Long hailed as the vanguard in liberal democracy, the Swiss have taken a debilitating step in the wrong direction. A referendum that resolved to ban the construction of new minarets (the house of worship for the Muslim faith) was approved by popular vote on Sunday. Amidst fears of terrorism and extremist violence, the Swiss have resolved to strike at the core of political Islam by sending a message that revokes the free exercise of religion.
The move raises key issues in an already tense battle of ideologies. Recognizing popular trends of fear and anxiety, Swiss government officials (who actively campaigned against the ban but must now execute its dictates) warn that the xenophobic hysteria that has overtaken the country is but a transitory phase that should not be interpreted as permanent change. As officials are caught in a political predicament, the question of national security has been brought to the forefront. To be sure, countries are expected to provide for the security of their citizens, thwarting potential threats to individual livelihoods as they see fit. In that capacity, they are free to provide for those security measures that enhance the freedom of all their citizens without arbitrarily limiting its exercise to a select group (here, the majority of non-Muslims).
However, if they are committed to liberal principles (as Switzerland is) they cannot retreat from liberal principles for the sake of public comfort. Of course, the issue becomes much more perplexing when the policy is instituted not by despotic government decree but by direct democracy (as is the case here). When the citizens of a country actively vote against the wishes of their more politically astute governing authorities, the resulting policy carries with it the legitimate authority of a majority’s consent without necessarily garnering the necessary institutional support. Such a perverse application of democracy requires necessary critical examination before put into practice.
The message sent to Muslims in Switzerland is a scary one. That ideological extremism is tied to religious devotion is a logical fallacy; that an educated populace would make such a connection and institutionalize its discriminatory implications is a greater one still, and an affront to justice at that. The Swiss have made a grave mistake, and, if the world is to be made safe for champions of democracy both inside and outside Europe, the decision must be overturned.
For a complete look at the story, follow the New York Times article here.
2 comments:
Its totally true what you say, that democracies like Switzerland must remain committed to liberal principles without having to limit the rights of a few for the 'benefits' of the rest. Like Rawls realizes, this would be utilitarianism at its worst. This case seems to exemplify the direct avoidance of the original position by the voters. If the parties to the Swiss democracy had truly taken into consideration the situation of Muslims in their society, then they surely would have ruled against this discriminatory law.
I think the case for minority rights should also be brought up in a situation like this. Because the Muslim population in Switzerland is so small, it is evident that in order for them to practice their faith, there needs to be a respect for minority rights. The Swiss ruling to prevent them from constructing minarets is a very bold step for a country that usually remains neutral in situations that are typically at the forefront of issues internationally. In democracy, it is key to remember that it is majority rule with the respect for minority rights. The Swiss should realize just because society at large supports the legislation that suppresses the Muslims is not necessarily just under democratic ideals.
Post a Comment