The Swiss Minaret Ban

The Swiss minaret ban is just the latest in a series of raspberries European publics  have given to their mainstream political leaders. Lessons:

• Social desirability bias is alive and well in Europe. Lots of Swiss apparently gave pollsters the 'right' answer, then voted their actual views.
• If you relegate an issue to the fringe parties, it doesn't go away. All the 'mainstream' parties dutifully came out against the minaret ban, and apparently thought their work was done. After all, how could the people enact a law after being instructed by the respectable political elite that it was a bad idea? Looks like the Swiss political elite may have to elect themselves a new population. 
• Allowing the people to alter the constitution by referenda can make politics a wild ride indeed. The people often have decidedly non-salonfaehig (a great German word meaning 'worthy of discussion in a salon') opinions, and referenda let their id come out. Several American states brought back the death penalty by using referenda, and California passed an initiative requiring all tax increases to be approved by a two-thirds vote of the state legislature. This has, of course, rendered California state government dysfunctional. But once the people have spoken, it's almost impossible to ignore them.
• Next on the agenda, perhaps: A Swiss referendum bringing back capital punishment for those who sexually attack and murder children. The mainstream elite would uniformly denounce it, but nevertheless (or perhaps for precisely this reason) it would pass with a majority.

I'm not saying the minaret ban is a good idea -- far from it. Nor do I think the Swiss vote is a 'crisis'. It's a normal incident of life in political systems which operate (either implicitly or explicitly) on a model of Burkean trusteeship. The people occasionally defy the political elites, but soon enough, things are back to normal. After all, what's the alternative?

Comments

[M. Möhling]

> a cite from Zwi Rex, not from Broder

Once a friend beamed, enthused by newfound love, unexpected and late: "Ich alter Sack werde geliebt!" While being loved is out of the question, I'm being read, which is as good as it gets, I guess. Incidentally, I know the text you mentioned, but I forgot the details. Even more incidentally, I once told Mr Broder that the article's illustration were quite a disservice to his message, which seemed reasonable. He alleged that he had left this to his web designer, and that he was being chummy with Mr Gehrs again, who, he said, was a good sport who knew how to take punches graciously. Slick bastard, that Mr Broder. Anyway, he makes my day anytime, of course. While we're chatting: Mr Gehrs is the Dummy Magazin's editor, so he's likely to be in for a rough ride quite often.

[yummy.german]

"do you remember Henryk M. Broder's facetious remark, that Germans will never forgive the Jews Auschwitz?"

"Die Deutschen werden den Juden Auschwitz niemals verzeihen" is a cite from Zwi Rex, not from Broder.

http://www.henryk-broder.de/tagebuch/gehrs.html
(not safe for viewing at work).

[M. Möhling]

Just one more thought, if I dare call it that; we're insouciant, we're aloof--yet lighthearted!--, we indulge in meta-discussion, as the issue at hand is beneath our horizon of polite societal events and expectations.

...and yet, and yet, after having mused on the publics, the people, the 'crisis'--that is not, the incident--that is normal, after all is said and done in measured tone, with an elegant swerve, leaving the topic at hand, setting our fantasies footloose and fancy-free, we felt the need to smear the swine as frenzied, pedophile-lynching mob in waiting. Just for kicks. My very good friend Basti set some factual issues straight--kudos!--, yet, even then we felt the urge to construe further what would make our case. Sort of. Which is shrewd--much respect!--and yet, and yet...

But hey; aren't we human, too, friends of wit, style, and taste, are we not the sun, are we not the air, don't we want to be loved just like everybody else does? Are we not afflicted by nothing in particular, don't we want go home and cry, don't we want to die?

No sirree! Just joking, of course. We want to exert some wholesome Burkean trusteeship with pep, vim and verve, zing, zip and ginger. Hehe! And we don't expect them to love us for it, ungrateful, irate idiots. Wait, make that the publics--it's cold up here; the wise man's burden.

[M. Möhling]

> After all, what's the alternative?
Why, Mr Erdogan's way, of course. And no, we don't want that.

> it's a textbook example of "this happens if you don't vote
> (because the lunatics will)."
Uncle Mo, those loonies who dare think that Islamic societies' reality may reflect Islamic thought and practice?[1] That, just maybe, up to 1400 years of Islamic influence, 500 years of Ottoman colonial rule might have shaped people, societies, and states more decisively than the few decades of Western rule, most of these colonies had to endure? A rule that left almost all of these countries much more prosperous than before? Which many lost, after we were gone? Yet, their loss, their precariousness, not being our gain? For which they hate and love us, as do we ourselves, gentle readers, Germany's joy, the middle classes' best and brightest? Take it away, Tom:

To have received from one, to whom we think ourselves equal, greater benefits than there is hope to requite, disposeth to counterfeit love, but really secret hatred, and puts a man into the estate of a desperate debtor that, in declining the sight of his creditor, tacitly wishes him there where he might never see him more. For benefits oblige; and obligation is thraldom; and unrequitable obligation, perpetual thraldom; which is to one's equal, hateful.

Quaintly related: do you remember Henryk M. Broder's facetious remark, that Germans will never forgive the Jews Auschwitz? Mr Hobbes had some insight as to why that is, too:

To have done more hurt to a man than he can or is willing to expiate inclineth the doer to hate the sufferer. For he must expect revenge or forgiveness; both which are hateful.

How does this ever relate to the subject at hand--loony racists not doing what they're told, possibly lacking reflection and decorum, yet doing what's right? Uncle, that's left for the discerning among this blog's readers to divine. Did I say best and brightest? Mawa, kid, here's looking at you.

1. You know, from Yemen to Syria, Morocco to Bangladesh, Pakistan to Malaysia, Iran to Saudi-Arabia? In the dock of Tiger Bay, on the road to Mandalay, from Bombay to Santa Fe, over hills and far away? Hitting us--and themselves--with their rhythm stick? In NYC, London, Madrid, Bombay? In the banlieues, in the ghettos, where we project our insidious inflictions onto them, so they just can't help being so completely unlike themselves? So endearingly backward and unpompous? Unlike ourselves, gifted, yet arrogant, advanced, yet alienated, and sad? Hit us! Hit us! C'est si bon, mm? Ist es nicht?

[Onkel Mo]

One important thing to note is that the turnout was only about 54 percent, which means that only roughly 30 percent of the eligible voters voted for the referendum.
Of course this doesn't mean that everybody who decided to stay on their ouches would have voted against it, but my guess is that quite a significant part would have (had it been of enough concern for them).

Actually, there's one (cynical) reason why I'm a bit glad that it turned out like it did: it's a textbook example of "this happens if you don't vote (because the lunatics will)."

[Andrew]

Precisely, Sebastian!

(1) That's why I put 'mainstream' in those quotation marks. That's how it was reported in the news -- that all the 'mainstream' (in the English language press) or 'buergerlich' (in the German language press) opposed the measure. But obviously, certain peoples' definition of 'mainstream' doesn't seem to be very accurate, does it?

(2) Certainly, the Swiss have defied their politicians before. That accounts for the irony in my original post (note use of the word 'dutifully').

(3) We'll see about that, won't we? My theory of right-wing parties is that they use referenda and similar political processes precisely to exploit issues that are ignored or downplayed by the mainstream parties. I might agree with you if I were talking about capital punishment in general. But my suggestion was a referenfum which, by its own explicit language, proposed capital punishment only for people who rape and murder children. So defined, it would likely win a majority.

[Sebastian Koppehel]

If you relegate an issue to the fringe parties, it doesn't go away. All the 'mainstream' parties dutifully came out against the minaret ban, and apparently thought their work was done.

Uh, except for this party called the SVP. It happens to be the largest faction in the Swiss federal parliament.

After all, how could the people enact a law after being instructed by the respectable political elite that it was a bad idea?

The Swiss people have occasion been accepting popular initiatives opposed by the parliament for many years. Unless the Swiss parties have a memory formed like their famed cheeses (sorry, I had to), they will remember that, so no, they would not think along these lines.

A Swiss referendum bringing back capital punishment for those who sexually attack and murder children.

There was already a successful referendum abolishing the statute of limitations for sexual crimes against children in 2008. (Incidentally, the death penalty was abolished in Switzerland at a time when popular referenda were already a regular political tool – interesting story, but doesn't fit in your rigid narrative, like Switzerland in general.)