Bringing expertise to politics.
Text: Urs Hafner
Researchers can contribute much to government-commissioned political advisory committees — if they are allowed to do so. Monika Pfaffinger and Laurent Goetschel share their contrasting experiences.
The outcomes could not have been more different: Monika Pfaffinger led the Federal Council’s expert group on international adoptions, whose recommendations featured prominently in the media in February 2025. She says: “This role was one of my most fascinating professional challenges. And one of the most impactful.” Up to summer 2024, Laurent Goetschel was a member of the Federal Council’s study commission on security policy. His verdict? “My involvement was a complete waste of time.”
Goetschel teaches political science at the University of Basel and is the director of Swisspeace, a practice and research institute. Pfaffinger earned her postdoctoral Habilitation in Basel and is a lecturer in civil, technology and information law. They each contributed to a committee tasked with advising federal politicians and enabling them to make the most informed and rational decisions possible. This is known as “evidence-based politics.”
“When I received the inquiry from the Federal Office of Justice, I was surprised. It quickly became clear that the role entrusted to me came with huge responsibility,” says Pfaffinger. A lawyer, she wrote her dissertation on the topic of adoption in 2007 but was not involved in more recent studies showing that Swiss couples adopted thousands of children from the Global South in irregular circumstances, predominantly between the 1970s and 1990s. These findings led the Federal Council to identify the need for action.
Pfaffinger had a say in selecting the members of the group, which was able to work independently. “The administration respected and encouraged our methods at all times,” she says. The group had 10 members, including people affected by the issue and representatives of institutions involved in adoptions. “A great deal of professional expertise and tact was required, both within the group and when interacting with the people affected, the authorities and the media.”
Fundamental reforms or ban.
In its 13 sessions, the group worked with the principle of consent to develop recommendations that were shared by all members. They came to the conclusion that a paradigm shift was required, that the Swiss political system needs to address “the risks and realities inherent in the system” and the past, present and future of adoption: “Adoptees have a right to know their origins,” says Pfaffinger.
The group presented two options for future adoptions: Switzerland could either pass fundamental reforms or withdraw from the “international adoptions of foreign children.” The Federal Council chose the second option.For Pfaffinger, working with the group was “demanding and constructive,” and her academic work has gained political and social relevance.
Outsider in the committee.
Meanwhile, peace researcher Goetschel was left frustrated: “If I’d known how the study commission on security policy works, I wouldn’t have got involved.” When the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport (DDPS) asked him to join the commission, the first thing he asked was who else was involved. It immediately became clear that, given both his career as a social scientist and his personal beliefs, he would be an outsider in this 22-member commission comprised mainly of former federal civil servants, politicians and business representatives.
And yet, Goetschel says, “I thought I would enrich the debate. After all, the report could have helped build a foundation for reorienting security policy in a world undergoing substantial upheaval. I figured that every committee member’s position would be represented, at least to a certain extent.” But that wasn’t how things turned out. In its nine meetings, the commission voted on each substantive point individually; this meant that, due to the composition of the commission, the representatives of the FDP and Mitte political parties/the DDPS always got their way. “The SVP party representative was as dissatisfied as I was,” says Goetschel.
For example, he proposed that conscientious objectors could perform their civilian service abroad with peacebuilding institutions. “This would have been prudent in the context of a coherent security policy, but the majority objected for ideological reasons.”
In Goetschel’s opinion, the commission was structured incorrectly: “A commission with a clear majority view cannot function in accordance with the principle of majority rule. The experts’ assessments were systematically overruled, even if they were academically evidenced.”
The report by the “blinkered commission,” as Goetschel calls it, put forward more than a hundred recommendations to the Federal Council, almost all of which fell in line with the DDPS: “Ultimately, the administration could have written the report itself without bringing in researchers.” Goetschel did take one positive away from his experience: “We had some lively debates.”
More articles in this issue of UNI NOVA (May 2025).