Switzerland’s federal structure, which has long served as a point of reference in talks on the Cyprus issue, and its historical trajectory, which explains the unique model of governance it follows

Switzerland is known around the world for many reasons: its neutrality, its banking system, the Alps, luxury watches, chocolate, and cheese, among others. However, it is also known for its unique form of federalism. According to the country’s ambassador to Cyprus in a recent lecture, Switzerland does not export this model. This is because Switzerland’s model is very different from that of almost every other country in the world, due to the unique characteristics that define it. One country that can be cited as a comparable example to Switzerland in terms of the composition of its native population and the history of conflicts that shaped it is none other than Cyprus. It is no coincidence, after all, that the federal model applied in Switzerland has for years served as a point of reference for the Cypriot situation. It was specifically cited during the talks leading up to the submission of the Annan Plan as an example that, with certain modifications to account for Cyprus’s unique characteristics, could serve as the basis for a solution to the problem regarding governance.

As a continuation of its series of analyses on the Cyprus Issue, “Alpha on Sunday” seeks to identify the elements that make up Switzerland’s state structure, as well as the unique features of its human geography and history, which have made it a model for Cyprus.

A Profile of Switzerland

Switzerland borders France, Italy, Germany, Austria, and Liechtenstein—countries with which it shares common cultural elements. For example, Switzerland’s official languages are German, French, Italian, and Romansh—a Romance language that combines elements of the other three. The constitution enshrines all four languages as official, even though German is spoken by 66% of the population, French by 26%, Italian by 7%, and Romansh by just 0.5%, with all official government documents available in French, Italian, and German. All this in a country with a population of 9.14 million, covering an area of 41,291 square kilometers—that is, nearly 4.5 times the size of Cyprus.

The country’s official name, the Swiss Confederation, often causes confusion in discussions in Cyprus, where there is frequently a misconception that a confederation can also mean a sovereign state. In essence, this is a name that emerged through the country’s historical development. Its founding began with confederal arrangements when, in 1291, the three founding cantons—at that time small states within the Holy Roman Empire—Uri, Schwyz, and Uterwalden—signed a defensive alliance against the Habsburgs, while remaining nominally under the sovereignty of the ailing Empire. The common defense that the agreement aimed to achieve—and did achieve—was intended to protect trade in these specific regions, and for this reason, it included provisions for resolving disputes between the cantons and administering justice at the civil level. The agreement is also considered Switzerland’s first constitutional document.

Switzerland’s development into an independent state continued over the centuries, with even more communities signing similar defense agreements, which evolved into a unified system of agreements that formed the Old Swiss Confederation of 13 cantons. This system created a de facto state-within-a-state within the borders of the Holy Roman Empire, from which it officially gained independence in 1648, although the power of the cantons was such that foreign policy remained fragmented, with Switzerland not yet having taken on the integrated form of a sovereign, centralized state. This changed with the adoption of the federal constitution of 1848, after the country had endured religious conflicts between Catholic and Protestant cantons between the 16th and 19th centuries.

Switzerland’s Federal Structure

Christoph Burgener, Swiss Ambassador to Cyprus, describes his country as a mosaic of 26 cantons, 2,500 municipalities, and a single state. He distinguishes the cantons by the differences between them, through “harmony in diversity” and “diversity in harmony.” As he noted at a recent event, each canton has its own strong identity, traditions, culture, and way of life, beyond language and religion. Mr. Burgener made these remarks to highlight the strong autonomy enjoyed by the cantons while the state maintains its cohesion.

Each of the 26 cantons that make up the country has its own constitution, government, parliament, and courts. Because the country is a union of many small states within a single nation, it is traditionally considered that the cantons have ceded part of their powers to the central government, rather than the other way around. This, however, is noted as part of the Swiss political tradition. In essence, Switzerland was established as a sovereign federal state when its modern constitution was drafted in 1848. It is through the state’s constitution that the limits of the powers of the central government and the cantons are defined, and it is through this that the country derives its single international personality, sovereignty, and independence. The country’s constitution grants the central government the powers it may exercise, while the remaining powers belong to the cantons.

To understand the connection between the Swiss federal system and the discussions in Cyprus regarding a loose federation, one need only consider that the cantons make autonomous decisions regarding the following:

• education
• health and hospitals
• law enforcement
• culture
• local government
• public administration
• urban planning and land use
• a significant part of taxation
• justice
• religious affairs

A relevant example is taxation, where the cantons have the authority to decide on the imposition of taxes, tax rates, and the approval of their budgets. Municipal taxes are decided at the local government level, while citizens are required to pay additional taxes imposed at the federal level.

As for citizen representation, as in all federal states, the Swiss Federal Parliament is divided into two chambers. The National Council, the lower house, represents the country’s population, with seats allocated to the cantons on a proportional basis. In the Council of States, which is comparable to the U.S. Senate, the cantons are represented equally by two members each, while six so-called half-cantons are represented by one member each. For laws to be passed, the consent of both chambers is required. Amending the country’s constitution requires a majority in each chamber separately, in order to protect the unity of the state and, at the same time, to safeguard the smaller and less powerful cantons from the larger and more powerful ones.

Within the framework of the separation of powers, the Swiss Federal Constitution stipulates that decisions affecting citizens’ daily lives must be made as close to them as possible. For this reason, not only do the cantons enjoy broad and strong autonomy, but so do local governments. Consequently, the 2,500 municipalities have decision-making authority over a range of areas:

• elementary education
• water supply and irrigation
• local services
• urban planning
• municipal taxes

An even greater direct connection between government and citizens is evident in municipalities with small populations, where citizens make decisions on basic, everyday issues in open municipal assemblies. At the national level, a telling example is the widespread use of referendums, through which citizens can reject laws, amend the constitution, or initiate legislation.

There are cases where decision-making authority is transferred to a higher level, that is, from local government to the canton or from the canton to the central government, when the lower level is unable to exercise authority effectively. At the federal level, the powers defined by the constitution are intended to ensure the country’s unity, its national sovereignty, and its international identity. For this reason, the central government is limited to a number of powers, many of which concern the establishment of the national framework within which powers are exercised at the cantonal level, such as:

• defense and security
• foreign policy
• monetary policy
• customs and border control
• a large part of social security
• citizenship, immigration, and asylum
• a unified framework for civil and criminal law and basic rules of procedure
• civil aviation
• energy planning
• a national public health framework for crisis management and communicable diseases
• regulation of the financial system
• Regulation of the competition framework and the single market
• coordination among cantons
• Supreme Court

The fundamental difference in the Swiss system lies in Article 3 of the Constitution, which reverses the logic of a centralized state by distributing powers to the cantons, while preserving the essence of federalism, which ensures the country’s unity, national sovereignty, and international legal personality. Unlike other federal states, in Switzerland the basic principle is that “the cantons are sovereign, except to the extent that their sovereignty is limited by the Federal Constitution. They exercise all rights not delegated to the Confederation.” In the event of a conflict of jurisdiction, the question that arises is whether the Constitution assigns authority to the central government. If not, then the authority automatically belongs to the cantons, without requiring any additional action, thereby establishing that the presumption of authority favors the cantons. In the other federal states, the presumption of jurisdiction lies with the federal government; that is, any authority not explicitly delegated to the cantons is automatically presumed to belong to the central government.

The Swiss Ambassador analyzed the Swiss federal system, accepting the invitation to the event in question with the caveat that the presentation was not intended to influence the current effort to resume talks on the Cyprus issue, nor is it a precursor to any plan. It is, however, a historical fact that the Swiss model has consistently been brought to the negotiating table as a practical example. The same is true of the Belgian model, which “Alpha tis Kyriakis” will attempt to analyze next week.