Shortly after the popular no to the expansion of media subsidies, the responsible National Council commission again wants a bill for an expansion of subsidies – although there is no external urgency.
The National Council Commission has launched a push for media funding. But to what extent is it justifiable that parts of failed bills quickly come back to Parliament?
Almost 55 percent of those who went to the polls rejected the proposed expansion of media subsidies in February. But the issue is back on the political agenda. At the beginning of April, the responsible National Council commission launched a parliamentary initiative to “expand tried-and-tested media promotion measures”.
The sister commission of the Council of States did not provide any support with the president’s casting vote. The declared main argument: “Due to state policy considerations, the Commission is against implementing parts of the proposal immediately after the referendum.” The National Council Commission this week, however, stuck to its initiative with a one-vote majority. The initiative calls for “only a largely undisputed fraction of the package of measures in favor of the media”.
Parliament can legally do many things. It should even decide on the same bill again shortly after a popular no. Politically, however, this would hardly be realistic because of the catchy accusation of “blatant disregard for the will of the people” – unless the circumstances had changed dramatically in a short time.
But to what extent is it politically justifiable for the Federal Council or Parliament to quickly bring back parts of proposals that failed at the ballot box? This is not that rare. Prominent recent examples include the corporate tax reform, the CO2-Law and the reforms of pension schemes.
These examples have something in common: there was or is an external pressure to reform. In the case of corporate taxes, it was the global standards, in the case of CO2-Act, it is the (accepted) climate targets, and in the case of old-age provision, it is above all the impending financial deficit in the AHV. In the case of media subsidies, on the other hand, such an external pressure to reform is not apparent.
The same applies to the abolition of the special tax on companies’ new equity (emission tax), which was also rejected by the people in February. Voices can also be heard there that want a plan B – for example in the form of a significant increase in the tax exemption to relieve small and medium-sized companies.
interpretation at will
In such cases, too, it is clear from a democratic-political point of view that the follow-up proposal should be significantly changed compared to the failed project and that the particularly controversial parts should be slimmed down. In principle, a rapid reissue of the undisputed parts is not undemocratic. But who says which parts were “undisputed” among the people – and on what evidence is this based?
The public debate in the voting campaign and the follow-up surveys of voters as part of the Vox analysis provide clues. However, such indications usually require a lot of interpretation. With the media package, the advance the National Council Commission for the rapid implementation of the “second part” of the rejected media package. What is meant by this is the expansion of general media subsidies (e.g. for further education, news agencies, press council and IT) as well as the increase in funds for private radio and television stations.
Funding would come from the radio and television levy. The additional subsidy volume would still account for around a third of the failed proposal – around 50 instead of 150 million francs per year. The parts of the failed bill that were particularly heavily criticized in the referendum campaign, such as new direct payments for online media and the expansion of subsidies for newspaper delivery, would no longer be part of the package.
«No multiple choice test»
Based on the vote in February, it is not possible to say whether the initiative corresponds to the will of the people. The will of the people is often difficult to read even after an election. Typically, a voting result is based on a mixture of different reasons. As Justice Minister Karin Keller-Sutter said this week in the NZZ in the context of the upcoming ballot for the EU border protection authority Frontex: “A referendum is not a multiple-choice test in which you can tick several variants: Do you want to reject the proposal because You are a) against Schengen/Dublin because you b) want open borders or c) because you are neither against Schengen/Dublin nor in favor of open borders, but would rather have a completely different proposal?»
The motives of some voters do not always correspond to the arguments most often mentioned in the election campaign. The Vox analysis based on the follow-up surveys rarely provides a conclusive picture. That also applies to them analysis on voting on the media package: Everyone can interpret something into it according to their political taste. And the psychological literature makes it clear that when it comes to motives for action, people often pretend not only to third parties, but also to themselves.
Democracy has to live with such uncertainties. However, anyone who quickly brings back parts of a rejected bill after a popular no without external pressure to act must also live with the risk of further promoting the cynicism of parts of the people towards politics a little further. The current character test should also be taken into account: anyone who doesn’t see a quick Plan B on the media package as a democratic-political problem should see a Plan B on the issuance tax on equity with ease. And anyone who has democratic-political objections to a rapid new edition of the media package cannot credibly demand a rapid plan B for emissions tax.