Federal Council rejects criticism of communication before votes
Published: Wednesday, Jan 31st 2024, 14:20
Back to Live Feed
According to parliamentary oversight, the authorities only provide information before votes "to a limited extent". The Federal Council counters the criticism in a statement - but partially accepts the recommendations of the National Council's Control Committee (CPC-N).
Communication with the authorities before votes repeatedly gives rise to criticism, for example with regard to the information in the voting booklet or the communication of individual members of the Federal Council. In an analysis by the Parliamentary Administrative Control (PAC), four specific votes - including the one on the Responsible Business Initiative - revealed isolated deficits.
In the case of the Responsible Business Initiative, for example, the PAC's analysis showed that "the department's communication was geared more towards rejecting the initiative than towards informing voters". In the opinion of the PAC, the intended manner of communication crossed the line between information and campaigning, which runs counter to proportionate communication.
According to the PIC, the communication of the head of the department - at that time the Minister of Justice was Karin Keller-Sutter - was proportionate in view of the intensive media campaign, but the planned measures were not sufficiently geared towards informing the general public.
State government criticizes narrow database
The GPK-N report based its criticism primarily on the analysis of four individual voting proposals in which the official information had led to public criticism, the Federal Council wrote in its statement on Wednesday. It criticized that the verdict was therefore based on a narrow database.
Although criticism of the Federal Council's communication is to be taken seriously, it has long since become an integral part of campaigns, the Federal Council continued. It is sometimes used deliberately to undermine the credibility of the arguments of Parliament and the Federal Council.
The Federal Council therefore regrets that the PAC did not analyze whether and for which voting proposals such criticism may have been unjustified, it continued. The Federal Council also doubted that the overall assessment of the parliamentary superintendence, according to which communication with the authorities prior to votes was only "partially appropriate", was appropriate.
Four-eyes principle fulfilled according to the government
Nevertheless, the Federal Council accepted some of the GPK-N's recommendations resulting from the report - including a recommendation on the regulation of communication for public statements and posts on social media as well as a recommendation on the exercise of editorial responsibility by the departments.
The GPK-N also asked the Federal Council to ensure that the content of the explanatory notes to the vote is systematically checked and implemented by sufficiently qualified persons - or that an appropriate dual control is maintained. In the report, the GPK-N expressed surprise that a four-eye check of the information and figures was not always carried out by people with the necessary specialist knowledge.
The Federal Council only partially accepted this recommendation, as it considers it to have already been fulfilled in principle: It regularly happens that experts consult with other experts from their own or another office or department about controversial passages in the explanatory notes. All offices affected by a bill are also asked to check the correctness of the explanatory notes for the vote.
Federal Council in a "dynamic field of tension"
The Federal Council also only partially accepted the GPK-N's recommendation to define the scope and limits of permissible information in the principles of communication with the authorities prior to votes on the basis of proportionality. It is self-evident that all official activities must be carried out entirely within the legal framework, it explained.
On the one hand, the Federal Council and the Federal Administration should contribute to the free formation of citizens' opinions with their continuous information activities. On the other hand, the Federal Council should not advocate a voting recommendation that differs from the position of the Federal Assembly.
This results in a dynamic field of tension that presents itself differently with every voting proposal. It is therefore important that the Federal Council and the Federal Administration have the necessary leeway for their information activities. In this area of tension, the limits of permissible information activities cannot be defined generally and unambiguously. The Federal Council's information activities also include presenting its own arguments and those of Parliament to the public.
©Keystone/SDA
English 
German 
French 
Spanish 
Arabic