I am grateful for this post. I’m very interested in mechanism design in general, and the design of political systems specifically, so this post has been very valuable both in introducing me to some of the ideas of the Swiss political system, and in showing what their consequences are in practice.
I thought a lot about the things I learned about Switzerland from this post. I also brought it up a lot in discussion, and often pointed people to this post to learn about the Swiss political system.
Two things that came up when I discussed the Swiss political system with people were:
“Alright, but the Swiss could do that because they didn’t need to worry about any outside threat. They didn’t have to deal with the same difficulties other countries had to deal with.”
“Alright, that’s all well and good, but this system hasn’t led Switzerland to help in the holocaust, lots of residents aren’t given citizenship… maybe the system isn’t so great after all?”
My expectation is that Switzerland also had to deal with difficulties, and if it really had less difficulties than other nations, then it was at least in part because of their political system, and not what allowed them to have it. I also expect that point number 2 is more due to culture than political system. I’d be interested to see an exploration of that or even just hear what the author thinks.
“Alright, but the Swiss could do that because they didn’t need to worry about any outside threat. They didn’t have to deal with the same difficulties other countries had to deal with.”
That’s not historically true. Switzerland, being a country positioned in the middle of big European powers (France, Austria, HRE/Germany, Italy) has gone through all the shit that the rest of Europe did.
That being said, the things often played out differently than elsewhere. It’s not clear how much of that is pure luck and how much is attributable to other factors, such as peculiarities of the local political system.
Consider, for example the very beginnings. The core of the weird political entity that will one day become Switzerland was formed around the access route to the Gotthard pass. There are different mountain passes in Alps, but only one did escape the rule by aristocrats and got to be rules be local communities instead. The reason may have to do with that fact that Gotthard pass did not exist until 1220′s when the first bridge was built in Schollenen Gorge. (Devil was involved in the feat, they say.) That meant that until then, canton Uri was an economic backwater—and literally so, being only reachable by ship—and tightly controlling it wasn’t really worth the effort. The communities were to a large extent left to self-govern themselves. At the same time, aristocracy was particularly weak in XIII. century which allowed the new entity based on treaties between communities to form and gather strength instead of being immediately crushed by a superior power.
Or take the 30 year war. In some parts of HRE as much as 70% of the population died. The future Switzerland seemed very much on the same trajectory. There was a deep split between Protestants and Catholics and the forces were balanced out so that fighting could go on for a long time. But it did not. It may be partly attributable to the fact that great powers haven’t invaded the region, treating it as a source of mercenaries instead. But even then, it’s strange that the Swiss haven’t started cutting each other throats all by themselves. One may point to the fact that catholic and protestant cantons were jointly ruling over subjugated territories which required some minimal amount of cooperation. Or simply that centuries of being bound by many mutual treaties and undergoing small-scale internal clashes has resulted in enough political skill to escape the temptation to wage a full-scale war. Or maybe that cantons, not being ruled by a single person, managed to escape the worst excesses of personal ambitions. Hard to say.
The current political system formed in 1948. It was so radical for its time that great powers would gladly crush it. But in 1848 all of them were busy keeping fighting the revolutions at home. Swiss went through their civil war and the establishment of the new system so quickly that once the great powers took notice, it was already done. The speed of the process was result of the victorious radical forces turning out to be rather moderate after they’ve won, they did almost no cleansing of the conservatives etc. The defeated conservatives, in their turn, being willing to continue the fight within the framework of the new institutions. In 1891 they’ve even permanently joined the government. Again, it’s not easy to say why it happened that way.
In 1918, the political situation was tumultous. Bavarian Soviet Republic was established etc. In Switzerland, there was a general strike and it didn’t look good. Army was mobilized. Paramilitary units started forming. But then the leaders of the strike backed down. The government made moderate concessions. The fight continued by political means until 40 years later, social democrats have become integral part of the government.
During WWII, Germany was definitely planning to invade Switzerland. But Switzerland was cooperative, allowing transport to pass between Germany and Italy. In case of attack, on the other hand, the Swiss army planned to retreat to the area around the Gotthard pass and hold on there as long as possible, which would stop that traffic and tie valuable resources in a difficult war in the mountains. All in all, there was little to gain from attacking Switzerland as long as Axis powers were fighting wars elsewhere.
It’s hard to find a common pattern in all of that, but in any case, it’s not like there have been less difficulties in Switzerland than elsewhere.
“Alright, that’s all well and good, but this system hasn’t led Switzerland to help in the holocaust, lots of residents aren’t given citizenship… maybe the system isn’t so great after all?”
That’s the price of rule by consensus. Your preferences may be to give citizenship to all the residents. But there’s also a lot of people who would like not to let any foreigners in in the first place. What you get in the end is a compromise solution: A lot of immigrants are allowed in, but gaining citizenship is made deliberately difficult.
As for the holocaust note that Switzerland managed to keep their Jewish population safe. There are very few countries in Europe that can make a similar claim. And all that while being surrounded by Axis powers on all sides.
All in all, to me it sound like a question of sacrificing ideological purity in favor of achieving practical results.
Thanks! These are good answers and some interesting history.
As for the holocaust note that Switzerland managed to keep their Jewish population safe. There are very few countries in Europe that can make a similar claim.
That’s a really good point I somehow haven’t thought on. Some more info from Wikipedia (Emphasis mine):
As a neutral state bordering Germany, Switzerland was relatively easy to reach for refugees from the Nazis. Switzerland’s refugee laws, especially with respect to Jews fleeing Germany, were strict and have caused controversy since the end of World War II. From 1933 until 1944 asylum for refugees could only be granted to those who were under personal threat owing to their political activities only; it did not include those who were under threat due to race, religion or ethnicity.[33] On the basis of this definition, Switzerland granted asylum to only 644 people between 1933 and 1945; of these, 252 cases were admitted during the war.[33] All other refugees were admitted by the individual cantons and were granted different permits, including a “tolerance permit” that allowed them to live in the canton but not to work. Over the course of the war, Switzerland interned 300,000 refugees.[34] Of these, 104,000 were foreign troops interned according to the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers outlined in the Hague Conventions. The rest were foreign civilians and were either interned or granted tolerance or residence permits by the cantonal authorities. Refugees were not allowed to hold jobs. Of the refugees, 60,000 were civilians escaping persecution by the Nazis. Of these 60,000, 27,000 were Jews.[33]Between 10,000 and 24,000 Jewish civilian refugees were refused entry.[33] These refugees were refused entry on the asserted claim of dwindling supplies. Of those refused entry, a Swiss government representative said, “Our little lifeboat is full”. At the beginning of the war, Switzerland had a Jewish population of between 18,000 and 28,000 and a total population of about 4 million.[17][35][36] By the end of the war, there were over 115,000 refuge-seeking people of all categories in Switzerland, representing the maximum number of refugees at any one time.[33]
I am grateful for this post. I’m very interested in mechanism design in general, and the design of political systems specifically, so this post has been very valuable both in introducing me to some of the ideas of the Swiss political system, and in showing what their consequences are in practice.
I thought a lot about the things I learned about Switzerland from this post. I also brought it up a lot in discussion, and often pointed people to this post to learn about the Swiss political system.
Two things that came up when I discussed the Swiss political system with people were:
“Alright, but the Swiss could do that because they didn’t need to worry about any outside threat. They didn’t have to deal with the same difficulties other countries had to deal with.”
“Alright, that’s all well and good, but this system hasn’t led Switzerland to help in the holocaust, lots of residents aren’t given citizenship… maybe the system isn’t so great after all?”
My expectation is that Switzerland also had to deal with difficulties, and if it really had less difficulties than other nations, then it was at least in part because of their political system, and not what allowed them to have it. I also expect that point number 2 is more due to culture than political system. I’d be interested to see an exploration of that or even just hear what the author thinks.
“Alright, but the Swiss could do that because they didn’t need to worry about any outside threat. They didn’t have to deal with the same difficulties other countries had to deal with.”
That’s not historically true. Switzerland, being a country positioned in the middle of big European powers (France, Austria, HRE/Germany, Italy) has gone through all the shit that the rest of Europe did.
That being said, the things often played out differently than elsewhere. It’s not clear how much of that is pure luck and how much is attributable to other factors, such as peculiarities of the local political system.
Consider, for example the very beginnings. The core of the weird political entity that will one day become Switzerland was formed around the access route to the Gotthard pass. There are different mountain passes in Alps, but only one did escape the rule by aristocrats and got to be rules be local communities instead. The reason may have to do with that fact that Gotthard pass did not exist until 1220′s when the first bridge was built in Schollenen Gorge. (Devil was involved in the feat, they say.) That meant that until then, canton Uri was an economic backwater—and literally so, being only reachable by ship—and tightly controlling it wasn’t really worth the effort. The communities were to a large extent left to self-govern themselves. At the same time, aristocracy was particularly weak in XIII. century which allowed the new entity based on treaties between communities to form and gather strength instead of being immediately crushed by a superior power.
Or take the 30 year war. In some parts of HRE as much as 70% of the population died. The future Switzerland seemed very much on the same trajectory. There was a deep split between Protestants and Catholics and the forces were balanced out so that fighting could go on for a long time. But it did not. It may be partly attributable to the fact that great powers haven’t invaded the region, treating it as a source of mercenaries instead. But even then, it’s strange that the Swiss haven’t started cutting each other throats all by themselves. One may point to the fact that catholic and protestant cantons were jointly ruling over subjugated territories which required some minimal amount of cooperation. Or simply that centuries of being bound by many mutual treaties and undergoing small-scale internal clashes has resulted in enough political skill to escape the temptation to wage a full-scale war. Or maybe that cantons, not being ruled by a single person, managed to escape the worst excesses of personal ambitions. Hard to say.
The current political system formed in 1948. It was so radical for its time that great powers would gladly crush it. But in 1848 all of them were busy keeping fighting the revolutions at home. Swiss went through their civil war and the establishment of the new system so quickly that once the great powers took notice, it was already done. The speed of the process was result of the victorious radical forces turning out to be rather moderate after they’ve won, they did almost no cleansing of the conservatives etc. The defeated conservatives, in their turn, being willing to continue the fight within the framework of the new institutions. In 1891 they’ve even permanently joined the government. Again, it’s not easy to say why it happened that way.
In 1918, the political situation was tumultous. Bavarian Soviet Republic was established etc. In Switzerland, there was a general strike and it didn’t look good. Army was mobilized. Paramilitary units started forming. But then the leaders of the strike backed down. The government made moderate concessions. The fight continued by political means until 40 years later, social democrats have become integral part of the government.
During WWII, Germany was definitely planning to invade Switzerland. But Switzerland was cooperative, allowing transport to pass between Germany and Italy. In case of attack, on the other hand, the Swiss army planned to retreat to the area around the Gotthard pass and hold on there as long as possible, which would stop that traffic and tie valuable resources in a difficult war in the mountains. All in all, there was little to gain from attacking Switzerland as long as Axis powers were fighting wars elsewhere.
It’s hard to find a common pattern in all of that, but in any case, it’s not like there have been less difficulties in Switzerland than elsewhere.
“Alright, that’s all well and good, but this system hasn’t led Switzerland to help in the holocaust, lots of residents aren’t given citizenship… maybe the system isn’t so great after all?”
That’s the price of rule by consensus. Your preferences may be to give citizenship to all the residents. But there’s also a lot of people who would like not to let any foreigners in in the first place. What you get in the end is a compromise solution: A lot of immigrants are allowed in, but gaining citizenship is made deliberately difficult.
As for the holocaust note that Switzerland managed to keep their Jewish population safe. There are very few countries in Europe that can make a similar claim. And all that while being surrounded by Axis powers on all sides.
All in all, to me it sound like a question of sacrificing ideological purity in favor of achieving practical results.
Thanks! These are good answers and some interesting history.
That’s a really good point I somehow haven’t thought on. Some more info from Wikipedia (Emphasis mine):