Last November 29th Swiss citizens definitely said no to the building of minarets in their country. This prohibition is now part of the Swiss Constitution. How was the point of no return reached?
The specificity of Swiss democracy is that it is direct. If a group of people manage to collect more than 100,000 signatures and deposit them with the Federal Chancellery, and if after careful analysis the text is not considered to be in conflict with the Swiss Constitution, the government must submit it for a referendum. The time limit for collecting signatures is usually 18 months. Over a six to eight month period the UDC managed to collect 115,000 signatures. This reveals a clear disquiet within Swiss society, but also, I believe, a desire to open a public debate on this issue. On the other hand one must add that the opponents to this referendum did not mount an intelligent campaign since they were unable to move from the emotional issue to the real problem. The result was that the outcome of the referendum held on November 29th surprised everyone. One must now address the consequences.
Up to the last minute Swiss politicians believed the “no” would win since the last surveys published stated that 53% of voters would say no, 37% would vote yes and 10% were undecided. Was it the undecided who made all the difference in the end?
I do not think so. People often answer surveys one way and then vote differently when alone in the booth. I too believed the surveys because the organisers of this referendum had started their campaign too early and I thought that because it was based on emotions, it would have a lasting effect. It was not based on any real issues. Unfortunately, in addition to a powerful xenophobe tradition expressed with this vote, in Switzerland citizens are also tired of politics and this has been emphasised by the economic crisis. In this sense Islam is a subject that causes powerful feelings. But the problem does not only concern Switzerland. Unfortunately it exists elsewhere in Europe where there is disquiet and fear as far as Islam is concerned.
Extreme right-wing parties in Europe have taken advantage of the Swiss referendum to push for holding a vote on minarets (see Holland, Belgium or Denmark). Do you fear this phenomenon of anti-Islam referendums will spread to other European countries?
Referendums are not used as a democratic instrument in other European countries in the same way as it is used in Switzerland, where there is a specificity linked to a particular form of direct democracy. In fact it is important to hold a debate on Islam in Europe. This debate should focus on coexistence with the Muslim communities of Europe. One must remember that we are speaking of European citizens. Being a European citizen and a Muslim are not incompatible. From a political point of view there is also another problem. While extreme right-wing parties ride the wave of fear, there is deadly silence from all the other political parties that do not have the courage to open a public debate. I believe there is incompetence in the political parties, which instead of questioning their positions or bravely addressing certain problems linked to multiculturalisms and a multiplicity of religious denominations, prefer to keep a low profile or exacerbate the debate.
Is that why the President of the Coordination of Swiss Islamic Organisations (COIS), Farhad Afshar, declared that Swiss political parties did not address this issue seriously and that Swiss Islamic organisations on their own did not have the power for a political battle?
Yes, but one must add that political parties are very ignorant of Islam. Above all they have shown they hold in contempt the fear of the people, managing only to intensify the proclamations of extreme right-wing parties. In my opinion they were mistaken in this too, after all it is easy to discredit the populist and emotive agenda of extreme right-wing parties. Unfortunately no one made this effort. Today the prohibition to build minarets is an indelible stain on the Swiss Constitution. A pointless stain, because within the Swiss Confederation there is already the possibility to forbid the building of minarets. So there was no need to touch the Constitution. The vote is simply a discriminatory act against one specific religion. This does not however mean that in Switzerland there is not freedom of worship. Muslims can always profess their faith. One must not forget this. The truth is that the Swiss have said out loud what the majority of European citizens think. After the result of this referendum there has to be a real debate involving Islamic organisations, the academic world, the world of politics, the media and civil society.
Islam is the third religion in Switzerland with 400,000 followers, about 5% of the population. And yet in the whole of the country there are only 4 minarets. Do minarets cause irrational fear in the Swiss collective imagination?
Minarets were just an excuse, like the veil before this. The problem is not Islam but rather its visibility. What is different and also visible is frightening. It was impossible to forbid the building of mosques because this is against Swiss and European freedom of worship laws. Minarets instead are an additional architectural element. It is thanks to this subtle distinction that the UDC was able to communicate its message. Forbidding the building of minarets will become an excuse for communicating accusations of a presumed lack of integration by Swiss Muslims. They are perfectly integrated and also happy about it. It is visibility that bothers people and that is what has been attacked. Minarets are not important, but they are symbols. I consider it extremely wrong to attack the symbols of a religion.
Do you fear that by attacking Islam’s visibility there will be a more sectarian sort of ‘invisible’ Islam? Or perhaps a more rigid religious attitude in those who do not feel totally accepted?
Yes, of course, there is such a danger. It is, however, the responsibility of the leaders of Muslim organisations and communities to prevent this from happening. The result of the referendum can of course be exploited and used by radical preachers or imams as an excuse for delivering self-pitying sermons. I repeat, it is up to the organisations to continue to work and to explain that Muslims are happy in Switzerland and feel fully integrated.
Has the Muslim community made any mistakes?
First of all there is not only one Muslim community in Switzerland, there are many. There are Turkish, Albanian, Bosnian, Arab and sub-Saharan communities. It is too soon to speak of mistakes and too easy with hindsight to say if any have been made. I honestly do not think that the Muslim communities made the most mistakes. On the contrary, I believe they were placed in a very difficult position. The positive aspect is that many in the Muslim world who were previously silent have now spoken and, during and after the referendum, they joined in the debate. Bosnians, Turks, Senegalese, all spoke out proving that Swiss Islam is diverse and varied. I believe that is the most positive result of the referendum. Now I hope they will not stop and will continue to concentrate on this diversity to make progress. After all, that is European Islam’s real challenge; to assume and carry forward its diversity in every sense, cultural, ethnic or religious.
Translated by Francesca Simmons