Swiss federalism is the result of a long historical process that different actors, institutions and interests have shaped for centuries. One can identify three major factors: the presence of territorial units differing in terms of culture, language, religion, and democratic perception but forced to cooperate for economic and political reasons; a constitution establishing the general principles of democracy and, through a bottom-up approach, dividing powers between the different levels of government; and the extensive use of direct democratic tools (i.e., popular vote-based) as a way of conveying legitimacy to the constitutional and institutional expression of federal principles.
It is also important to stress that Switzerland must constantly seek the right equilibrium between its federalist commitment and the functional requirements of a modern state. One cannot fix this equilibrium finally but, rather, it must be the result of political disputes.
Swiss flexible federalism & democracy
A full understanding of federalism must therefore take into account how federal principles are put into practice and how they are lived every day. From time to time, such principles have to be adapted or even changed. In Switzerland, the main works in progress are the allocation of tasks between the Confederation and the inter-cantonal and trans-border cooperation; and, in some cantons, the drafting of new constitutions.
Will Switzerland be able to cope with globalization? Is Switzerland able to change? Federalism is a political formula that is flexible and consequently, always changing and adapting. Thanks to the system of direct democracy and flexible federalism, Switzerland’s capacity for adaptation is greater than many would expect. Direct democracy prevents extreme solutions, provides a high degree of legitimacy for changes, and guarantees that legal provisions will be implemented. Nevertheless, there are important democratic deficits. Switzerland can only claim to have a three fourth democracy, which excludes the participation of more than two million foreigners. If the challenge of European integration does not question these basic principles, which I do not think it will, then Switzerland should be able to adapt its system without losing its identity.
Finally, there is the unsolved problem of modern migration. Today, more than 22 percent of the people living in Switzerland are foreigners who do not have the right to participate in the democratic process. Can we still claim to be a democracy if we exclude one- fifth of the population? Given our concepts of diversity and democracy, what are our options for becoming more inclusive? Up until now, no acceptable answers have been found.
Switzerland of diversity
When Switzerland was founded, the integration of religious, historical, cultural and linguistic diversity within one country was a major challenge. The founding fathers of the Swiss Constitution succeeded in this task mainly because they developed and pragmatically adapted the concept of the classical liberal nation state, accommodating the special needs of Swiss diversity. The Swiss nation is based neither on an atomized society composed of a-cultural equal citizens as individuals, nor on a homogeneous ethno-national community.
The Swiss conception of nationhood is that of a composed nation building on its diversities and united by both its federal and democratic values enabling each community to recognise the federal state as its homeland. Switzerland considers minorities not as second-class people nor as a burden. Instead, it considers the various communities as equal partners, which live peacefully side by side together. Diversities are a foundational value of the Swiss polity. Equality, including the right to be different and power sharing among diverse political, cultural and religious communities is part of a political culture considering compromise not as a weakness but as both a political strength and a prerequisite for peaceful coexistence.
Switzerland does not conceive democracy as a tool to produce efficient majorities but rather as a collective right emphasizing self-determination of the municipalities, the cantons and the confederation. It enables each citizen to approve or reject laws that may affect him or her as a member of the municipal, cantonal or federal polity. This vision of democracy reflects the composite nature of the Swiss nation and the conviction that decisions need to be taken as closely to the citizens as possible. From the Swiss point of view, democracy and federalism are thus complementary and not competing principles.
The tolerance and respect for traditional diversity contrasts strongly with the attitude towards new diversity caused by modern immigration. The Swiss have to face up to the challenge to integrate immigrants, need to, and develop an effective strategy to this effect. As Switzerland found its own answer to accommodating diversity in the 19th century, it may succeed in devising its own solution as regards third country nationals in building on its democratic tradition and its culture of compromise and self-restraint. In doing so, Switzerland would again become a full democracy instead of a four fifth democracy, which excludes 20 % of its residents from effective political and social participation.
by Thomas FLEINER
The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.
More than 40 experts contributed to this work, by delivering detailed reports about the state of regionalisation and multilevel governance in chosen European countries. The study covers 41 countries, and each country report is based on a similar structure, thereby allowing a comparative approach among all studied countries.
- The first part of the report gives the political impetus from the main European stakeholders
- The second part of this report entails a summarised version of the country reports. The objective is to provide interested readers with a short overview of the main features of regionalisation in various European countries. The complete versions of the country reports are available on the AER website, under LINK
- The third part provides a thematic approach based on the main findings delivered by the country reports and the current state of regionalisation in Europe. The trends and outlooks lead to open questions on the future of the regions in the European landscape, and more broadly on the role of subnational authorities in the shaping of the continent.
- The fourth part gives the floor to the actual regional decision-makers in Europe, across a series of interviews and statements by Presidents, Vice-Presidents and elected representatives of the European regions.
Over the next months, we will be focusing on a different European country’s approach to regionalisation. During these months, look out for #RoR2017 on Twitterand/or Facebook and follow us at @europeanregions.
Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.
