Building a Multicultural Society by Political Integration

Abstract

This chapter explains how, despite the absence of single ethnic culture, Swiss state- and nation-building was possible. Neither the Swiss nation, nor the Swiss society existed when modern Switzerland was founded in 1848, after a brief civil war. The chapter provides a reading of Swiss history since then as one of gradually achieving the participation of the most important minority groups and the different social classes through proportional representation. Beginning with the losers of the civil war, the Catholic-Conservatives, followed by Protestant farmers and the petite bourgeoise, and ending with the Social-Democrats, the Swiss thus invented the ‘magic formula’ in 1959 for proportionally sharing the seven seats in the federal government. Even the rise of right-wing populism since the 1990s has not changed this basic feature.

From Second-Best to First-Best Veto Point: Explaining the Changing Uses of Judicial Review and Referendums in Uruguay

“…As we have noted, our argument is not easily applied to other Latin American countries, given that no other Latin American democracies frequently use both venues to oppose policies in those contexts. Additionally, in a broader comparative setting, the explanation does not travel to other countries that routinely use referendums, such as Switzerland and the United States, since the former does not have a system of judicial review of federal laws (Linder and Mueller 2021), and the latter, where the judicial contestation of laws is frequent, has referendums only at the state level (Miller 2009).…”

Ethnic Minorities, Interstate War, and Popular Support for Fiscal Capacity Development

“…In Switzerland, state building did not take place through linguistic or confessional unification processes. Instead, Switzerland’s political self-image as a “nation of will” has led to the creation of political institutions that aim to protect the autonomy of minorities and ensure their fair political representation (Linder & Mueller, 2021). At the time of the 1918 vote, three of the seven members of Switzerland’s Federal Council represented linguistic minorities.…”

“…Switzerland is often considered the paradigmatic case of political integration because state building did not take place through linguistic or confessional unification processes (Deutsch, 1976)—in stark contrast to cultural nations such as France with their focus on homogenization (Weber, 1976). Instead, Switzerland’s national identity and its political self-image as a “nation of will” (rather than common ethnicity) are the result of political institutions of power-sharing, most notably extensive federalism with the autonomous position of cantons (Linder & Mueller, 2021; Zimmer, 2003). Hence, great attention is paid to protect minorities’ autonomy and their identities.…”

Integration Through Inclusion? Probing the Effect of Government Presence on Voting Behavior in the Swiss Cantons, 1848–2022

“…The three main national languages are German, French, and Italian, currently spoken by 72%, 24%, and 6% of Swiss citizens, respectively (BFS 2021a), whereas Catholicism and Protestantism have both been widely present since the Reformation 2 . Two institutions in particular have facilitated the unification of Swiss society: federalism and consociationalism (Steiner 1981 and 2002; Linder and Mueller 2021). While the former rests on territorial boundaries and spatial identity, the latter operates via community-based affiliation and recognition.…”

“…Moreover, approval of parliament is by no means guaranteed; for constitutional changes a popular vote is mandatory, and contentious parliamentary acts can equally be stopped in an optional referendum. Neither the government nor parliament always has the final word – with the somewhat paradoxical result that the steering and coordinating function of the executive becomes even more important (Linder and Mueller 2021, 175).…”