Another Swiss referendum...

bonkey

Given that the Swiss system is often held up by many as a "good" example of how a democracy can work, I thought some people may be interested in the referenda which ran over the weekend.

The way it works (as I understand it) is that each Canton is determined seperately on a straightforward yes/no vote, and then the overall decision is based on requiring a majority of cantons. In the event that the cantonal vote is a 13-13 tie, then I believe it goes to the popular vote nationally, and whichever side had the higher head-count wins the day.

Three national issues were on the ballot, and here's how they turned out :

1) A road-upgrading project, costing 30 billion CHF (about €20bn) , which would upgrade the major arteries and city-ring-roads nationwide over the coming years, to cope with the growing traffic problem.

This failed to pass - every single canton rejected it.

2) A modification to rent-law, allowing rent to be "tied" to inflation. At present - again working from memory - it can be tied to the mortgage percentage rates, but not to inflation, so your rent does not climb year on year.

This failed to pass - every single canton rejected it.

3) A modification to prison law, which would allow the possibility for depeat violent offenders to be locked up for life without the possibility of parole should they be determined by two seperate experts (or panels?) to be untreatable. This was a public-sponsored initiative (the other two were government-sponsored), brought forward by a "families of victims support group", mostly in response to a number of murders in the 80s and 90s comitted by repeat offenders on parole or compassionate leave. Under the new system, repeat offenders who are assessed as "incurable" can be incarcerated for life - with no parole, no "holidays", no compassionate leave, etc.

This passed, 24-2.

Many people are reading quite a lot into the significance that it is the publically-sponsored initiative which passed. It is seen as a further indication as to why there is increasing disillusionment with the government, and why there has been a significant swing away from the traditional parties. Quite simply, they are not seen as being in touch with the people.

Looking to tie rent to inflation in a nation with the lowest house-ownership in Europe was never gonna pass. Looking to spend 650 million a year on traffic - including putting a new tunnel through the Gotthard - when people are looking to the government to find ways to cut back on traffic and its corresponding emissions - that was never gonna pass either.

This referendum continues the trend of the Swiss showing their displeasure in the government. I'm sure some will be quick to point out that the Swiss are turning even further to the right (because one of the right-wing parties did support the public initiative once it was on the ballot), but to me it is more of a sign that the peope are simply not willing to be led like sheep - the traditional parties have failed them, and are seen to be increasingly out of touch......so the people are moving away from them.

Anyway....I just thought some people may be interested.

jc

Johnmb

Do you know what the turnout for those referenda were? Given that the Swiss seem to be making a decision on something that would be considered a matter for government here, it would be interesting to see what, if any, effect that has on turnout, compared to both here and Swiss government/local elections.

bonkey

The turnout was listed as 45 per cent, which is pretty high by Swiss standards I think. it also marked only the 14th people's initiative to be accepted in a vote since 1848.

It should also be noted that each canton would have additional cantonal issues decided at these referenda. I believe that communities (about the equivalent of an Irish townland) may also have issues.

For example, Bern city (or canton? not sure) voted to reduce its local government council in size from 7 to 5, and to reduce their salaries.

Vaudois (another canton), for the first time, allowed non-nationals (of certain eligibility) to vote on local issues. They also just elected (for the second ever in Switzerland) a foreigner to a local council.

Note : a foreigner is classified as someone who does not hold a Swiss passport, so it would not include naturalised foreigners.

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
Many people are reading quite a lot into the significance that it is the publically-sponsored initiative which passed. It is seen as a further indication as to why there is increasing disillusionment with the government, and why there has been a significant swing away from the traditional parties. Quite simply, they are not seen as being in touch with the people.

To be honest JC, given the recent rape and violent assault of a woman over here by a 24-year-old who had absconded from a temporary release from prison, I can understand where that third motion came from. (I may not agree with it, you understand, I just see where it's coming from).

Looking to spend 650 million a year on traffic - including putting a new tunnel through the Gotthard - when people are looking to the government to find ways to cut back on traffic and its corresponding emissions - that was never gonna pass either.

True. It might even be seen as a good thing that it didn't pass, no?

This referendum continues the trend of the Swiss showing their displeasure in the government. I'm sure some will be quick to point out that the Swiss are turning even further to the right (because one of the right-wing parties did support the public initiative once it was on the ballot), but to me it is more of a sign that the peope are simply not willing to be led like sheep - the traditional parties have failed them, and are seen to be increasingly out of touch......so the people are moving away from them.

Strikes me as being a good thing
Thanks for the news JC.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
can understand where that third motion came from. (I may not agree with it, you understand, I just see where it's coming from).

Yeah. I don't agree with it, but I can see where its coming from. I think a better solution would have been preferable, but the fact was that the government showed itself to be willing to do SFA until the people forced a vote. Only at that point did the govt start making noises about what may or may not be preferable.

People had enough prevarication from teh government on the issue. I think it was a case that they were offered a solution and they took it, becase regardless of whether or not it was the ideal, it was perceived as being better than what was in place.

True. It might even be seen as a good thing that it didn't pass, no?

I'm delighted it didn't pass...and not just because of hte second Gotthard tunnel. I don't believe adding more lanes to the major thoroughfares will do anything except accelerate the buildup of traffic.

Strikes me as being a good thing

Me too, but it will be interesting to see how much the rest of the world portray this as yet more "Swiss becoming hard right-wing" ... and ultimately how the Swiss will react to such branding.

jc

mycroft

The third amendment was started by two sisters one of whose daughters had been raped and murdered.

Politicians are calling the law impossible to enforce, because it states the offender if deemed "uncapable of rehabilitation" judged by "scientific methods" will be jailed for life with no chance for parole.

Even a layman will tell you that this is an unworkable law, which could easily breach just about anything up to the european court of human rights, and when it comes to "scientific methods" to judge sanity and mental disposition, there just isn't any infalliable method. The defence and the state can happily wheel out "independent" Psychologists who will say that the evidence from testing proves that the criminal is a happy well adjusted member of society/crazied lunactic one slip in his medication and he'll be stabbing people with screwdrivers.

I really like the Swiss method (you have to like any country that banned car alarms) and the fact that any citizen can demand a referendum with 100,000 is a great idea. But this is one situation which I disagree with. Victims should not decide the punishment for their attackors.

bonkey

Originally posted by mycroft
Politicians are calling the law impossible to enforce, because it states the offender if deemed "uncapable of rehabilitation" judged by "scientific methods" will be jailed for life with no chance for parole.

Lets firstly qualify that to say "some politicians", because at least one of the major parties supported the change.

Lets also notice that, in general, when people oppose a law, the "unworkability" of it is typically the first thing which gets brought up.

Even a layman will tell you that this is an unworkable law,

Fortunately, laymen have little to do with deciding how laws can or cannot be enforced.

Is it not the job of the courts in Switzerland to determine how the law may practically be interpreted, as it is done in most other nations I can think of?

The government makes the law, and the courts interpret it. Not the politicians, not the laymen - the courts. If Sweitzerland is like other nations in this respect, then the courts are - quite simply - the only people who's opinion on the workability of the law actually counts...and I haven't heard a single respected court-member come out and say how unworkable this law is.

which could easily breach just about anything up to the european court of human rights,

Easily? Can you give an example of how a convicted violent criminal being kept under lock and key could be easily breaching "just about anything" or indeed his human rights???

Has the European Court issued a statement that this could be a problem, as one would expect them to?

Or is this - yet again - comments originating from politicians/newsies rather than lawyers?

and when it comes to "scientific methods" to judge sanity and mental disposition, there just isn't any infalliable method.

By which standards, it is impossible to judge anyone to be - for example - mentally competent or incompetent in any court case. And yet the courts not only permit this, but a large amount of law hinges on exactly those issues - mental competency etc. etc. etc.

If the existing standards are good enough for existing law, it is difficult to argue how it is not good enough for new law.

The defence and the state can happily wheel out "independent" Psychologists who will say that the evidence from testing proves that the criminal is a happy well adjusted member of society/crazied lunactic one slip in his medication and he'll be stabbing people with screwdrivers.

Yes, and this is what they do already when it comes to defending/prosecuting someone, or to applying for / opposing parole :

"Honest m'lud, I know you've convicted this man for three seperate rapes, but he says he's changed, and you should let him out again, and here's an expert who agrees with me". "No m'lud, our expert says that this man is still a raving lunatic with a veneer of remorse put on in order to allow you to unleash him on the world once more".

So again, it seems that what is being put forward as untenable is something that is already a standard practice in existing law....which begs the question why it is aceptable for everything to date, but not for this new law?

Victims should not decide the punishment for their attackers.

I agree completely, and I see nothing in this new law which lets the victims decide.

Victims (or, more technically, the bereaved relations of victims) asked for enough support to be able to go to the nation and ask that the people consider giving the courts greater powers to prevent reoccurrences of certain types of tragedy.

Enough people supported the victims to enable the question to be asked.

The people answered in favour of giving the courts the power to have - in certain, clearly-defined circumstances - a greater range of choice in the punishments that they may apply.

At no point in the process to date, nor in what will ensue, have any victims been given the power to decide the punishment.

Put simply, victims do not carry out judging, nor sentencing, and until they do, they could not possibly have the power to decide this.

jc