Rudolf Walther

Swiss selfdefeatism
The Swiss vote to ban minarets has less to do with a "populist factor" inherent in
referenda than with resentment at highlevel corruption and the fear of social
declassification. Celebrated by rightwing parties across Europe, the vote augurs
more popular Islambaiting to come.

On 29 November 2009 the Swiss electorate was called upon to vote on an

initiative that wanted to ban, with immediate effect, the construction of
minarets. Moreover, it was proposed that the ban a mere detail of building
law be written into the constitution (!). What barely anyone thought
possible then happened: the 57 per cent of citizens that took part in the
referendum voted in favour of the ban (the turnout was 53.4 per cent of all
those eligible to vote). The double majority, that of the 26 cantons, was also
easily reached. Only the three Frenchspeaking cantons Geneva, Vaud and
Neuchtel along with Basel, the only cosmopolitan city in
Germanspeaking Switzerland, voted no.
The entire Swiss elite, up in arms about the "PR disaster", insinuated that the
decision was without precedent; yet this was to obscure the true background.
Although the supposedly "civil" citizens did indeed opt for a highly sovereign
selfdefeat, it was according to the motto: "What's good enough for those up
top is good enough for those down below".
Over the course of many years, the Swiss political and economic elites have
been undermining their own "civility" with their struggle to retain banking
secrecy on behalf of tax evaders of all calibre. It began already in the
mid1990s, with the "orphaned" Jewish accounts in Swiss banks. Only after
pressure from the US administration and Jewish interest groups was it possible
to persuade the Swiss elites that this murky past finally needed to be
investigated. That then happened with a 40strong commission led by the
Swiss historian JeanFranois Bergier, which published its findings in 2002
(supplemented by over two dozen special reports). Flying in the face of
national lies and the sophistries of school history lessons, the Bergier
commission made it clear that in the Second World War the Swiss elites did
have room to manoeuvre, which in some areas for example in business
they took full advantage of, but which in refugee policy they quite consciously
did not.
In 1997, after a report about dormant bank accounts in Switzerland, the
Holocaust Fund was set up, furnished by Swiss banks and the National Bank
with 100 million franks each, and by the business sector with 73 million
franks. 309 000 living victims, above all in eastern Europe, Belarus and the
Ukraine, received payments from the funds.
An article from www.eurozine.com

1/4

However anyone who might have supposed that the Swiss elites were any the
wiser after their image had been damaged thus, soon realized their mistake.
When, two years ago, the US and the EU began investigating tax evasion more
closely, they came across the same old stubbornness from Swiss banks and
authorities, which wanted to retain the fine difference between tax evasion
punishable by a fine and that punishable by a prison sentence, so as to protect
their dubious customers worldwide. In short: with so much slyness among
those up top, the resentments of those down below should come as no surprise.
Alpine chauvinism
Of course, the referendum was not about minarets, of
which there are a grand total of four in Switzerland. The
campaign rode on the back of antipathies towards
Muslims and Islam, mobilizing the old Alpine
chauvinism against foreigners in the context of the
economic crisis and rising unemployment. The
campaign, designed by the German "creative" (adman, in
other words) Alexander Segert, had clear racist features,
especially one poster which shows a woman in a burqa
standing next to seven minarets, sprouting out of a Swiss
flag like rockets that are apparently threatening the country.
Apart from Swiss People's Party (SVP), led by Christoph Blocher, and a
couple of farRight sects, all parties, all churches, and all trade unions and
business associations were against the ban. Hence the result of the referendum
is indeed a sensation. The defeat is particularly embarrassing for the
parliament, which rejected the initiative with a 70 per cent majority, yet agreed
to the referendum result despite the minaret ban being in clear breach of the
constitutional guarantee of religious freedom and ban on discrimination. Not
legally necessary, this parliamentary agreement was the result of pure
opportunism, as well as a fear of ruling an SVP initiative to be
unconstitutional. Because in Switzerland there is, for logicalsystematic
reasons, no constitutional court in a direct democracy, the people have the
last word the decision will now be made by the European Court of Human
Rights in Strasbourg.
Joining the celebrations of the selfrighteous Swiss chauvinists in their victory
over reason and tolerance is a panEuropean, international radical rightwing
party with branches in, among other countries, Austria, Italy, France and the
Netherlands. Roberto Calderoni, a Northern League MP in the Berlusconi
government, immediately announced what was on the rightwing agenda in
Italy: "Yes to church steeples, no to minarets." Similar sentiments come from
the FP and BZ in Austria, who both demand a Europewide ban. In the
Netherlands, Geert Wilders, leader of the "Party for Freedom", announced that
the Dutch would also have the opportunity to vote on a minaret ban. Buoyed
by this success, the Swiss initiators declared there would also be referenda on
"arranged marriage", "honour killings", and "burqas" in short, the complete
programme of popular Islambaiting, which is also on the increase in
Germany.
Demonstrations in Zrich and Bern of several hundred, mostly young people
with banners such as "Embarrassed to be Swiss" are small comfort compared
to the fact that in 15 cantons between 60 and 71 per cent voted for the ban.
Adding to the miserable result, on the same day a motion to ban the export of
military equipment was voted down by a majority of over twothirds (in the
An article from www.eurozine.com

2/4

small cantons the majority was as high as 77 to 88 per cent). At the same time,
there is no fetish more vaunted than neutrality. The question of how this can be
reconciled with arms trading plays no role in the bigoted majority media
discourse. The internationally respected Neue Zrcher Zeitung promptly
criticized the initiative as an attempt to partly "disarm" the weapons export
industry.
European swing to the right
What, then, does the result of the minaret vote mean? First: even if the
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung comments that direct democracy and popular
referenda automatically contain "a populist factor", this fundamental critique
remains fundamentally wrong. Populism is not built serially into direct
democracy; rather, rightwing and farright groups help themselves to the
instruments of direct democracy (in ways thoroughly contrary to what they are
intended for) for their own dim purposes. The legitimate entitlement of citizens
to direct participation is not the quirk of a small alpine country, as maintained
by many German intellectuals on both the Right and the Left, but rather the
core demand of emancipatory citizenship. The North American colonies freed
themselves from subservience to the British monarchy with the demand: "No
taxation without participation".
There are good historical reasons for the German constitution's shortcomings
in the question of direct participation, however no other reasons. When the
constitution was first drafted, distrust of a people that for twelve years had
almost unanimously followed a criminal leader was justified. Now, however, it
has become outdated.
Second: the result of the Swiss referendum was indeed a surprise all the
prognoses were between 15 and 20 per cent off the mark and predicted a clear
rejection of the initiative. In situations like this, opinion polls refer to the "fist
in the pocket effect", meaning that when asked, people do not express their real
opinion because this is somehow considered "impolite" or "not the form". This
selfdenial always points to a real problem behind the apparent one: while
ostensibly about the risk of "Islamization" and "Islam", beneath the surface is
many citizens' fear of social declassification, unemployment and poverty
problems to which the elites have no answer.
As a result of the economic crisis of 2009, Switzerland's unemployment rate
rose to around four per cent, having been more or less insignificant since 1945.
The SVP were already talking of renegotiating the treaty on the free
movement of persons with the EU,1 in other words of swinging onto the
"foreigners out" track. Ultimately, the result of the referendum is a sign of the
general insecurity of many citizens, and above all an expression of the distance
between them and the political and economic elites. This distance is the most
telling indicator of the political class's lack of legitimacy and in the crisis
of the distrust towards the economically influential elites. However this
applies across Europe. In view of this evidence, it is high time that the parties
and the trade unions, those in government and those profiting, realize that it is
in their own interests to involve the fears and insecurities of broad sections of
the public in their political calculations, and act accordingly.
Third: domestically, the divide between the liberal, western Swiss cantons and
the increasingly reactionary eastern cantons is increasing. This divide has
existed since 1914, when Francophile and Germanophile politicians and
militaries stood opposite one another. However it has never developed into a
An article from www.eurozine.com

3/4

real threat to the unity of the country. The referenda of recent years, however,
show that the divide is becoming ever wider. Switzerland is isolating itself in
Europe, with this decision lowering the minimum civil standards of legality
and tolerance. By entering a building law into its constitution, the country has
made itself as ridiculous as when the white wine lobby constitutionalized a ban
on Absinthe in 1908. It remained in force for 97 years and was only lifted in
2005. One does not need to be a prophet to forecast that the ban on minarets is
unlikely to last that long. The predictable slap in the face from Strasbourg will
ruin the image of the country completely.
Switzerland's reputation as a free and democratic country is over, it seems. In
the warmest November in living memory, winter descended in the Alps. In
political terms, the Ice Age could last a long time for Swiss politics.

The Personenfreizgigkeitsabkommen, signed with the EU in 1999, allowing nonSwiss

nationals to reside and work in Switzerland trans.

Published 20100119
Original in German
Translation by Simon Garnett
Contribution by Bltter fr deutsche und internationale Politik
First published in Bltter fr deutsche und internationale Politik 1/2010
Rudolf Walther/Bltter fr deutsche und internationale Politik
Eurozine

An article from www.eurozine.com

4/4