Twenty-First Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European ...

Switzerland 101
a full and comprehensive study of the SVP/UDC (or other Swiss populist
movements), that readers can find elsewhere. 3
In the way of the populists?
Despite Switzerland’s traditional refusal to perceive itself as a country of
immigration and its isolated position in Europe (factors certainly conducive
to the kind of rhetoric employed elsewhere by Umberto Bossi and Jörg
Haider), until recently one could have been forgiven for doubting that the
populism that had fared well in neighbouring countries might also be successful
here. Due to its growth after the Second World War, Switzerland is
now one of the richest countries in the world, having enjoyed ‘the lowest
[unemployment] figures ever in modern history’ (Lane, 2001: 204) during
the 1960s and been blessed by a degree of political stability that is considered
by some (McRae, 1964; Lijphart, 1984) to be one of the keys to its success. Its
non-adversarial political culture, respect for its four national languages,
attentiveness to special interests, sitting alongside the institutions of federalism
and direct democracy, have been singled out as key factors in explaining
such stability (Linder, 1998; Kriesi, 2005). Swiss citizens, it is alleged,
have plenty of opportunities to influence the policy decisions of cantonal
and federal executives. If, as Margaret Canovan (1999) says, there is always
a tension between populism and democracy, as though populism wanted
to ‘remind’ democracy of those promises (of self-determination and participation)
that the system should, but often cannot, fulfil, then argu ably
this gap is much narrower in Switzerland than in the rest of Europe. In the
context of such a wealthy and stable country − one in which whatever popular
discontent there might be can be expressed in a variety of ways and
where special interests can find a sympathetic ear − who would ever need
populists?
The practice of ‘power-sharing’, here found in conjunction with the institutions
of direct democracy and federalism, was established at national level
in the nineteenth century to enable the governing Liberal-Radicals to coopt
Catholics and avoid having all decisions of the executive challenged by
an alienated minority through the tools of direct democracy. The principle
has been developed further and, as a consequence, major decisions are now
always preceded by complex consultation processes and normally represent
the outcomes of delicate balancing acts and compromises. As for the sevenstrong
collegiate executive, the Federal Council had the same composition
between 1959 and 2003: the so-called ‘Magic Formula’. In this period, the
government was composed of two members from the Liberal-Radical Party
(FDP/PRD), two from the Christian Democratic Party (CVP/PDC), two from
the Social Democratic Party (SPS/PSS) and one from the SVP/UDC. This
formula was only changed in 2003 when the SVP/UDC gained a second
seat in government due to its electoral success (and at the expense of the