Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2014
POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS IN DEMOCRATIC STATES HAVE USUALLY COME into existence as the manifestation of a principle of political philosophy or as the result of a compromise among forces with different aspirations for the polity. Often both factors have been involved. Certainly the consequences for political behaviour of introducing any particular structure have been of concern to its architects, but many of these consequences are unforeseeable and the actual impact of an institutional change or the character of a formal role may in time become quite different from that intended.
For a political actor, such as an individual, an interest group or a party, formal structures are given attributes of the political environment. Along with the more diffuse qualities of the political culture, they constitute the framework within which political actors must compete for influence over public policy. This framework, both formal and informal, is uneven in its effects on the fortunes of the various political forces. It favours some approaches and some groups more and in different ways than it favours others. The British Labour Party, with its concentrated voting strength, is disadvantaged by the single-member district/plurality electoral system, while its counterpart in Germany is able to maximize its strength in a system of proportional representation.
1 Kenneth R. Libbey, The Socialist Party of Switzerland – A Minority Party and its Political System. Unpublished PhD. dissertation, Syracuse University, 1969.
2 Glarus, Nidwalden, Obwalden, Appenzell Exterior and Interior Rhodes.
3 Most communal legislatures, in fact, recognize the right of a citizen to speak up at their sessions.
4 Sauser-Hall, Georges, Guide politiqzie suisse, Lausanne 1965, pp. 121–3.Google Scholar
5 At the cantonal level, an initiative can be declared unreceivable if it is judgcd to violate the federal constitution. Since 1962, the Federal Parliament can declare an initiative void if its different points are not intrinsically related. Sauser-Hall, op. cit., p. 123.
6 There has, in fact, never been a case of a referendum demanded by eight cantonal governments.
7 Sauser-Hall, op. cit., pp. 119–20. Urgent decrees are valid for only one year if challenged by a referendum.
8 Ibid., p. 119. The number has normally been doubled in those cantons which have introduced women’s suffrage. See Meynaud, Jean, et al., Études politiques vaudoises, Lausanne, Études de science politique, 1963, p. 13 Google Scholar.
9 Neuchatel, on the other hand, introduced it several years ago.
10 Sauser-Hall, op. cit., pp. 120–1.
11 Annuaire statistique de la Suisse, Berne, Chancellerie fédérale, 1947, p. 484.
12 For good examples, see Martin, William and Béguin, Pierre, Histoire de la Suisse, Lausanne, 1963, pp. 342–5Google Scholar; Sauser-Hall, op. cit., p. 120; Chevallaz, Georges-André, La Suisse ou le sommeil du juste, Lausanne, 1967, p. 64 Google Scholar.
13 Le Peuple-La Sentinelle, La Chaux-de-Fonds, socialist daily for French Switzerland, 26 October 1966.
14 Ibid., 17 October 1966.
15 Its suppression in Vaud, supported by the left and generally by the radicals but opposed by the right (Liberal Party), was achieved with a comfortable majority. Only 30 per cent of the voters participated. Meynaud, et al., Études politiques vaudoises, pp. 33–5, 183–4.
16 Le Peuple-La Sentinelle, 13 December 1967.
17 Meynaud, Jean and Korff, Adelbert, Les organisations professionnelles en Suisse, Lausanne, 1963, p. 305 Google Scholar.
18 The speech of Pierre Graber, socialist leader in parliament, is reprinted in Le Peuple-La Sentinelle, 28, 29, 30 December 1966.
19 Ibid., 20 February 1967.
20 Rapport de gestion du Parti socialiste suisse, Berne, Secrétariat du P.S.S., 1957–58, pp. 40–3, 60. (Administrative report of the Socialist Party – hereafter cited as Rapport de gestion, year,…)
21 Le Peuple-La Sentinelle, 16 March 1967.
22 Annuaire statistiqe de la Suisse, 1949–67, passim. (Section: Votations fédérales)
23 Ibid., 1955, p. 528. The cantons accepting were Zurich, Berne, Vaud, Geneva, Neuchatel, Ticino and the two half-cantons of Basel. This was, however, one of only two cases of such a defeat of an initiative.
24 Meynaud, et al., Études politiques vandoises, The only succcssfiil initiative from the left in the period studied (1938–62) was the approval of three weeks of legal vacation in 1960.
25 Francois Masnata, Le parti socioliste et al tradition démocratique en Suisse Neuchatel, 1963, p. 217.
26 Protokoll uber die Verbandlungen des Parteitages der S.P.S., Berne, Sekretariat der S.P.S., 1961, p. 104. (Record of debates at Socialist Congresses – hereafter cited as Protokoll, year …)
27 Protokoll, 1958, p. 101
28 Rapport de gestion, 1961–62, pp. 61–3.
29 Annuaire statistique de la Suisse, 1949–67, passim. (Section: Votations fédérales)
30 Meynaud, et al., Études politiques vaudoises, p. 76.
31 Petitions frequently contain an authorization of the sponsors to withdraw the initiative in case of a suitable reaction from the authorities.
32 Rapport de gestion, 1959–60, p. 52.
33 Masnata, op. cit., p. 218.
34 Dusan Sidjanski, ‘Les partis politiques et le processus de décision en Suisse’. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Swiss Political Science Association at Lucerne, 9 March 1968. See also Meynaud and Korff, Les organisations professionnelles en Suisse, pp. 177–8.
35 Protokoll, 1961, p. 101.
36 Notably the editors of Domaine public, an independent socialist bi-weekly published at Lausanne, No. 61, 7 November 1966, p. 3.
37 Protokoll, 1955, p. 173.
38 Ibid., 1962, pp. 5, 53.
39 Ibid., 1962, pp. 74–5.
40 For a resumé of the tortuous debate over the initiative, see Gilg, Peter and Reymond, Francois-L, ‘Anneé politique suisse 1965’, Annuaire suisse de science politigue, VI, 1966, pp. 186–9Google Scholar.
41 The terms in German and French are Landesplanung and aménagement du territoire, respectively.
42 Le Peuple-La Sentinelle, 29 September and 1 December 1966.
43 Annuaire statistique de la Suisse, 1967, p. 544.
44 Le Peuple-La Sentinelle, 4 September 1967.
45 Ibid., 20 December 1967 and 7 March 1968. Tagwacht (Berne socialist daily), 30 January and 8 March 1968.
46 The party offered twice in 1965 to withdraw its initiative if suggested counter-projects were approved. Gilg and Reymond, ‘Annte politique suisse 1965’, p. 188.
47 Tagwacht, 19 February 1968.
48 Referring to the effects of referenda, Christopher Hughes has Lvrittcn, ‘Swiss democracy is geared to pressure groups: it is a form of government calculated to call such groups into existence and give them power. The systcrn could conceivably continue for a time without parties, but without prcssure groups it would not work at all.’ Christopher Hughes, The Parliattieiit of Switzerland, London, 1962, p. 34.
49 In September, 1967, the National Council adopted a motion of the Catholic deputy Leo Schurmann demanding that the Federal Council present n four year governmental programme to parliament. For an exposition of Schurmann’s views, see his article, ‘Probleme der Allparteienregierung’, Annuuire suisse de science politique, VII, 1967, pp. 83–94.
50 Tagwacht, 16 December 1967.
