“Democracy Relies on People Speaking Out”

What worries you most when you read the news or look at what is happening in the world?

Helen Keller: We are witnessing a gradual erosion of democracy, the rule of law and even of the belief that laws must be respected. This is not limited to countries such as the United States; we can see similar developments in Switzerland as well. One example is the introduction of expedited approval procedures for so-called fast-track energy projects, where legal protections are effectively being bypassed. Even in such cases, it should be possible to verify whether environmental and climate laws are being complied with, and people should have the right to challenge these projects. Simply suspending legal protections is highly problematic from a rule-of-law perspective.

Why have we become so complacent about the rule of law?

Helen Keller: Perhaps, over the past 30 years, we have failed to explain clearly enough what the rule of law means and why it is so important for our society. At the same time, the Second World War is becoming an increasingly distant memory. The generation who experienced it first-hand is gradually disappearing. It makes a difference whether you read about these experiences in books, see them portrayed in films or hear about them from your grandmother.

As these experiences can no longer be passed on directly, awareness of the dangers posed by exclusion, hatred and discrimination also begins to fade. As a result, attitudes and statements that would have been far more strongly condemned 30 years ago are becoming socially acceptable once again – for example, the denigration of people on the basis of their origin, religion or skin color.

Are there any other developments that you are concerned about?

Helen Keller: There is another major challenge facing democracy: the transformation of the media landscape. Democracy can only function if there is independent, high-quality journalism. Today, that journalism is under considerable pressure.

For decades, we have seen an increasing concentration of media power. In many countries, media companies are dominated by political or economic interests, causing them to lose their independence. At the same time, many younger people now get almost all of their information from digital platforms and social media.

Added to this is the sustained attack by right-wing populist parties on public-service media. Popular initiatives are launched, funding is cut, and their role as independent sources of information is steadily weakened. Democracy depends on public debate being grounded in reliable information and a shared understanding of reality.

Is the idea of a politically self-contained Switzerland a myth, or is Switzerland genuinely immune to the rightward shift taking place across Europe?

Helen Keller: No, Switzerland is certainly not immune. The shift to the right across Europe is a major trend, and one that is particularly dangerous in a country like France, given its status as a major nuclear power. The difference in Switzerland is that the SVP has long been represented in government. As a result, it has to take responsibility and cannot simply act as an opposition party.

Whether this model works better in the long term than excluding right-wing populist parties from government remains an open question. So far, Switzerland’s consensus-based model of power-sharing has provided stability. The Covid pandemic showed that this system can function comparatively well even in times of crisis. Unlike France, Germany and Italy, Switzerland adopted much less restrictive measures, yet there were no higher mortality rates and no greater strain on the healthcare system.

Are courts sometimes better equipped to deal with long-term challenges such as climate change than politicians operating under the pressure of electoral cycles?

Helen Keller:  The scientific consensus is clear: the decisions we make today will determine whether the worst consequences of the climate crisis can still be averted. Many judges take these warnings and their responsibility towards future generations more seriously than politicians do. One reason is that they are largely independent and do not have to constantly worry about whether such measures might be unpopular. In hundreds of climate cases around the world, courts are increasingly calling on governments to take their own climate targets seriously and implement them more consistently. Unfortunately, these proceedings often take a very long time – but the rulings create important precedents and are cited by other courts.

What about democracy? Is no one watching over that?

Helen Keller: In Switzerland, this is not particularly well regulated. In Germany, there is the Federal Constitutional Court. In addition, a recent report by the German Bundestag’s Scientific Services concluded that a government cannot simply disregard a law that has been democratically enacted. The principle of the separation of powers requires governments to implement laws – not to render them ineffective in practice.

In Switzerland, we do not have a constitutional court. Under Article 190 of the Federal Constitution, the Federal Supreme Court is bound by federal legislation. If a federal law contradicts the Constitution, the Court may acknowledge this, but it must nevertheless apply the law. As a result, constitutional violations often cannot be remedied – a situation that is unsatisfactory from a rule-of-law perspective and frustrating for those affected.

Is it a risk that Switzerland does not have a constitutional court, or are there other mechanisms? 

Helen Keller: A constitutional court is only useful as long as its judges are genuinely independent. If it becomes politically captured, as has happened in countries such as the United States and Hungary, it risks becoming a puppet of the government.

At the same time, we should not overestimate what constitutional courts can do. They are designed to correct individual constitutional violations – not to stop a government that systematically and on a large scale disregards the limits imposed by the rule of law. When a government charges ahead and systematically violates the constitution, the constitutional system itself reaches its limits, as we can see in the United States. Trump’s tariffs are one example. They were introduced through a presidential order whose legality has been widely challenged in the courts. The resulting litigation has placed a considerable burden on the legal system and the institutions involved. Once this kind of practice becomes normalised, the system breaks down.

The crucial question, therefore, is not only whether a country has a constitutional court, but whether its political institutions as a whole are willing to respect the constitution. A constitutional court is an important safeguard, but it cannot replace a functioning political culture.

Where do you see grounds for hope, institutionally or politically? Who defends democracy?

Helen Keller: One often underestimated safeguard is federalism. Alongside the classical separation of powers, federal states have an additional distribution of power between the central government and their constituent states or regions. We can see this in the United States with states such as California, and in Switzerland with the cantons. Federal entities can try out new approaches and thereby initiate developments that may later serve as models for others.

The second important factor is civil society. Democracy depends on people getting involved and speaking out about injustices. However, democracy is slow and costly, and protest alone is usually not enough. For social pressure to translate into political change, it needs connections to parties, institutions, NGOs or other political actors. The threshold lies at around 20 per cent of the population. Raising awareness is important, but lasting change only occurs when civic engagement is translated into political processes.

You are a member of the scientific advisory board of Allianz der letzten Demokratien at the Zürcher Theater Spektakel. Art projects often work with emotional amplification and dramatic scenarios, whereas as a scholar you have a responsibility to remain rigorous. How do you approach that?

Helen Keller: For me, the primary aim of a project like this is to encourage people to think and to keep questioning democratic structures. It is already a significant achievement if we become aware of how privileged we are to be able to express our opinions and participate in democratic decision-making. In many parts of the world, that is simply not possible.

Art works differently from a newspaper article. It speaks to different levels of experience and relies more heavily on stories and perspectives. When we hear the stories of people who have experienced migration or who are affected by the climate crisis, those stories do not only engage the intellect; they also evoke emotions and empathy. My hope is that this strengthens not only theoretical understanding, but also encourages deeper reflection on the connections and dynamics that shape our societies.

What developments in world politics would you like to see? 

Helen Keller: If I am being completely blunt, I believe that real social change often only begins when major crises or disasters become impossible to ignore. One of the challenges of the climate crisis is precisely that it unfolds gradually. Every year we hear about new records being broken – the warmest spring, the hottest October, the driest spring since records began – and at the same time, we are getting used to it.

It may sound cynical, but perhaps it will take major disruptions or more visible shocks for people to realise that we cannot simply keep watching – we need to act.

The interview originally appeared on the Zürcher Theater Spektakel  website. It has been slightly abridged.