»The people must now take action!« was the headline of the »Blick«, the biggest Swiss tabloid. What triggered this martial appeal was not a political scandal that had shaken the foundations of the state, nor was it a call to finally do something about criminal asylum-seekers (although such headlines have appeared in the past; these days, however, the paper has leftist tendencies, which is another story). No, the reason was the sad showing of the national skiing team at the world championships in Bormio; it was unable to win a single medal. This was of course a disgrace for Switzerland as a skiing nation, and provoked the anxious question: do the Austrians perhaps have better snow? A problem, indeed, and not least for tourist advertising. But even after reading the article, it remained a mystery how the »people« would be able to remedy this terrible plight. The fundamental Swiss faith in the miraculous powers of direct democracy was once more revealed, all the more clearly. The people and the mountains: an unbeatable combination.

Change of scene. At the start of December 2004, Thomas Hirschhorn, one of the stars of the young Swiss art scene, opened his exhibition »Swiss-Swiss Democracy« in the Centre culturel Suisse de Paris. The invitations showed pictures of torture from the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq above the emblems of the three founding cantons – Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden –, all accompanied by the slogan »I love democracy«. In the exhibition, a wide range of material was presented, including newspaper clippings, books, videos and model train sets. All this was thrown together to form a domestic interior and toy landscape and swathed in thick layers of brown packing tape, which gave the exhibition a slightly unappetising colour and a smell to match. In addition, there was also a performance of the play »William Tell«, in which one actor threw up into a ballot box and another, imitating a dog, cocked its leg on a picture of the extreme right-wing politician and new minister of state Christoph Blocher. That is how it was described next day in the newspapers, and the scandal was inevitable.

Although Blocher himself said nothing about the exhibition, his seconds sharply attacked the artist and the cultural foundation Pro Helvetia, which had financed the project to the tune of around 200,000 francs (ca. 130,000 euros). Once more, the question was asked about what state-backed artists were allowed to do and what not, and whether the cultural foundation was responsible for promoting Switzerland abroad or for showing contemporary art that was sometimes critical of the country (the Austrian government has anticipated this discussion by preventively shutting down the corresponding institutions). After a short and heated discussion in the Swiss Council of States (Ständerat), Pro Helvetia had its budget cut by a million francs down to 33 million francs. This, although barely any of the representatives had seen the exhibition. The National Council, which sat a few days later, did not want to follow this proposal, but because the lower budget always wins out when there is a budgeting argument between the chambers, the cuts went into force nonetheless. Practical solutions à la suisse.
Hirschhorn, who had shown a similar work at the same time in the London Tate without arousing anything like this kind of media response, explained his intentions in an interview as follows: »For me, democracy is never an ideal, but always only a practical realisation. And because it is a realisation, it has mistakes, and for this reason I am allowed to criticise it, I must criticise it. I think there is nothing more luxurious than to say today: >I am a democrat< - in view of the world.« All sorts of abuses are indeed carried out with the complacent equation »democracy = good«, but that is not new at all. For example, it was the eastern part and not the western part of Germany that had the word »Democratic« in its title for decades without concerning itself especially with political freedoms. So why the scandal? Only because it is suggested that even Swiss democracy is not above suspicion? But, since the debate on »Nazi gold«, even this realisation is not as shocking as it may once have been.

No, the scandal flared up mainly because Hirschhorn’s exhibition could be used vicariously to fight out a conflict over the most controversial political issue in Switzerland: where are the limits of direct democracy? For the populist right-wingers associated with Blocher, there is no authority that can legitimately override the people’s will as expressed in ballots. What is more, they say, there is (potentially) no issue upon which the people cannot decide. As a result, for example, there are communities in Switzerland where applications for Swiss citizenship are decided at the ballot box, which creates severe human rights problems, as the practice is clearly discriminatory (all applications by immigrants from the former Yugoslavia were rejected). But what are human rights in comparison with the authentic will of the people? Underlying this already heated discussion is the even more controversial, and crucial, issue: Switzerland’s relationship to the EU. The left wants to join, the right doesn’t want to at any price. And the centre? It doesn’t know.

Accordingly, the main sufferer is not the left (it is eminently able to argue in a populist way itself and win ballots), but the bourgeois centre. After holding the political and economic power in the country for decades and following an upper-class, liberal course, it has lost its authority and influence in massive fashion. In an ideological regard, the heart of Swiss identity, direct democracy, is firmly in the grasp of the new right, and its interpretation of it is shared far beyond party borders. The concomitant populism causes the centre serious concern. For example, a few months back the interior minister, a centrist, accused the right of »mythologizing the people« by depicting it as infallible and the final authority in all questions. But because Switzerland has a coalition government (consisting of four parties that together make up around eighty percent of the votes) based on the so-called »concordance system«, this discussion was quickly stifled; after all, everybody had to work together again the next day.

Hirschhorn now touched on this sore point. His criticism does not differ much from that of the minister, even if he formulates it in a much cruder fashion and without regard to political niceties. For this reason, the interior minister, who is also in charge of cultural affairs, but actually has some sympathy for such escapades, was forced to take the part of Hirschhorn and Pro Helvetia and defend artistic liberty. He did not do this with very much conviction, and he won’t have been particularly worried by the fact that the money was cut anyway.
But what is to happen with the million francs saved? Perhaps it should be given to the skiers, who are even worse off than the artists – that would be very much in accordance with the will of the people. It would also be a very nice confirmation of Hirschhorn’s analysis: the play shown at the exhibition ends with three actors sitting on a sofa, declaiming: »We are free! We are free!« Then they curl up unter a big poster of William Tell and fall asleep.

Reprinted from »kulturrisse« 0105 with kind permission.

»Swiss-Swiss Democracy« was on display from 4 December to 30 January 2005 in the Centre culturel suisse de Paris.

 

Translated by Timothy Jones

 

---