European Union politics is first and foremost politics of the elite, with a considerable democratic deficit. Swiss voters have the democratic means to defend themselves against the process of ‘Europisation’ – a means which it used on February 9, says a democracy expert.
The approval of the initiative «Against mass immigration» has moved people on either side of the Swiss border. Some reactions accuse the Swiss of cherry picking and populism; others congratulated them. Was February 9, 2014, a good or bad day for direct democracy?
For Professor Wolf Linder, former director of the Institute for Political Science at the University of Bern, every day when Swiss voters have the last word in politics is a good day.
swissinfo.ch: Many foreigners envy our direct democracy. Vox pops in neighbouring countries showed people congratulating Switzerland. Are you, as a Swiss, proud of these plaudits?
Wolf Linder: People’s rights were always opposition rights, especially against the government and in the case of internal political issues. Today, politics has become internationalised: domestic and foreign politics can no longer be clearly separated. That is why Swiss voters got to know a totally new type of direct democracy at the weekend. They can oppose the process of globalisation or Europisation.
That is not possible in any other country in Europe. And because EU politics is above all an elite politics with a considerable democratic deficit, it does not surprise me that people from other countries are congratulating Switzerland.
swissinfo.ch: Despite that there are no successful efforts in other countries to adopt our system. Why is that?
W.L.: Direct democracy is not an export product. Every country has its own tradition and culture. It’s difficult to introduce direct democracy because the political elite would have to give up part of their decision-making power. It is mainly the political elite – parliamentarians, political parties – who resist any form of direct democracy, for example with the argument that the people would be overwhelmed.
swissinfo.ch: Not even the people who proposed Sunday’s initiative said how it should be implemented. So we don’t know how voters would like to see it implemented. How should the government now implement the decision in line with voters’ wishes?
W.L.: With the initiative a fundamental decision has been added to the constitution, namely: we do not want to continue with immigration in the form it has taken over past few years. How this should be done is now the responsibility of the government and parliament.
swissinfo.ch: A debate has already broken out over which immigrants should be stopped: all of them a bit? Qualified people less than unqualified? Asylum seekers not at all – or only bogus ones? What did voters want here?
W.L.: They clearly don’t have a precise idea where and how immigration should be stopped. It’s not just about the free movement of people with the EU, but a delicate and socially contradictory problem about how immigration should be managed.
Constitutional norms should not specify figures or instruments, rather they are fundamental decisions which make it possible to adapt things to the particular circumstances. In this respect the initiative is not to be criticised: it gives parliament and the government flexibility and political room for manoeuvre.
Voters have the option at a later stage to act against legal implementation conditions of the referendum.
swissinfo.ch: Has direct democracy spelt the end of the bilateral approach in dealing with the EU?
W.L.: In a way yes. We followed the bilateral way on the basis of direct democracy votes. It was a risky way. The government and parliament assumed that the people would vote on every accord, but could never say no. Now the people have said no, and that calls the bilateral approach into question.
However, because both sides – Switzerland and the EU – have an interest in carrying on with the bilateral approach, I expect the government will try to present the free movement of people as being compatible with the quota system.
swissinfo.ch: You are a staunch defender of direct democracy. But there are also risks of abuse: when for example unfounded fears are stirred up or someone is made a scapegoat. Has the danger of abuse become greater?
W.L.: Some experts fear that with the mediatising and personalisation of politics, direct democracy is in danger. I don’t see it this dramatically, except in one point. In the 20th century, political parties did not indulge in populism much. Today with certain initiatives we have got more populism. That is a danger for direct democracy – when issues are not discussed in a factual way, but people are appealed to on an emotional level.
swissinfo.ch: How can such abuse be combatted?
W.L.: We have to trust in the ability of the system to steer itself, that the political parties take their great responsibility seriously and that not to succumb to populist attempts.
swissinfo.ch: At the beginning of the week the editor of Die Weltwoche, a rightwing Swiss political magazine, and a politician from Germany’s centre-left Social Democratic Party accused each other of lacking democratic understanding. Is Switzerland’s direct democracy more democratic that Germany’s representative democracy?
W.L.: I would be reluctant to play the systems against each other. In Germany, elections have greater significance: they lead to change between government and opposition. In Switzerland, we have Konkordanz [sharing of cabinet posts between the main political parties] and therefore elections have less of an effect. That’s why we have a direct democracy which makes authentic decisions possible.
Direct democracy is not an alternative to the parliamentary system, it complements it and therefore adds to democracy.