Not just the number, but also the success rate, of people’s initiatives* has increased notably of late. But hardly any of the initiatives approved have been implemented in the full spirit of their initiators.
This content was published on
5 minutes
Tibère Adler und Lukas Rühli, Avenir Suisse, Tibère Adler und Lukas Rühli, Avenir Suisse
To stop the most important instrument in Switzerland’s direct democracy turning into a farce, reforms are urgently needed to improve the effectiveness of initiatives while preventing their abuse.
The initiative, that keystone of Swiss direct democracy, has become distanced from its true function as a tool for expressing popular opposition.
Authors Lukas Rühli (left)and Tibère Adler (right) at the side of Avenir Suisse director, Gerhard Schwarz
Keystone
Its purpose today has turned more into a party political instrument for certain governing parties, or a marketing gambit for the wishes of specific minority interests.
The chances of initiatives being passed have improved considerably in recent years. In the 110 years from 1891 to 2001, barely 12 out of 145 initiatives were approved. By contrast, since 2002 alone, no less than 10 (of 53) have passed.
But of the plebiscites approved, barely any have been implemented according to the wishes of its backers.
That hides a major danger: the more voters realise implementation is assured only insofar as no one is particularly badly affected, the more thoughtlessly they’ll be inclined to support radical proposals.
That will result in initiatives losing their real value – but actually, in spite of that, becoming increasing sources of institutional uncertainty.
Founded in 2000, the Zurich-based Avenir Suisse considers itself as an independent think-tank.
According to its mission statement, Avenir Suisse develops ideas for the future of Switzerland as a business location.
It adheres to a free-marked policy and is supported by more than 100 companies and personalities from different sectors of the economy.
Avenir Suisse is a member of the Stockholm network, an umbrella organisation for market-oriented European think-tanks.
A bundle of small, but effective, reforms could allow the use of initiatives to be better structured and made more objective to improve the quality and legitimacy of their outcomes.
One or several
The reforms, which could be implemented individually or cumulatively, should help restore the role of the right to political self-determination.
1. Checking an initiative proposal by the Federal Chancellery before initiators start collecting signatures: under the current rules, parliament is responsible for checking the contents of proposed initiatives for admissibility. But that inevitably subjects parliament to a conflict of interests. Transferring this function to the Federal Chancellery before signature collection starts could allow more rigour and impartiality.
2. A high hurdle for signatures: initiatives in their current form aim to amend the constitution – in other words, the country’s paramount legal framework. So any limitation in terms of content would be illogical. But the hurdle should be raised from the current 100,000 signatures to 210,000 (equivalent to 4% of the electorate).
3. Vote on enacting legislation: the period during which an initiative, once approved by voters, becomes transcribed into law often opens the door to party political tactics. Introducing an obligatory vote on the enacting legislation would eliminate such shenanigans as voters would invariably have the last say. Any concerns about “respecting the popular will” would be eliminated.
4. Introducing the right to initiate legislation: the constitutional conformity of many initiatives is currently dubious. So constitutionally valid proposals should be allowed to be introduced directly as legislation. That has already applied for more than 100 years at cantonal level. The signatures of 2% of voters should suffice for introducing federal legislation. A hurdle of 105,000 signatures would be roughly the same as for initiatives today.
5. Only one measure per voting day: voting on multiple proposals on the same day raises the danger of electors having insufficient information on each measure. A rule limiting voting to only one proposal per polling day would make for more serious political debate.
The proposed reforms do not mean any limitation to direct democracy, but greater focus and differentiation. They are based on the principle that voters’ and other actors’ understanding of the binding nature of this instrument will increase their sense of responsibility in using it.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of swissinfo.ch. *In line with our own style guidelines, the term “referendum” used by the authors was changed to “(people’s) initiative”.
Opinion series
swissinfo.ch publishes op-ed articles by contributors writing on a wide range of topics – Swiss issues or those that impact Switzerland. The selection of articles presents a diversity of opinions designed to enrich the debate on the issues discussed.
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.
Read more
More
Raising the bar for people’s initiatives
This content was published on
It’s Saturday afternoon on the Bärenplatz in Bern. Activists seeking signatures for people’s initiatives of all sorts make a point of setting up their tables on this crowded square in the Swiss capital, just a stone’s throw from the federal parliament. Andy Tschümperlin knows the scene well. He has often been one of the signature…
This content was published on
Since the minaret ban in 2009, a consistent battle cry of red, white, and black has accompanied every major conservative initiative. The formula – outsiders, coated in black, imposing on Swiss prosperity – seems to work: conservative parties continue to dominate the quarterly votes. The Swiss take pride in their direct democracy, and the merits…
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.
ʻDirect democracy is sometimes like an internet forumʼ
This content was published on
The Swiss approach voting with a refreshing “studious enthusiasm”, jokes Swiss cartoonist Patrick Chappatte. However, over the past 15 years direct democracy has become a weapon used by manipulators and populists, he warns.
This content was published on
In recent years political parties in the United States and Switzerland have increasingly used direct democracy for electoral purposes. While the aim of setting a political agenda is similar in both countries, the practices are clearly different.
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.