Switzerland's Immigration Challenge

Viewpoints and insights in the aftermath of the mass immigration initiative

Bibliographic Data

ID6384162
AuthorsMichel Freitag (0000-0003-2428-0652, University of Berne), Markus Freitag, Adrian Vatter (0000-0002-6588-8771, University of Berne), Sean Mueller (0000-0003-4369-1449, University of Berne)
Year2015
Volume21
Issue1
Pages1-4
Publication date2015-03-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueSwiss Political Science Review (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1424-7755 • E-ISSN: 1662-6370
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/spsr.12149
OpenAlexW1517429089
LanguageEN
Citations received8
References cited12

With this first issue of the year 2015, we would like to bring political science closer to politics. Introducing our new Symposium format, the following six contributions present new data and provocative insights into Swiss politics in a concise and accessible manner. All articles have been peer-reviewed to ensure that academic standards are maintained, but authors were asked to stick to simple and straightforward language. The key question that animates them all are the numerous challenges linked to immigration in Switzerland, apparent not least since the acceptance of the popular initiative "against mass immigration" (Masseneinwanderungsinitiative, MEI) by the Swiss people and cantons on 9 February 2014. It is a matter of fact that nowadays immigration is provoking anxieties and reactions beyond the Swiss context. In this regard, the Front National has become the first French party in the 2014 European Parliament elections, gathering almost 25% of the vote; the United Kingdom Independence Party threatens to end Westminster's two-party system for good. Both have applauded Switzerland for its direct democracy, in general, and the decision taken on 9 February 2014, in particular. More recently, the Dresden demonstrations have had the effect of making the German elite unsure about how to deal with unexpected manifestations of popular activism such as PEGIDA.1 Nevertheless, in several regards Switzerland remains a special case (Freitag and Rapp 2013). Switzerland, for a variety of reasons, is traditionally thought to be a rather tolerant society. Some consider the Alpine country to be a "paradigmatic case of political integration" (Deutsch 1976), where historical developments have helped to incorporate different religions and languages without destroying their cultural identities (Linder 2010; Vatter 2008). Direct democracy in particular has been important for bringing about the inclusion of territorially based minorities, first through the optional referendum (a sort of veto on legislative change, adopted in 1874), later also in the form of the popular initiative on partial constitutional change (introduced in 1891). So while Switzerland is praised for the opportunity it gives citizens to influence political decisions on a wide range of issues, the existence of various direct-democratic instruments has forced the political elite into seeking compromises to proceed in small, incremental steps. Such a form of consociationalism is, in turn, often regarded to lead to "a kinder, gentler" form of democracy (Lijphart 2012). In fact, over 75% of the European population saw Switzerland as "a good example of a multicultural society and the peaceful co-existence of different groups and languages", indicates a 1997 Eurobarometer survey (Melich 2000). At the same time, however, Switzerland also displayed intolerance, as 71% of European respondents stated that the Swiss do not like immigrants (Melich 2010). This sentiment reflects the traditional approach of Swiss immigration policies aimed at protecting the Swiss culture against foreign influences (Manatschal 2011; Niederberger 2004; Skenderovic 2009). The scepticism toward immigrants has recently peaked: new developments point to a distinct cultural shift in Switzerland from the tolerant consensus democracy to a nation characterized by increasing animosity toward immigrants (Bornschier 2010; Giugni and Morariu 2010; Ruedin 2013). A rising number of popular votes against immigrants and on immigration issues have been held – and some have even passed – in the last decade alone (Kriesi et al. 2005). Three such votes, all three the consequence of nationalist-conservative popular initiatives, deserve special mentioning. In the first, voted in 2009, a clear majority emerged against the existence of minarets in Switzerland, an issue that attracted worldwide attention (Antonsich and Jones 2010; Vatter 2011). Although the aim of the initiative was to ban minarets from Switzerland, it was also a symbolic act to prevent the further growth of non-Swiss cultures in Switzerland. While already previous popular initiatives had targeted the presence and/or further influx of foreign nationals, 2009 was the first time in Swiss history when such an initiative was actually accepted. Moreover, only one year later a second initiative was accepted, this time on the automatic expulsion of foreigners – even if born, bred and having lived here their whole life – convicted of a criminal act (cf. Lavenex and Manatschal 2014: 679). This marked the peak of prejudice and stereotyping as regards Muslim immigrants from the former Yugoslavia, the Balkan states, or other non-Western European states. It also exposed a new conflict: that between principles of popular versus those of liberal democracy (cf. Albertazzi and Mueller 2013). The third initiative to have been adopted, finally, shows that discrimination can also be observed towards highly educated and qualified West-Europeans who come to Switzerland in search of employment. In particular, among many of the Swiss-German speaking population we can observe some hard feelings toward their German neighbours, likely stemming from the influx of highly-qualified Germans seeking employment in Switzerland as well as the stereotypes associated with the differences in languages and cultures (Helbling 2011). Hence, the approval of MEI, on 9 February 2014, which had once again been launched by the Swiss People's Party (SVP), is the latest earthquake to have shaken Swiss politics. That day, a narrow popular majority of 50.3% (but a clear majority of 17 out of 26 cantons) decided to all but end the free movement of persons for citizens of the European Union and re-introduce the quota system. In this respect, intolerance toward immigrants emerges from a perceived cultural and economic threat posed by immigrants with lower qualifications as well as by culturally similar and highly educated Germans. All three initiatives mentioned also show that sometimes wide-ranging decisions are taken via the ballot box that radically contradict prior policies enacted by the political authorities. These recent developments stimulate the following set of contributions to this Symposium, which is a new format that we have introduced to bridge the gap between rigorous scientific analysis and daily debates on topics that are important for actual Swiss politics. The handling of immigration and, linked to that, of Swiss-EU relations clearly top the list of priorities to be addressed over the coming years. Hence, each of the following six contributions presents new empirical data in a systematic, although not necessarily comprehensive way; develops a new idea in the form of thinking about a novel theoretical approach or conceptualisation; or elaborates on a new method to test certain hypotheses. What is the history of immigration policy in Switzerland? What about the most salient political positions? How do Swiss citizens feel about immigration? Do they know what they vote for, for example on 9 February 2014? Is there any solution to reconcile Swiss immigration policy with the EU's principle of the free movement of people? Is Switzerland's future at stake over immigration? Didier Ruedin, Camilla Alberti and Gianni D'Amato provide a systematic assessment of immigration and integration policy in Switzerland from 1848 to 2014. Assessing seven dimensions, 28 sub-dimensions and 148 indicators, they trace how immigration and integration policies have evolved over time (note that their data is freely available). Similarly, Anita Manatschal sets Swiss xenophobia into historical, European and sub-national perspective, showing how immigration has become more salient not least due to the SVP's skilful strategic behaviour. Maya Ackermann and Markus Freitag explore Swiss citizens' attitudes towards immigration in general and show that as many as 50% of Swiss citizens could be mobilized to call for reducing immigration and to vote for anti-immigration issues, such as restricting the free movement of persons. They find the strongest empirical relationship between attitudes in favour of reducing immigration and perceived economic, cultural, or criminal threats arising from such immigration. In this vein, flanking measures to assuage economic and cultural insecurities could prove useful for reducing levels of threat perception. In turn, focusing on the MEI, Thomas Milic demonstrates how the Swiss people knew very well what they voted for on 9 February: prioritising a more restrictive immigration policy over the free movement of persons with the EU. Also, centring on the case of Ticino, where approval for the MEI hit a record 68% (18 percentage points above the Swiss average), and drawing on their own survey data, Oscar Mazzoleni and Andrea Pilotti argue that a canton's economic, topographic and linguistic peripheralisation contributes to a sense of feeling abandoned and in need of protection – for example by re-erecting the border with Italy. That finding can also be generalised to Switzerland at large. Finally, the last contribution, by Michael Ambühl and Sibylle Zürcher, offers a way out of the dilemma created on 9 February 2014: paradoxically, it is by embedding Switzerland – at least statistically – closer into the EU/EFTA-wide area that it would be possible to eventually curb EU immigration into Switzerland, if their proposal was to be adopted. We hope these contributions will stimulate further debate on the challenges of immigration and the impact of direct democracy and European integration on the relation that citizens entertain with non-citizens – and vice versae, that is the impact such relations have on European democracy, in turn

Context (archaeology · Democracy · Elite · German · Immigration · Media studies · Parliament · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Social Democratic Party · Sociology · Variety (cybernetics · History · Law · Public Administration

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access