There are several countries that, in my mind, symbolize tolerance and openness to different cultures. The Netherlands was one of them, until the rise of right-wing politics best represented by Geert Wilders as its public persona. Switzerland was probably one of few that belonged to this class. The reputation of Swiss humanitarianism further enhanced that image. Such generalization is mostly likely naive, especially after the successful referendum to specifically ban the building of minarets in that little Alps country.
I was aware of the movement to ban it much, much earlier but somehow I considered it as a fringe group’s initiative that was likely to fail. What I did not know, or bother to find out was that the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), the one pushing the initiative, is a major party even if it does not dominate Swiss politics. It is in fact, the largest party in that country.[0] I have clearly underestimated influence of right-wing politics there.
The hostility to minarets is worrying not primarily because it is backed by coercion and really, an attempt at subjective measurement and imposition of taste, which is the classical response from libertarians. Behind the hostility is really incapability to tolerate religious differences and downright racism. A high-ranking SVP official said, “This was a vote against minarets as symbols of Islamic power.”[0a]
Granted, Muslims can practice their religion without the minarets. What matters in all religions should be sincere belief, however irrational such belief may be. Minarets, everything physical and if I may add, religious laws imposed by state as demanded by conservative Muslims, are just ostentatious showing of piety.
That however is not the issue. The issue is the drive behind the ban, which is xenophobia directed against Muslims.[0b] As rightfully pointed out by the Times, the yes vote “played on fears of militant Islam… There are some 350,000 Muslims in Switzerland, or 4 per cent of the population. Most bear as much similarity to the theocratic fanatics of al-Qaeda and the Taleban as Archbishop Rowan Williams does to the snakehandling sects of Appalachia.“[1]
It sends the message that Muslims are increasingly facing restriction in ways that they could practice their belief peacefully without causing actual discomfort to others. It sends a message of prejudice. The SVP’s black sheep poster sends an even stronger message of intolerance that really fueled the move to ban minarets.
It is a gross generalization to say the Swiss society is becoming intolerant in black and white terms, given that only 58% of voters voted yes. There is a sizable — very large — minority that is probably liberal enough to oppose the move. The federal government itself does not favor passing the motion. Moreover, turnout was in the low 50s. Unfortunately, 58% of yes out of total turnout is sufficient to sanction the state to ban it. More instructively perhaps, out of 22 out of 26 cantons — the highest administrative division in Switzerland — voted yes.[3]
There are more nuance to that fear that probably attracts centrist voters to the wrong side of the divide. Unlike in Malaysia where the accusation that foreigners commit disproportionately more crime than local which is not supported by statistics, statistics in Switzerland may actually indicate that Muslim immigrants disproportionately commit crime compared to Swiss. But the operative word is immigrants rather than Muslims. Yet, even that does not tell the whole story.
Like Indian students in Australia who seem to disproportionately become victims of crime probably because they live in unsafe neighborhood due to financial constraint (as well as a myriad of other factors),[4] financial constraint is probably the reason why these immigrants had to resort to crime. I am not absolving criminals but that issues of financial constraint which push groups to the societal margin has to be addressed. There are suggestions that this is a result of strict citizenship requirement.[5]
That problem of financial constraint should not be solved through means advocated by economic left, no. Immigrants would ripe disproportionate benefits while contributing very little. That is a recipe for other disaster. Rather, citizenship processes need to be liberalized and integration made easier. Without citizenship, these immigrants will find it hard to support themselves respectfully and contribute to betterment of Swiss society and beyond.
And of course, it is easier to lump good citizens and as well as good immigrants who are Muslims with Muslim immigrants who actually commit crime. That is the nature of generalization. It is easy to do.
But even if that issue is solved, I doubt SVP and all right-wingers there would be happy. A racist would only use issue such as that only as a proxy of his or her ultimate goal.
But all that is in Switzerland. What does it matter to Malaysia?
Our own xenophobic racists have one more example to refer to, saying, “they did it, why can we not do the same?”
That is not constructive.
There also a question of identity in Switzerland which immigration will affect in a big way. This not really a question of racism and it is a legitimate concern. However, the world is changing and the best way is to adapt.[6]
[0] — The proposal had been put forward by the Swiss People’s Party, (SVP), the largest party in parliament, which says minarets are a sign of Islamisation.[Swiss voters back ban on minarets. BBC. November 29 2009]
[0a] — But Martin Baltisser, the SVP’s general secretary, told the BBC: “This was a vote against minarets as symbols of Islamic power.” [Swiss voters back ban on minarets. BBC. November 29 2009]
[0b] — Supporters of a ban claimed that allowing minarets would represent the growth of an ideology and a legal system – Sharia law – which are incompatible with Swiss democracy. [Swiss voters back ban on minarets. BBC. November 29 2009]
[1] — The referendum held yesterday is different from these. Instead of seeking to balance the conflicting claims and allegiances that characterise modern democracy, it targets one group for discriminatory treatment. The ”yes” campaign played on fears of militant Islam. Its posters depicted a woman clad in a burka, alongside a forest of minarets that resembled missiles.
There are only four minarets in the whole country, and none is used to call the faithful to prayer. There are some 350,000 Muslims in Switzerland, or 4 per cent of the population. Most bear as much similarity to the theocratic fanatics of al-Qaeda and the Taleban as Archbishop Rowan Williams does to the snakehandling sects of Appalachia. Many come from the Balkans, where a Muslim population recently suffered ferocious persecution under the genocidal designs of Slobodan Milosevic. [Intolerance of Islam. Times. November 30 2009]
[2] — The nationalist Swiss People’s Party has led several campaigns against foreigners, including a proposal to kick out entire families of foreigners if one of their children breaks a law and a bid to subject citizenship applications to a popular vote.
The party’s controversial posters have shown three white sheep kicking out a black sheep and a swarm of brown hands grabbing Swiss passports from a box.
The current campaign posters showing missile-like minarets atop the national flag and a fully veiled woman have drawn anger of local officials and rights defenders. [Intolerance of Islam. Times. November 30 2009]
[3] — See Minarets controversy in Switzerland at Wikipedia.
[4] — The Senate Committee has criticised the state governments of Victoria and New South Wales for not providing public transport concessions to overseas students. This has been a long standing demand of groups representing Indian and other overseas students. Lack of public transport concessions has also been partly blamed as a reason for attacks on Indian students as they prefer to walk home to save fares. [Attacks on Indian students not racism: Australian Senate report. Economic Times. November 27 2009]
[5] — Over 20% of Switzerland’s population is foreign. Most have been in the country for many years, and around a third of them were born in Switzerland.
Swiss citizenship remains very difficult to come by, and being born in the country does not give the children or even grandchildren of immigrants the right to be Swiss.
Crime figures
The Swiss People’s Party claims that foreigners commit more crimes than the Swiss, and says this justifies deporting them and their families.
In fact, crime statistics are not at all clear, partly because not all Swiss regions count crime in the same way.
A recent study by the Federal Department for Foreigners found that while, at first glance, foreigners appear to be committing more crime than the Swiss, foreigners, especially young men, are also more likely to be charged – whereas young Swiss may be let off with a caution for the same offence.
The study also found that young foreigners living in Switzerland were more likely to be unemployed and living in socially deprived backgrounds, than the Swiss.
But despite the complex nature of the problem, the blunt approach has clearly struck a chord with many voters. [Swiss row over black sheep poster. BBC. September 17 2007]
[6] — To date there are only two mosques in the country with minarets but planners are turning down applications for more, after opinion polls showed almost half the population favours a ban. What is at stake here in Switzerland is not merely a dislike of foreigners or a distrust of Islam but something far more fundamental. It is a clash that goes to the heart of an identity crisis which is there throughout Europe and the US. It is about how we live in a world that has changed radically since the end of the Cold War with the growth of a globalised economy, increased immigration flows, the rise of Islam as an international force and the terrorism of 9/11. Switzerland only illustrates it more graphically than elsewhere. [Switzerland: Europe’s heart of darkness?. The Independent. September 7 2007]
2 replies on “[2120] Of future Swiss minarets, or lack of it”
Maybe, rightly or wrongly, it’s a protest against the ideology the minaret represents rather than the people who profess the faith that it represents? Like, maybe, they would object to having a swastika emblem on top of a building?
Having stayed in Switzerland for a substantial amount of time, I would just like to make a few points.
(personally, I don’t quite like the right-left division of politics – perhaps the political spectrum is more of a circle, you end up with the same totalitarian leadership no matter in which direction you travel)
re: SVP
The SVP is a pro-business, nationalist, conservative party. They are sometimes deemed to have taken over the classical liberalism mandate from the Radical Free Democratic Party – there is also another classical liberalism party, but it has a fairly small (but growing) following. As a conservative party, they seek to preserve the old Switzerland – especially when it comes to economic and political sovereignty. This is why they are against Switzerland having anything to do with the EU in general.
It is said that almost 40-50% of Swiss’ laws are determined by Brussels through bilateral treaties (figures as quoted by some Swiss legal expert). The socialist parties have thus agitated for Switzerland to join the EU, so that they can have a greater say in the legislative process – but to suggest that Switzerland as a small country could have much influence within the EU is patently absurd.
Swiss diplomacy throughout the ages have cleverly exploited a divide-and-conquer approach to fellow European countries. This can no longer be employed as the Lisbon treaty has consolidated and further empowered the EU polities.
Either way, unless a teleport machine is invented, Switzerland’s political and economic fate is tied to Europe – and being a small country, is subjected to the vicissitudes of the larger nations around it. The irony is that Switzerland’s sovereignty and
prosperity is best safeguarded under a splintered Europe regime.
There probably are closet racists/neo-Nazis who subscribe to the SVP – but even Obama counts unscrupulous idiots among his supporters anyway. But I am quite sympathetic to the SVP outlook – yet as I have pointed out, their political vision is increasingly difficult to implement in this age – when the EU carries greater weight, and isn’t shy to throw it around.
Perhaps it should be remembered that EU and Europe are not synonymous. It was only half a century ago when countries vied for self-determination – yet everyone is now scrambling to sign up to regional groupings at the expense of of national sovereignty. It is not this is bad per se – but much of the developments are imposed from without, rather than developed from within (which was the case with the Swiss system). As elected leaders are increasingly distant from the electorate, and the chain-of-command being lengthened – they become less reflective of the will of the people, and less understanding of the needs and whims of the people. So in my opinion, this is an anti-democratic exercise.
re: minaret ban
I am not defending the outcome of the Swiss referendum. But the ban was egged on by a large number of human rights groups, feminists, leftists who would traditionally oppose such measures. The reason is that the vote was not so much against minarets per se, but a perceived vote against the imposition of Sharia/Hudud law and the Islamization of Switzerland. The Swiss do not want parallel Sharia courts, which already has been the case in the UK. This further stirred on by fear, because you fear what you do not know.
The Netherlands (and even Sweden, but more muffled) has had similar developments too. Europe is struggling to cope with its Muslim demographics – yet somehow America doesn’t face similar pressures.
Switzerland has always been more conservative than libertarian to me – libertarian in that people should be free to live life as they please; conservative in that they want things – especially the good things – to be preserved as they are. To that end, they have a lot of rules – and boy, the Swiss LOVE their rules…
Those who expect no-frills, no responsibility, American ‘freedom’ will loathe Switzerland ;)
re: immigration policy
It is an open secret that Switzerland prefers white immigrants than those of other ethnicity. It is not a multi-cultural pot like the progressive Anglo-Saxon nations, but it is not too difficult to get citizenship if you qualify.
It is hard to qualify, of course – but not impossible. But you certainly do not want to prostitute your country’s citizenship – they should only be accorded to people who respect your values, and agree to abide with it. It is especially important for Switzerland due to her system of direct democracy.
The backlash against foreign immigrants is not unwarranted. In the past you could leave your doors unlocked and go on holiday, and yet find everything intact. This no longer applies, and foreigners are indeed largely responsible for the perpetration of crime. Some of these refugees are not genuine ones either.
From a perverse economic point-of-view, it is also better to have large numbers of your workforce who are not citizens. This is because when the economy contracts, your workforce is allowed to contract in proportion. The labour would then be reallocated to regions where economic growth was stronger – certainly it was how the world worked back then when immigration borders were porous.
Economic freedom is thus closely intertwined with freedom of labour movement – but this is no longer feasible in our era of nation-states. In its place is an unrelenting pressure to have economic growth keeping in pace with population growth.