Democratic naturalization
The campaign will open. The Swiss will say on June 1 whether the naturalization of a foreigner can be submitted to a popular vote. The UDC’s initiative “for democratic naturalizations” intends to include in the Constitution the possibility, for municipalities that so wish, of subjecting candidates for Swiss passports to the sanction of a popular vote. The text of the UDC intends to restore the situation which prevailed before 2003, when the Federal Court declared contrary to the Constitution the naturalizations “by the ballot box” practiced until then in a small minority of municipalities, exclusively German-speaking. For federal judges, naturalizations by the people are contrary to the Constitution because they do not allow a reasoned decision to be rendered, they expose candidates to blatant discrimination, and they force them to disclose to the public, at least in municipalities of a certain importance , information which falls within their private sphere. These judgments provoked a wave of reactions, in the federal parliament, in the cantons, and even among certain constitutional experts. The UDC strongly denounced interference by judges in a political question. And in September 2003, a month before the federal elections, the party launched its initiative.
At the same time, State Councilor Thomas Pfisterer (PRD/AG) proposed a sort of middle path through a parliamentary initiative. His idea? Restore naturalizations by the people, but provide avenues of appeal to avoid shocking cases. The Pfisterer initiative was at the origin of an indirect counter-project (of legislative rank) opposed today to the SVP initiative. But the Aargau radical’s initial proposals were significantly modified along the way. It was only last December that the last differences were resolved. The Chambers ultimately did not want to restore naturalizations by ballot box. At most, in municipalities which do not have an elected parliament but only municipal assemblies open to all citizens, naturalization applications can be submitted to the latter. Refusals must, however, be able to be challenged in court. (…) Recently, the judges annulled the decision of the municipal assembly of Buchs (AG) refusing the right of citizenship to a Muslim woman on the grounds that she wore the veil – a reason deemed discriminatory by the Federal Court. The notice from the municipal executive was favorable, and it was only before the municipal assembly that the argument of wearing the veil was briefly mentioned. Result: 19 votes against, only 15 for naturalization. (Le Temps, 03/31/2008)
The purpose here is not to comment on Swiss political life nor to speak out for or against the UDC. Whatever one may think, it is indeed a question of reestablishing the sovereignty of the people over the granting of naturalization.
The general principle should, however, be self-evident.
In most countries, naturalization is granted by the administrative bureaucracy, when it is not by the executive power, as in the case of North African Jews “becoming French”…by decree. The accepted rhetoric on the subject states that the most important thing is the desire of the individuals or peoples concerned to “become” nationals – it would still be necessary to verify the reasons for this desire, and to establish its feasibility beyond a fiction. administrative. This rhetoric also forgets a “detail” which may be important: the opinion of the community as a whole, which would become “the rest of the community” if these populations were to be added to it.
We do not remember systematic popular consultations on these questions, which are essential to social cohesion. Everything happens through individual or collective negotiations between the state bureaucracy and these populations. As for the so-called parliamentary control, it is not enough; who can believe that its elected representatives in assemblies, endowed with a vague and multi-year mandate, controlled by existing political parties, constitute a sufficient guarantee of democratic control? It seems that in the Swiss case, some are afraid of the people. The people would carry prejudices. As if the straight corset of the man, with a legal and right-thinking face, was not. It is of course also, and in a way perhaps worse, because insidious. Who can believe that irremovable judges, civil servants of the State and with formalist reasoning cut off from social expectations, can offer a guarantee of democracy? In the case of this woman who wore the veil, it does not appear to us that the popular judgment was discriminatory. Swiss people can rightly consider that such a person has ostensibly not adopted the clothing, religious mores and way of life specific to Swiss culture. It all depends on whether or not we admit that this culture exists and that it must be preserved. The judges of the federal court have made their choice… The idea of regulating popular judgment is not, however, bad. However, this framework cannot be legal, state, bureaucratic. We must consider modern methods of moderation, training, and awareness of certain limits. Expert trainers and moderators would certainly have their role to play in an open institutional framework.
Finally, let us remember that municipalities are not communities. In most countries, these are simple administrations, even if local. And these administrations are well integrated into the state system. As recently shown, in another context, the example of a Flemish Minister of the Interior who refused, for formal reasons, to appoint mayors who had nevertheless been elected…
