"A law has value only if there is the will to implement it"

Marcel Hänggi, born in 1969 in Zurich, worked for a long time as a journalist, notably on topics related to science, technology and climate. A historian by training, he is also one of the key figures behind the popular initiative “Pour les glaciers”, which led to the new Swiss legislative framework on climate adopted in 2023.

He has just published “Une Constitution pour la transition écologique”, the French version of his book “Weil es Recht ist” (2024), in which he proposes rethinking the Constitution in depth in order to better protect both the environment and democratic institutions in the face of upcoming ecological crises. It should be noted that he now works for the Swiss Energy Foundation (SES). Interview

Your book comes across as a rant against our politicians. Do you consider that Switzerland lacks ambition on climate policy?

Yes, and I am not the only one to think so: the European Court of Human Rights found this in 2024. And this is not a mere advisory opinion, but a binding judgment. Yet, instead of asking what consequences should be drawn, Parliament and the Federal Council are indignant. – To be honest, however, no country truly shows sufficient ambition…

Several aspects related to sustainability and climate protection already appear in the Constitution… In what way are they insufficient?

As far as environmental protection is concerned, the constitutional provisions are, overall, surprisingly good. The problem is that politics does not take them seriously. Take, for example, the Young Greens’ popular initiative “For a Responsible Economy Respecting Planetary Boundaries”, submitted to a vote in January: no canton accepted it. Yet that initiative simply asked to respect planetary boundaries. And our Constitution makes the “sustainable conservation of natural resources” even an objective of the Confederation. How could we conserve natural resources (or, as the German, Italian and Romansh versions more nicely put it, “the bases of life”) if we do not respect planetary boundaries?

What is missing in the constitutional text, however, is the dimension of adaptation to truly destructive crises, such as the climate crisis, the biodiversity crisis or the contamination of our waters and soils by substances like PFAS. And I am not talking about technical adaptations, like flood protection works, but about the resilience of democracy and the rule of law themselves, which will be put at risk by such crises. There is, in the Constitution, an article inviting the promotion of democracy in foreign affairs, as well as another imposing democracy on the cantons. But, apart from the preamble, no article deals with democracy at the federal level – neither its protection nor its continuous development.

What is missing in the constitutional text, however, is the dimension of adaptation to truly destructive crises, such as the climate crisis.

Over the years, texts have been adapted in favor of the climate, notably thanks to initiatives like the one for the glaciers… Isn’t that the best system to evolve the texts?

My experience with the initiative for the glaciers and with the climate law is ambivalent. On the one hand, we won a victory: we now have a law endowed with fine objectives. But a law only has value if there is the will to implement it. Neither Parliament nor the Federal Council show such a will. And since Switzerland does not have a true constitutional court, it is not possible to compel our government to take its own laws seriously — nor even the Constitution.

You criticize the fact that the Swiss can only answer “yes” or “no” in votes, but the democratic system implies that Parliament represents the people and speaks on its behalf. Why should this system be adapted for the climate?

It was by engaging for the climate law that I became aware of a second weakness of our democratic system. A referendum campaign is not a genuine deliberation. When, for example, the UDC claims that we would not have enough electricity to succeed in the energy transition, we are forced to answer: “But yes, we can have enough electricity at a reasonable price, as scientific scenarios show.”

This answer is correct, of course. But the far more interesting — and far more relevant for a democratic society — question would rather be: what does “enough” mean? Enough to cover basic needs, or enough to heat your jacuzzi in the garden all winter?

What do you propose that is really different in your book? What would be the ideal Constitution for a faster and more successful ecological transition (1–2 concrete examples)?

A Constitution designed for the ecological transition must, on the one hand, protect the environment against human interventions: that is the objective of mitigation. On the other hand, it must protect society and democratic institutions against the effects of a destabilized environment: that is the objective of resilience.

Resilience — in the original sense of the term, beyond its commonplace use — means the ability to prepare for the unpredictable. And to be able to face the unpredictable, you need robust democratic institutions capable of enabling genuine deliberation among citizens.

The Constitution of Ecuador of 2008 is particularly interesting. It recognizes rights of nature and refers to the Andean indigenous concept of “Pachamama”.

So what is the Ecuador example you mention in your book?

The Constitution of Ecuador of 2008 is particularly interesting. It recognizes rights of nature and refers to the Andean indigenous concept of “Pachamama”. This concept invites seeing nature not as something that surrounds human beings — as the words “environment” or “Umwelt” in German suggest — but as something of which humans are an integral part. I am not saying we should transpose this concept as is to Switzerland, but I propose drawing inspiration from it.

How do you observe the repeated attacks against climate science in several countries (including Switzerland)?

It is not the role of the sciences to make political decisions, but these decisions should be based on the best available scientific knowledge. Attacks against climate science are targeted and coordinated, and they are amplified by so‑called “social” networks that escape any democratic control.

But climate denial is only the most visible extreme. If you look, for example, at the way the Federal Council justifies its proposed savings as part of its 2027 budget relief program, you see a simulation of a supposedly scientifically based process — which it is not really.

How do you view current politics, where countries — Switzerland included — are backtracking on climate issues or not respecting the timelines promised under the Paris Agreement?

Today I view things differently than I did a year ago, when I finished the manuscript of my book in German, before Donald Trump’s election. With the contempt that Trump and his epigones show for international law, I fear that the whole system built after the catastrophes of the Second World War and the Holocaust is wobbling. The idea that international relations should be based on law, reason and justice, rather than on sheer power, seems seriously threatened today.

Finally, your view on the results of COP30 in Belém?

The outcome in Belém is very weak. No roadmap to exit fossil fuels appears in the final document, even though it was a priority for the Brazilian presidency. For ten years, oil and gas producing countries have prevented reaching an explicit agreement on what logically follows from the Paris Agreement: the end of fossil fuels.

In this respect, the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change resemble the Federal Constitution: beautiful legal texts that set essential objectives and principles, but which the states that negotiated them do not really take seriously.

This article has been automatically translated using AI. If you notice any errors, please don't hesitate to contact us.