Swiss Review 1/2019

Swiss Review / January 2019 / No.1 9 INTERVIEW: SUSANNE WENGER Swiss Review: Mr. Hermann, over the last three years the British have voted to leave the EU and right-wing populists in Europe and overseas have won elections. At the same time, the national conservative SVP in Switzerland was reined in. How do you explain this? Michael Hermann: What can now be observed in various countries took placemuch earlier in Switzerland. The rise of the SVP began in the 1990s. The relationship to Europe, migration, glo- balisation, the consequences of eco- nomic and social change: these issues, which occupy many people, were re- flected more quickly and directly in politics because of Switzerland’s di- rect democracy. Popular initiatives were launched, heated and emotional debates took place. Divides were cre- ated. Swiss referendums caused a stir throughout Europe. The ban on minarets, the vote against “mass immigration”, the deportation of delinquent foreigners, the rejection of simplified citizenship for Secondos... Exactly. Foreign journalists calledme looking for explanations. A British newspaper had the headline: “Swit- zerland: Europe’s Heart of Darkness.” The SVP’s advertising methods, which tested boundaries, also at- tracted attention. Then came the big election success of the SVP in 2015, the shift to the right, and yet the sit- uation has calmed down since then. In a typical Swiss reflex, the elector- ate restrained the SVP from making a power grab. Today, Switzerland is once again showing more modera- tion, and the population has repeat- edly spoken out against extending di- rect democracy at the expense of the rule of law. The issues that have now emerged in Europe and the USA have already been dealt with to some ex- tent and integrated into the system. The Swiss system seeks a balance, but is the country still capable of reform? Important reforms, for example regarding the retirement provision, failed at the ballot box. Direct democracy quickly absorbs people’s concerns, reduces tension and resolves conflicts. It has many ad- vantages; the ability to reform is not necessarily one of them. But that has always been the case. By European standards it took ages for the old-age and survivors’ insurance (OASI) and women’s suffrage to be introduced. What has actually become more dif- ficult today is the forming of alliances that can survive the constant election campaigns. The polar parties SVP and SP, in particular, prefer to take a strong position along party lines rather than compromise. Yet the po- litical differences are often not huge. Retirement provision was not about neoliberalismor socialism, but about an increase or decrease of pensions by 70 francs. What does the current weakness of political parties in the centre mean for Switzerland? Because we do not have a system of government and opposition, elec- tions are not about bringing a par- ticular political force to power. The voters can only slightly steer the su- pertanker in the desired direction: a little more to the left or right, a little more progressive or conservative, a little more green. Parties in the cen- tre that, like the CVP, have no clear direction tend to have a harder time. Their strengths lie elsewhere: in building bridges, in forging compro- mises. But if the centre becomes nar- rower and narrower, this canweaken the glue that holds the system to- gether. Why are the social democrats in Switzerland able to maintain their voter share when this is collapsing in many places in Europa? In contrast to other social democracies in Europe, the Swiss SP clearly posi- tioned itself on the left after the turn of the century and remained there. This gave it a clear profile. It took up ecological and social issues much ear- lier andwon over new voters, making it less dependent on traditional work- ers. In addition, the SP never had to bear full government responsibility in the Swiss system. Although it is in the Federal Council, it can also act as the- opposition. “Direct democracy quickly absorbs people’s concerns, reduces tension and resolves conflicts” In countries where right-wing populists are growing stronger, concerns about democ- racy are being expressed. There are attacks on the press, against the “estab- lishment”, agitation and online disinforma- tion. Switzerland, on the other hand, is it still the model for democracy? Switzerland is a stable country, we are doing well economically. The system prevents authoritarian figures or cer- tain parties from becoming too big. But Swiss democracy also has its prob- lems. The consensus system is eroding, and numerous lobbyists sit in parlia- ment. There is a lack of transparency in party financing, there is no upper limit. And the media system is crum- bling at a rapid pace because newspa- pers’ businessmodels do not work. Yet the finely ramified media landscape has always been an important part of federal Switzerland with its various regions.