerland clings to the myth of the militia parliament. The SVP in particular defends him tenaciously. In reality, it often comes down to paid mandates that place parliamentarians in a difficult dual role as legislator and lobbyist.

It would be fairer to recognize parliamentary work as a full-fledged profession, with the right to unemployment benefits in case of dismissal and with a pension fund. Today they receive 14,000 francs a year, but they have to insure themselves. And there are 33,000 francs for employing one worker.

This is hardly enough to provide substantial support. Many MPs would like to see an assistant position paid by the federal government, so that the representation of the Swiss people is more than a ‘noddy parliament’, as an unnamed GLP national councilor described it to Tamedia. Good legislation must be worth this to us.

The Swiss government with only seven members without a permanent chairmanship is unique. It was inspired by the Directory of the French Revolution, which was drawn up after Robespierre’s reign of terror. What makes matters even more astonishing is that this directorate has performed more poorly than well.

No composition lasted longer than a year, so an ambitious general named Napoleon Bonaparte could easily seize power in 1799. In Switzerland, however, the Federal Council has existed in this form since 1848, because it has always managed to involve relevant political forces, even if it took a long wait.

But in the early days of the federal state, there was already criticism of this form of government, wrote the Bernese political scientist Adrian Vatter in a guest article for the NZZ. In fact, cooperation in this multi-party government often functions poorly without a clear parliamentary majority. Then people often complain about the infamous ‘silo mentality’.

One consequence of this is strategic deficits. You experience it in European politics, which is characterized more by wishful thinking than by a sense of reality, up to the Federal Council. There were certainly ideas for reform, such as increasing membership to nine members or adding specialized ministers. They failed, not least because of the Federal Council itself: who gives up power?

The radical system change towards a parliamentary democracy is occasionally brought into play, for example by the political scientist Rahel Freiburghaus, who obtained his PhD under Adrian Vatter. He himself advocates list elections instead of individual elections for the entire Federal Council. This would curb power plays, but that is precisely why the parties are unlikely to participate.

Another idea of ​​Vatter’s is more interesting: the creation of a presidential department. It would plan and coordinate the work of the Federal Council. Strategic thinking could also be strengthened and the Federal Council could become more ‘crisis-proof’. However, if you talk to people close to the Federal Council about such a presidential department, they reject it.

Until 1920, the Federal President simultaneously took over the then political department, from which the FDFA emerged. In current politics, such ‘department shopping’ is hardly conceivable. In fact, it would amount to a permanent federal president, which would hardly be conducive to the working atmosphere in the committee of seven.

But it is also about external impact. Switzerland is not easy to explain abroad, State Secretary Livia Leu told the NZZ a year ago: “No one understands, for example, why we have a different president every year.” It says a lot about our navel-gazing mentality that this explosive sentence went unnoticed.

He gets to the heart of the problem: a government leader would give Switzerland a ‘face’. It would be taken more seriously than it is today, when people often feel that foreign heads of state and government treat us quite condescendingly. Because ultimately politics is about responsibilities.

The chance that any of the three points will be implemented is still small. After 175 supposedly successful years, one should not underestimate the persistence of the forces. At the same time, politics is becoming increasingly faster and more complex. If Switzerland does not want to lose contact, it must provide its federal state with the necessary updates.