Which party benefits politically from the consequences of the Ukraine war? And how risky is a position change in the election year? Interview with political scientist Martina Mousson from JRC Bern.
SRF News: Which Swiss party surprised you the most with its repositioning after the outbreak of the Ukraine war?
Martina Mousson: The SP surprised me the most with its U-turn on the arms export issue.
The SP is new in favor of allowing other countries to re-export Swiss weapons to Ukraine. There is no classic left-right split on this question, SP and FDP are working together. What does that mean in election year?
It is difficult to say who can benefit here. In order for a topic to take hold in an election campaign, however, clear attributions of competence are required for the parties. And when it comes to security policy, voters tend to prescribe these competencies in the middle-class camp.
Anyone who radically changes their position risks alienating the core constituency.
There are parties that quickly repositioned themselves and others that have remained very constant. Which strategy is better?
Four years ago, in the election year, the FDP changed course in climate policy. She couldn’t really translate this into an electoral success. It tends to be like this: Anyone who radically changes their position risks alienating the core electorate. But he can also open up new potential. The elections will show whether the Greens will be rewarded for staying true to their pacifist ideology and whether the SP will be punished for switching. You have to reckon with shifts within the poles. But certainly not by someone voting left instead of right.
Can one say that parties with a large core constituency, such as the SVP, fare better if they don’t change too much – while a younger party like the center wins if it repositions itself?
Of course, the center has a different starting point because it is in a phase of reorientation. You can afford to change course more easily. In the case of the SVP, I think the electorate would have been alienated if completely new tones were suddenly struck. Therefore, from the party’s point of view, it makes sense to consistently continue the neutrality discussion.
Even if the SVP changes the position on arms exports?
You have a back door here: You can simply say that the war created a new world order and you have to reposition yourself. But whether the SVP is doing the right thing here is difficult to assess as of today.
If electricity and gas become scarce, will that help the bourgeoisie, who rely on security of supply, or the left, who have been insisting on the expansion of renewable energy for a long time?
In a study on security of supply, we were able to work out quite clearly that Switzerland is in a trilemma. One point is security of supply, the other is the climate debate – including climate neutrality in electricity production – and the third is the price. Security of supply is given the highest priority. And that tends to play into the hands of the commoners.
So security and energy help the bourgeoisie, while purchasing power and inflation tend to play into the hands of the left?
Yes, I would tend to say that when it comes to cushioning economic difficulties or inflation. This is where energy policy gets a new twist. Because electricity will become more expensive, it’s not entirely clear who will win the match in the end. It will really be central which topic is in focus.
The conversation was led by Larissa Rhyn.