[ad_1]
In the case of the minaret initiative, the fight was “all against the SVP.” This time the debate was much broader, says Lausanne political scientist Georg Lutz.
Georg Lutz, professor of political science at the University of Lausanne.
Mr Lutz, after saying yes to the 2009 ban on minarets, described the burqa debate as a “highly symbolic problem”. Is the yes to the burqa ban a symbolic yes?
Clearly. One could easily say yes to this proposal without having to fear major economic consequences, at least with a few exceptions. Tourist communities such as Zermatt or the city of Lucerne, who feared negative consequences, have said no. But for most, this one does not have a real impact.
That was also the case with the minaret initiative.
In the case of the minaret initiative, the fight was “all against the SVP.” This time the debate was much broader, the arguments were more complex. In an early phase of the referendum campaign, even prominent left-wing voices defended the proposal. Until recently, parts of the CVP and the FDP also supported the initiative. As a result, this proposal was generally more accepted by the political elite than the minaret initiative at the time.
Some of the veiled opponents looked helpless. Some of his arguments, such as freedom of religion, hardly made any difference.
It is difficult to win a referendum campaign using the argument of freedom of religion. Therefore, it was emphasized above all that this concealment problem was not very real and that the limitation was exaggerated.
Obviously, it wasn’t just about visible problems. The initiative provided a response to the widespread uncertainty as a result of global Islamist terror.
This state of mind is not new. Proponents of the initiative also know that most Muslims in Switzerland are no more religious than most local Catholics and Protestants. However, there is a widespread fear of political Islam in Switzerland. But there is a gap between that fear and the real danger. And with this fear you can score politically.
Vaud, who had rejected the ban on minarets, accepted the initiative of concealment. Does Francophone Switzerland show the influence of events in France, such as the beheading of the teacher Samuel Paty by an Islamist?
That certainly played a role. In French-speaking Switzerland, French debates and events are naturally followed much more closely than in German-speaking Switzerland. Consequently, the sensitivity is higher. Ultimately, however, it was primarily a factor in the fact that there were many possible reasons for approving this initiative in French-speaking Switzerland. Because there were also middle-class and left-wing voices in favor of him, the otherwise strong anti-SVP reflex did not play out in French-speaking Switzerland.
What part of this result is the coverage of the protective mask, which has become commonplace in the pandemic?
I don’t think it had much of an impact. The fact that we are currently forced to wear a mask should have rather demonstrated that this coverage is not a big deal at all.
The waves did not go as high as at the time of the minaret vote. Overall, how much has the pandemic affected this vote?
With a burqa ban no longer breaks a taboo in Europe, other countries already know such bans. Furthermore, the pandemic and countermeasures still strongly dominate the political agenda. Therefore, it is difficult to carry out a campaign, both for and against.
The Federal Council lost two of the three votes this Sunday. Is the verdict a vote of no confidence?
I would not exaggerate that. Switzerland continues to vote in a very friendly way. Optional referendums are no more difficult today than they were twenty or thirty years ago, on the contrary. Initiatives, on the other hand, are rarely successful. With yes to the prohibition of concealment and no to e-ID, we experienced two exceptions. That is part of everyday political life.
