{"id":45932,"date":"2022-02-14T06:00:00","date_gmt":"2022-02-14T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/leregardlibre.com\/?p=45932"},"modified":"2025-12-13T22:43:48","modified_gmt":"2025-12-13T21:43:48","slug":"tobacco-vote-and-double-majority-when-the-swiss-left-turns-populist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/leregardlibre.com\/en\/policy\/switzerland\/tobacco-vote-and-double-majority-when-the-swiss-left-turns-populist\/","title":{"rendered":"Tobacco vote and double majority: when the left turns populist"},"content":{"rendered":"

Antoine-Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Bernhard<\/a> and Jonas Follonier<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The double majority rule of the people and the cantons was snubbed unnoticed Sunday<\/strong> February 13 by a Socialist politician, in the context of the vote to ban tobacco advertising. This situation is not new, and is regularly repeated in federal elections, particularly when the double majority rule puts the left at a disadvantage. These regular assaults on the Swiss system are the result of opportunistic populism and attack one of the pillars of Swiss democracy, which is still relevant today. Analysis.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

It was a foregone conclusion: whatever the outcome of the vote on the \u00abTobacco-Free Kids\u00bb initiative, the double-majority rule, whereby amendments to the Federal Constitution require not only a majority of the population, but also of the cantons, would be attacked - or at least deemed secondary - by the initiators. Precisely because it was not a foregone conclusion. And it was.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

This rule was introduced in 1848, when modern Switzerland was created. According to historian Olivier Meuwly, a specialist in this period, \u00abthis rule reflects a willingness to compromise on the part of the winners of the Sonderbund war, the Radicals\u00bb. The aim was to include the interests of the Catholic cantons, which roughly corresponded to the rural cantons, in the democratic software of fine balances. Whereas, typically, populous, urban and more liberal, historically Protestant cantons have the upper hand during elections, less progressive, Alpine cantons carry more weight in constitutional votes. \u00abWhat's at stake here is the defense of minorities that federalism ensures overall, and of which the double majority is a consequence.\u00bb The minorities in question are the cantons. As a reminder, the Federal Constitution<\/a>, Article 1 defines Switzerland as being composed of a people and<\/em> of cantons - that's what a federal state is all about.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It turns out, however, that the double majority rule sometimes serves the interests of the left, since a few small, rather conservative cantons are able to thwart the will of the people, whose numerical majority is to be found in the cities, which are largely committed to left-wing ideas. This was the case, for example, with the federal initiative \u00abResponsible Multinationals\u00bb, which was narrowly accepted by the people, but clearly rejected by the cantons. As a result, left-wing personalities regularly attack this rule, arguing that, since the 19th century, it has been a matter of course for them to take the initiative.th<\/sup> In the 20th century, the demographic gap between small and large cantons has widened, with one Appenzeller \u00abworth\u00bb forty Zurichers. This attitude can legitimately be described as opportunistic, insofar as it responds to a purely utilitarian logic: decrying a political system, or even proposing (for a Sunday) to change it, in order to gain advantages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

How were the cantons specifically affected by the initiat_multi_responsa?
172 years ago, it may have been legitimate to demand a majority of cantons. But today, it has become an anti-democratic lever that structurally favors reactionary positions.<\/p>- Roger Nordmann (@NordmannRoger) November 29, 2020<\/a><\/blockquote>