{"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\/politique\/suisse\/conseil-federal-pourquoi-vouloir-supprimer-la-formule-magique\/","title":{"rendered":"Federal Council: Why do away with the magic formula?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Participation, this Wednesday, October 12,<\/strong> A debate on the Federal Council\u2019s \u00abmagic formula\u00bb on the set of the \u00abForum\u00bb program on Radio T\u00e9l\u00e9vision Suisse (RTS) prompted me to delve deeper into the subject. Even more so after the show, unfortunately. But that, after all, is what a debate is for.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Some of you may know what it\u2019s like. Others can only imagine. Taking part in a televised debate means facing a situation you\u2019d imagined a little differently, causing all the ideas and notes you\u2019d gathered for just a few minutes of speaking time to suddenly come crashing down. And you already regret not having prepared them well enough. Yet what you had to say was so relevant\u2014even irreverent! Except you didn\u2019t say it\u2014at least not all of it. It\u2019s always easier afterward. So you might as well take advantage of that. If only to keep the discussion going.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Federal Council: The SVP\u2019s Membership 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> \u2013 an article that led to 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\u2019Hebdo<\/em> has expressed her dissatisfaction with the Federal Council\u2019s work ever since it has included two SVP members (that is, since 2003, with the election of Christoph Blocher). According to her, the presence in the federal executive of Switzerland\u2019s largest party\u2014which holds the same number of seats as the Liberal-Radicals and the Socialists\u2014has resulted in the Federal Council \u00abstruggling immensely to articulate its vision, reach compromises, and win over the public.\u00bb\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to her, therefore, it is time to do away with the \u00abmagic formula\u00bb\u2014which allocates the seven ministerial seats as follows: two seats each for the top three parties in parliament and one seat for the fourth. The purely arithmetic nature of this arrangement, in place since 1959, is no longer\u2014or is no longer\u2014adequate to meet the challenges facing the country, particularly its need to clarify its relations with the European Union (EU). \u00abUnder the influence of the UDC,\u00bb writes Chantal Tauxe, Switzerland \u00abhas gone from being a privileged partner of the EU to a third-country candidate that doesn\u2019t even dare to admit it to itself.\u00bb In short, the national-conservative party is primarily to blame\u2014if not solely to blame, as the editorialist does not mention any other responsible parties\u2014for the failure of the framework agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

This viewpoint strikes me as simply wrong. The reasons for this are quite straightforward. How could this \u201cmagic formula\u201d\u2014which is supposed to guarantee a balanced representation of the country\u2019s major political forces\u2014have anything to do with the failure to reach a Swiss-EU institutional agreement? To make a decision, the committee must obtain the unanimous agreement of at least four of its seven members. The SVP, let\u2019s reiterate, is represented by only two members. There\u2019s no need to attribute to them some contagious and dangerous power of persuasion to acknowledge what is, in any case, already known. Namely, that the framework agreement also divided the PLR and the PS, that the trade union left was very active in derailing the project, and that there are as many opinions on the EU as there are federal councilors. How, then, can a government proposal be finalized?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact that Chantal Tauxe does not once point to the left\u2019s responsibility in this matter borders on intellectual paralysis. One senses in her\u2014at least in this editorial\u2014a desire to oppose the SVP that leads her down obscure lines of thought.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Besides, what does she intend to replace the \u00abmagic formula\u00bb with? The answer seems quite obvious: a Federal Council without the SVP. \u00abWhen the country\u2019s leading party has nothing to say other than to claim that it can be bypassed without risk and without significant harm to our prosperity and security, one should at least ask\u2014in light of a chance vacancy\u2014whether it still has a place in the Federal Council.\u00bb In other words: Switzerland\u2019s leading party does not hold positions or behave in ways that please my colleague, so that party had better look 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 chambers of Parliament that represent the people and the cantons: it is then up to them to elect the executive branch. This is based on a shared commitment to partisan pluralism, but also to the diversity of cantonal backgrounds and\u2014perhaps even more importantly\u2014to the complementary nature of personalities and expertise. All of this constitutes the \u00abmagic formula.\u00bb Shaped by direct democracy, it is constantly evolving. Thus, seeking to put an end to the magic formula is not only unjustified but also impossible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The indictment by Chantal Tauxe\u2014for whom I have great respect and with whom I enjoy exchanging ideas\u2014turns out to be all the more amusing in this instance because a recent survey<\/a> has revealed the Swiss population\u2019s profound lack of interest in European affairs. I, for one, am hardly pleased by this state of affairs, if only for the sake of the Swiss economy\u2019s competitiveness. But that doesn\u2019t change anything. If the Federal Council\u2019s legitimacy had anything to do with our respective sensibilities, we would all want a government composed exclusively of the party that convinces us the most or bothers us the least.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Never mind: even when the seats of the Seven Sages were occupied exclusively by radicals (from 1848 to 1891!), the body was far from homogeneous. As historian Olivier Meuwly points out in his various writings on the subject\u2014 one of our contributors<\/a> \u2013 The tensions between the various factions of radicalism at the time\u2014whether centralists or federalists, left-wing or right-wing, conservative or progressive\u2014were reflected within the executive branch and gave rise to bitter battles. That is why we can speak, without sarcasm, of a \u00abmagical\u00bb formula, one destined to endure.<\/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 featuring Chantal Tauxe and Jonas Follonier, along with historian Herv\u00e9 Rayner, which took place on Wednesday, October 12, 2022, on RTS\u2019s \u00abForum\u00bb program:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n