Discours à la faculté de droit de l’Université de Pennsylvanie sur les fausses nouvelles et la démocratie

Dean Ruger
Ladies and gentlemen

Thank you very much for your invitation.
It is an honour and a pleasure to speak at your renowned university about Switzerland and the challenges to our democracies.

Albert Einstein once said:
“If the world were to end I’d prefer to be in Switzerland –
Everything happens five years later there.”

Indeed, some things do happen very slowly in Switzerland.

Switzerland even took its time in deciding to join the UN –
it’s only been 16 years since the country became a member.
At the THIRD vote.
And not 5 years after the UN was founded – but 57!
So you see:
even Einstein got things wrong occasionally…

But since then we have been a committed member of the UN.
which is appreciated,
as I was able to observe when I appeared before the General Assembly in New York two days ago.

Ladies and gentlemen

How is it that a country like Switzerland –
which always holds the top spot with the USA
in global competitiveness and innovation rankings –
how is it that Switzerland can be THAT slow when it comes to taking democratic decisions?

Slowness does not just come naturally to Switzerland –
in fact, it takes a great deal of effort to be slow
we work very hard to be that boring!

And today, in certain countries, people would be quite happy
if politics was that bit more boring…

Let me give you a brief outline of our legislative procedure –
allow me, if you will, to hopefully bore you in an interesting manner:
In Switzerland, the government sends a draft bill out for consultation.
It gives all interested parties the opportunity to express their views.
Then the amended bill is submitted to the relevant parliamentary committee of one of the chambers in our bicameral system – which we copied from you by the way –
and then to the first chamber.
It then passes to the committee of the second chamber
before coming before the second chamber itself.
The adopted law is then subject to either an optional or compulsory referendum.
That means: if a political party, group or individual manages to gather 50,000 signatures, a popular vote is held.
There are 5.4 million eligible voters in Switzerland by the way.
With 100,000 signatures they can submit an initiative and vote on amending the constitution.

Ladies and gentlemen

Democracy in Switzerland is not just voting but a process of consultation and compromise.

The social stability we enjoy is in no small part thanks to our political culture; the fact
that four biggest parties are represented in our government
that in political terms, we are constantly in flux.
that we hold heated debates and come together again afterwards.
that we accept compromises despite or because of our diversity.

Our diversity is almost as complicated as our political system:
we are a country with 4 national languages and 26 cantons.
The cantons are really like small states, which function almost autonomously in matters ranging from education to police.
So Switzerland is a small state, consisting of 26 smaller states.
And if you take a 20-minute train ride, you’ll hear a different dialect.
Or even a different language.

Ladies and gentlemen

I hope this brief overview was excitingly boring.

Boredom is the most exciting – that also sums up the core message of John Hart Ely’s legal philosophy,
whose most notable work, ‘Democracy and Distrust’, serves as the impulse for today’s event.

The Swiss Constitution is heavily inspired by the US Constitution – which is why Ely’s insights also make sense to me as a Swiss.

Ely was a thinker who recognised the value of institutions and democratic processes.
He saw that the value of the constitution lies
in defining and protecting the democratic process.
That it ensures this process remains open and fair.

That in itself is not a particularly spectacular observation – but it is precise.
And it is political,
Precisely because in political terms it is restrained.

Ladies and gentlemen

Switzerland is a small and open country at the heart of Europe.

But Switzerland’s openness to the world is by no means set in stone.

In 2014 a vote was held on an initiative against mass immigration.
The initiative called for Switzerland to take back control of its immigration. We are part of the Single European Market also in respect of the free movement of persons. Our labour market is open to
500 million Europeans.

The adoption of this initiative came as a wake-up call
and reminded us that our scope in terms of foreign policy shrinks when unease within society manifests itself politically.

In our system of direct democracy, we continually have to make the case for international cooperation and seek DOMESTIC legitimation.

For only if the public has an underlying feeling of economic, social and cultural security will it be inclined to support an open foreign policy.

In November a popular vote will be held which will have again an impact on Switzerland’s relationship with the world:
It is known as the ‘self-determination initiative’.

The question is one of whether Swiss law should take precedent over international law.

It is a case of persuading the electorate of the advantages of being open to the world and demonstrating solidarity internationally.

We have to be able to show that we can rely on international law.
And that these rules are stable and fair.

We are witnessing growing tensions within different societies.
In Switzerland we are particularly aware of this because they can be expressed time and again at the ballot box.

In Switzerland we bring out the ballot boxes four times a year.
And, ladies and gentlemen, we vote on pretty much everything.

On pre-implantation diagnostics and unconditional basic income.
On cycle paths and a ban on second homes.
On the Cash Cow Initiative and the Horned Cow Initiative.
The Cash Cow Initiative is about car drivers, who don’t want to be cash cows when it comes to financing public transport.
And the Horned Cow Initiative is about real cows. In November we will be voting on whether farmers should receive financial support for horn-bearing cows and goats.
I’m not telling you all this to make fun of our democracy.
We take all of it very seriously.

In a direct democracy, everything is up for debate.

Direct democracy is a continual debate.

This serves as a good vent for frustration.
It doesn’t exclude outcomes such as in the vote against mass immigration.
But on the whole feelings of resentment have less chance of growing to the point
where they can easily succumb to propaganda.

Switzerland’s system of direct democracy is an early warning system.

We try systematically to decode and defuse any public unease.

And today this decoding has become an existential question for democracies and international cooperation.

In Switzerland we have learned,
to question motives,
identify hidden agendas
and distinguish between
arguments, which stand up to rational scrutiny –
and ‘fake news’ in which reality is seen as deformable.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that ‘fake news’ couldn’t be spread in Switzerland.

But it is more difficult because everything is discussed intensively.

Ladies and gentlemen

We need to take the problem of ‘fake news’ seriously –
and when foreign powers use it to interfere in democratic elections,
it is tantamount to an act of aggression.

However, we should not allow ourselves to get quite so worked up about the ‘fake news’ tsunami, which is unsettling our democracies.
We should accept it:
as an – admittedly disruptive –
structural change of the public sphere.

The German sociologist and philosopher Jürgen Habermas,
who coined the term “structural change of the public sphere”, “Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit”,
recently joined in the debate on social media.
And concluded – not altogether surprisingly – that:
the public sphere is coming to an end.

And a public sphere which primarily or even exclusively functions through mass media, is indeed probably drawing to a close.

But the newly emerging public sphere of countless virtual forums, which very much have a bearing on political reality –
this new public sphere ironically carries many of the hallmarks which Habermas himself cited in the past as a condition for ‘non-hierarchical debate’:

Today, you no longer need economic power to be able to take part in debate; it’s even free.

The public sphere in the pre-internet era was by no means free of power games –
On the contrary: the gatekeepers on the editorial board determined the agenda.
And powerful political and economic actors had privileged access and the necessary skills,
to communicate effectively and thus legitimate their own position.

So the Internet and social media not only mean the end of an informed public.

But in terms of its disruptive force, has the same level of impact that the printing press had on the Reformation.

And the Reformation was the essential prerequisite for the Renaissance and Humanism, even though these developments were far from linear.

Ladies and gentlemen,

In the US there is a wonderful saying: ‘Never waste a good crisis.’
That also applies to the fake news crisis: We have to make use of its potential.
It forces us to come up with better arguments.
And think more clearly.

But above all, for every political decision we take, we have to consider
what it means for the weakest in society.
and if it will create losers.

Whether or not they are absolute or relative losers,
is politically irrelevant.
For it is this sense of homelessness and fear of social exclusion that allows fake news to flourish.

We must not forget the most important lesson of the optimistic post-war decades:

It is by strengthening others,
That we strengthen ourselves.

Nobody needs to loose for you to win.
The world is not a zero sum game.
Thank you.