[ad_1]
The popular initiative for the financing of war material producers recalls a principle often forgotten at the polls: we do not vote on the objectives of popular initiatives, but on their specific demands.
It’s unclear what the War Material Initiative is about at first glance.
At first glance, citizens find it easy to vote on November 29. Anyone who supports human rights and environmental protection agrees with the popular initiative on corporate responsibility. And those who are in favor of world peace agree with the War Material Initiative. So the case is twofold: the good guys are in favor, the bad guys are against.
But voters should take popular initiatives much more seriously than this cartoon suggests. Whatever we can persuade ourselves: in the case of popular advances, in fact we do not vote on the goals declared by the initiators, but rather if we want to draft the instruments specifically requested in the federal constitution. Therefore, these are not “signs”, “symbolism” and “signage”, but specific guidelines and regulations.
This is illustrated as textbooks by the War Materials Initiative, whose authors launched the voting campaign on Thursday. This proposal is not about whether we are for or against world peace. A yes to the initiative would contribute nothing to world peace. Nor is it about the abolition of the Swiss army.
Rather, it is about a principle and specific prohibitions. In principle, the question is whether the federal government should impose restrictions on investment policy on all pension funds, the AHV and the National Bank beyond their traditional mandates. Should pension funds only invest pension assets according to their traditional mandate to finance pensions, or does the state also want to manage these private investments according to socio-political ideas? And does the State want to impose investment regulations on the National Bank that go beyond the traditional mandate of monetary policy? Unrelated specifications lead to contradictory objectives or confusion of traditional mandates. Whether this interference is still wanted through the federal constitution is the basic question that must be evaluated in the popular initiative.
In this specific case, the initiative calls for the prohibition of pension funds, AHV and national banks to finance the producers of war material. Anyone who generates more than 5 per cent of their annual turnover from the manufacture of war material is considered such a producer. This would not only prohibit the purchase of shares in pure arms companies, but also investments in companies such as Airbus and Boeing with civil and military divisions. As the Federal Council has emphasized, investments in some broad stock index certificates would no longer be possible as they also contain shares of companies with arms deals.
Private demand for “sustainable” investments is increasing and supply is also increasing. In such investment funds, for example, investments in certain arms companies, tobacco manufacturers and nuclear power plant operators can be excluded, but the exclusion criteria are often not consistent with popular initiative. If the initiative is successful, new fund offerings may emerge, but the market for them would be very limited from a global perspective.
A popular vote would be tedious and costly for pension funds and the central bank. Additionally, a fundamental decision about political interference in your investment decisions should spark a desire for more. This must be contrasted with the benefits of the initiative: it does not serve world peace, but it allows Swiss citizens to say yes to themselves and to others that they have done something good. And this is painless, that is, without any cost that can be felt immediately. Such a deal may seem tempting to some.
