The EU and Switzerland Do Not Match

by Dr iur Marianne Wüthrich, Zurich/Switzerland

The way, in which EU Commissioners take office, seems rather strange to the democracy-loving Swiss. As daily papers report, unwanted politicians – both in Germany as well as in Austria – are presently shunt off to a Brussels job; however, they are not shunted to a subordinated office job, where they would not be able to do much harm, but to a post within the European Commission. It is particularly astonishing that the Commissioners despite their powerful position are not elected by the respective national parliaments but are appointed according to a not quite clear procedure. According to a report of the “Neue Zürcher Zeitung” of 26 October, Mrs Merkel gives priority to the appointment of the German EU Commissioner, i.e. she grants herself the authority to do so. In Austria, the coalition parties argue and deal a “horse trade”: You will get the post of an EU Commissioner and we commission the head of the Austrian TV channel ORF, “Neue Zürcher Zeitung” of 28 October). Do you really want to join this undemocratic club, Mr Federal Councilor Leuenberger? Do you still want to fool the dumb people into believing that Switzerland could “co-design Europe” as an EU member? Would you perhaps like to become EU Commissioner yourself? Regarding the procedure in other states, this could be a practical possibility.

There are numerous reasons, why the EU and Switzerland do not match or vice versa. Actually, no nation matches this undemocratic, bureaucratized and corrupt giant EU which is so ignorant of its citizens’ interests; in particular small-scale Switzerland with its uniquely differentiated and citizen-oriented state structure does not match. The following statement applies, “Do not join an ailing company.” In the following, some aspects are to be emphasized to make clear, why a significant majority of the Swiss population do not wish to join the EU. We confine ourselves to the two pillars “neutrality” and “direct democracy”. Further substantial state maxims of Switzerland are federalism and the autonomy of communes, combined with the principle of subsidiarity, the militia system in the military and in the communes as well as in the parliaments of the Confederation and the cantons. All these powerful features of the Swiss Confederation are incompatible with an EU membership: The EU needs – as people say – centralized, professional administrative units and no autonomous small-scale communes with numerous active citizens working on an honorary basis. 

Eternal and armed neutrality

Switzerland is a country, which has successfully kept aloof from wars and military alliances for 200 years and exclusively offered non-violent help like the good services, the ICRC and various humanitarian employments to war and crisis-stricken peoples. It goes without saying that the principle of eternal and armed neutrality is to the belligerent EU as fire is to water or water to fire. The Swiss National Council (represents the Swiss population) can claim high credit for rejecting the participation of Switzerland in the so-called anti-pirate-mission Atalanta recently. As we recently learned from the media, the crew of the German frigate “Karlsruhe” caught and arrested seven pirates on the Somalia coast, who had attacked a fish trawler. Swiss soldiers would have probably been on this German warship, if the Swiss Parliament had not refused to involve our country into EU war politics. Just remember: One month ago, the proponents of the employment tried to fool the parliamentarians into believing that it was “most improbable” that Swiss army members could become involved into a military conflict with Somalia. It is not as improbable as it seemed… 
If Switzerland were a member of the European Union, the representatives of the National Council and the Council of States could no longer decide autonomously on the participation in Atalanta or similar war employment, but would have to subordinate themselves to Brussels’ orders. Moreover, the people could not at all decide on any further military assignments abroad. Today, about 100,000 signatures are necessary for the voters to submit a popular initiative at any time, e.g. reducing the Swiss army exclusively on national defense and disaster control operations; in a referendum, the majority of the people and the cantons could decide on it. Of course, this would become inconceivable, if Switzerland joined the European Union. The EU does not know any right to place an initiative. 

Direct democracy: The people decide, not the executive

On all three state levels (commune/canton/Confederation), the executive has relatively little power. It is the basis that takes full responsibility and also bears the consequences. In Switzerland, there is no head of state as in France or Germany, who can take important decisions on his own behalf. The seven members of the Federal Council form a cooperative government; they act on an equal basis, have to find solutions and comprises, while at the same time, none of them has more to say than the rest. The President of the Swiss Confederation is primus inter pares, his additional tasks are merely organizational and representative, his term of office amounts to only one year, so that he cannot establish a position of power. Therefore, even politically interested Swiss people know for sure the name of the US President or the German Federal Chancellor, but not necessarily the name of the President of the Swiss Confederation. Nothing has yet been decided when the President of the Swiss Confederation Merz signs a tax agreement with another state: the National Council and the Council of States can reject the agreement, and if they agree, 50,000 voters have the right to take an optional referendum i.e. a people’s vote on the issue.
The same rules are valid for the governments on the cantonal and communal level: They are always cooperative governments without a head of government being equipped with additional authority. The people are the sovereign in either the Confederation, or the canton or the commune, and they have the final say. Therefore, the attempt of the federal authorities to achieve a strengthening of central power in Switzerland is a long and difficult path: Each shift of authority from the cantons to the Confederation must be approved in a mandatory referendum; i.e. it must be desired at the grassroots. 
This restriction of executive power in Switzerland must not be interpreted as “weakness”. Remarks in some individual media like “We need a strong government” contradict the principle of direct democracy. The Federal Council has the stronger position, the more its members feel committed to the people and the more they are aware of the fact that in the end the people have the say in Switzerland. In that case the Federal Council will not make any promises to foreign governments which it cannot keep, but will form an alliance with the citizens following the motto “We will succeed if all of us work together.” 
This restriction of power on the side of the Federal Council tremendously bothers those who wield the power in Brussels. They want a powerful executive with a head of state, a single contact person, who has to decide in essential questions, and not a committee of seven, which has to come to some sort of agreement and whose decisions must conform to the decisions of the parliament and the voters. However, what else does democracy consist of? 
In order to meet the conceptions of the European Union, the Federal Council has been trying for years to enforce a state management reform (Staatsleitungsreform): a government with a Federal President, who is to be in office for four years instead of only one and who is to have more competences. So far, both the National Council and the Council of States have wisely rebuffed this unjustified demand. Of course, each change of the state structure would be subjected to the mandatory referendum; both the people and the cantons would the longer the less agree on such a state reform. 

Co-operation for the benefit of the municipality corresponds to human nature

We, the active voters, know the meaning of democracy for human beings: Those who can assist in discussing the problems and can co-decide in their commune, in the canton and in the Confederation are more satisfied, more responsible for the community and have less feelings of powerlessness with regard to the great problems in the world. We, the people, are the sovereign, we have the right and the obligation to shape our country and the world and ensure that life is still worth living for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. It is worthwhile to reread - in this context - the study published by the University of St Gallen, by Gebhard Kirchgässner entitled “Die Direkte Demokratie: modern, erfolgreich, entwicklungs- und exportfähig.” (Direct democracy: modern, successful, promising and exportable.” [ISBN 978-3-8006-2517-8]) In order to give the reader an impression of the extraordinarily alive Swiss democracy, some actual data will follow: 
Since the establishment of the Federal State in 1848, the Swiss people could vote on altogether 559 federal referenda, half of which were adopted, the other half rejected. 
Eight constitutional reform drafts failed due to the cantonal majority, i.e. a majority of cantons outvoted the densely populated cantons such as Zurich, Berne and Waadt. 
At present, signatures are collected for seven people’s initiatives, as for example for the initiatives “Yes to the family doctor medical system” (Ja zur Hausarztmedizin) and “The banking secrecy must be included in the Federal Constitution” (Das Bankgeheimnis muss in die Bundesverfassung). Nine people’s initiatives are pending at the Federal Council, for instance the initiative of “International treaties must be presented to the people” (Staatsverträge vors Volk) or the “Landscape initiative” (Landschaftsinitiative). Eight initiatives are pending at the parliament, such as the initiative “Living waters” (Lebendiges Wasser) or “Living in one’s own four walls owing to building society savings” (Eigene vier Wände dank Bausparen). Four people’s initiatives are finally ready to be voted on, two of which will be decided upon on 29 November: “Against the building of minarets” (Gegen den Bau von Minaretten) and “For a prohibition of war material exports” (Für ein Verbot von Kriegsmaterialexporten). Seven federals laws, adopted by the parliament, are under consideration in the referendum period. This means that a popular vote can be demanded with 50,000 signatures. Two optional referenda are ready to be voted on, e.g. a resolution of the Federal parliaments on the automatic adoption of EU laws intending to implement biometric passports in Switzerland. 
Although collecting 50,000 or 100,000 signatures is not easy, thousands of people united in interest groups, parties and associations do not refrain from the effort of standing in cold weather in order to inform and activate the population, on honorary basis and in their free time. Why? One or two hours of collecting signatures mean many vivid and encouraging discussions with fellow citizens. Some people, who first express their doubts and say that those “in Berne act as they like, anyway”, gain new strength and realize that if we unite, we are able to shape politics. And with some sheets full of signatures in the bag, the collectors return home a bit more upright and in a lively manner. 
An EU membership of Switzerland would have the consequence that most people’s initiatives would no longer be permissible, because they would defy some of the thousands of decrees from Brussels. Since the national parliaments of the EU member states have approximately 70 to 80 per cent of the laws forced on them by the EU headquarters, no more referenda could be taken up against them. The expected loss of political rights of the Swiss people is one of the main reasons, why most Swiss want to remain decidedly in their independent state.

Referendum democracy – slow and economica

In Switzerland, there are no rush jobs in the law-making process. It takes a long time, until a bill or a treaty can be implemented. This is an effect of direct democracy. The differentiated Swiss legislation system could not continue within the EU, which wants to enforce and implement their planned innovations as fast as possible. 
In each Swiss civic education textbook, one can reread how a law is developed. First of all, experts are needed, who prepare a bill. Then there is a legislative process of consultation, which means the Federal Council sends out the draft to the cantons, parties and associations for a statement; the individual citizens can also comment on the draft. This procedure is a result of direct democracy: If during the phase of the legislative process by consultation it becomes evident that a law or a treaty encounters refusal by the majority, it is useless for the authorities to further advance the bill in its intended form. Generally speaking, the Federal Council and the United Federal Assembly always keep in mind that the draft may have to pass a referendum in the end. At present we have about a dozen legislative procedures by consultation on a federal level; the latest being a four month legislative procedure about euthanasia, on which all interested organizations and people can comment. 
Including the results of the legislative process by consultation, the Federal Council writes a message, i.e. the project is presented to the parliament. Next, the draft is separately dealt with in the National Council and in the Council of States. Each Council discusses the draft of the Federal Council and includes as many changes as its members desire. If the two chambers cannot agree after three consultations, a conference of agreement with delegates of both Councils is installed. These try to find a compromise. Then both Councils have to vote on the compromise separately. In case of reciprocal agreement, the law or the treaty is adopted by the parliament, if not, the draft is rejected. Moreover, when the Councils have finally agreed, the referendum period of 100 days begins, i.e. the Swiss citizens can collect 50,000 signatures and thus make a referendum necessary. 
The whole procedure can take two up to three years, which some politicians criticize as being too slow. Nevertheless, we have to consider that the right of the voters to start a referendum against a law or a treaty entails an extremely careful and economic handling of the law-making process, which is inconceivable in a representative democracy and even more so within the giant EU. 
The fact that Switzerland (economically) and the Swiss (in their mood) are much better off than other nations in today’s severe financial and economic crisis, cannot be explained with economic arguments alone. It would rather do each country and each municipality in the world good, if their populations watched politics and especially the financial policy of their municipalities as attentively as t he Swiss do within the federation, the cantons and the municipalities. 
The Brussels leading politicians could learn a lot of the Swiss model particularly within this field – however, not by swallowing the last bulwark in Europe, but by letting the Swiss live according to their will in a genuine democracy.•