Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Switzerland

2009; Wiley; Volume: 48; Issue: 7-8 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.01877.x

1475-6765

Thomas Milic,

Public Administration and Political Analysis

Switzerland's ‘magical formula’ of government composition was altered in 2003, with an additional seat being given to the SVP. However, 2008 witnessed another, arguably more fundamental change. The SVP expelled the head of the Department of Justice and Police, Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, from the party after she refused to step down from office. She then joined the newly founded Conservative Democratic Party of Switzerland (BDP). Then Federal Councillor Samuel Schmid, head of the Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport, left the SVP of his own accord and joined the BDP, thus in effect depriving the SVP of any seat in the government. This changed again in late 2008, when Schmid resigned from office. The parliament then elected former SVP president, Ueli Mauer (SVP), as his successor on 10 December 2008. This marked the return of the SVP to the Federal Council after a self-chosen, one-year long retreat in opposition. The election itself was remarkably tight: Ueli Maurer did not obtain an absolute majority of votes until the third round of voting, beating party colleague Hansjörg Walther by a single vote. Whether Walther would have done the job is a moot point. The SVP changed its by-laws in the run-up to the elections saying that everyone who accepts an election to the Federal Council without being an official party candidate would be expelled by the party, and Walther was not one of the two official nominees of the SVP. Hans-Rudolf Merz (FDP) was appointed President of the Swiss Federation for 2009. The first ballot of 2008 saw the Swiss people deciding on two proposals. First, there was an initiative that called for a ban on training flights by the Swiss military over tourist areas. The environmental group that launched the proposal aimed in particular at reducing the noise pollution produced by the fighter planes. The Government and a majority of the parties contested the proposal, arguing that this measure would put the sovereignty of Switzerland into question, since the latter could only be ensured by a well-trained air force. Voters overwhelmingly followed that position and gave a clear thumbs-down to the initiative. The second vote on the February 2008 ballot was much more contested. The bill promoted tax cuts for small and medium-sized enterprises, thereby, supporters claimed, maintaining the country's competitive edge. Its opponents – mainly coming from the left – questioned the constitutionality of the proposal. They argued that the tax reform was unfair because only a very small and well-off part of the population would benefit from it. In the end, the supporters prevailed. However, the result was very tight: only a slight majority of 50.5 per cent of the voters backed the proposal. The June 1 ballot was a crucial test for the Swiss People's Party's strategy. After their undisputed leader, Christoph Blocher, was ousted from the Bundesrat by the parliament in December 2007, the SVP announced it would leave the government and to go into opposition. By opposition, the SVP meant primarily challenging the Government by means of popular votes. In the June 1 ballot, the SVP had its first chance to put their decision to the test because the Swiss people were called upon to decide upon two SVP initiatives and, additionally, on a bill that was backed by the SVP. The SVP failed the test. All three proposals were turned down by a clear majority. The rejection of the citizenship initiative, which aimed at reinstating direct democratic decisions over citizenship applications, was a particularly strong blow to the SVP. They invested massive amounts of money in an aggressive campaign. Still, 64 per cent cast a ‘No’ vote. The reason for this clear defeat was the inability of the SVP to find support for their initiative outside their own camp. The numbers below confirm this statement. The SVP supporters overwhelmingly (88 per cent) followed the suggestion of their party. However, the followers of the other three governing parties were just as decidedly against the proposal (Engeli et al. 2008). Moreover, the SVP was unable to convince the large group of those without a party affinity: this group rejected the proposal, too. The post-vote Vox analysis revealed that the chief reason for turning down the proposal was the arbitrariness of ballot box decisions over naturalisations that led in the past to some discriminatory decisions against some minorities. The main reason for a ‘yes’ vote was the opinion that the people, and not the public authorities, should decide on naturalisations. However, a considerable number of ‘no’ voters had been motivated by the fact that they are against foreigners in general (Engeli et al. 2008). The other SVP initiative, the so called ‘muzzle initiative’ that called for a limit to the federal authorities' right to run information campaigns in the run-up to any nationwide ballot, found even less support among the voters. Barely 25 per cent voted in favour of the proposed measures. Again, the initiative was backed by the SVP, but opposed by most of the other parties. The fact that the party supporters faithfully followed their preferred parties' recommendations inevitably resulted in a decisive defeat for the SVP. Again, they were unable to mobilise many non-SVP to support their cause. The Swiss electorate also rejected a proposed reform of the health system, which would have seen the principles of competition and free choice, and therefore the role of the insurance companies, enshrined in the Constitution. The reform was endorsed by the government, the SVP and the Radical Party (FDP) – although quite a number of cantonal sections of the latter party were against the proposed constitutional amendment. However, the left parties, the Green Party, the CVP and – most notably – the Swiss College of Surgeons (FMCH) recommended a ‘no’ vote. Survey data showed that one argument in particular was crucial for the outcome of the popular vote: the medics argued that under the new system the free choice of medical practitioner would be restricted. Some 84 per cent of the proposal's opponents quoted that argument as one of the main reasons why they cast a ‘no’ vote. The third ballot of the year, the November 2008 ballot, asked one legislative and four constitutional questions. Three of the four initiatives were rejected by Swiss voters. However, one initiative was successful. This initiative called for a tightening of legal provisions against paedophile criminals and for an indefinite extension of the statute of limitations and was launched by a small group of concerned individuals. The initiative's success marked a major upset. First, people's initiatives generally have a low success rate. Second, the initiative has been opposed by parliament, government and most parties for being difficult to implement and its expected results ineffective. Yet, 52 per cent of the voters voted in favour of the initiative. The main reason for this surprising result was the fact that there was practically no referendum campaign. Neither the government nor the parties were willing to engage in a campaign. Lacking elite signals, voters based their decision on emotional grounds. The other three initiatives were all given a thumbs-down by the voters. The so-called ‘association's legal remedy initiative’ achieved the least support. It was the first initiative ever launched by the Radical Party and it aimed at curbing the right of nongovernmental, mostly environmental organisations to appeal against major building projects. The catalyst for this initiative was a long-lasting legal feud over the construction of a football stadium in Zurich. The proposal was backed by the centrist and right-wing parties and opposed by the left and the Greens. One result of the post-ballot Vox analysis stood out in particular: the voters were utterly uninformed about the aims of the initiative. The evaluation of the answers to the question about the content of the proposal showed that a considerable share of the electorate struggled to indicate what the proposal was all about. Moreover, approximately 15 per cent of the voters did not make a rational decision in their own interest. The share of those who voted against their actual preferences was higher among the supporters than among the opponents of the initiative, suggesting that the initiative's defeat might have been even worse (Krömler et al. 2009). Again, the trade unions launched an initiative to introduce a flexible pension age from age 62 onwards. Once more it was rebuffed by the voters, mainly for financial reasons. It is not that the idea of retiring at the age of 62 was not appealing for many voters: the Vox analysis revealed that this particular aim was indeed very popular. However, voters were highly unsure about its long-term financial feasibility. Due to the financial crisis, this insecurity was even more pronounced than on other occasions. And when in doubt, voters more often than not opt for the (stable) status quo and against experiments with an unsecure outcome. On the same ballot, the Swiss electorate had to decide on two drugs policy questions. The initiative to legalise cannabis consumption was rejected by a majority of the voters, although the left parties and even the Radicals endorsed a ‘yes’ vote. As survey data shows, the voters were apparently ambivalent. On the one hand, the majority thought that the existing ban is ineffective and that the consumption of hemp is not more detrimental to one's health than, for example, alcohol. On the other hand, the voters were very concerned about the protection of young people. Although the initiative proposed some measures to prevent minors from consuming hemp products, voters apparently thought legalisation would sent out a fatal signal to Swiss youth. The revision of the drugs law, however, won a clear majority at the polls. The revision built on the government's tried-and-tested four pillar drugs policy and was supported by most of the parties and a clear majority of the parliament. Only the right-wing parties fought the proposal. They were particularly against the medical prescription of heroin for addicts. The battle against drugs could only be won with a very restrictive drugs policy based on abstinence, they argued. The ballot was preceded by a very dull campaign. Thus, the general information level was rather low.