Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs ISSN: 1360-2004 (Print) 1469-9591 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjmm20 The Swiss Minaret Ban Referendum and Switzerland’s International Reputation: A Vote with an Impact Dina Wyler To cite this article: Dina Wyler (2017) The Swiss Minaret Ban Referendum and Switzerland’s International Reputation: A Vote with an Impact, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 37:4, 413-425, DOI: 10.1080/13602004.2017.1405506 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13602004.2017.1405506 Published online: 09 Dec 2017. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjmm20 Download by: [Boston University] Date: 09 December 2017, At: 06:40 Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 2017 Vol. 37, No. 4, 413–425, https://doi.org/10.1080/13602004.2017.1405506 The Swiss Minaret Ban Referendum and Switzerland’s International Reputation: A Vote with an Impact DINA WYLER Abstract In 2009, Switzerland prohibited the constructions of minarets on a nationwide basis due to a popular referendum. Immediately, the status of Switzerland as an ambas- sador for diplomacy and neutrality was questioned by the international community. This paper discusses the short-term impact of the vote on Switzerland’s international reputation by analyzing Switzerland’s ranking in the National Brand Index (NBI) between 2005 and 2015. The analysis shows that the general international reputation of Switzerland as well as its people’s and government’s reputation experi- enced a decline after the vote. The Swiss, in particular, suffered a loss in reputation abroad, while the reputation of Switzerland’s government maintained a high ranking. An explanation for these differences is the way the Swiss Federal Council acted before and after the vote. The Council opposed the initiative from the very beginning and started a campaign to assure that the good relations with other countries, especially Muslim countries remain intact. These efforts paid off, as the analysis of the NBI shows. By actively reaching out to important parties such as the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Swiss government could maintain its position in the top three of the NBI ranking. This was possible due to Switzerland’s long-term strategy in “image-cultivation” abroad. Meanwhile, the Swiss people who voted for the ban with 57 yes-votes experienced a downward trend in their international reputation. Introduction As a neutral country with a well-functioning democratic system, Switzerland has always maintained high appreciation within the international community as a reliable partner.1 However, when in 2009 the Swiss electorates voted in favor of a nationwide ban of the Downloaded by [Boston University] at 06:40 09 December 2017 construction of minarets, the status of Switzerland as an ambassador for diplomacy and neutrality was questioned.2 Not only the 350,000 Muslims living in Switzerland saw this vote as an affront, but so did the Muslims and non-Muslims around the world; they expressed their disappointment in the Swiss people, and accused them of being intolerant and against peaceful coexistence.3 To understand this vote, one has to understand Switzerland’s unique democratic system. Switzerland is a direct democracy. Each individual has the possibility to collect 100,000 signatures within 18 months to obtain a nationwide vote on a certain issue. Dina Wyler is pursuing graduate studies in International Relations and Religion at Boston University’s Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies and holds a bachelor’s degree in Political Science from the University of Zurich. While in Zurich, she worked at econcept Inc., a private consultancy office, spe- cializing in strategic planning, evaluation and project management for public administration as well as for an NGO in Geneva, dealing with human rights. In summer 2017 she participated in the Muslim-Jewish Conference in Sarajevo. © 2017 Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs 414 Dina Wyler This tool is called popular initiative. If the initiative is accepted, the Federal Constitution is rewritten by including the initiative’s text. In order to be adopted, the majority of the Swiss people as well as the majority of the cantons have to accept the proposal. Before the vote, the Swiss government reviews the initiative in order to make sure that it does not violate any international treaty or human rights law.4 Despite its regular usage, popular initiatives hardly ever pass. From 160 submitted initiatives between 1891 and 2015, only 15 were adopted. In many cases, the initiative serves as an instrument to indicate current fears and concerns within the Swiss society and helps put pressure on the govern- ment to act even though the initiative does not have an actual chance to pass.5 In the case of the minaret initiative, the initiators were able to collect 115,000 signa- tures within the given time period.6 Previous surveys indicated that the initiative would have no chance at the ballot.7 The fact that the initiative passed with 57 yes-votes came therefore as a shock. The idea to launch an initiative to ban the construction of min- arets emerged in 2005 when the members of a Turkish mosque in a small town in Swit- zerland intended to build a minaret. This decision provoked strong opposition within the local community. Within a short period of time, they collected 400 signatures in order to prevent the project. However, the local authorities repealed the initiative’s claim and allowed the construction of the minaret on the condition that it will not be used to call to prayers. In 2009, the minaret was finally built.8 At the same time, three other Muslim communities planned to build minarets. These developments provoked a vivid political discussion in Switzerland and marked the beginning of a growing opposition against future constructions of minarets within the Swiss society. Savannah Dodd summarizes: The […] minaret controversy and the surge of minaret building plans across Switzerland, along with the 2004 French headscarf debate, the 2005 London bomb attacks, and the fury over a Danish cartoonist’s portrayal of Muhammad in 2006, were the kindling needed to garner public support.9 Back in 2006, when the minaret of the Turkish mosque was in planning, members of the right-wing Swiss People’s Party (SVP) founded the Egerkingen Committee. After an unsuc- cessful attempt to pass a legislation through the Swiss parliament, they decided to launch an initiative to change the third paragraph of Article 72 of the Federal Constitution. The construction of minarets should be prohibited on a nationwide basis.10 The initiative committee argued that minarets would symbolize a religious and political claim for power that threatens Switzerland and its Christian values. According to the committee, Downloaded by [Boston University] at 06:40 09 December 2017 a ban of minarets would be a symbolic gesture against the subtle Islamization that would take place not only in Switzerland but in whole of Europe.11 Minarets have functioned as a religious symbol, pointing to heaven and as a reminder to Allah’s presence on earth from the eighth century onwards. Next to its religious sym- bolism, the minaret also served as a watchtower during battles.12 In comparison to the European average, Switzerland has the second lowest number of mosques per Muslim resident with one mosque per 4000 Muslim.13 Even lower is the number of minarets. Only three of them existed by the time the initiative was launched. In terms of religious freedom, the minaret referendum evoked a vivid discussion whether or not it violated international human rights law. The Federal Assembly saw no violation of freedom of religion by the initiative’s text. In a public statement they argued that: … the majority of international law is not mandatory and cannot be an absolute limit on the revision of the constitution. A popular initiative cannot be declared The Swiss Minaret Ban Referendum 415 invalid because it violated the non-mandatory standards of international law. If it is accepted by the people and the cantons, the federal government must con- sider terminating the international agreement in question.14 While the Swiss Federal Assembly verified that no international treaty was violated by the initiative’s claim, several human rights organizations argued that the ban would directly restrict the religious freedom of Muslims living in Switzerland.15 Human Rights Watch announced that the referendum “violates the rights of observant Muslims to manifest their religion in public”.16 Antoine Boesch, a Swiss lawyer, con- tested the ban by reaching out to the European Convention on Human Rights court in Strasbourg. But the court refused the lawsuit due to the fact that the complainant could not sufficiently proof to be a victim of the violation of the European Human Rights convention.17 Whether or not the religious freedom of Swiss Muslims was endangered by the initiative, as a country which is regularly involved in peace talks and tries to promote equality and religious freedom around the globe, banning a religious symbol had a high symbolic meaning for Switzerland. All around the world politicians condemned the decision the Swiss electorates had made and characterized it as a direct attack on the freedom of religion. The United Nations’ human rights chief called the referendum a “discriminatory and deeply divisive step which risks putting the county on a collision course with its international rights obligations”.18 These statements were the beginning of a publicly held debate whether or not Switzerland’s credibility as “an advocate of international law and its status as the host-state of inter- national organizations”19 would be seriously threatened.