Being in government was not a personal ambition at the beginning, but I really enjoyed it!
We met Ruth Dreifuss on 2015 to discuss Switzerland and its image abroad with the former President of the Confederation:
"Where does this Swiss idea of remaining neutral come from in your opinion?
This idea of neutrality was born both from Switzerland's own will and from outside. It was the result of negotiations by a Basel diplomat in the 17th century, and it was the Congress of Vienna that imposed neutrality on Switzerland, insofar as, faced with France at the end of Napoleon's reign, Switzerland had to remain neutral in the eyes of the winners of the Congress of Vienna. This was a desire on their part that also suited Switzerland.
So avoiding wars was just a strategic choice at the beginning?
Neutrality dates back to the Congress of Vienna in 1815, but since then it has become something inherent to Switzerland. The other obvious reason is that subsequent wars were fought between France and Germany. Switzerland is a country that is attached to its German- and French-speaking cultural areas. Neutrality is therefore also a way of safeguarding Swiss cohesion. For example, during the First World War, there was a great deal of solidarity in Swiss public opinion among French-speaking people for France and German-speaking people for Germany. If the country did not want to break up, it had to assert its neutrality.
What is the secret of Switzerland's economic and social success?
First of all, it is cohesion because of the size of its territory. It is a country so concerned with the idea of cohesion that it does not allow any region to devalue. There are countries where entire regions are allowed to become impoverished and isolated while others develop. In Switzerland, the development must benefit all regions of the country. This is why the political system reacts quickly when there is a problem somewhere. We can't stand it if a region feels neglected. Now, Switzerland's good fortune is that, for historical reasons, its industrialisation was not carried out in the cities but in the countryside, because the cities remained attached to a so-called "corporation" system which had fixed rules, which did not like to welcome competitors, and therefore it was done more or less everywhere.
Secondly, the energy needed for industrialisation was hydraulic energy. With it, you could build textile and/or metallurgical factories just about anywhere, you just needed a river to access this energy.
Thirdly, I would also say that we never really had heavy industries: we didn't have any mines for example, just a few small gold mines. We have never had economic growth based on heavy specialisation, but on the contrary based on a whole series of extremely specialised activities that allowed us to be integrated into international trade very early on. Thus we did not experience a crisis like other countries when heavy metallurgy collapsed and mining was no longer a source of wealth. Switzerland's good fortune is to have experienced economic and industrial development first of all, on which a highly specialised and internationally sought-after industry was then built. This is Switzerland's great fortune, one that is based on a long economic history.
So it's not just its banks?
No, not at all! The banks came later. Another example? The Basel region was already specialised in silk, in particular silk ribbons, which were already in great demand internationally even before the country was industrialised.
Then, starting from the specialisation in colours in the textile industry, we developed the chemical industry, and from there the pharmaceutical industry. Then the banking system was grafted onto it. It's a long story in which we were "lucky" not to have any natural wealth, except for hydraulic energy, and we very quickly had a global vision of the economy.
Today, what is Switzerland's main reason for not joining the European Union? Do you think that Switzerland was right to refuse to join the EU?
The Swiss people never directly refused to be a member of the European Union. They simply refused to be part of the European Economic Area in 1992.
Today, the majority of the Swiss people would probably refuse to be part of the European Union because they are experiencing a certain number of difficulties and because Switzerland is ultimately very satisfied with the path it has chosen: we have a very large number of agreements that regulate our various relations. It's an ad hoc formula that the Swiss like because they feel they have the advantages without having too many obligations in participating in the EU process. Personally, I have never stopped being in favour of Switzerland's membership of the European Union because I believe that a sovereign state should not benefit from such a relationship without being directly at the negotiating table.
For the countries of the former Soviet Union, when we talk about "Western countries" we mean Europe and the United States together!
-Europe is traditionally an ally of the United States. Nevertheless, it remains grateful to both the Soviet Union and the United States for liberating it from the Nazi yoke. Europe and the US remain close, with some moments of friction and differences of approach, such as the agreement on the denuclearisation of Iran. It is clear that there is a very different position, Europe being very multilateralist, relying on the UN, the WTO... whereas the United States has turned away from it under Donald Trump.
Switzerland is a neutral country, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have an opinion on international issues, does it?
Yes, of course, but always with a prudent neutrality. We also have our "good offices": the tradition of making our diplomatic services available to countries in conflict. If you want to do this effectively, you have to be accepted by both sides, so the neutrality card is very useful. This does not mean, however, that we do not have very firm positions on human rights and fundamental rights: Switzerland is, for example, very clearly against the death penalty.
I am personally a political refugee. Switzerland has always been seen as a welcoming country for refugees. Is it a question of generosity?
There have been moments of greater or lesser generosity and refugees have been more or less welcomed. In particular, refugees fleeing the Soviet Union were better received than refugees fleeing military dictatorships in Latin America, for example. Here again, we need to take a step back in history: in the 19th century, Switzerland was indeed a welcoming country. In 1848, there was a whole series of revolts and revolutions. In Switzerland, they led to the consolidation of democracy, but elsewhere they were repressed and there were many Italian and German refugees. Then, from 1917 onwards, there were refugees from Russia, Poland, Hungary, Germany, etc.
Then there were refugees from war-torn countries, Tibetans and Sri Lankans, then from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes, there is a Swiss tradition of welcoming refugees, which works rather better than some other countries, but probably less well than Scandinavia. At some point, Switzerland had to reflect on what had happened during the Second World War with regard to the victims of Nazism. After the war, there was an outpouring of solidarity towards refugees, partly due to this guilt over fascism and Nazism. Then the laws became stricter again, even though Switzerland is still a good student in terms of welcoming refugees (although I think it doesn't do enough).
Is mass immigration a problem for Switzerland at the moment?
Absolutely not! If you want to see "massive" immigration, go to Jordan, Lebanon, Kenya, go anywhere, but not to Switzerland! In fact, it has decreased this year. No, seriously, it's quite "absorbable".
Refugees also have responsibilities, right?
Of course, they have to integrate, they have to work... But they also have to be allowed to work. But we also have to allow them to work, which is not usually the case during the long application procedure for refugee status. It is particularly difficult for people who are not considered refugees but "provisionally admitted".
A few words on the particularity of Swiss democracy?
One of the fundamental principles is federalism. This means that all competences belong to the cantons, except for what is delegated to the Confederation. This is what the European Union calls the principle of subsidiarity. Only those problems for which a national vision is needed are dealt with by the Confederation. That is in theory. In practice, in a modern state, many competences belong to the Confederation. What is very close to the people is generally the responsibility of the cantons: education up to university level, for example, even though the cantons are increasingly working together, is a cantonal responsibility. Health, too, with the provision of hospitals and the organisation of health infrastructures. The police are cantonal, etc. Many things are the responsibility of the cantons. However, the cantons are very diverse: some are richer than others, some are very large and have many more expenses, particularly in terms of public transport, others have mountains and need infrastructure to combat avalanches and landslides, and others, on the other hand, are large cities with many more social and cultural burdens, such as Geneva, Basel, etc. The Confederation then organises the distribution of resources. Most of the taxes are under cantonal jurisdiction. This sometimes creates tax competition, but the Confederation ensures that there is a balance, which is called financial equalisation. Federalism is therefore a very important principle, a factor of unity and cohesion of the country.
The second very important principle is semi-direct democracy: we have a parliamentary system, with a parliament that makes the laws. But the people can at any time propose changes to the constitution and say that a law that has been adopted by parliament must be decided by the people. This is called the initiative and the referendum. They are very easy to use. Some decisions that affect the constitution have to be put to the people anyway. Our "national sport" is to vote every three months on all sorts of more or less interesting or complex issues. Being a citizen in Switzerland is a real "job". Another consequence is that the government cannot be the government of a minority. It has to be a place where solutions can be negotiated that are likely to have a very large majority in parliament and that will therefore be accepted by the people. The Swiss government is not a simple coalition as in other countries, because it must constantly find solutions that can win the largest possible majority. Decisions are taken one after the other in a permanent negotiation process between four parties that represent a very broad spectrum of opinions. It is the same in most cantons: the ministers are elected by parliament and despite their diversity, they have to govern together, which requires a certain independence from their political party. This is very different from other countries, where the leader of a party becomes prime minister and then applies the party line. This is totally contrary to the idea of "concordance" in Switzerland: we agree on decision after decision.
Is this direct democracy?
It is a semi-direct system, because there is a parliament and not all decisions are submitted to the people. But the people have the power to demand that all decisions be submitted to them.
Many of your colleagues say that the presidential term should be extended? Is one year really enough?
I am convinced that this is still a good formula because the President is, as we say in Latin, a "primus inter pares", a first among equals (in French). His role is to help make the government work, as when there is a conflict. And he also has a ceremonial role.
At the same time, the President remains head of his department, and this is important because it is there that one can take initiatives, propose solutions, work on issues, etc.
When we had debates in the Federal Council about the possibility of a four-year presidential term, for all my colleagues the most important thing was to keep control of their department. So I think this system is very good because during one year, you have more visibility to put your personal touch. The presidential year is a difficult year, especially because of the protocol tasks that take up a lot of time, while at the same time you have a department to manage.
Isn't one year a bit short to make history?
No, I don't think so: we will go down in history as a member of the Federal Council, not as President, because of what we were able to change in the country. It's not the President who does it alone, it's the Federal Council on the proposal of its members. I was a member of the Federal Council for ten years, and in those ten years I was able to do a lot of things. I had as much power to change things in Switzerland as a Federal Councillor as I did as President of the Confederation. The best things I did were as head of the Department of the Interior. As President, I was able to put my personal touch to it. For example, I was in charge of social and health issues. During my year as President, I was able to highlight certain issues because television followed me more easily.
For example, in the area of prostitution, sex workers should be respected more and their essential role in the fight against AIDS should be highlighted. So I visited the prostitutes in Pâquis with the television.
Or, for example, on the question of refugees, I went to Skopje the day the border was opened with the Republic of Macedonia for refugees from Kosovo. We then decided with the Federal Council that I would not return alone and I came back to Switzerland with refugees. I was able to hold a press conference at midnight in Basel to say: "Two hours away, we can bring in people who need us. This is what you can do when you are President! These are mainly symbolic gestures. All the serious work I did for ten years, like the rest of my colleagues, in the Federal Council.
You also fought a lot against drugs, didn't you?
Yes, I have! It's a long story, linked to my work as Minister of Health.
When you were young, did you imagine that you would one day become President?
No, absolutely not! I was elected by chance, it was not planned. I was above all a trade unionist committed to social and development issues. Being in government was not a personal ambition at the beginning, but I really enjoyed it!
Zhenishbek EDIGEEV
