The Swiss model

by Dr iur. Marianne Wüthrich and Dr phil. René Roca, Switzerland

To understand the Swiss model in all its aspects, it is necessary to illuminate the basic elements individually. In the following the cooperative principle, communal autonomy, militia system, direct democracy, federalism and subsidiarity, sustainable fiscal policy, consociational democracy and neutrality will be looked at in more detail. The individual elements add to each other fruitfully and as a whole they shape the specific political culture in Switzerland.

1. The cooperative principle as the basis of Swiss political culture

The cooperatives provide in their various forms an essential foundation for the Swiss federal state. As economic self-help organizations cooperatives are based on the personal concept of man. Cooperatives should not merely be considered as a legal structure but in a broader sense as an important social system.

The cooperative is always based locally and often embedded in the federal-subsidiary political system of Switzerland. Cooperative members democratically decide on all concerned questions. Each member has one vote.

The purpose of a cooperative is the coping with an assignment, mutually agreed by all members and statutorily regulated, which can be of various nature. It may include social tasks (e.g. nursing homes and care homes), public utility infrastructure (e.g. water, electricity, forest care), productive activities (e.g. purchase and sale of agricultural products, winery cooperatives, sewing workshops, training centers for disabled) or optimum useage of collective property. The area of operations and the way of utilization can vary, but the purpose must always serve the Bonum Commune, the common good anchored in natural law.

The well-known Swiss historian Prof. Dr Adolf Gasser has highlighted the importance of the cooperative principle in a very clear and plausible way. According to his findings, the history of Europe was characterized and shaped by the strong contrast of two different ethical principles, namely domination and cooperative. In this manifestations, Gasser states, two worlds were facing each other that were subject to very different laws of development: the world in which the political system was established top down and the other world in which the structures were built bottom up, or in other words: the world of domination and the world of cooperative, the world of subordination and the world of co-ordination, the world of centralism and the world of communalism, the world of command and the world of self-government, the world of communal bondage and the world of communal freedom:

“The contrast between domination and cooperative might be the most important antithesis known in social history. This contrast of authoritarian state – state of society is simply about very fundamental issues: namely about the elementary foundations of human social life.”¹

In his major work “Gemeindefreiheit als Rettung Europas. Grundlinien einer ethischen Geschichtsauffassung” (Communal Freedom as a Rescue of Europe. Outlines of an ethical conception of history) Gasser explains that it is the cooperative organizing principle which leads to community ethics:

“Whereas in an authoritarian-bureaucratic state, politics and morality always base on different levels, they are inseparable in a social-communal state. Accordingly, it is the cooperative organizing principle, as it is the foundation of the bottom up commune, which can be called ‘communal community ethics’.”²

In Switzerland this cooperative principle has not only been applied since 1848, but even before it had been an integral part of the “confederational” ethos for centuries.

Most of the cooperatives developed from the medieval cadastral constitution or in other words, they emerged from the “medieval common mark”. These early roots of the cooperative system are essential for the understanding of the Swiss political system. The historian Professor Dr Wolfgang von Wartburg writes:

“These small, natural, self-governing communities have been fertile ground and seminary of Swiss freedom and democracy and they are still today. The most extensive and most viable mark cooperatives could however be found in the mountains, where the joint alpine – and cattle farming was applied in the entire valleys.”³

In Switzerland, the Allmend, i.e. the common grounds or commons, were central to the spreading and organization of the cooperatives. These areas were used for pasture, as forest and badland and they had to be open to everyone. To establish their commons, the inhabitants of a village association – of one or more villages, hamlets or groups of farms – designated a specific area for collective economic use. A peasant family’s work was thus divided into three parts: Besides the agricultural land and the residential area with gardens and homesteads the commons represented a third zone, which was jointly administered. Since the early Middle Ages the European nobility had sought to dominate the common lands’ constitution or at least to influence it. In many places, including the territory of modern Switzerland, the cooperative principle could however be maintained. Due to the diversity of local conditions and human relations a variety of forms of cooperatives have developed over time.

For Switzerland, the preconditions of settlement history were particularly important. In the Swiss Central Plateau, where the dwellings concentrated and became villages, the common Mark or Allmend alongside with house, garden and fields was essential for all villagers. In the hilly Alpine foreland the farms united to so-called Allmend cooperatives. In many places of the Alps so-called valley cooperatives were established – on the basis of the valley communities as rural associations – as for example in Uri, Ursern, Schwyz, Glarus, Entlebuch, in the Grisons, the Valais and the Ticino valleys.

The Nobel Prize in Economy laureate Professor Dr Elinor Ostrom studied the basic “constitution of the commons” in a comprehensive, world-wide study.⁴ Based on historical examples from different continents, she revealed the importance of the cooperative principle for the present. By the example of the commons her study shows how people organize when facing scarce natural resources, in order to jointly solve complex problems. In her comprehensive studies Elinor Ostrom concludes that in many cases cooperation of those directly affected is better than state control or privatization if they want good management of their local commons and their resources. So she impressively appreciates the cooperative principle and clearly reveals its importance for the economies of the 21st century.

In the Middle Ages the commons formed an important foundation of social interaction; their rules provided order and security for the geographical area we now call Switzerland. Special types of cooperatives that serve specific purposes developed in addition to the commons which could be found in all agricultural villages until the 18th century.
The cooperatives developed a community-building spirit, without which the “Willensnation” Switzerland [forged by will not by language or culture] could never have emerged. Therefore, during the late Middle Ages and in Early Modern Age the rural or valley cooperatives took over other tasks of common work besides their traditional ones. Such were the maintenance of roads and bridges or water engineering, water supply, the building of churches or the duty to care for the poor. Thus, the rural and valley cooperatives developed slowly into rural and valley communities, the foundation of the future federal state.

Wolfgang von Wartburg writes about this process:

“The Swiss ideal of freedom has emerged from this human reality, not from an abstract idea [...]. Thus, the formation of the Swiss nation differs from all other state formations in Europe. It is not based on the desire for political unity, but rather on the desire to preserve the original character and freedom of the members, thereby helping to maintain their diversity. Its unity is not created by a superior power or by uniformity but by free cooperation in joint tasks.”⁵
The comrades became citizens of the village and the former village cooperatives developed into public village communities. By the time this led to the development of the so-called “Bürgergemeinde”* (citizens’ communes) that are still in existence in several cantons.

The Helvetic Republic of 1798 resulted in the separation of residents’ communes and citizens’ communes. The division of the commons was intensified then. Some commons were on lease or in private ownership, others were owned by residents’ communes, or corporations formed under private law. The corporations and citizens’ communes in Switzerland are still an important traditional good and establish human connections to a commune’s history and culture. In the Canton of Grisons, for example, the old rural cooperatives are still alive in the residents’ communes, so these are also the owners of most of the commons. In the central Swiss area around Bern the citizens’ communes as successors of the original rural cooperatives own the common property and manage it; this is also true for the Canton of Valais. In the north of the Alps and the Ticino, the corporations or corporate citizens’ communes are the owners and administrators of the commons.

Without the tradition of the commons and the described “cooperative spirit” in Switzerland the foundation of the Confederation in 1848 would never have taken place. Adolf Gasser emphasizes that this Swiss “cooperative spirit” always roots in the small unit, i.e. in the small neat unit of the commune, whose origin goes back to the cooperative principle. Only in such a unit a vibrant co-operative autonomy can develop. Adolf Gasser comments on that:
“Large-scale political bodies of national character could only develop in a cooperative spirit, if they emerged from an assembly of free, fortified people’s communes.”⁶

Based on the Swiss tradition of the commons and the cooperative, a large cooperative movement formed itself in the course of the 19th century, especially with the increasing industrialization. This movement – in Switzerland and in Europe – infiltrated into new industrial areas but not without preserving the basic cooperative principles. Apart from the agricultural cooperatives, other forms like the production cooperatives, consumer cooperatives, housing cooperatives as well as credit and savings cooperatives developed.

The cooperative as a legal form was established in 1881 in the Swiss code of obligations and was becoming increasingly popular. Thus the number of cooperatives massively increased in Switzerland around the turn of the century (in 1883: 373; in 1890: 1,551; in 1910: 7,113). Above all, the most important reasons were the recurrent crises of the capitalist economy. With the big crisis of the 1930s the founding of cooperatives strongly rose again, until they reached a culmination point in 1957 with more than 12,000 cooperatives.

Barely half of the cooperatives were of agricultural nature; in addition, new ones came from tertiary sectors, as for example the electricity industry. After the Second World War building and housing cooperatives were founded and promoted particularly often.

Today in Switzerland there still are more than 12,000 cooperatives.

Elinor Ostrom lists principles for a successful economic activity as a résumé of her research about the commons. She was able to monitor these principles on the basis of examples worldwide. They serve as an approach towards economic problems. If we followed them in Switzerland we would continue a long cooperative tradition and pursue it in a dignified manner. Ostrom’s cooperative principles are the following:

1. Clearly defined boundaries and an effective exclusion of external non-entitled parties.
2. Rules for appropriation and provision of resource units must be related to local conditions.
3. Users can participate in modifying operational rules so that an improved adaptation to changing conditions becomes possible.
4 Monitoring of compliance with the rules.
5. Graduated sanctions in case of violations of rules.
6. Conflict-resolution mechanisms.
7. The independent rights of communes are not challenged by superior governmental authorities. (subsidiary principle)

2. Communal autonomy

Historically, about 2700 communes have originated from the cooperative idea in Switzerland. They are associations of citizens with the goal of collectively solving the forthcoming tasks. Their basic tasks are electing the communal authorities, fixing the tax rates, building communal roads, school houses and kindergartens,  public swimming pools and town halls, hospitals and libraries, the support of the fire brigade and much more. More recently new tasks have come up like garbage disposal and sewage treatment. Thus the tasks of the old cooperatives are being continued today, but complemented by current areas of life in modern Swiss communal administrations. The fundament of communal autonomy that has grown from the bottom up, however, has not changed: The inhabitants of the commune conduct the business dealings like they have always done, together in shared self-responsibility and that is why they feel connected with their commune and its people. It is for a good cause that Switzerland is called the “nation of communes”, since nowhere else communes enjoy such freedom and self-administration to such a high degree. The significance of the commune as the “school of direct democracy” results from these facts.

3. The militia system

Another manifestation of the communal attitude is the militia system in the communes. It is beyond argument that the militia activities of the local inhabitants inhere not only human and social but also financial advantages. The citizens’ voluntary and often honorary cooperation in the commune complies with the continuation of the cooperative tradition. The militia principle is part of the social existence and is one reason, why people are rooted in their communes. Every active citizen knows that they are needed here and that their personal contribution is important for the commune.
In the Swiss army, this militia principle exists as well and is manifest in a militia army which is well-rooted in the population. But also in politics the militia principle is present at all levels. All Swiss parliaments and many executive offices are committed to the militia principle, that is to say that people holding a political office do not carry out this work on a full-time basis. Since we virtually don’t know professional politicians in Switzerland, politicians are much more closely connected with their population.

4. Direct democracy

In the direct democracy the electorate as the sovereign practises their sovereign rights immediately by elections and votes. This means that people do not only elect the authorities, but also decide on subject questions. In the differentiated federalist system of Switzerland direct democracy plays a paramount role, particularly at the local level. The carefully applied subsidiarity principle makes sure that the communes govern themselves as the state’s cells to a large extent. Therefore in many communes citizens can directly take part in political matters. In the communal assembly every elector is a representative of the population who can join in the debate and have a say. Hence, the communal assembly is regarded as the best school of direct democracy.

The numerous votes in Switzerland are an expression of the citizens’ rights. By means of the initiative or the referendum people possess extensive rights of co-determination and can be politically active at communal, cantonal and federal level. Until today the initiative and the referendum do not present too high a barrier; whoever talks to his fellow-citizens and initiates a fair political debate is able to collect the requested  signatures in due time.
The fundament of direct democracy is the communal autonomy. This closeness to citizens guarantees that the individual citizen is more involved in the general political process. Therefore the regionally differing concerns of the population are met with greater consideration. The citizen is enabled to get involved with subject matters, that he considers important, without any detour around parties or parliamentarians. Thanks to the peoples’ rights the minorities, which are not represented in parliament, can also make themselves heard. Therefore discussions brought up by initiatives and referendums guarantee the concerned parties that their wishes are seriously considered. The whole political process thereby gains transparency and depth. By such procedure, the losing party is rather willing to accept and share the final decisions. Direct democracy is also a guarantor for social peace and protects against unwelcome power concentration. With the help of direct democracy Switzerland was able to take successful counter-measures against misguided developments and found humane solutions in the course of  its history.

In economic regard as well a good report can be written out to direct democracy. Thus according to empiric studies three economists came to the result that direct democracy in Switzerland, is modern, successful, developable and exportable.7 Direct democracy, according to the authors, leads to economically as well as politically more efficient solutions in comparison to purely representative systems. They support their statements with statistical analyses and prove that, among other things, in direct-democratically governed communes expense policy is more carefully handled and that the population’s tax morale is better and one can assess a higher economic performance in general. All in all, direct democracy has a beneficial effect on economic development.

5. Federalism and subsidiarity

Federalism is one of the main pillars in the structure of the Swiss Confederation. Federalism means, that the sovereign rights and assignments in a federal state are divided between the central state (in Switzerland: the Confederation) and constituent states (in Switzerland: the Cantons). Whereas in a centrally organized state, as for example France, the single départments fulfil primarily administrative tasks, in the federalist state the significance and political weight of the member states is much further extended. A feature of the federalist order is the principle that the independence of every member remains protected. Real federalism behaves according to the principle of subsidiarity, i.e. the higher level leaves all assignments to the lower level, which can be fulfilled by this, and intervenes only if necessary to complement and to facilitate.

In Switzerland the federalist principle is particularly pronounced, i.e. the position of the cantons is very important because of the history of the Confederation. Since in 1291 the federation was concluded between Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden, the number of federate “places” (“Orte”, i.e. cantons) has expanded more and more  in the course of the centuries, and it was always about pacts between sovereign states. Up to the setting up of the federal state in 1848 the Confederation remained a federation of states, therefore an alliance between independent states (if one disregards the short and forced experiment of Napoleon during the Helvetic Republic).

The Swiss “Tagsatzung” committee (assembly of the delegates of the cantons) that worked out the first Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation in 1848 in the record time from February to September accomplished the masterpiece of creating the basis of our federal state in such a way that a peaceful and constructive cooperation of all cantons became possible up to this day.

The strong emphasis on the federalist principle in the Federal Constitution of 1848 also made it possible for the cantons that were defeated during the “Sonderbund”war to affirm the new order of state in the course of the next decades in spite of their initial resistance. The historian Prof. Dr Georg Thürer writes in this sense:

“Only conciliation could create a healthy peace. The federal state does not want to melt down its federate states, but integrate them. Thus the town halls of the cantons remained sites of the government; they did not become bare administration buildings of an omnipotent alliance. […] To us the federal state is the intrinsic political existence. […] The cantons and the communes are political entities where one can keep the overview, which save us from seeing only the cold hand in the state. In the democratic small form one feels rather as a pillar and not only as victim of politics. What lifts the delight in responsibility in political life, however, is not any time soon paid for too highly.”⁸

The most important contents of the federalist order in the Swiss federal state are the two-chamber system, the prerequisite of the cantons’ majority to pass constitutional amendments, the principle of sovereignty of the cantons as well as the principle of subsidiarity:

The two-chamber system:

In the Council of States every canton has two and every half canton has one representative (Article 150 of the Swiss Federal Constitution, Bundesverfassung, BV). Therefore, all cantons in the small chamber have the same political weight, irrespectively of the size of their population. This has far-reaching consequences because the State Council has the same competence as the National Council, the representation of the population.

The requirement of the majority of states (cantons) for constitutional amendments:

Amendments of the Federal Constitution, the accession to organizations for collective security (e.g., NATO) or to supranational communities (e.g., UN, the EU) as well as the approval of federal laws declared as urgent by the Federal Council have to be submitted to the mandatory referendum; which means that a plebiscite is compelling. Prerequisite for the approval of a bill is not only the majority of the voters, but also the majority of the cantons affirming the bill, the so-called “majority of states”. (Art. 140 BV). Every constitutional amendment or law amendment has to pass not only the National Council, but has also to obtain the majority of votes in the Council of States. Afterwards in the plebiscite every constitutional amendment must not only attain the majority of the voices (popular majority), but also the hurdle of the majority of states.  So, in the course of the history of the Swiss federal state, the Council of States has often “forced” the National Council to assume a more moderate solution; and it happened very seldom that people and cantons gave opposite votes in a referendum, nevertheless, the majority of states plays an extremely important prophylactic role. With the elaboration of a bill the Federal Council and the Parliament to always keep in mind that it must be accepted in  a plebiscite; therefore, a bill, which would have no chance to achieve the majority of votes of the cantons, has to be accordingly adjusted in parliament.

The principle of sovereignty of the cantons and the principle of subsidiarity:

Besides the two-chamber system and the majority of states as a condition for constitutional amendments the principle of sovereignty of the cantons and with it the principle of subsidiarity are among the essential features of the federalism of Swiss origin.

“The Cantons are sovereign except to the extent that their sovereignty is limited by the Federal Constitution. They shall exercise all rights that are not vested in the Confederation.” (Art. 3 BV)

According to Article 3 of the Federal Constitution the cantons are basically sovereign, i.e. they determine their affairs themselves, they rule and administer their state independently. In Switzerland the concept “state” signifies canton: “state taxes”, e.g., are taxes which are raised by the cantons – in contrast to the “federal taxes”; the “state archive” is a cantonal archive; etc. The cantons practice all rights according to Article 3 BV, which are not transferred to the Confederation. The Confederation is exclusively entitled to that competence, which is expressly granted by the constitution. That means:  federal law has subsidiary character. The relation of the cantons to their communes is regulated by the particular constitutions of the cantons.

An important result of the federalist and subsidiary system in Switzerland – combined with the direct democracy – is a sustainable financial policy.

6. Sustainable financial policy – the “debt brake”

An important reason for the comparably good condition of the Swiss state budget is the so-called “debt brake”, which has been in operation at the federal level since the year 2003.

Wording of Art. 126 in the Swiss Federal Constitution (BV) debt brake:
Art. 126 Financial management

1    The Confederation shall maintain its income and expenditure in balance over time.

2    The ceiling for total expenditure that is to be approved in the budget is based on the expected income after taking account of the economic situation.

3    Exceptional financial requirements may justify an appropriate increase in the  ceiling in terms of paragraph 2. The Federal Assembly shall decide on any increase in accordance with Article 159 paragraph 3 letter c.

4    If the total expenditure in the federal accounts exceeds the ceiling in terms of paragraphs 2 or 3, compensation for this additional expenditure must be made in subsequent years.

5    The details are regulated by law.
In Switzerland the people have the responsibility for the economical dealings concerning its tax revenues. The Swiss people determine the height of their taxes themselves and as well the projects of the state. They do so by vote at the ballot box or at the communal assembly. In the Confederation, in the cantons and communes the citizens decide whether the tax rate is to be raised, about the introduction or abolition of certain kinds of taxes and about a variety of expenses of the public purse. As a rule, they do so reasonably and considerately, as the comparably good conditions of finances at all three levels prove.

•    The debt brake of Article 126 BV was not decided by the authorities but by the people, with a large majority of votes in fact. On 2 December 2001 84.7 per cent of the electorate and all “Stände” (cantons) approved this new constitutional amendment and by doing so they mandated the Federal Council and the Parliament to provide for the balance of the budget, i.e. to ensure that the expenses of the Confederation did not exceed the revenues in the course of the years. So the sovereign himself took over the responsibility that the debts would not get out of hand.

•    In most of the cantons the electorate approved laws on a debt brake by the ballot box or they did not call for a referendum respectively. Consequently in the cantons as well, the citizens obliged the authorities to restrain expense.

•     In most Swiss communes the voters determine the budget at the communal assemblies, that means they determine all scheduled expenses of the coming years. Every school reconstruction and every computer replacement (often still operable) are being checked by the taxpayers whether necessary. After every fiscal year the communal assembly checks the account: the executive is requested to render satisfactory explanations about every overshooting budget element of expenditure. Therefore there is practically no misappropriate management, let alone corruption.

•    Furthermore only in big cities communal councilors and communal presidents work on a full-time basis; in smaller communes they hold their office alongside with occupation in the economy, therefore their earnings are mostly modest. In the majority of cases Swiss communes are not much indebted since the people handle their own money economically.

In Switzerland cantons and communes have a pronounced financial autonomy; that means they do not just receive money out of the public purse, which they spend as generously as possible in order to obtain even more money in the following year. Instead every canton and every commune is itself responsible for its budgeting, i.e. organization of its income and expenditure. Consequently the federal budget is relatively small compared to that of other states.
“Only the combination of institutional restraints (rules and debt brakes), direct democracy and federal system are able to contain public indebtedness. In Switzerland financial autonomy of cantons and communes is accompanied by a higher degree of self-responsibility (fiscal aquivalence)”.⁹

7. Consociational democracy

Besides direct democracy the Swiss model of democracy is distinguished by the so-called consociational democracy. Most of the other democratic systems are organized as competitive democracies. In consociational democracy – in opposition to competitive democracy – it is not the principle of majority rule that prevails as the political system’s central mechanism of decision making. In consociational democracy amicable agreement and broadly supported compromise solutions have priority other than in competitive majority rule with alternating roles of government and opposition. All important political parties are included in the decision process and when allocating political offices and leading positions in the administration, army or judiciary the parties are considered in proportion to their numerical strength. Swiss consociational democracy began to emerge in the course of the 1930ies, following the overcoming of the ideologically polarizing conflict between the workers’ movement and bourgeois forces.

One expression of consociational democracy is the so-called “magic formula” which refers to the composition of the Federal Council (executive at the federal level). The four numerically strongest parties send their delegates to the Federal Council. That provides stability to the political system and results in a certain continuity and therefore reliability.

8. Neutrality

A definition of Swiss neutrality is not to be found in any law. The obligation of Federal Council and Parliament to preserve neutrality is laid down in the 1999 Federal Constitution; however, it was not mentioned in the Constitution until the year 2000. However this stately maxim of neutrality had been so self-evident in historical tradition that the founders of the Federation in 1848 did not consider it necessary to lay it down in writing. For the Swiss people of the present as well neutrality is an indispensable basis of their “Eidgenossenschaft” (Confederation). In a recently published poll by the Swiss Federal Institue of Technology Zurich (ETHZ), 95% advocated the preservation of neutrality.

We find the origin of Switzerland’s peace promoting activities and their linking to the neutrality principle in the history of the “Alte Eidgenossenschaft” (Old Confederation). As early as in the Middle Ages the “alten Orte” (“old localities” – these are today’s cantons) were obliged to “sit still” in case of conflicts within the Confederation, which means not to help any of the parties. They were even commissioned to an active neutrality policy: In case of controversies between the other cantons they were requested to try and initiate mediation. These two components - non-interference and offering their Good Services in case of conflict – have persisted to this day.

With respect to foreign policy Switzerland began to observe neutrality after the Thirty Years War (1648); it guarded itself from being drawn into foreign conflicts by denying all foreign troops the crossing of the country. After the break-down of Napoleon’s regime in 1815 the Confederation finally pledged itself to neutrality forever; it was then that Switzerland’s permanent and armed neutrality was acknowledged by the Great Powers as well.
What are the contents of the Swiss state maxim of neutrality?

•    The Swiss neutrality is a “permanent” one: That means, it is not dependant on the world’s momentary situation, but it is valid in times of war as well as in times of peace.

•    Neutrality is particularly important in times of war: Thus thousands of refugees found shelter in Switzerland during the First and Second World War. In the middle of the Second World War, when Switzerland had been surrounded by war areas for years, wounded soldiers of the German and the allied troops could be exchanged on Swiss ground; in no other country this would have been possible. Tens of thousands of children from war-affected countries spend a three-months recreation vacation in Swiss guest families; many of them are still in contact with each other up to this day.

•    Quite naturally, the permanent neutrality comprises the obligation to start no war and not to align with one war party against another.

•    The exceptionality of Swiss neutrality is visible in peace times as well: Switzerland is obliged to actively pursue neutrality policies, i.e. to treat all nations impartially with respect to politics and economics.

•    To renounce participation in military alliances like NATO is part of permanent neutrality.

•    Swiss neutrality is armed neutrality: This includes the obligation to defend the country and population in case of an attack or threat.

•    On the other hand the Swiss neutrality principle does not contain any restriction of the freedom of expression. It is self-evident that we, the Swiss, take a stand, if in any other country international law or human rights are violated. Politicians and authorities have this right to utter their opinion, as well. Everybody who does not pursue any other goal but seeking the truth knows well that the overwhelming majority of the Swiss population and politicians was opposed to National Socialism at the times of the Second World War and also voiced these opinions.

•    Switzerland’s neutrality does not only serve the own country. Quite the opposite: It is today’s world in particular with its wars and inherent human misery which is in urgent need of neutral states who are not involved in any political and military alliances.

•    A significant benchmark of Switzerland’s path of neutrality policy was the founding of the Red Cross in Geneva in 1863. Only a neutral small state was able – and still is today – to assume the honorable role of the main body responsible of the ICRC, since the trust of all involved governments and all involved population groups is an indispensable precondition for successful humanitarian activities. The same is of course true for the “Good Services”, e.g. in form of mediation activities and protective power mandates. The neutral ground that our country is able to provide is also valuable for the meetings of parties at enmity. According to a study of thr ETHZ currently 93% of the Swiss population belief “in the role of Switzerland as a mediator and intermediary due to its neutrality.”¹⁰ It is known world-wide that Swiss diplomats, ICRC delegates and other humanitarian helpers have earned the trust of people and governments due to the neutrality of Switzerland and its independence from great powers and international organizations.     •

^{1    Gasser, Adolf: Gemeindefreiheit als Rettung Europas. Grundlinien einer ethischen Geschichtsauffassung, zweite, stark erweiterte Auflage, Basel 1947, page 13.
2    Gasser, Gemeindefreiheit, page 18.
3    Von Wartburg, Wolfgang: Geschichte der Schweiz, München 1951, S. 17.
4    Ostrom, Elinor: Die Verfassung der Allmende. Jenseits von Staat und Markt, Tübingen 1999.
5    Von Wartburg, Geschichte, page 11f.
6    Gasser, Gemeindefreiheit, page 14
7    Kirchgässner, Gebhard; Feld, Lars P.; Savioz, Marcel R.: Die direkte Demokratie. Modern, erfolgreich, entwicklungs- und exportfähig, Basel 1999.
8    Thürer, Georg: Gemeinschaft im Staatsleben der Schweiz, Bern 1998, page 23.
9    Feld, Lars; Kirchgässner, Gebhard: Sustainable Fiscal Policy in a Federal System: Switzerland as an Example, CREMA Working Paper No. 16, 2005
10    www. news.admin.ch/message/index.html?lang=de&print_style=yes&msg-id=44710.}

^{* According to the bottom-up built political system, Swiss citizenship is attached to or granted by a local commune. Connected with this is the citizenship of the canton the commune belongs to and the citizenship of Switzerland. The “Bürgergemeinde” (or “Ortsbürgergemeinde” or “Ortsgemeinde”) thus is the statutory corporation which includes all individuals having their citizenship in this commune.}