Last week’s Le News editorial questioning whether the over use of Switzerland’s referendum system was actually undermining democracy through too much democracy received considerable reaction, much of it irate. Clearly, we had touched on a sacred cow, even if not of the Swiss Brown or Simmental variety. How dare one criticize Swiss democracy? It has worked for centuries (Swiss women might have a different point of view given that they only received the Federal vote in 1971) so why change?
Займ без отказа на карту мгновенно. But that is precisely why Swiss voters need to constantly question the system. And why there needs to be far more open and candid debate about: who we are as a nation in the 21st century; the potential of a more fruitful immigrant society; and how Switzerland is perceived globally. The Swiss government’s move to finally crack down on corruption-ridden organizations such as the International Federation of Football Association (FIFA) was prompted largely by the bad publicity the sports body was generating for this country’s reputation. (See this week’s story in Le News).
To demand that people simply not say anything, or that provocative insights should be ignored, as some readers suggest, is actually a subversion of democracy. While the Swiss press ranks as one of freest in world, auto-censorship is widely practised by much of the mainstream media, particularly in the German-speaking parts. There is a general reluctance to highlight issues, particularly if raised by outsiders, that question ‘traditional’ values, make people uncomfortable, or even come across as bad for the country.
Writing as a New York-born “Weltschweizer” (father Vaudois, mother from Basel), there is little doubt that the Helvetic system has a lot to offer. Its federal approach, with the canton’s having much of their own say is often cited as a possible example for crisis-ridden countries such as Afghanistan (See last week’s piece on a Swiss role for Afghanistan) which have fared badly from overly centralised governments. But the Swiss also need to be aware of how they are regarded, even if they don’t like what they hear.
One example is the discriminatory manner with which many Swiss, including the Bern government, treat “die Anderen” (the ‘others’), notably foreigners living and working in Switzerland. This includes expatriates who have become naturalised Swiss, but who maintain that they are still branded as outsiders, even if they have served in the Swiss army.
Much of this has to do with deep-seated xenophobic attitudes if not resentment. Foreign residents, who are contributing overwhelmingly to Swiss society with taxes, know-how, labour and spending, often complain that Swiss are quite happy to take their money, but that they really don’t care about them as human beings. This is an aspect of Swiss society that is not particularly glorious (nor different perhaps from many other countries), but which exists as a firmly embedded reality.
The overwhelming rejection on 30 November of the Ecopop vote has somewhat redeemed the Swiss in the eyes of the European Union and foreigners elsewhere. But this was a primarily pragmatic decision by Swiss voters. It does not really reflect the attitude of many Swiss toward “die Anderen.”
Brussels has just re-declared its willingness to open its doors even more to Switzerland to stimulate more effective integration through broader trade, cultural exchanges and research support. But this cannot happen if current bilateral agreements are in any way tampered with. Here the 28 European member states are remaining firm.
The challenge now is how Switzerland, as an immigrant society not unlike most other European countries, will deal with change rather than harking back to a past without foreigners that no longer exists, and never actually did despite claims by some Swiss conservatives. People do not have to agree, but what is needed is far more open – and informed – debate tackling the real issues at hand. Not just visceral gut responses.
Edward Girardet. Managing editor, editor@lenews.ch
Livia Varju says
Why such hostility? Editorials are generally personal opinions in all newspapers. Most Swiss or other papers would not publish personal attacks as above, and this shows that free speech is respected by Mr. Girardet.
Livia Varju says
Le News has been created to inform foreigners about what is going on in the country, and Mr. Girardet is contributing to the debate as well as encouraging it by providing space for all sorts of views. We should appreciate the opportunity.
E. Boder says
It is one thing to act like a bulletin board where you simply “inform” people of “what is going on in the country”, and it is another thing to constantly subjugate your readers to your personal slant on actual events that occur. What Le News is doing is not just innocently “informing” the foreigners of factual events – they do what most media organizations do (notice I did not say “journalistic organizations”), and that is push a certain angle or agenda by using selective bits of information that back them up. They also use a certain language that enables them to state a fact and personal opinion in a single sentence, but in such a way that, without the reader being fully attentive to this practice, would make it seem like the fact and opinion were one and the same.
This is what I take offense with in regards to Mr. Giradet’s style of writing – he vehemently attacks the parts of the Swiss political system and outcomes of that system which he does himself not personally condone or agree with, while at the same time not genuinely bringing forward a balanced overall view to the subject. Much of what he writes I have found to be pure opinion, assumption and conjecture – with some outright untruths – but I guess that is precisely what he gets paid to write!
Most recently LeNews published an article entitled “Swiss higher education under attack” by an Arlette Zakarian. This article is another very poor writeup, with a swathe of carefully selected bits of information which again fits snuggly into the overall tone of the article – not at all an “informative” piece of writing!! If anything it is a slap in the face and insult to the readers intelligence since the topic of Erasmus+ and Switzerland is so much more complex than this article makes it out to be. It is pieces such as these which makes me think that LeNews is NOT just here to “inform” people and let them make up their minds based on facts and figures, but that there is a spin, an agenda, an angle, coming down from the top – and that agenda is quite obviously to undermine the Swiss democratic process and ridicule it’s existence at every possibility!
If LeNews wants to be really taken seriously as a journalistic enterprise lets see some really down-to-earth, subjective, unbiased write-ups – shall we!?
Phillip says
To throw another element into this debate, it is worth looking at the EU and asking some questions. The EU was born from the very positive desire to avoid further European conflict and delivers much that is positive however it’s far from perfect.
On the positive side it reduces the fragmentation of markets and brings people together.
On the other hand I’d argue that it has overstretched itself in particular with the common currency – while this simplifies admin and trade it has created a financial rigidity that now currently means economies like Germany need to generate high inflation relative to the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain) or the PIGS need to generate deflation to make themselves economically competitive again. Given that either scenario will be difficult to achieve the Euro zone is somewhat stuck. Separate national currencies on the other hand would have adjusted automatically and this problem would not have existed.
Another area where the EU is sometimes wanting is the way it uses EU market access as a political lever. Free trade benefits all of those involved and should generally be a given. This is the philosophy behind the World Trade Organisation. Sure there are times when it makes sense to use it as a lever – certain breaches of human rights for example, however there are many instances where it’s used for less than noble reasons. Essentially large countries or trade blocks use their weight to push small countries around and not always for the right reasons. The EU is not alone here of course. The US is a world champion on this score.
Then there are flaws in how EU taxpayers’ money is spent. Around 40% of expenditure is still spent supporting agriculture, perpetuating uneconomic farming, lining the pockets of large commercial farming operations and disadvantaging unsubsidized farmers in poor countries which would otherwise have a comparative cost advantage. This is a weeping sore at the heart of the EU that pits those countries with heavy farm subsidies against those with low ones. That these subsidies still exist is a reflection of the ineffectiveness and dysfunction of the institution.
Finally there are challenges related to how the EU works in the context of so many nationally elected governments. How well does it complement national democracies? How does the friction between Switzerland and the EU stand in this light?
Livia Varju says
The EU should be limited to security and trade and should not meddle in internal affairs. For example, it should not tell the Swiss what migrants or refugees they should accept, and forbid them to deport foreign criminals. Already one quarter of residents in Switzerland are foreigners, and if we add all the people who were not born here but have taken the nationality, the numbers are probably up to a third or more.
The Swiss are not xenophobic but they know that we have a higher percentage of foreigners than any other country, besides the country is 3 times more populated than Germany or Italy, and 5 times more than France.
E. Boder says
Mr. Giradet would like us all to believe that impassioned responses and feedback to his glaringly pro-Left, pro-EU, pro-multiculturalism bias, amounts to little else than “visceral gut responses” – a taboo, or politically incorrect. He would also have us believe that him and his ilk want nothing more than an “open – and informed – debate”.
Let me just say this – if that is really what he wanted would it not be much more purposeful to post his provocative articles in one of the 4 Swiss languages instead of in English, and on a site that is primarily servicing NON-SWISS!? Why then, if all he wants is an “open – and informed – debate” does he not work for a Swiss media organization? Is it because he only deems it necessary to “debate” the fate of Switzerland amongst foreigners, or amongst the crows who think predominantly like he does!? How is that a genuine “debate”!?
I’ll just go ahead and say it – Mr. Giradet, you don’t fool us. We are not pawns for you to roll over with your journalistic ploys. I know that your aim here is very simple indeed – to attempt to act like a catalyst to incite and provoke (predominantly) foreigners and immigrants, in the hope that they become incensed and up-in-arms over your version of the Swiss! Your kind are the exact reason why, to a large degree, there is a very rational and non-phobia wariness towards foreigners – because quite frankly the majority are here for the lifestyle and the pay check – but could care less for Swiss culture, tradition and social norms!
So you can complain about the rap you got for that last piece you rolled out, you can complain and whine about how the bad, bad, Swiss treat the can-do-no-wrong foreigners and immigrants, you can preach all you want about the Swiss image abroad and act like you actually care about it, you can throw around terms of “xenophobia” etc … but at the end of the say you lie when you state that you want an “open – and informed – debate” – and you know it!
I just had to reply specifically to this part in this writeup: “Brussels has just re-declared its willingness to open its doors even more to Switzerland to stimulate more effective integration through broader trade, cultural exchanges and research support.”
I don’t exactly know what your version of “open it’s doors” and “broader trade” is … but have you heard about the EU’s new product regulations being imposed on Swiss products being exported to the EU!? – You call that the EU “opening it’s doors”!?
Anyhow – it;s obvious that you are through and through pro-EU, no matter how undemocratic it is and how much the fiscal policies (Euro) are driving millions of people across the continent into poverty and disparity!