Sharp turn to the right in Swiss elections

By Marianne Arens, World Socialist Web Site, 4 November 1999

In the elections to the Swiss federal parliament at the end of October, the right-wing Swiss People's Party (SVP) rose to become the strongest single party. The SVP increased its vote by 7.7 percent, winning 22.6 percent of the overall vote and overtaking the Social Democratic Party of Switzerland (SPS), which polled 22.5 percent.

The election result will, in all probability, have no influence on the makeup of the government. Since 1959, Switzerland has been ruled by a series of grand coalitions. The system of so-called Konkordanzdemokratie (concordance democracy) determines the relative position of parties within a four-party government. The Liberal Democratic Party (FDP), Christian Democrats (CVP), SPS and SVP provide seven federal ministers, in the ratio 2:2:2:1 (the so-called magic formula), and rotate the office of federal president between themselves annually.

The 43.3 percent turnout was not unusually low and is about 1 percent higher than at the last election four years before. In the first half of the century, 70 to 80 percent of the population participated in Swiss parliamentary elections. With the introduction of a permanent grand coalition, this dropped rapidly to its current low level, since voters could effectively exercise no influence on the composition of the government. A very low turnout was recorded in the larger urban cantons, as well as in western Switzerland.

The SVP has so far relied mainly on farmers and small businessmen. Formed in 1971, it represents a nationalist and anti-socialist tradition. The SVP writes of its precursor, founded in 1918, the year of the general strike: The political advance of the socialists, as well as the conviction of younger farmer politicians that the Liberals were not acting energetically enough against socialist, anti-militarist and internationalist tendencies, played a not inconsiderable role in the establishment of the BGB.

As long as the Swiss state kept the lid on tensions between different social interests by a carefully balanced social partnership, the BGB/SVP did not play an especially prominent role in the post-war period. Only since a section of the bourgeoisie broke with this consensus has a party such as Christoph Blocher's SVP— like Joerg Haider's FPO in Austria—acquired significance.

Of the political demands of the SVP—less state interference, lower taxes, fewer foreigners, no to entry in the European Union—the latter probably won it the most support. Party leader Blocher, a billionaire and large shareholder, polemicises against the ‘sell-out of the homeland’. He portrays the European Union Commission as the Steward of Brussels, against whom the descendants of William Tell have to defend their liberty. The maintenance of Swiss isolation is presented as a guarantee against inexorable neo-liberal globalisation. In reality Switzerland has, for centuries, drawn its prosperity from its economic activities around the world.

While the SVP is extremely conservative and authoritarian regarding social questions, it argues for an ultra-liberal economic policy. It directs its fire against every social reform and all forms of state interference with private enterprise, and calls for a lowering of the tax burden by 10 percent.

The recent and most glaring historical falsification by Blocher is directed against the demands on the Swiss banks by Jewish victims of the Nazis. In an interview with the Israeli daily Jediot Aharonot two days after his election success, Blocher compared the boycott threats made by Jewish organisations against the Swiss banks in 1997 and 1998 with the boycott of Jewish business by German Nazis in the 1930s.

How is it to be explained that such crude and reactionary policies suddenly become politically acceptable and gain so many votes?

Firstly, purely in terms of the figures, a vote of 22.6 percent under conditions of an election turnout of 43.3 percent means that fewer than 10 percent of the electorate cast their ballot for Blocher. The SVP is increasingly financed by sections of big business, which enables it to have a large apparatus and conduct demagogic campaigns country-wide, bombarding the electorate with paid advertisements and flyers.

It consciously addresses the older generation, particularly those who were assigned to protect Switzerland's borders during the Second World War, and encourages their resentments by denouncing those who have exposed the collaboration of the Swiss banks with the Nazi regime. The SVP monopolises the right-wing camp and has profited from the disappearance or absorption of several smaller right-wing parties.

All these circumstances contributed to the SVP's election victory, but they do not explain it completely. The crucial reason why the SVP was able to gain so much support from among lower-middle-class layers of society lies elsewhere. There was no party in the election that credibly championed the interests of working people and the socially disadvantaged, and which represented even a trace of opposition to the prevailing right-wing concepts.

The editorials in some newspapers noted an absence of serious debates and controversies among the competing parties. If an election campaign means that different political leaders and concepts clash in the contest— then no election campaign took place, wrote the Tagesanzeiger on October 18.

The proposals of the SVP, no matter how reactionary, did not face a single voice of serious opposition. Quite the opposite: almost all the traditional parties tried to keep hold of their voters by adapting to the right-wing demagogy of the SVP.

How little separates the positions of the leading political parties is revealed in the question of immigrants' rights, where the SVP pursues a particularly reactionary policy. It relentlessly complains about the abuse of asylum, charging that some 90 percent of refugees are illegitimate, and intensifies nationalist tensions by demanding separate school classes for foreign children. In addition, it calls for a popular vote in every case of naturalisation. It supports a referendum to regulate immigration, which would limit the proportion of foreigners allowed into Switzerland to 18 percent. At the same time, it insists that foreign labour, in particular seasonal workers (who may only stay for nine months in Switzerland in any case), be regulated according to the needs of individual industries and regions.

In the election campaign, FDP President Franz Steinegger was anxious to explain that his asylum policy corresponded with 90 percent of the SVP's. The FDP majority do not support the 18 Percent Initiative, which originated with a Liberal politician in the Aargauer regional council, only because it runs contrary to the interests of the economy. Individual FDP politicians in the Zurich local council even supported the demand for separate classes.

While the FDP and the CVP endorse a similarly restrictive immigration policy, and agree ideologically with the xenophobia of the SVP, the Social Democrats refuse to counterpose a substantially different policy.

In a party discussion paper (For a humane migration and refugee policy) the SPS say that Switzerland cannot be open to all who want to earn their living or build a new life within the Swiss borders. It endorses a special quota for workers from developing countries and proposes the deportation of any foreigner who commits a crime.

The Social Democrats are no longer able to mobilise potential voters over matters for which they fought decades ago, and which are directly connected with the party's name.

Without doubt, social tensions in Switzerland have recently intensified more strongly than in all the years since the Second World War. Rigid austerity measures have been pursued for years, to which almost everything is subordinated. The retirement age for women was raised from 62 to 64 years; unemployment benefits have been cut; state employees have had to accept wage sacrifices.

As in every other country, company mergers, factory closures and dismissals are on the agenda. Since the beginning of the 90s, the largest state-run concerns, such as the Post Office and National Railways, have each cut some 5,000 jobs and implemented partial privatisations—the best known example being Swisscom.

Two years ago unemployment in Zurich reached a new record of almost 9 percent—this in a country where unemployment has been low since the 1930s. Although it has decreased slightly since then, in the countryside and in more remote areas unemployment continues to grow.

The new jobs that have been created often have a completely different character. For example, as the head of the Zurich labour office explained to the Tagesanzeiger, call centres operating 24 hours a day are shooting out of the ground like mushrooms. In the service sector, a new profession has developed: the freelancer, who for a small cash payment offers so-called personal services, but without a fixed contract or social security provisions.

The gap between the super-rich, on the one hand, and those who have to fight for their daily bread has widened substantially, while a layer in the social centre is increasingly afraid for its possessions, status and future. The elections represent not only a shift to the right, but a social polarisation, which is only reflected in the election result in a distorted way, because the less well-off social layers do not have any political representation.

---

To people who received the item: Switzerland: Sharp Turn to Right,

I received that posting and sent it to a fellow netizen in Switzerland, Christoph Reuss. I know Christoph via this left biocentrist list we are both on. We share a deep concern for the well-being of the Earth and its beings and, I think, a commitment to look beyond superficial analyses of problems.

Christoph is certinaly not the only person whose opinions I respect highly who argues convincingly that participation in the EU threatens democracy and sustainability (and strengthens the forces of corporate globalization). This applies not only to Switzerland, of course, but to all nations thinking of joining the EU.

all the best, Jan Slakov, Weymouth, NS Canada
<jslakov@tartannet.ns.ca>

---

Dear Jan,

thanks for the fwd. I'm extremely frustrated of the role of the Left parties in this election campaign and generally in Swiss politics, and I must say it's their own fault that they have lost votes in this election. (However, it's a strong exaggeration to talk of a sharp turn to right.)

The Left parties' pro-EU position is based on their vast illusion that the EU is a socialist project and allows the participation of small countries. The Left parties are in complete denial that their primary goal (CH joining the EU) is in crass contradiction to all their other slogans (fighting unemployment, neoliberalism, militarism; promoting ecology and true worldwide cooperation). To the informed Netizen, this blatant contradiction is pretty obvious, but the media here take a very misinforming pro-EU stance.

As the French actor Ives Montand once said: The EU proponents are like sheep who think the Wolf is a vegetarian. The Left parties think the EU is a socialist project, but given the obvious contradictions, it is hard to believe they honestly think so. It rather seems they know it just ain't so, but can't admit it. It's a sweet illusion for them, and their top politicians already dream of the TOP salaries of Brussels (I know two of them on a first-name basis, so I know what I'm talking about).

There are a few Left/Green citizens who see these contradictions and oppose the EU, but they are only a small faction and have no say in the Left and Green parties. The most eminent group is the Swiss Forum for Direct Democracy, of which I am a member. Their excellent Europa Magazine (http://europa.crossnet.ch) has an exposure of only 3500 units !! 8-(

It is very sad that the SVP (and two tiny neglectable right-wing parties) is the ONLY political party that opposes the EU—of course for quite different reasons than we do ! But instead of addressing their contradictions (rather to distract from them!), the Left parties and the press have only demonized the SVP in this election campaign. Hence it is no big surprise that those voters who oppose the EU had no choice but to vote for the SVP, or not to vote at all. The EU-critical Left-Green minority position was omitted in the media and suppressed within the Left/Green parties.

With this in mind, it is terribly ironic that the Left now complains about a sharp turn to right. Their own dishonest pro-EU position is to blame ! In fact, the election brought a slight turn away from the EU, and considering the character of the EU, I'm really not sure if a turn away from the EU is a turn to the right.

The World Socialist Web Site wrote:

The crucial reason why the SVP was able to gain so much support from among lower-middle-class layers of society lies elsewhere. There was no party in the election that credibly championed the interests of working people and the socially disadvantaged, and which represented even a trace of opposition to the prevailing right-wing concepts.

That's correct—but doesn't this show the bankrupcy of the Left parties in this country ??? That's the problem !

The editorials in some newspapers noted an absence of serious debates and controversies among the competing parties. If an election campaign means that different political leaders and concepts clash in the contest— then no election campaign took place, wrote the Tagesanzeiger on October 18.

That's right, the only content of this election was the pro-EU parties demonizing the anti-EU party, for lack of credible arguments.

Only since a section of the bourgeoisie broke with this consensus has a party such as Christoph Blocher's SVP— like Joerg Haider's FPO in Austria—acquired significance.

It is very misleading to compare Christoph Blocher and the SVP with the Austrian Joerg Haider and the FPO. It's the difference between nationalism and fascism. Anyway, the success of Haider also seems to be due to the Austrians' disappointment with the EU (most of the pro-EU PR has turned out to be lies).

Party leader Blocher, a billionaire and large shareholder, polemicises against the sell-out of the homeland. He portrays the European Union Commission as the Steward of Brussels, against whom the descendants of William Tell have to defend their liberty. The maintenance of Swiss isolation is presented as a guarantee against inexorable neo-liberal globalisation.

This is the typical straw-man argument of the Left/Green EU proponents: Blocher is a neoliberal industrialist, and he is anti-EU, so Greens and Leftists cannot be against the EU. —What they omit is that the EU itself is neoliberal, industrialist and more (the German red-green gov't is a sad example for this dishonesty).

The recent and most glaring historical falsification by Blocher is directed against the demands on the Swiss banks by Jewish victims of the Nazis. In an interview with the Israeli daily Jediot Aharonot two days after his election success, Blocher compared the boycott threats made by Jewish organisations against the Swiss banks in 1997 and 1998 with the boycott of Jewish business by German Nazis in the 1930s.

The Jediot Aharonot journalist grossly distorted Blocher's statements in this interview, translating his statements to very different meanings. I know because a local newspaper here has printed Blocher's original statements and the misleading translation of Jediot Aharonot. Such tricks are malicious propaganda of the worst kind (known from the 1930's).

(Btw, so far nobody has been able to explain the difference between 1990's don't buy with Swiss and 1930's don't buy with Jews. Aren't both mottos just racist agitation ?)

[the SVP] intensifies nationalist tensions by demanding separate school classes for foreign children.

This is because many classes already have more than 50% foreign children who speak very different languages, so the quality of education decreases for all kids.

It supports a referendum to regulate immigration, which would limit the proportion of foreigners allowed into Switzerland to 18 percent.

Background: Now it is about 25%, whereas the EU average is 5%. Not exactly a xenophobic country, is it?

Sincerely,
Chris