The SVP and the others

Les lundis de l’actualité – Jérémie Bongiovanni

«When it comes to the future, so-called progressive minds don't have the initiative on anything.»
François-René de Chateaubriand

As the election of two new federal councillors and the federal elections take us into an exciting few weeks for Swiss politics, the SVP occupies the in the spotlight with its initiative for self-determination, opposing once again to the rest of the political class. This time, the situation appears however different; the context has evolved. Why opponents of the initiative and what can we learn from the SVP in this campaign? An overview.

The UDC's poster campaign was a real eye-catcher: calm faces, accompanied only by a sober color scheme. No loud words, no logo, nothing. Just a simple «YES». There's an unmistakable desire to contrast with previous campaigns and their garish, controversial tone. However, it's worth remembering that the SVP used a similar strategy during the February 9 vote. On these posters, no enemy is identified; it's not a question of attacking anyone, but of defending the Constitution and the Homeland.

However, let's not be too optimistic. The usual methods rejected by the initiators have found refuge with other political formations. On the SP poster, Trump, Putin and Erdogan stand out against a red-and-black background, looking cold and menacing. The provocative and unhealthy dimension of this tasteless poster unintentionally evokes other so-called scandalous campaigns, curiously using the same colors. The image has an ambiguous resonance as to the exact message to be conveyed, but no matter, the message is that the initiative pits good against evil. Clearly, the left is playing the populist game. Common virus.

Let's continue with a plea from Roger Nordmann, National Councillor for Vaud (PS), writing on his blog: «if the initiative were to be accepted, a veritable explosion would affect the Confederation, ultimately causing multiple damage in various sectors. The fragments of the bomb would have a lasting effect on international treaties, [...] obstacles that the SVP intends to clean up in order to better impose a brutal society, governed by the law of the strongest.»

Note the sense of nuance. There are few arguments other than those that contribute to sly scaremongering - apparently the last resort in the fight against an initiative that is not lacking in weaknesses. Roger Nordmann's text - which we did not deem necessary to reproduce here - continues with a litany of arguments ad hominem d’un registre similaire. La rhétorique douteuse de ce passage s’apparente aux techniques de la droite, qualifiées bien souvent de «populistes». Mais ce n’est pas seulement la forme qui souffre. La forme souffre parce que le fond agonise.

The threat of the economic dangers that would be associated with a potential acceptance of the initiative also strikes a chord that could prove counterproductive. This argument presented by the center-right is reminiscent of the 2014 debate on mass immigration. Back then, the argument of the economic importance of the free movement of people hardly convinced the majority of voters, and the losers blamed business circles and their disconnection from the population once the initiative had been accepted. A few years later, the same argument seems to be falling on just as sterile ground as it did in 2014. The Liberal-Radicals allow themselves to be reduced to their image as the party of money, while on the other side, the SVP proposes a vision, a myth - or perhaps even an illusion?

Par ailleurs, les opposants se font rattraper par leurs errances passées. La «mise en œuvre» de l’article constitutionnel sur l’immigration de masse par le parlement fut hautement discutable. Il est facile de dénoncer ici un non-respect flagrant de la Constitution qui contribua à décrédibiliser ceux qui devraient aujourd’hui défendre notre démocratie. Le conseiller fédéral Ignazio Cassis répétait la semaine dernière la conformité démocratique de cette mise en œuvre dans le journal Le Temps, because there had been no referendum. However, he seems to be mistaken about Parliament's role in protecting the Constitution. The trivialization of this act against the will of the people cedes an argument to the SVP, which sets itself up as the guarantor of Democracy, where others have failed.

What is regrettable is the weakness of the opposition to the sophists, who seem to dominate a battle of ideas that has only just begun. The other parties must not remain administrators building majorities - sometimes at all costs. It is not enough to rest on old laurels. This initiative will only be aborted if its opponents show initiative themselves. The progressive spirit looks beyond, looks for the idea, looks for the solution that leads to victory. Until now, arbitration may have sufficed, but tomorrow it will no longer suffice. Let's look to the future, let's look for the myth of the future!

An article written in collaboration with Manuel Constam

Write to the author:  [email protected]

Photo credit: Socialist Party of Switzerland