There is talk these days again about enlarging the Swiss Federal Council from seven to nine members. The Greens hope this way to get finally as well elected in the executive. Indeed, to their despair, two former councilors have timed their departure in a way that their successors are from the same party, and now, a year later, we elected a new parliament. Greener. And so comes the question whether one of the two councilors elected a year ago should be un-elected again. Something the parliamentarians frown upon. Which would mean the ecologists still don't enter the federal council despite a good representation in parliament. Not sure whether that's the will of the people, a reason why the Greens talk about wanting nine federal councilors instead of the seven we have since 1848.
I say don't change a winning team. There is no reason to think the current federal council is not functioning. And so i don't see why the Greens can't wait for their moment. Moment that will follow for sure, i don't see the green wave disappearing so fast again, for as long as the Greens continue to adopt more liberal and moderate economic policies and don't offend the majority with state-led totalitarian-like ecological ideas. Therefore i call for more patience and the elaboration of compromises that can satisfy the waiting Bio-party. Parliament can work out laws that force the executive to act even more sustainable and to promote environmentally friendly lifestyle amongst the people as well. Nothing speaks in favor of rushing into things, even if the Greens waited now for a long time of course and the elder would surely love to see themselves represented in the highest public office before they leave.
As a younger i'm though more concerned with the longterm consequences of changing the number of seats of the federal council. Nine could lead to a divided executive, a majority and a minority, lead each by a political dickhead, sorry my french. The majority leader would trim his fellow councilors into discipline and refuse the minority their projects of programs and new laws. They would together split the opinion of the population rather than try to work out compromises and fulfill the duty of running a functioning government. It could lead to a majority in parliament to be fed up with the divided government and elect a one-sided government, forcing the other parties in opposition. The end of the magic formula we know these days that says that the biggest three parties receive two seats and the forth party receives one.
I'm not sure we should keep the magic formula, but surely we should stay with seven councilors. I'm not in favor of saying that seven is a magic number neither. I wonder though whether through complex psycho-social mechanisms it ensures somehow (?) a fair representation of the population inside the highest public office. By wwithout being nor a too big cabinet where the smaller councilors can't find the opportunity to talk nor a too small cabinet where third forces don't have the ability to counter the two main political sides. It is such - through the division into specifically seven - always humanly possible to find decent compromises in time. Compromises, which might get refused by parliament or by the people at the ballots, but at least the diverse executive doesn't get divided to the point of no return but can continue to rule as the united presidential gang, so to speak, making the Green's jealous, so to speak, for not being part of it.
Maybe i'm though just too Swiss, refuse change, am afraid of evolution and a Swiss Federal Council comprised of nine members would work just as fine as well. Our own experience with five councilors between the beginning of the 19th century to the civil war and experience from other dissolved (!) councils, from Uruguay over France to Yugoslavia could warn us though that seven is the "magic" amount of equal members of the highest executive authority of the country, able to keep the balance between stability and freedom in sustainable manner (able to counter nefast peer pressure all while allowing innovation).
I'm really tempted to say, seven is an amount of equal ministers in a council that works well with "human nature". But I don't like the term human nature, because who knows it? A rather subjective or unscientific term submitted to culture, tradition and education, allowing to explain in a phrase though, why it works so well in Switzerland : we got used to a Federal Council comprised of seven equal members, because free and pious humans can, a net of loyal but independent communities can, a solitary and sovereign nation can. Other people can as well, I'm sure. It's in our nature, nothing magic about it, about the collegial exception that is helvetic politics, except in the "nature" of a leader - especially one who has grown up under the tyranny ( or pressure at least ) of presidential rule and can't imagine to be the first to refuse presidential powers in favour of a seat in a federal council.
