There is also a lack of commitment on one side in the vote on the Covid law.
Where does the organizations’ passivity come from?
Andrea Tedeschi Things are going well for the supporters of the care initiative. “I have rarely seen a campaign that has developed so positively,” says Walter Stüdeli, PR consultant who is leading the campaign. According to the latest JRC survey, 78 percent of voters want to approve the initiative. If the trend is confirmed, the first pro-union initiative since 1981 will be approved. Stüdeli believes that the pandemic will play a role, but not only that: “We lack opponents,” he says laconically. “With health politician Ruth Humbel, we at least have a serious opponent. I’m not unhappy about that.” Because: no debate without controversy. Nevertheless, the other side is not getting off the ground. Although a non-partisan “no” committee has been formed, there is not even a website with their arguments. Political scientist Georg Lutz says: “No party wants to get involved against carers because they enjoy too much sympathy. Getting involved could be counterproductive.” Hospitals are directly affected by the initiative and fear high costs. Anne-Geneviève Bütikofer, Director of the Swiss Hospital Association H+, says that she would have liked to see more partisan commitment to the counter-proposal. They are inferior to the proponents in terms of money and resources. The opposing side is not only struggling with the care initiative. Neither party wanted to lead the Yes campaign for the Covid law until the center ground its way through and organized a non-partisan committee. The same was true of the No committee for the Justice Initiative. Lobbyist Walter Stüdeli is not surprised that there is a lack of support from the parties for all voting proposals. “The parties used to coordinate more, with one party taking the lead in a campaign, but that no longer happens,” he says. But above all: parties are financially dependent on the associations for campaigns, says Stüdeli, who in turn are selective in their commitment. The bourgeoisie criticize the employers’ association in particular for not making enough of a financial commitment to the care initiative. There is talk of CHF 20,000. The employers’ association does not confirm the figure, but neither does it deny it. Head of Communications Fredy Greuter only says: “We only run referendum campaigns ourselves if they concern our core dossiers, such as the AHV.”
The major associations are stingy when it comes to the votes on November 28.
Nevertheless, political scientist Lutz believes that more money is flowing into political campaigns today, but more selectively than 20 years ago.
“The commitment of the associations depends on two factors. Firstly, the proposals must affect financially strong interests. Secondly, the closer the expected outcome of a vote, the more money flows in.” The question remains as to why the parties are less involved in referendum campaigns.
If the money is lacking, a party can’t do anything, according to the FDP.
For Marcel Schuler, former FDP campaign manager, the reluctance is also linked to the well-established alliances.
“They exist in economic policy, but not on issues such as health or the election of federal judges.” He sees another reason in the smaller parties: “Although they are attached to the FDP, they don’t want to share responsibility and costs.” The situation is similar with the competition.
“The SP can’t run ten referendum campaigns a year on its own, it needs the associations,” says a spokesperson.
A media conference by a committee alone is not enough. Source: Aargauer Zeitung