The two sides of Swiss pragmatism

Pragmatism is highly regarded in Switzerland. To say that a politician is pragmatic is generally a compliment: it's a good thing he or she is concerned with efficiency and results, rather than ideology! In fact, this attitude of making things work seems to work in itself. The country has its debt (more or less) under control, its streets are (generally) clean, and the (average) standard of living is high. In short, on the whole, everything is well managed, and the whole world recognizes this.

But while pragmatism has its good points, it also has its risks. And these are devious.

Doesn't the lack of importance attached to the art of oratory in order to be elected at any level in Switzerland partly explain the lack of interest shown by a significant proportion of the population in public affairs? Of course, the low voter turnout is no doubt partly due to their frequency, and thus to the perpetuation of the system itself, which we must not abandon. Of course, the weakening of intermediary bodies - including political parties, but also professional associations, think tanks, etc. - contributes to the estrangement of civil life from civic life. Nonetheless, could it be that the lack of grandeur, nobility and transcendence in our institutions has something to do with the yawns they often provoke?

Another negative effect of pragmatism is the tendency to contradict oneself. As a party representative, it's easy to betray one's philosophical framework when one hardly knows it! But then again, there has to be one. In the absence of a worldview, there's no risk of being unfaithful. Politics seems to be the equivalent of free love.

No party is immune. The SP, according to its official program, wants to do away with the national army and hence the arms industry, and at the same time is fighting in Berne for the re-export of war materiel to the Ukraine. The SVP, on the other hand, is opposed to the re-export of Swiss weapons in the name of neutrality... while insisting - like no other party - on national defense (and taking offense at the waste of public money in the process). The Greens advocate freedom of the press and openness, and several of their leading members wish to prevent the broadcasting of a report on RTS on the phenomenon of people who reverse their gender reassignment, on the grounds that it would be offensive to trans people... The PLR advocates competition, while many of its parliamentarians defend corporatist interests, in the health sector for example.

In this good old Confederation, a little continuity of thought and intellectual height would not go amiss. At the very least, it would give us a better idea of the «ideological scope [of the decisions taken], or how they fit into something more general», as journalist Alain Rebetez puts it in the interview in this issue.

In stark contrast, the debates in France on inclusive writing, the separation of man and artist or secularism, though grandiloquent and sometimes futile, at least say something about the times. Better still, they allow us to see the confrontation of projects that go beyond the administration of the present. They make us aware of the consequences that ideas can have on the world, and invite us to ask ourselves questions that are not solely related to the present. management, but which mobilize vision. So why not embrace both?

Write to the author: jonas.follonier@leregardlibre.com

You've just read an open-access editorial. Debates, analyses, cultural news: subscribe to support us and get access to all our content!