Swiss Politicians Don’t Use Bodyguards?

A photo of my son enjoying chocolate fondue in the Lodge at Spruce Peak in Stowe, Vermont.

A photo of my son enjoying chocolate fondue in the Lodge at Spruce Peak in Stowe, Vermont.

This is part of my series on how I want us to be better than Switzerland. When I was in Switzerland, I was told that Swiss politicians are not allowed a security detail. I was told that there are a few reasons for this, reasons that I felt were worth us considering.

First, public officials are held more accountable for their decisions. They will make decisions that are more widely accepted rather than take a hardline stance that opposes the views of the citizens.

Second, the need for security is directly related to the general safety and well-being of the country. If the country is unsafe internally or to the outside world, this would put them at a higher risk. So they are inclined to make a more peaceful world at home and abroad.

Third, power is more distributed among the Swiss government. This means that no “one” individual has most of the power. As a result, if that person were attacked, it would not have much impact. The Swiss government has seven people acting as president simultaneously. This creates a better balance of power and also better reflects the needs of their citizens.

All of these ideas, I like. However, I decided to do my research to determine the facts, and I asked the AI to write a report.

Are Swiss public officials allowed bodyguards? Do they have them? Why or why not?

Answer from Google’s AI.

Yes, Swiss public officials are allowed bodyguards, but they often do not have them for everyday activities, as it is commonplace for even high-ranking officials to move about in public without a large security detail. This practice is rooted in Swiss political culture and a generally lower threat perception compared to other countries. 

Do they have them?

  • Generally, no (for everyday life): It is a common sight to see Swiss cabinet ministers (Federal Councillors) and the President of the Confederation traveling on public transport, cycling to work, shopping, or jogging with minimal or no overt security. This often surprises observers from other nations.

  • Security is available when needed: Officials can have an Army security detail or protection from the Federal Office of Police (fedpol) if a specific threat assessment determines it is necessary. The level of security is determined by the current security situation and any specific threats against it.

  • Official Events: During official events or state visits, a more visible security presence and escorts are typical.

  • Government Buildings/Residences: Government buildings and private residences of officials are afforded a high level of protection, including surveillance and security checks. 

Why or why not?

The reasons for this approach reflect a unique blend of culture and security philosophy:

  • Political Culture: The practice reflects the Swiss spirit of direct democracy and a preference for modesty and discretion among its leaders. Federal Councillors do not have the same celebrity status as leaders in some other countries and are generally viewed as "everymen".

  • Lower Perceived Threat: Historically, the political environment in Switzerland has been stable, with a low level of general threat to public officials. While security concerns have increased slightly in recent years (particularly related to cyber threats and general terrorism concerns in Europe), the overall approach remains one of integration rather than isolation.

  • Collegiality: The Swiss Federal Council operates as a collegial body, with the presidency rotating annually among its seven members. There is no single long-term figurehead who consistently serves as "the face" of Switzerland, which may diffuse some potential threats.

  • Public Opinion: There is a general public acceptance, and even expectation, of officials being accessible, which contributes to the norm of minimal security. 

In essence, Swiss officials value their freedom to move within society and only employ bodyguards when specific, assessed threats make it necessary, rather than as a standard protocol for their position. 

Previous
Previous

Democrats vs Republicans

Next
Next

Mandatory Military Service