published
Isabel Garcia from the GLPCantonal councilor changes camp – new law should prevent this in the future
The EDU wants a change in the law so that party changes no longer affect the allocation of seats in Parliament.
- von
- Sailor Walser
- Erika Unternahrer
In order to prevent such cases in the future, the EDU submitted a motion to the cantonal council at the end of February. The initiative calls for a change in the law: “The seat should remain in the party despite the change. After a change of party, that person has to leave the cantonal council, establish themselves in the new party and run again in the next elections, »says Thomas Lamprecht, who signed the motion.
Urs Jaudas
The bourgeois side of parliament does not think much of the initiative and the planned exclusion from the cantonal council. According to SVP cantonal councilor Nina Fehr Düsel, a change of party within the cantonal council is “ugly” but legitimate.
Urs Jaudas/Tamedia
That’s what it’s about
-
Isabel Garcia changed parties eleven days after the cantonal election.
-
In order to prevent such changes in the future, the EDU is calling for people who change parties and sit on the cantonal council to resign from the cantonal council.
-
The commoners and the left green are skeptical about the advance.
That’s what it’s about
Cantonal Councilor Isabel Garcia’s change of party triggered a wave of outrage. In order to prevent such cases in the future, the EDU submitted a motion to the cantonal council at the end of February. In the advance, party members demand that a change of party by a person elected to the cantonal council has consequences.
“The seat should remain in the party despite the change. After a change of party, that person has to leave the cantonal council, establish themselves in the new party and run again in the next elections, »says Thomas Lamprecht, who signed the motion. The law should apply to the period between election and taking office. In the event of a party defection, the first substitute candidate would move up.
That’s what the commoners say
The bourgeois side of parliament does not think much of the initiative and the planned exclusion from the cantonal council. According to SVP cantonal councilor Nina Fehr Düsel, a change of party within the cantonal council is “ugly”, but legitimate: “In the past, it has also happened that an SP member has switched to the GLP and the GLP has gained a seat in this way.”
The timing of the change of party, so shortly after the elections, should be criticized, but: “That’s why it’s going too far to demand that you leave the cantonal council.” For example, Fehr Düsel thinks it makes more sense to define a period after the elections in which no change of party may take place: “I think six months would be appropriate for this.”
FDP cantonal councilor Marc Bourgeois understands the concerns of the EDU politicians. But such a change in the law as a result of a single incident raises false hopes: “Whoever looks for loopholes will find them. Instead, Ms. Garcia could have stayed with the GLP for the time being, but could always vote together with the FDP until she took office on May 8. » According to the cantonal constitution, members of the cantonal council vote “without instructions”.
Ultimately, the case of the former GLP cantonal councilor is about a moral question: “What Ms. Garcia did is perceived by many as indecent – but decency cannot be prescribed by law.”
That’s what Linksgrün says
On the left-green side, they are also moderately enthusiastic about the advance. The desired change would not make a big difference. Thomas Forrer, parliamentary group leader of the Greens in Zurich, says: “The motion is currently addressing an important issue. But the advance simply pushes the problem back a few weeks.”
SP cantonal councilor Nicola Siegrist is also ambivalent about the initiative. He, too, is of the opinion that the initiative will not solve the problem. He also says: “It’s a good right to change parties, even if Garcia’s change is undemocratic.” But when it comes to the distribution of commissions, the initiative makes sense. “The proposed change period of the EDU is intended to ensure that there can only be a change of party after the seats on the commission have been distributed.” That speaks for the advance.
Markus Bischoff from the AL thinks the advance is good and therefore supports the EDU’s demand. Asked that it would postpone the problem and not eliminate it, Bischoff says: “A limit is a limit and there is always something arbitrary attached to it. The EDU’s demand is for a grace period – and that’s right.” He himself had also thought about such a decency period and considered half a year to be sensible.