by Paul Schmutz Schaller for the Saker Blog
Since more than 125 years, Switzerland has a very interesting tradition of popular votes. There are three situations which lead to a popular vote:
a) (Small) changes of the constitution, proposed by the government and approved by the parliament.
b) (Small) changes of the constitution, proposed by a popular initiative, which needs to collect 100’000 signatures (not online!); actually, there are 5.44 millions who are entitled to vote so that 100’000 are about 1.84% of all.
c) New laws or changes of existing laws, proposed by the government and approved by the parliament, if there is a popular referendum, which needs 50’000 signatures.
In the last 10 years, there were 85 popular votes, with very diverse subjects, for example: social and economical questions; questions of immigration and asylum; questions of environment, energy, and nutrition; taxes; transport (roads, railways); medical questions; security and army. Of the 85 popular votes, 16 were of category a) (13 of them were approved in the vote), 46 of category b) (6 of them were approved, against the recommendation of the government), and 23 of category c) (in 16 cases, the proposal of the government and the parliament was approved). Hence, in 16 of the 85 votes, the government did not win. The participation was quite variable; usually, it is between 40% and 50%.
Please do not think that these votes are something like “people” against “elite” or “working class” against “monopoly capital”. Such votes do not exist in reality, at least not in Switzerland. Nearly each vote is the result of some divisions among the ruling classes. Each side tries to convince the population that it supports the real interests of the people while the other side defends only egoistic, particular interests. Of course, in most cases, there are huge differences concerning the financial resources of the two sides. Moreover, the press is in the hands of very few people (as usually in Western countries), which gives them a big advantage. Nevertheless, they are not omnipotent and it arrives that their money and their propaganda is not well targeted.
By the way, the results are usually not overwhelming clear. Only sometimes for subjects of category a) since in these cases, a popular vote is necessary even if there is no serious political opposition. Aside from such cases, there was only one popular vote in the last 10 years, where the losing side got less than 20%. The subject was a popular initiative of a small political party, which demanded a radical change of the tax system without being able to simply explain how the new tax system would work. They got only 8%. On the other hand, close results occur regularly.
Some examples of popular votes
Let me now discuss some examples. As in many other countries, the financing of the retirement is a problem in Switzerland, due to important changes in the age structure of the population. Generally speaking, I think that the Swiss population is quite aware of the problem. However, obviously, right wing parties and left wing parties greatly differ on the method how to solve this problem. In this situation, a quite creative idea emerged in the parliament. In 2017, the government had lost three popular votes, two concerning the retirement and one concerning tax relief for commercial enterprises. The first two were lost mainly due to the opposition of right wing parties while the third was opposed by left wing parties. So, the parliament proposed a combination of the two subjects, considering that both sides would have some advantages as well as disadvantages. This proposition was clearly accepted in a popular vote in 2019.
The immigration question has occupied the Swiss population since at least 50 years. In 2014, a popular initiative for the limitation of the immigration was accepted in a popular vote by 50,3% against 49,7%. This was almost a political sensation, which had some immediate consequences. Since the result was close and very unexpected, some people quite quickly proposed to repeat the popular vote. However, one must underline that these were rather amateurish people, politically speaking. No important political party, which was among the losers of the vote, gave support to this proposition and a second popular vote will not happen. On the other hand, popular initiatives are usually formulated quite generally and it is up to the parliament to elaborate the precise laws. In this case, the winners of the vote were not satisfied with the elaboration of the parliament.
Switzerland has the reputation of being a beautiful country and I shall not say the contrary. Protection of the environment has a long popular tradition in this country. In 2012, a popular initiative was accepted with 50.6% against 49.4%. It demanded the restriction of the construction of secondary residences, which was mainly a problem in the touristic regions of the Alps. This result also was a huge surprise. In this case, there were no demands for repeating the vote; however, again, the winners were not completely satisfied with the successive elaboration of the laws by the parliament.
In a popular vote in 2014, it was rejected that Switzerland buys new fighter jets. This also was an important defeat for the government. Many Swiss think that fighter jets are expensive prestige objects. Clearly, the subject is not closed and more popular votes will come. I wonder whether the recent experiences with Yemen and Saudi Arabia will have some influence.
My last example is from 2013 where a popular initiative – called fat cat initiative – was accepted with 68,0%. In the history of Switzerland, this was the highest score for a popular initiative which was not supported by the government. The subject turned around the excessive salaries of top managers. The vote was a kind of protest against the parallel world in Switzerland, formed by the top managers of big enterprises and their sponsors. Ordinary Swiss people have no access to this world, which functions in its own way. I would think that few people have the illusion that the acceptance of this popular initiative will change much. But it was a warning to this parallel world, indicating that the population is not completely defenceless against them.
In the light of the Swiss experiences, let me make some comments about the most famous popular vote in the world of the last years, namely the vote on Brexit of June 2016. Recall that the participation was 72.2% and the result was 51.9% to 48.1%. In the international press, this was characterized as a close vote. Moreover, prominent politicians, for example former prime minister Blair, almost immediately demanded a repetition of the vote, based among other things on online petitions. From my point of view, this all is nonsense. A difference of 3.8% cannot be judged as close, considering also the high participation and the fact that the British government was against Brexit. The actual prime minister Johnson may be what he is, but for me, his main argument – that one has to respect the popular vote on Brexit – is completely legitimate.
A government of national unity
The Swiss government consists of seven members, called federal council. In principle, each one has the same power; the president changes each year by a rotation principle. Federal councils are elected by the parliament. As a consequence of the system of popular votes, the Swiss government is a government of national unity, not by law, but by tradition. Important political forces are integrated in this way. In the last 80 years, there are three essential examples. Beginning in 1943, the worker and trade union movement was integrated and has – since 1959 – two members of the government. Since 1971, Swiss women are entitled to vote and now, a Swiss government without women is unthinkable (actually 3 of the 7 are women). In connexion with the problems of immigration, the Swiss party with the clearest position against exaggerated immigration became the most important party. As a consequence, this party has now 2 members of the government.
Again from a Swiss point of view, the political system in France is not effective. It systematically excludes large parts of the population, in particular the parties of Marine Le Pen and Jean-Luc Mélenchon. It is obvious for me that the protest movement of the “Gilets Jaunes” is a consequence of this exclusion, provoked by the political system.
The next elections for the Swiss parliament will be on 20 October 2019. In December 2019, the new parliament will elect or re-elect the 7 federal councils. Concerning the parliament elections, everybody expects important gains for the green and ecological parties. This will then raise the question whether one of the federal councils should be from an ecological party. Such questions are among the most discussed and most interesting in Swiss politics.
Generally speaking, the Swiss population is very content with the political system. Usually, the approval rating of the government is much higher in Switzerland than in other Western countries.
Relations with the European Union (EU)
Switzerland is not a member of the EU, but is surrounded by countries of the EU. Therefore, the relations with the EU are crucial. Some 25 years ago, the EU was quite popular in Switzerland. But this has very much changed. Today, it is merely seen as a necessary evil to have good relations with the EU. Paradoxically, the majority in Switzerland seems however to be opposed that other countries leave the EU.
Recently, the Swiss government has negotiated a new bundle of treatises with the EU. For the EU, the subject seems to be settled. However, in Switzerland, the result of the negotiations will have no chance in a popular vote (which necessarily will be held). The Swiss government is aware of this situation and looks for some improvements. I must say that I am looking forward to a confrontation between the Swiss population and the EU concerning these new treatises.
Why are there dissidents in Switzerland?
One cannot say that the Swiss political system is bad. As I said, the country is quite beautiful and, moreover, quite rich, modern, and open to the world. So, why are we not all happy? Why are there dissidents like me? Of course, I can only give my own explications. By the way, if you read “About the Saker” on this website, you will easily conclude that the Saker is a Swiss citizen, but not particularly happy about his experiences in Switzerland – to say the least.
From an abstract point of view, you can say that Switzerland is a typical Western country. Take as an example the fact that the “approval rating” in the Swiss population of countries like Russia, Iran, or Syria is very small. And since the case of the Occident in the world is utterly unfair, it is only logical that you become a dissident if you live in a Western country. Ok, this is a simple formula, which moreover is not wrong. However, in some sense, it completely misses the point. I claim that nobody becomes a dissident just by rational reflection. What really matter are life experience and a protracted confrontation with the society.
I would say that a dissident is somebody who expects nothing more from his or her country. Who no longer looks for being integrated. Not because of revenge, but because of he or she has tried hard for some reasonable time, but did not find any possible way. Accordingly, I completely lost my faith in Switzerland. I would not longer appreciate being identified with Switzerland. I owe nothing to this country. Ok, I admit that I was disappointed when Roger Federer lost the Wimbledon final despite having match points. And I would support Swiss football team (soccer, for Americans) against most other countries, including China and Russia (but not against Syria, Iran, or Venezuela). But this is more nostalgia, than anything else.
In fact, I consider Switzerland as a boring country. No positive dreams, no ideals, no engagement, no ideas, not even serious discussions. Only chilling defence of the achievements – which, in principle, is not wrong, but the problem is the “only”. And above all, an intolerable arrogance against all that is not glorifying Western hegemony.
“But you have the right of expressing all this criticism.” I hear this argument since 50 years. But only recently, I understood what is thoroughly wrong with it. It suggests that criticism is the aim. But no, I was not born for criticizing. Looking for critics was never my first reaction, except maybe very occasionally in my youth. Ok, I had my own ideas – but for constructive reasons. What I was looking for was the opportunity to contribute to the society as well as possible. But again and again, I was frustrated. The society did not at all care about my contributions. They wanted just my subordination to the existing order. So, finally, I lost interest and became a dissident. Obviously, this made me more calm and easy-going. And as the Saker says: “The deserts are filled with submarines.”
Switzerland is stuck in selfish isolationism. But you can’t fault them for wanting out of the madness and violence of their European neighbors. To have accomplished a long period of abstinence from war deserves admiration. This alone should make them the envy of the rest of the world.
Last war and invasion was from 1798 to 1803 by Napoleon. And Souvorov fought this bloody French with fantastic courage.
Thank you Paul. A most interesting account of the referenda system – and of the political powers in the parliament and their ‘implementation’ of a particular successful popular referendum.
It seems that, all over the world, including Russia, Iran and China, there are the rulers and the people ruled. It’s just that in those last three countries (it seems to me) that the rulers have a genuine desire to improve the conditions for of their people. Unlike the West with its rampant neo-liberal ‘philosophy’ of greed and of maintaining the power and privileges of the wealthy elites.
That is the difference. In the glorious ‘Free World'(a sickening untruth once again becoming mandatory for the presstitute liars) the parasitic elites HATE other people. Their political stooges have pursued austerity and social savagery against the bottom 50% and more, and the transfer of trillions to the ruling elites, at least since the Thatcher/Reagan reaction set in. The process is necessarily bi-partisan, and whenever a Party finally elects a leader determined to reverse inequality, elite blood-sucking and social decay, like Corbyn in the UK, the ruling apparatus launches a campaign of unprecedented fury to destroy him, based, in this case, on utterly false accusations of the new ‘Supreme Crime’, ‘antisemitism’.
In contrast, in China, Russia and Iran the emphasis is on nation-building and serving the interests of the people, not just the elites. Iran’s theocracy is not my cup of tea, but I am not Iranian, but I would gladly live in China or Russia, rather than the crumbling bedlams that the USA and UK have been made by their corrupt and Evil ruling classes.
@Mulga Mumblebrain
“the parasitic elites HATE other people” – TRUE !! And these elites posted a new fetish onto their altar, the cute little Greta and everything is different suddenly.
Here in CH everything left of the right extremists hails the new fetish as one man – the same who hail the other fetishes, the EU fascist monstrosity, unlimited Immigration, neo-liberal redistribution of wealth and and the notion that Demoncracy is to be imposed on all of humanty by any means in lockstep with the exceptional nation.
Surprised ?
Well that CH (I cannot spell the name, it’s to disgusting to connect the two) – thing, was a 100% Freemason – show since the early 19th century, in fact run by a single party – The Liberals (FDP) for more than fifty years.
What we had in between was that little leeway that could be tolerated, now everything is rolled back step by step with ever increasing speed and ferocity.
Hello,
I live in CH since 5 years; I was living in FR before since 2005. And before as a german I lived and worked in DE.
I admit, that I am not “inside” and Swiss politics and the questions that rattle the Swiss people is not very on my radar.
I lived and worked in FR, DE and CH as an independent since more than 10 years. Switzerland, by far, as of today, is the only country with a functioning
1. Administration
2. Honest belief system of a majority that makes living here peaceful and in some kind “honest”
3. People, who still have values that make countries and communities
4. And yes politics, that are somehow on two feet standing on the earth and not in fantasy land of the unicorn liberal mainstream elsewhere
As far as I can tell (and I am talking for myself), all Europe has gone crazy, compared to the times of the 80ies and 90ies when I grew up.
I for myself, I am glad that I have the opportunity to live here in CH, work, pay the college for my kids, and meet people who are honest, decent and have still a sense of values. And yes, compared to my French adventures, it is almost “boring” here, quiet, normal, no sudden changes, cows standing on every strip of lawn, people respecting the law.
In case of war, I would fight for this country, I would not do the same for the rest of the EU and that includes definitely the country I was born in.
A+
JM
I found this article very interesting and I like the author’s straightforward writing style and his honest opinion of how he feels about his country.
What is happening in Switzerland is basically what is happening across all of Europe: A corporate and territorial takeover of Europe by the Anglo-Zionist Empire.. Quite predictable as thsose who founded the CIA were also the founders of the EU /ACUE (William Donovan and Walter Befell Smith). What this now means for Switzerland is that Swiss banks no longer answer to the Swiss constitution but to the US taxman, Swiss companies such as Nestle and Novartis have New York hedge funds owning a large chunk of their equity and American CEOs for management.
Inevitably with this takeover comes the usual rabid propaganda, ideological hatred against any “non-compliant’ state (Russia, China etc) and a sense of moral superiority / arrogance…..which is what the author is describing..
It is lucky for the Swiss that, even though they have many treaties with EU, and the Swiss franc is now a watered-down currency, the Swiss were saved by adhering to the EU thanks to a 1992 referendum (The Swiss-germans said no to the referendum, the “Suisse-romands” were quite keen to join). The Swiss political system allowed the country to maintain some vestiges of sovereignty, which the EU countries no longer have.
Thank you Mr Schaller for the informative article. Having lived in CH since 2000 after ten years in the USA and before the UK, I am watching Switzerland changing year by year, unfortunately taking on undesirable features of those countries I left. The system in CH is certainly not well-known or understood even in the nations with which it shares borders (and dare I say it, by many Swiss residents). But the system is slowly eroding and cannot last forever. The banking and corporate sectors have capitulated to US bullying and the “Swissness” of society and communities lives rather more in the memories of the people than in their day to day experiences. So, in a generation it may be gone. The internal democratic process wastes time and debate on trivial matters such as banning non-existent islamic minarets while globalization and the dominance of corporations over nations defines and drives the big issues which are not addressable by federal or local “direct democracy”. Young Swiss have already unwittingly given their futures to Facebook, Google and Apple but traditional Swiss isolationism means that it does not seek to convince the rest of Europe or the World about its remaining good practices. 7 million Swiss people recycling more waste and reducing energy consumption does not matter in a continent of 500 million people who do not. But the Swiss always want to believe that pollution, bombs and dangerous ideas stop at the border. The countyside is still beautiful. But parts of the cities are graffitti-covered concrete housing estates where many residents (including virtually all the immigrants) will never be able to afford to buy their own property. They live in a strangely comfortable trap of poverty and disenfranchisement. But the worse statistic is the trains do not run on time anymore. The railways running like clockwork was always a metaphor for the country. What will the future metaphor be?
in principle correct article, small details not mentioned in above article makes the difference.
After 40 years in Switzerland, recently moved to Irkutsk [in Russia, on shores of Baikal Sea], learning Russian on the University.
First impressions are positive never mind the problems here and there. People here are very nice.
To close I would like to paraphrase Mr. Satanovskij in his last interview:
“stay calm and drink your tea, the world is crazy.”
Евгений Сатановский. Право знать! 21.09.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU6KssN_B60
“Thirty years have passed by since the Soviet project faded in history, when it failed the test of time. But the majority of Russians still do not accept a society which stratifies into “elites” and “outcasts” as a just one. Russians still think that all people, regardless of birth, have equal rights to the riches of their native land. That the preservation of people is more important than the preservation of wealth. That one cannot live better at the expense of others.”
Vladimir Timakov quoted in today’s article by Andrei Martyanov. Andrei Martyanov article [Slight improvement of the machine translation by myself]
My question to the author Paul regarding the above quote (and any other reader on this blog, regarding their own nationality) is:
if we substitute ‘Swiss’ (Or ‘Americans’ or ‘French’ or ‘British’) for ‘Russians’, to what extent is this true?
This is a difficult question. I cannot feel what the Swiss people are thinking about. Swiss people are competent in questions concerning the country’s political life, but not in questions concerning the political and economical system. Russia has had very rich experiences with different political systems in the last 120 years, but not Switzerland.
The EU now surrounds the Swiss.
City of London therefore must move the evasion and laundering elsewhere, hence Brexit.
The “neutrality” of the Swiss is ended.
Patrick Donnelly,
Whether Brexit or not, the Commonwealth is a single huge laundering machine, setup in a perfect construction of small ‘independent’ States some of them miniscule in size where all the ‘offshoring’ is done via the Trust-system ownership anonymized and under the protection of the Anglo-Saxxon hegemony, very exclusive (one has to be part of the gang) and very inclusive (protecting these gangsters in all of Empire from any inquiry).
Switzerland’s function is to function as an entry portal and intermediary for aspiring wealth from the brinks of Empire or beyond. In ten years from now all Swiss Banks will be fully controlled by City of London / Wallstreet types directly.
The Brexit will never happen because the Empire – Great Britain (The Crown) had fought two World Wars to acquire total control over Europe, rather the decision will be postponed indefinitly or rolled back one way or the other. Those in control of the EU do everything possible to make an exit impossible, simply because they are hirelings of the Empire tasked to pack it tight and suck it dry.
Remember GB is fully in the EU but is allowed to keep it’s own currency, how wonderful a construction !
The Brahmin class, Abraham’s offspring included, hate the stupidity, greed and sheer cruelty of the lower orders. Hate is born from fear and is well founded.
There will be a cull.