es gilt das gesprochene Wort/ la version orale fait foi

 

Mr President,
Representatives of the authorities,
Your Excellency,
Professors and lecturers,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Talking about the democratic experience of Switzerland – one of the smallest countries in the world – in front of representatives of the largest parliamentary democracy that exists, namely India, is no mean task. While both our countries are multilingual, multicultural and are federations of states and territories, the one is a hundred times larger than the other.

Nevertheless, I should like to take you on a little journey through the Swiss Confederation and its political institutions. Imagine you are crossing the central square of one of our towns. People come up to you and ask you to sign a proposal to change the federal constitution or to modify a cantonal law. This is Swiss direct democracy in action.

Collecting signatures is a typical part of our political system. In Switzerland, the parliament is not the sole body responsible for the constitution and legislation.
Our citizens have the opportunity to take part in the legislative process. And they use this opportunity because they want to have the final word on essential issues.

I should now like to give you a brief history of semi-direct democracy.

Direct democracy came into being at the same time as modern-day Switzerland, that is to say some 150 years ago. At that time one single party, the Radicals, had a large majority in parliament, rather like the Indian Congress Party during the period immediately after independence. Decisions of a constitutional nature have to be submitted to the Swiss electorate and require their approval as well as that of the majority of voters in at least 13 cantons; this is the compulsory referendum. To ensure that minority voters are not forgotten, we also have the optional referendum, whereby parliament has to put proposals for new laws to the people if at least 50,000 voters sign a petition to that effect. In the subsequent vote, the proposal is passed if the majority of voters approve, but the cantonal votes do not count.

In 1891 the initiative was added to the right to demand an optional referendum. If a group of people can collect the signatures of at least 100,000 voters, which represents barely 1% of the electorate, they can propose a modification to the constitution.

The signatures are all checked, as are the content and form of the proposals. The Federal Council, which is our government, and parliament will then say what they think of the text of the initiative and may draw up a counter-proposal, which will be submitted to the people and cantons along with the initiative.

Some of you are looking quite perplexed! It must be said that our methods are rather complicated, but they don’t deter the population of a country famous for its watches and precision instruments.

In Switzerland the referendum rules, and some experts quite rightly call our system a referendum democracy. Over half the one thousand or so referendums that have been held all over the world have taken place in Switzerland. The electorate votes between four and ten times a year. In most local legislative assemblies and some small cantons they vote by show of hands. They hand their voting slip in at the polling station or vote by post for federal elections and votes. Swiss voters living outside the country can even vote electronically.

The Swiss are the supreme champions when it comes to direct democracy. For the past century and a half the Swiss electorate has given its opinion on over 534 federal bills, while also taking part in thousands of cantonal and local votes. The focus of interest has changed over the years.

At the beginning of the 20th century, proportional representation was introduced for the election of the lower chamber. The era of the world economic crisis in 1929 saw the spotlight on economic issues, while during the post-war period social rights became increasingly the centre of debate. In the 1970s and 1980s many proposals were passed for consultation concerning environmental issues, in particular nuclear power.

And in recent years the political stage has been dominated by transport, taxation, national defence, immigration, social insurance and social issues.

As to the current situation, federal votes have been held on two Sundays since February. The issues in question were noise pollution caused by the Swiss Air Force’s jet fighters, company taxation, popular voting on applications for naturalisation, the Federal Council’s right to express its opinion before popular votes, and compulsory health insurance.

The next national votes will take place in November and will deal with retirement age, the right of appeal of environmental protection associations and the consumption of cannabis and drugs. In 2009 the Swiss electorate may be asked to approve the bilateral agreements between Switzerland and the European Union, in particular the agreement concerning the free circulation of nationals from EU countries.

This list gives the impression that Switzerland is continually giving the people the last word. It is true to say that the electorate assesses the work of the government and parliament and plays a pro-active role in updating the constitution. But this influence needs to be put into perspective. While half the optional referendums so far have returned a positive vote, the majority of initiatives have been rejected by the people and only 15 modifications to the constitution have won the approval of the Swiss voters.

To launch an initiative from scratch there has to be commitment in favour of an original proposal. That is much more difficult than censuring a parliamentary bill. And since new ideas tend to come more from minority groups, the popular initiative remains a valuable means of tabling new issues, launching debates and encouraging a change of attitude.

But popular votes are more than a simple mechanism for adopting or verifying standards. They are in fact the heart of the political system of the Swiss confederation. The practice of direct democracy has been the basis for party politics and electoral regulations. In effect, since any group or minority can make use of the referendum option or start a popular initiative, the government and the legislative body try to achieve the broadest possible consensus before any decision is taken. No aspect of civil society should feel excluded.

With the same aim of avoiding a stalemate, the government represents the principal parties – even if, at present, the situation is rather unusual – and the lower chamber is made up of representatives of many parties, thanks to the use of the proportional representation system.

This balance would appear to be extremely well adapted to the mosaic of minorities and particularities that make up Switzerland. It cannot be transferred piecemeal to other democracies, however, because the fact that it functions so well is due to the smallness of Switzerland.

I should now like to voice some thoughts in the form of questions.

Firstly, a crucial question: can we claim, on the basis of Switzerland’s experience, that direct democracy offers protection for minority interests?

The referendum mechanism is strongly federal, in a country which was constructed from the bottom up, through the union of small local communities. The French-speaking Swiss or the Italian-speaking population complied with what we might called the democracy of the valleys that had been adopted by the German-speaking cantons which formed the original Swiss nation.

Everyone expresses their particular concerns; at present, the German-speaking cantons are especially occupied by environmental issues, while the Latin peoples are more open with regard to international relations. Everyone firmly supports a system that guarantees the autonomy of the cantons and the boroughs, however. Local communities are free to organise votes on any administrative or financial decision. This means that even a tax rate can be put to the popular vote.

Switzerland’s experience shows that direct democracy does indeed protect minorities that are well integrated and recognised as a constitutive part of the Confederation. Linguistic minorities can therefore count on support from the majority. On the other hand, our strong system of direct democracy makes it difficult to guarantee the rights of foreigners and groups that have a more marginal vision of the world. There is no doubt that our political system is partly responsible for the delay in granting women the vote, which was achieved only in 1971, or for the integration of immigrants.

Does the Swiss democratic system promote political stability?

Semi-direct democracy dilutes both power and responsibilities. If a government bill is rejected in a referendum, the government simply “bitterly regrets” their failure to convince the electorate. There is no scandal, no resignations – except in rare cases – and no political crisis.

Against this calm background, the election of members of parliament and local councillors rarely results in radical changes of policy.

Referendums and popular initiatives also serve as safety valves to ensure stability. The general public can vent their discontent and frustration by exercising their political rights. And the fact that generally only 4 voters in 10 take part in votes and elections is neither here nor there.

But in view of the regular negative reactions they receive through the system of direct democracy, does the legislative body in fact have any room to manoeuvre?

Parliament anticipates the threat of popular votes. When a bill is being drawn up it makes an effort to take into account the opinion of groups that could potentially launch a referendum. To find a consensus, the members of parliament bear in mind the wishes of different sectors of the population when they vote, on occasion at the expense of the interests of their own party or the voters who elected them.

With the Swiss system it is not easy to keep up with social evolution and change. Reform is delayed and there is a strong temptation to stick with the status quo. As far as concerns initiatives, it can take up to five years for a vote to be held after enough signatures have been collected. Negotiations are long and arduous and many popular initiatives are withdrawn before being put to the people, often to the advantage of either constitutional or legislative counter-projects. On the other hand, this slowness in the system means that the proposals that are approved have the full backing of the electorate.

Does the Swiss example show that referendums have a positive influence on a multiparty system?

Organisations and political parties reorganise themselves and gain more power in the build-up towards a referendum or a popular initiative. This was the case with the Swiss Socialists, the Swiss People’s Party and more recently the Swiss Greens. It is rare that the Radical Democrats and the Christian Democrats, which have been represented in the government for a long time, launch an initiative.

Joining a collective security organisation or a supranational community is comparable to a revision of the constitution. This means that joining NATO or the European Union requires the approval of the electorate and the cantons. Our system of direct democracy necessitates a good deal of information and communication. It took a long time for the Swiss population to realise that it was in Switzerland’s interest to join organisations such as the IMF, the World Bank or the UN, even though there was no question of the country’s neutrality being affected by such a move. Other international treaties may lead to an optional referendum being organised.

The Swiss economy depends to a large extent on its exports and foreign relations, and so it is not going to risk being marginalised. It is patiently seeking out its path in a globalised world, relying on its democratic system of referendums – the backbone of its institutions.

Collecting signatures is in effect an extremely efficient way of obtaining the addresses of supporters and thus building up a militant network. In this sense, democracy encourages the emergence of new political forces.
As you can see, Switzerland, its cantons and its boroughs enable the population to express their views, not only in elections but also through regular voting.

To conclude, I hope that in this brief speech I have been able to explain some special aspects of the Swiss institutional system.

You might have got the impression that our system aims to achieve perpetual stability, like a pair of scales where the weights on each side continuously balance each other out. This approach is different from that of most of the world’s democracies, where the system would seem to aim at achieving long-term stability, maintained by a change in the majority, rather like a long-case clock whose pendulum continually swings from left to right and back.

I do not like making generalisations with regard to institutional questions. A political system is not simply a technical matter. It is mainly the result of the history of a population or a nation, relations that have been gradually built up, values that are shared. It is in this way that the Swiss institutional system has been able to ensure sufficient protection for minority interests and guarantee stability throughout the country, while still leaving room for development, which may seem slow or fast, depending on your viewpoint.

Thank you for your attention.