Contents
On December 17, 1959, the Swiss Federal Assembly elected a government unlike any before it: two Free Democrats, two Conservatives, two Social Democrats and one representative of the Party of Farmers, Traders and Independents (BGB). 2:2:2:1 – seven seats, four parties that fought one another in parliament. The formula held for 44 years. An example of the Team Principle of Diversity.
From One Party to Four
Situation
The Federal Council, Switzerland’s government, has seven members and makes decisions as a collegial body. From 1848 to 1891 the Free Democrats (FDP) held all seven seats. In 1891 the first Catholic Conservative joined the government, in 1919 the second. In 1929 the Party of Farmers, Traders and Independents – today’s Swiss People’s Party (SVP) – won a seat for the first time. In 1943 the first Social Democrat joined; from 1953 on, the Social Democratic Party (SP) was once again unrepresented.
Connection to the team principle
The Team Principle of Diversity says: differences only make a team smarter if it puts them to use – otherwise they split it. It took Switzerland more than a hundred years to bring its political camps into government step by step. Each step meant that a group that had applied pressure from outside now shared responsibility from within. Inclusion is slow. It often begins with a single seat at the table.
Four Resignations and a Plan
Situation
In 1954, after the election of Giuseppe Lepori, the Free Democrats and the Conservatives held the same number of seats – an intermediate step. In 1959 four members of the Federal Council stepped down: Hans Streuli, Philipp Etter, Thomas Holenstein and Giuseppe Lepori. Martin Rosenberg, general secretary of the Conservative Christian-Social People’s Party, engineered the new distribution. In the 1959 elections to the National Council, the lower house of parliament, the parties stood at about 26% (SP), 24% (FDP), 23% (Conservatives) and 12% (BGB). Those elected were Max Petitpierre and Paul Chaudet, Jean Bourgknecht and Ludwig von Moos, Willy Spühler and Hans Peter Tschudi, and Friedrich Traugott Wahlen.
Connection to the team principle
The formula roughly mirrored the balance of forces in the country. That is the first part of the rule: every major group is represented, according to a yardstick everyone can check. It is worth noting who designed it: the general secretary of a party that had to scale back its own claims to make it work. If you want to put differences to use, you need someone who places a workable distribution above their own advantage.
From Mockery to Brand Name
Situation
At first the name was not meant kindly. On November 26, 1959, Willy Bretscher, editor-in-chief of the “Neue Zürcher Zeitung,” wrote of a “magical formula.” On December 4, party president Max Rohr spoke of the “Zauberformel” – the “magic formula.” The term stuck. From then on, opponents from parliament sat at the same table in government and presented decisions to the outside world as one. This is the principle of collegiality.
Connection to the team principle
Here lies the second part of the rule, and it is the more demanding one. Proportional seats alone would have produced seven party representatives governing against one another. Only the obligation to stand behind decisions together turns the seats into a team. Inside the room, differences may be fought out hard. To the outside world, the joint decision stands.
When the Rule Breaks
Situation
In 2003 the Christian Democrats (CVP) lost a seat to the SVP: Ruth Metzler-Arnold was not re-elected, and Christoph Blocher was elected. In 2007 Blocher was replaced by Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf. In 2008 both SVP members of the government switched to the newly founded Conservative Democratic Party (BDP); the SVP was temporarily without a seat and regained one at the end of 2008 with Ueli Maurer. Since 2015 it has held two again. Today 2:2:2:1 applies with a new lineup: two seats each for the SP, FDP and SVP, and one for The Center (Die Mitte).
Connection to the team principle
In these years, the fault lines that the formula had bridged for decades came out into the open. That shows what the rule achieved while it held. And it shows that a formula is not a law of nature: if the balance of power shifts, it has to be renegotiated. Whether concordance – Switzerland’s system of power-sharing – makes for better government is a matter of political dispute. Critics blame it for stagnation and the absence of an opposition. As a lesson about teams, a more modest observation is enough: the rule kept opponents able to work together for decades.
Key takeaways
Key Lessons
- Give the important groups in your area a seat where decisions are made. Those who are only consulted remain the opposition.
- Make the distribution transparent. A rule anyone can check for themselves saves endless fights over seats.
- Agree on collegiality explicitly: argue inside the room; outside it, everyone stands behind the decision.
- Review the rule when the balance shifts. A formula that no longer fits creates the very rifts it was meant to prevent.
Summary
In 1959 Switzerland brought four competing parties into a seven-member government and tied this to the principle of collegiality. The magic formula held for 44 years and, with a changed lineup, still applies today. It shows the Team Principle of Diversity as a design task: differences become useful when one rule brings them to the table and a second commits them to joint decisions. The years 2003 to 2008 show the flip side.