Prof. em. Wolf Linder Institute of Political Science University of Bern wolf.linder@ipw.unibe.ch

1. The Swiss Political SystemAn IntroductionSecond PartPresentation at the Federal Institute of TechnologyLausanne, Nov. 4, 2010 Prof. em. Wolf Linder Institute of Political Science University of Bern wolf.linder@ipw.unibe.ch

2. Part II • Direct democracy • Power sharing • A comparative perspective

3. Direct democracy:Four ballots a year....

4. ... on national issues

5. Direct democracy: basic notions The most important decisions of parliament are subject to the people‘s vote (referendum) The people has the right to propose its own ideas for basic legislation and to vote on them (popular initiative)

6. The referendum For constitutional amendments and some international treaties: obligatory referendum, i.e. all decisions must be accepted by the majority of the people and the cantons 1874-2006: 206 propositions, 153 accepted, 53 refused)For the ordinary legislation: mandatory referendum. The proposition of parliament has to be accepted by the majority of the people if a vote is demanded by 50‘000 people 1874-2006: 2260 propositions of the parliament, popular votes on referendum demands 184, 87 propositions of parliament accepted, 73 rejected

7. Examples

8. The popular initiative With their signatures, 100‘000 people can hand in the proposition for amending the constitution The Federal Council and the parliament propose to refuse or to accept the proposition The proposition has to be accepted by the majority of the people and the Cantons to become valid 1874-2006: 214 popular initiatives 254 handed in, 161 voted upon, 15 accepted, 146 rejected

9. Examples

10. Examples

11. Direct democracy... • …gives people the last say in many important but not all issues • … is a control of political elites and sometimes ends with defeat of the government • … has led to slow (but steady) innovation • … has kept the state small and efficient • … gives evidence that people are capable to participate in questions of “high” politics, • … but depends on governmental parties which refrain from sheer populism

12. Power Sharing

13. Cleavages and peaceful conflict resolution in the Swiss federation • Remember 1848: History not so peaceful… • The four classical cleavages: • Religion: Catholics- Protestants • Languages: German-French (Italian and Romansch) • Economy I: Urban regions- rural regions • Economy II: Class conflict: capitalist-worker interest • How was it possible to resolve deep societal conflicts in a peaceful way? • The answer is: • Power sharing in political institutions!

14. The basic idea of Power Sharing(Consensus Democracy) • Do not use the democratic majority rule if minorities of language, culture or religion are left out • Instead: • Try to integrate structural minorities by ways of participation and representation in the government • Try to seek for compromise • This needs appropriate institutions

15. Element 1: Multicultural concept of the State • The Constitution of 1848 stated that Switzerland consists “of the peoples of the cantons”:The people of the State is not defined by a common language, ethnicity, history or religion, but only by formal citizenship.A political, not a cultural nation. • The State is neutral with regard to religion, language, and other cultural characteristics • Minorities are protected through human rights

16. Element 2: Federalism • Federalism gives the Cantons political autonomy and the possibility to live in a different way • Federalism allowed rural areas, religious and the language groups to govern themselves and to influence federal decision-making • Requirement of majority of Cantons for constitutional amendments protects small rural (mostly Catholic) Cantons • But: Federalism protects only minorities representing a political majority in a sub-national unit!

17. Element 3: The Referendum • Introduction of optional referendum against laws in 1874 allows Catholics to attack almost every law. Consequences: • the Liberal majority must find compromises with the minority • Permanent accommodation with the opposition is necessary: 1894 a Conservative Catholic is admitted to the Federal Council • Further integration happens with the Farmers party and with the Socialists in the first half of the 20th century • Today: Referendum as pressure for compromise: Accommodation necessary with all groups strong enough to organise referendum

18. Element 4: Proportional rule for elections • Liberal majority in 19th century secured by electoral system based on majority rule („winner takes all“) • General strike of 1918 by Socialist Party provokes intervention of army. Some workers are shot. • The system of elections based on proportional rule is introduced in 1919. 1918: The Army takes control of Zurich

19. Effects of the introduction of proportional rule The example of Zurich: Socialist seats in 1917 and 1919 Seats in the National Council 1908 - 1939 Catholics 1919 Liberals Farmers Socialists

20. Element 5: (Multidimensional) Proportional representation Language, political party, region of origin, gender are taken into account for: • Federal Council • Supreme Court • Parliamentary Committees • Federal Committees of Experts • Nomination of senior positions in bureaucracy Similar practice of proportional representation in the cantons and the communes.... and in civil society (Ex. national sports associations)

21. The culture of power sharing (Consensus democracy) • Proportional representation: nobody takes all, everybody gets something • The symbolic value of participation and representation: societal and political integration • Problem-solving through co-operation and compromise: compensations, conversion of zero-sum-conflicts into positive-sum conflicts. A creative activity. • Permanent negotiation: trust • Changing coalitions: mutual respect • Permanent compromise: a learning curve • Tensions between base and elites?

22. Summary: How power sharing is accommodating cleavages

23. Switzerland is peacefulnot because of its people but because of its institutions

24. A Comparative Perspective

25. A comparative perspective:Two Models of Democracy (Ljiphart) I • The Majoritarian (Westminster) Model: • Concentration of executive power: one-party and bare-majority cabinets • Fusion of power and cabinet dominance • Uni-cameralism • Two-party system • One-dimensional party system • Plurality system of elections • Unitary and centralised government • Unwritten constitution and parliamentary sovereignty

26. A comparative perspective:Two Models of Democracy (Ljiphart) II • The Consensus or Power sharing (Dutch, Swiss) Model: • Executive power: grand coalitions • Separation of powers • Balanced bicameralism, minority representation • Multiparty System • Multidimensional party system • Proportional representation • Federalism and decentralisation • Written constitution and minority veto

27. Majoritarian and Consensus Democracy:Comparison of 18 countries Consensus Majoritarian

28. Why Majoritarian democracy is second best for resolving multicultural conflict • The basic idea of the Westminster model: change of roles between government and opposition • Requires: change of preferences of the voters (for instance: Left or Right) • Structural minorities cannot change preferences (in UK for instance: Catholics, Celtic speakers) • No chance of structural minorities to be in power • Eternal majority, can lead to pathological use of power

29. Conclusions (from a political science perspective) • Majoritarian democracy is the dominant model stemming from the Anglo-Saxon world, but most probably only the second-best model for multicultural or divided societies • In cases of segmented or divided societies, Consensus democracy is a better institutional fit but by no means a guarantee for conflict prevention or peaceful conflict resolution

30. For those who want to learn more: Wolf Linder, Swiss Democracy H.P. Kriesi/ A. Trechsel Palgrave Macmillan, 2010 Swiss Politics, 2008 Houndmills, Basingstroke Cambridge University Press ISBN 9 780230 231893 ISBN 9 780511 434150

31. Thank you