With a messy form of federalist direct democracy, four official languages, two dominant religions, and a topography dissected by lofty mountain ranges, the continued existence of Switzerland is quite doubtful. In a long run of trials, Switzerland-type-nations are highly unstable. Of those that there ever were, the overwhelming majority have ceased to exist, and an even greater number of these states never came into existence at all. To a real scientist, the Switzerland on our maps is merely anecdotal.
April 7, 2011
Trollblog 
April 7, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Woot?!
Is this one of those texts that should include a note saying “sarcasm intended”… or are you serious?
“the continued existence of Switzerland is quite doubtful”…
It has been there fore the last many centuries. I was conceived in Switzerland and a 2.2% of my school classmates was born in Switzerland themselves. I even know people who has been in Switzerland in person, unlike, say, Guyana or Japan (who has ever been to Japan? – it must be a Hollywood studio or the Disney department of manga style!).
“In a long run of trials, Switzerland-type-nations are highly unstable”.
Examples?
“… and an even greater number of these states never came into existence at all”.
I bet you’ll find impossible to find any credible example of this obtuse category.
April 7, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Obviously you are know-nothing who rejects the laws of science.
April 7, 2011 at 2:51 pm
I’m still hoping for an “irony meant” tag somewhere. What laws of science? Are you talking of thermodynamics maybe?, gravity?, quantum mechanics?, mathematics? or just pointless statistical speculation?
April 7, 2011 at 2:53 pm
The laws of political science do not allow for the continued existence of Switzerland, which has gone on far too long already.
April 7, 2011 at 2:54 pm
I guess I should just say: occasional irony is to be expected here.
April 8, 2011 at 10:29 am
The key to understanding Switzerland is that as much as the Swiss Germans hate the Swiss French speakers and Swiss Italian speakers and vice versa, they hate the people right across the border a lot more. This is helped by the fact that the people across the borders regard the Swiss as dumb hicks who only care about money. Basically, hatred is a force for good, as you probably always suspected.
[Black-Michaud’s Cohesive Force makes exactly this point, showing how in stateless societies or in areas where the state authority is weak, feud, vendetta, and what seems to be random violence serve the necessary social function of marking boundaries and enforcing loyalty. This also makes the libertarian stateless utopia look pretty silly, because in stateless societies isolated individuals are dead meat, and people cohere into militarily organized groups, usually clans, which enforce strict discipline on their members in key respects. Romeo and Juliet was about this.]
April 8, 2011 at 10:56 am
I understand that the Swiss are united by the perception that the large countries around them are all insufficiently democratic (too centralized and too indirect the democracy).
The Swiss do not want to join EU at least until EU becomes like Switzerland, what is very much understandable considering everybody admires the Swiss democracy with its lack of presidents, its perpetual neutrality, its almost direct small-scale democracy, its strong decentralization (what means respect for peculiarities) and its high welfare standards.
The only think people does not really like about Switzerland is cold and banks.
It’s possible that if France, Italy, Germany and Austria (or EU in general) adopted the Swiss radical federal and radical democratic system, Switzerland as we know it would disappear. But, as Vitalstatix often says about the sky falling on our heads (the only thing his cartoon Gauls as said to fear): “that won’t happen any day soon”.
April 8, 2011 at 1:50 pm
My original point was that, under pretty much any realist theory of the nation-state, if Switzerland did not exist it would be declared to be impossible. The objective, realistic factors (geography, language, religion) leading to unity and stability just aren’t there. And second, under almost any realist theory of state functioning, if Switzerland did not actually exist, any state like the Swiss state would be judged to be intolerably archaic and inefficient, incapable of surviving in the modern world.
Probably all these theories have been be fitted with a kludge of ineffability to cover Switzerland, since it actually exists, but how do they deal with other outliers, different than Switzerland, which are possible but don’t actually exist?
April 22, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Nobody hates anybody here, that’s bullshit.
And yes, it’s true that Switzerland as a nation-state doesn’t exist, but individual cantons do, and they’re doing fine. And that’s the lesson.
April 24, 2011 at 10:08 pm
But why do the independent cantons exist? That’s even more impossible than the existence of Switzerland as a nation state.
Italy has usually been too weak to invade anyone, but why haven’t Austria or Germany or France sliced off chunks? Obviously Switzerland has some kind of mutual aid unity, but why don’t you see this anywhere else in the world? And why don’t the cantons fight one another?
Up to a certain point Swiss troops were fearsome, but it’s been centuries since they were a factor.
April 25, 2011 at 4:24 am
The cantons did fight each other once: there was a civil war some 150 years ago, won by the federalists.
Austria (Habsburg domains) was the power that was beaten by the Swiss when achieving independence. Since then they had a strong militia that dissuades almost any attack. Germany is too recent of a state, just like Italy and for them Switzerland is fait accomplí (not to mention the banks). The only potential threat would then have been France, which indeed intervened in the Napoleonic period and even annexed lesser chunks in the French-speaking area. But even France only reached the borders of Switzerland quite late, in the 18th century, when they annexed the Franché-Comté (or County of Burgundy).
So Switzerland has been most of its history isolated in an ocean of microstates belonging to the Holy Roman Empire, their main threat being Austria but a threat they defeated for good early on.
April 25, 2011 at 11:44 am
The “for good” is the mystery. And Germany’s recency didn’t keep them from trying to conquer France or Russia.
April 25, 2011 at 12:00 pm
There’s much misunderstanding about German expansionism.
The II Reich was pitted against the UK for the same reasons China and the USA will collide in the near futures: because Germany had surpassed the UK in GDP but the UK still had a military-imperial hegemony it could use to its advantage, including a French resentment against Germany from the Franco-Prussian war (and French imperialist interests in Rhineland, which culminated in the formation of EU eventually). I would not say that the II Reich was not militarist and all that but it’s clear that it was also pushed to war by factors they could not control and that London did manage much better.
The III Reich instead was indeed imperialist (and genocidal) in the full sense of the concept but they did not want to conquer France, not at all. They just wanted to conquer Russia, hoping to fuse their imperialism with the anti-communism that had pushed the Nazis to power, not just in Germany but also in London.
However the Brits were not interested in Germany conquering Russia on their own (they could become a true and reinforced competitor again, even the USA feared to some extent such outcome – what caused the war with Japan actually), so they tackled them in the preliminary step of conquering Poland.
You have a bit Hollywoodian idea of history. I strongly recommend you to read the joint work of Noam Chomsky and Heinz Dieterich “The Winners” (or maybe is “The Victors” – I have it in Spanish edition). Dieterich specially makes a masterful analysis of WWII, understanding the various imperialist positions of the various capitalist powers in terms that are known to any historian that does not idealize the USA or the UK. The Anglosaxon powers are after all just other capitalist and imperialist powers, with an starting advantage that they exploited very well – but with no or little moral edge of any sort: their motivations and those of Hitler or the Japanese generals were never any different.
But there is no oil in Switzerland, no rare earths, no rubber plantations, no major deposits of coal or iron. The only value of Switzerland was and is its armed neutrality and safehold for the banks and capital flows from all sides.
April 26, 2011 at 3:35 am
I see no particular reason for Prussia to have attacked Denmark twice. No oil in Denmark, no rare earths, no rubber plantations, no major deposits of coal or iron.
When does Switzerland’s banking come to have that importance? It’s the first plausible explanation that’s been given. Though you still have to explain the loyalty of the miscellaneous Swiss to Switzerland (they’re not all bankers). And then, why were Austria-Hungary’s military adventures in Italy and ex-Yugoslavia rather than in Switzerland?
I’m more or less willing to grant that the various imperialist powers were similar in nature.
April 26, 2011 at 8:51 am
By attacking Denmark they got Germany (besides Schlewig-Holstein, a mostly German region under Danish sovereignty just outside the Prussian border). Denmark also was never a small neutral state but a relatively important Northern power with a rather dynamic, not to say aggressive, policy of its own.
I’m not too knowledgeable on the matter but from what I see in Wikipedia, Prussia basically helped the rebel duchies in the first war, rather than “attacking” Denmark. One can well consider that it was Denmark attacking Germany (probably the Prussian viewpoint). The second war, being an extension of the first one can be considered (always arguably, of course) still part of the Danish aggression against German lands, states and nationals.
Of course, Prussia was a militarist expansive power and Denmark was just one of its many victims (Poland, Austria, France and the smaller German states were others)… But Switzerland was far away (before the German Unification of 1871), ruled largely by Germans themselves (no pretext of “defending the people”), well protected by a solid and prestigious popular army (popular armies are the most fearful of all armies, specially if well trained and in favorable terrain – all else equal, of course) and then also being a safehold for international financial institutions.
Not even Hitler attacked it, go figure. But I think it’s normal because it is a militarily well protected highly democratic republic. The cost is high and the reward low if any: why would anybody want to attack Switzerland, specially if Switzerland is not meddling around?
There was a time, early on in the history of Switzerland, when they did meddle around, specially in Italy. But eventually they realized (after being defeated by Milan, if I recall properly) that the risks were too high (losing independence or at least territory) and the rewards quite pointless. So they declared “perpetual neutrality” to this day.
“… why were Austria-Hungary’s military adventures in Italy and ex-Yugoslavia rather than in Switzerland?”
Because the Swiss kicked their ass already once and again in the early period. So eventually they decided that being kicked so hard once and again was not worth it and agreed to an status quo.
But this underlines that the main reason of Switzerland independence (and democracy) is a strong popular army. Because, as Machiavelli acknowledged, every constitution of an state is a constitution of its army.
Also Austria, or more properly the Eastern House of Habsburg, expanded largely while at war with the Ottomans – though also through a dynastic policy of mergers (typical of the House of Habsburg in general, also the Spanish branch). Switzerland, being a republic could not be annexed by such dynastic means (nor could Venice, which persisted till Napoleonic times, nor nearby tiny San Marino, which still exists against all odds).
April 26, 2011 at 2:30 pm
The early period you link ended in 1536. I cannot believe that in 1736 or 1836 the Austrians were still quivering in terror.
Venice was under Austrian or French rule during most of the 19th century. Conquering and overthrowing a republic is possible.
Ex post facto explanations of any event are always possible, but they make us think that we understand things when we don’t.
Of the reasons that have been given so far for the anomaly of Switzerland, I find the argument that all other parties found a neutral Switzerland useful and unthreatening the best.
Second, the various Swiss peoples did seem to have a complete loyalty to a political idea. But this is itself an anomaly which needs explanation. The polises of Greece or the republics of Northern Italy, despite their relative ethnic homogeneity, often were destroyed by factional disputes, which did not happen in Switzerland.
April 26, 2011 at 8:28 pm
“I cannot believe that in 1736 or 1836 the Austrians were still quivering in terror”.
They had lost interest, they had other business to attend, Switzerland had become part of the international status quo (it became formally independent from the HRE with the Treaty of Westphalia) and anyhow it still possessed very sharp teeth.
In that time-window anyhow was when Switzerland suffered some major threats because it was, rather forcibly, absorbed in the area of influence of Revolutionary (and then Napoleonic) France, which proclaimed it a unitary republic (dismantling the cantons for a while).
It was only after Napoleon’s defeat that Switzerland was fully restored as part of the planned return to a revised status quo in the Congress of Vienna.
“Venice was under Austrian or French rule during most of the 19th century”.
Since Napoleon. Which is exactly what I said.
“Conquering and overthrowing a republic is possible”.
Nobody says it’s impossible, I just say that it’s more difficult, specially if the state is supported by the people. This last probably underlines the differences between Switzerland (a true early democracy) and Venice (an oligarchic semi-feudal autocratic republic) and might explain to some extent why one survived and the other was lost.
However as Basque I know well that democracy alone is not enough guarantee to safeguard your freedoms and independence: you need teeth (a popular army) and it is also very convenient to have international recognition (so others may feel less inclined to attack you or more inclined to support you in case of danger, even if only because of inertia).
Other factors may be not be sandwiched by two (or more) powers, like the Basque Country or Poland. Whatever you say about Switzerland, it has been most of its history surrounded by, largely, small states. The House of Habsburg was its only real threat but it was two houses most of the time (only under Charles V was Switzerland rather surrounded by a single monarch’s possessions and anyhow he had so many other problems that peaceful Switzerland was pretty much safe just because of that).
In a sense it’s like asking why has not the USA invaded Canada or the Bahamas (since they are independent). Because it does not need it. But, unlike these, Switzerland was a defensive military powerhouse, supported by the highest mountains of Europe. The only time it was effectively invaded (Revolutionary France), it happened with a lot of internal help and dissension, so almost no resistance took place. It would have been a total waste for France to have to fight in the Alpine areas – all the fight took place in the low country.
“Of the reasons that have been given so far for the anomaly of Switzerland, I find the argument that all other parties found a neutral Switzerland useful and unthreatening the best”.
It’s part of the deal, of course. If Switzerland had gone on expansionist rampage it would either not exist today or be a gigantic state, controlling much of Europe. It would not be Switzerland in any case.
But I think that you systematically ignore their defensive might: a popular army that can fight for long periods in form of guerrilla, able for that reason alone to make any wannabe conqueror think twice or even thrice any idea of conquest.
Any power considering to conquer Swizterland would have to face a determined and long-lived popular armed resistance in hostile terrain. Think in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Algeria… There’s almost no way to overcome that and, even in the “best” case (for the invader), it’d be way too costly.
April 26, 2011 at 10:15 pm
OK, back to the original question: what are the Swiss points of unity? Because they’re what seem to be missing.
The only one found is a commitment to a form of government which overrides nationality and religion. But this is not an objective factor of the kind that historians and political scientists use to explain history.
Therefore, Switzerland is a singularity, outlier, or rounding error and should be ignored in all general discussions of politics and history.
April 26, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Democracy! Even today the Swiss democracy is a lot more advanced than any of its neighbors thanks to concepts like direct democracy, strong “small-sized” federalism that respects diversity, “commoner politicians”. Switzerland is the closest you get to the Anarchist utopia in the real world (and under Capitalist conditions – but still able to reign on its own banks, something that neither the USA nor the EU seem able to do anymore).
As the motto of the only Italian-speaking canton reads: “Suizzero ma libero” (Swiss but free).
When they were debating joining the EU, they rejected the idea on the grounds that the EU would need to be “Swiss-ized” first, i.e. that EU still has a long way to go in matters of democracy and decentralization.
April 26, 2011 at 11:49 pm
Someone should write a general theory of the state which takes the Swiss experience into account.
April 26, 2011 at 11:53 pm
In other words: just think like a citizen of any of the “minority” cantons would: they could easily get under the “protection” of France or Italy but they know they will always have much much much much more freedom and self-rule in Switzerland than under their rather centralist ethnic nation-states.
That, of course, also applies for the “majority” German-speaking ones.
May 5, 2011 at 9:46 am
I don’t believe there’s much of national unity, at least here in the Romande part.
My theory is that it’s a purely pragmatic political union, just as it should be.
The central government doesn’t ask much or take much from them, and it provides some valuable services (defense, diplomatic, etc) and so everybody is happy.
There’s this story I always tell at this point in a discussion; it’s about women’s suffrage. By the 1990s they still had one hillbilly canton where there was no suffrage, and swiss feds were getting more and more uncomfortable about it. So, they started pressuring (gently) this canton, but were told fuck off. So, what would a typical central government do in this situation? Send troops, right? Well, here’s what Swiss feds did: they hired lawyers, who analyzed that canton’s constitution and declared that, under their interpretation, there is nothing there preventing women from voting. End of story, nothing to see here. This is how federalism should work.
May 5, 2011 at 1:07 pm
There still has to be a firm consensus, a primary commitment to Switzerland, and a common rejection of language-group political nationalism. Few of the other multinational states have done well: Belgium, Yugoslavia, even Czechoslovakia and Canada. If Quebec bordered on a French-speaking nation things would have been much more intense.
For me, so called path-dependency leads to real (not imagined) exceptionalism, which means that the normal cannot be assumed and outliers cannot be thrown out. And success, happiness, and other such good things are quite likely to be exceptional, and anyone aiming at the norm is cheating themself, and anyone imposing the norm might be doing harm. (“Might” because not every exception is a good one, only some).
May 5, 2011 at 1:45 pm
I think that all those multinational states you mention have a difference with Switzerland: they were all forced in one or another way: the components were never joined by their own will (or barely so) and they were never so decentralized and democratic as Switzerland is.
Also I wonder why don’t you mention the so many other multinational states outside Europe, for example nearly all African states (the failed one is the ethnically homogeneous one: Somalia) or quite success stories in multinational politics like India.
I don’t know if you think Ivory Coast, Congo, Pakistan or even Spain are national states but they are not in any case: they are multinational, each with their own problems.
Bu I think that Swiss prefer to be Swiss than to be French, German or Italian and lose rights and freedoms in the process. The key here is rights, freedom, democracy and radical decentralization. Languages are after all just tools for communication: they are important but not the most important thing, because it’s better to be free in a multinlingual context than slave of someone who speaks your same tongue.
May 5, 2011 at 4:44 pm
There still has to be a firm consensus, a primary commitment to Switzerland, and a common rejection of language-group political nationalism.
Well, like Maju said, they do have some common themes: self-governing, neutrality, pragmatism, being, sometimes, selfrighteous assholes, etc.
Pragmatism is probably the primary commitment, and it’s often in contradiction with nationalism, especially in a small country.
May 13, 2012 at 4:34 am
One of the keys in Switzerland *recently* is probably the education. Rather than having lots of speakers of each individual language, nowadays most Swiss learn multiple languages. This avoids the most major breakup tendencies which you can get with language divisions, the ones due to simple failure to communicate. In earlier years, the different-language cantons probably just didn’t actually visit each other much.
Mountains are weird due to their character, and a lot of bizarre countries have survived by being located in mountains. Afghanistan is almost equally implausible (there is no Afghan ethnic identity and no single language, though there are a few shared traditions) but it was stable for quite a long time prior to the Russian invasion.