Emotions have no place in politics; this is the opinion generally held by rational human beings. But reality is somewhat different. There is no such thing as a human being without emotions. This applies in equal measure to the citizens in general, as well as to Members of Parliament or the Federal Council. But what role do emotions actually play in political decision-making processes? This question was the subject of a symposium held on the 26th November, which was jointly organised by ETH's Collegium Helveticum and the Foundation for Fundamental Human Science Research (SHG). In her short introduction, Mirjam Helg, Director of SHG and member of the scientific staff at Collegium Helveticum, pointed out, among other things, that the importance of emotions had been known for a long time. The problem was more one of science finding a way of handling this phenomenon.

The need for emotional intelligence

The first talk, tellingly, was not delivered by a scientist at all. Peter Müller, General Secretary from the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, spoke about the excitement and frustration surrounding politics. Political processes, according to Müller, take place in a melting pot that contains stark material interests, philosophical and religious beliefs as well as party political convictions. Also important, however, were personal feelings, inclinations and moods. Anyone looking for a successful political career not only needed to master the subject matter but also had to be able to play with emotions–their own as well as with those of their audience. "In hardly any other domain is emotional intelligence as important as in politics," said Müller, who, at one time, was a senior civil servant in the Federal Office of Justice.

Müller is of the opinion that the law-giving process serves, among other things, to replace access to a given matter on an emotional basis with a more rational one. In this phase frequently the altercation gets more factual. Emotions had, however, played a prominent role concerning laws regulating such issues as abortions or assisted suicides. With regard to the latter, said Müller, he had never experienced a commission where emotions and mistrust had played such a great role. In the end, the discussion in the commission had ended with a stalemate and the Federal Council had been at a loss. The National Council had conducted a very serious debate on the matter, but emotions had repeatedly disrupted the parliamentary process. In cases where insufficient knowledge concerning the issue at stake was available or information was contradictory, emotions played a decisive role. According to Müller the issue was then decided by prevailing public sentiment. This was promptly confirmed by the vote, which took place the day after the symposium, on a five-year moratorium on the cultivation of genetically modified plants in Switzerland.

In an aside, Müller expressed his opinion on the collegial system. In such a system, he said, a basic emotional consensus in a government was necessary for co-operation. Regine Aeppli, Director of Education in Canton Zurich, who was sitting in the audience, said that informal structures were important to overcome the emotional tension that inevitably arose in a multiparty system. Members of Zurich's governing council, for example, always went to lunch together after a session.

Free riders awaken strong emotions

Ernst Fehr, Director of the Institute for Empirical Research in Economics at the University of Zurich and Fellow at Collegium Helveticum, spoke about fairness, justice and emotions in human behaviour. According to Fehr, what is decisive is how high the level of readiness is to defend fairness and justice when this is tied to expense and effort. Experimentally it was possible to determine whether a third person carries out penalty measures if one of two parties violates a fairness standard. Using public goods as an example Fehr then proceeded to demonstrate what this means. Many people were prepared to make a useful contribution to the provision of public goods as long as others did so too.

Also in seemingly rational federal politics, emotions repeatedly run away with members: The Chamber of the Swiss National Council Assembly in Berne. (Picture: Parliament)

There were free riders, though, who wanted to benefit without contributing their portion. "We have determined," said Fehr, "that those who do participate harbour very strong emotions–sometimes even blind rage–for such free riders." The question remains: Are those who offend against our notions of justice sanctioned if this results in costs to the individual? According to Fehr people then begin to weigh up the issue and one's own prejudices also came into play.

When though is something considered to be fair or just? We know that not all societies share the same norms. "Many cultures uphold norms that are similar to our own," said Fehr. But there were also others that had different ideas of fairness. Are such norms occasioned by culture or genetics? Fehr believes that the issue is similar to that of language. Human beings had the congenital ability to learn a language. Which language a child learned, however, depended on where he or she grew up. Analogously applied to fairness and justice this would mean that people, most of them in fact, were capable of recognising a violation of norms when they encountered it. Precisely what the latter comprises though depends on cultural agreement.

Fehr is of the opinion that ideas of justice and fairness are not consistently subject to strict rules or regulations in our own culture either. This enable politics to play with people's emotions. In the run up to recent popular votes held in Switzerland posters have begun to appear that play on the electorate's emotions and fears and that carry sometimes demagogical features. The game with the emotion is worthwhile for political parties, according to Fehr, because for the individual a great effort is necessary to outwit the emotional level. As results of recent votes show, however, such manipulation doesn't always pay off.

Over-estimation of one's own capabilities in case of conflict

Security expert, Lars-Erik Cederman from the ETH Zurich's and University of Zurich's Center for Comparative and International Studies (CIS) moved in his talk to the macro level of nations. In armed conflicts actors often over-estimated their own strength. A possible explanation of this phenomenon could be that an exaggerated opinion of oneself in conflicts actually pays off. This is borne out by computer model simulations of virtual state systems, which enabled researchers to test various consequences of over-estimating one's capabilities. Cederman said that currently this over-estimation of one's capabilities probably wasn't worthwile anymore. But that didn't mean that it didn't occur at all. According to Cedermann it was extremely difficult to analyse political processes at this level, "Here, we are dealing with people who have very strange ideas".