{"id":512991,"date":"2022-10-14T18:26:41","date_gmt":"2022-10-14T16:26:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/leregardlibre.com\/?p=512991"},"modified":"2025-12-13T22:43:37","modified_gmt":"2025-12-13T21:43:37","slug":"conseil-federal-why-do-away-with-the-magic-formula","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/leregardlibre.com\/en\/policy\/switzerland\/conseil-federal-why-do-away-with-the-magic-formula\/","title":{"rendered":"Federal Council: Why do away with the magic formula?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Participation, this Wednesday, October 12,<\/strong> to a debate on the Federal Council's \u00abmagic formula\u00bb on the \u00abForum\u00bb program of Radio T\u00e9l\u00e9vision Suisse (RTS). Even more so after the show, alas. But that's what a debate is all about, after all.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Some of you may know what it is. Others imagine it. To take part in a televised debate is to be faced with a situation you'd imagined a little differently, suddenly shattering all the ideas and notes you'd put together for just a few minutes of words. And that's already regretting not having invested them well enough. What we had to say was so relevant, even impertinent! Except we didn't say it, or at least not all of it. It's always easier afterwards. So we might as well make the most of it. If only to keep the discussion going.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Federal Council: UDC presence in question<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Indeed, this article is perhaps the best way to answer the question of blog post by Chantal Tauxe<\/a> - article which was the origin of the organization of the debate in question<\/a>. Entitling her text \u00abLe bilan de la pr\u00e9sence de deux UDC au Conseil f\u00e9d\u00e9ral qui ne sera pas tir\u00e9\u00bb (\"The balance sheet of the presence of two SVP in the Federal Council that will not be drawn\"), the vice-president of the European Movement Switzerland<\/a> and former journalist of the late L'Hebdo<\/em> expresses its dissatisfaction with the work of the Federal Council since the election of Christoph Blocher in 2003, when two SVP members were elected. In her view, the presence of Switzerland's largest party on the federal executive - with a number of seats equal to that of the Liberal-Radicals and the Socialists - has led to the fact that \u00abthe Federal Council has all the trouble in the world projecting itself, finding compromises and convincing the population\u00bb.\u00bb<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In her view, the \u00abmagic formula\u00bb of dividing the seven ministerial seats into two seats for each of the top three parties in parliament and one seat for the fourth should be abandoned. The arithmetical nature of this configuration, which has been in place since 1959, would no longer be up to the challenges facing the country, in particular its relations with the European Union (EU). \u00abUnder the influence of the SVP,\u00bb writes Chantal Tauxe, Switzerland \u00abhas gone from being a privileged partner of the EU to a third-state candidate that doesn't even dare admit it. In short, the national-conservative party is the main culprit - if not the only one, as the editorialist does not mention any other culprit - for the failure of the framework agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Do not mix apples and pears<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This point of view is simply wrong. The reasons are themselves quite simple. What does this magic formula guaranteeing balanced representation of the country's major political forces have to do with the failure to conclude the institutional agreement between Switzerland and the EU? To take a decision, the colleague must obtain the concordant opinion of at least four of its seven members. Again, the SVP is represented by just two members. There's no need to attribute to them any power of contagious and dangerous persuasion to recognize what is, moreover, well known. The framework agreement also divided the PLR and the PS, the left-wing trade unionists were very active in scuppering the project, and there are as many opinions on the EU as there are Federal Councillors. How, then, is a government project to be achieved?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact that Chantal Tauxe never once points to the left's responsibility in this matter borders on intellectual hemiplegia. One senses in her - at least in this editorial - such a desire to oppose the UDC that it makes her take abstruse paths of thought.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By the way, what does she want to replace the \u00abmagic formula\u00bb with? The answer seems obvious enough: a Federal Council without the SVP. \u00abWhen the country's leading party has nothing to say but that it can be bypassed without risk or serious damage to our prosperity and security, it's worth asking whether it still has a place on the Federal Council when a vacancy arises. In other words: Switzerland's leading party doesn't have the positions and behavior that please my colleague, so it can go elsewhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A constantly reformulated formula<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This overlooks the fact that, in Switzerland, it is the two parliamentary chambers that represent the people and the cantons: it is then up to them to elect the executive. This is based on a shared commitment to partisan pluralism, but also to the diversity of cantonal origins and, perhaps even more importantly, to the complementarity of personalities and skills. This is the \u00abmagic formula\u00bb. Determined by direct democracy, it is constantly adapting. So to try and put an end to the magic formula is not only unjustified, it's impossible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chantal Tauxe's indictment, for which I have great respect and with whom I have a pleasant exchange, is all the more comical in this case as a recent survey<\/a> showed the Swiss population's profound lack of interest in the European question. I myself am not happy about this state of affairs, if only for the sake of the Swiss economy's competitiveness. But that doesn't change anything. If the legitimacy of the Federal Council had anything to do with our respective sensibilities, we'd all want a government made up exclusively of the party that convinces us most or bothers us least.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even when the seats of the seven Wise Men were occupied solely by Radicals (from 1848 to 1891!), the college was far from homogeneous. As historian Olivier Meuwly - who has written extensively on the subject - points out one of our contributors<\/a> - the tensions between the various currents of radicalism at the time - centralist or federalist, left or right, conservative or progressive - found their way into the executive and gave rise to bitter battles. This is why we can speak, without sarcasm, of a \u00abmagic\u00bb formula, destined to last.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Write to the author: jonas.follonier@leregardlibre.com<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

You've just read an open-access article. <\/strong>Debates, analysis, cultural news: subscribe<\/a> to support us and get access to all our content!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Florides Helv\u00e8tes<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Watch the debate with Chantal Tauxe and Jonas Follonier, accompanied by historian Herv\u00e9 Rayner, on Wednesday, October 12, 2022, on RTS's \u00abForum\u00bb program:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n