Simon Stocker: Defeat, Humility and the End of a Political Mandate

Summary

The former States Council member Simon Stocker speaks openly about the most dramatic phase of his political life: His election in November 2023 against Thomas Minder, followed by a lawsuit over invalid residency and ultimately his mandate revocation by the Federal Court and his defeat in the States Council election. In an interview with the SRF podcast "Apropos," the SP politician reflects on loss, family, and the limits of Swiss democracy.

People

Topics

Detailed Summary

The Shock and Rapid Response

Simon Stocker describes the moment his mandate was revoked as a Tuesday morning in March 2024. During a subcommittee meeting, he received messages from journalists. His longtime acquaintance Roger Steinemann called to inform him that the Federal Court had decided: Stocker could not keep his mandate because during the election campaign he lived in Zurich, not in Schaffhausen – a technical violation of residency requirements.

Stocker's reaction was remarkable: Within 24 hours, he mobilized his campaign team, updated his website, wrote newsletters, and organized a press conference. This rapid crisis management stems from his experience as a former city councilor, where he learned to act with composure in difficult moments.

The Election and the Defeat

After the mandate revocation came the campaign for the States Council by-election. Stocker reports initial optimism – his team initially dominated the public space. But then the opposition struck back. Posters and advertisements against Stocker flooded the canton. The campaign was conducted very sharply especially at the local level, while it received less attention in national media.

Four to five weeks before the election, Stocker was still confident. But on election day it quickly became clear: His opponent Severin Brünker gained significantly everywhere. Particularly in the city of Schaffhausen, where Stocker would have needed to win, he lost decisively. After a few municipalities were counted, he already knew it was over.

Privacy as a Political Weapon

The central trauma in Stocker's story is the violation of his privacy. Together with his wife, he had found a pragmatic solution for a long-distance relationship: He lived largely in Zurich (where his wife worked professionally), she in Schaffhausen (for their son's school commute). This was a conscious, organized arrangement – not an attempt at deception.

But when the lawsuit was filed, their private life organization fell apart in public discussion into "about 50 versions." People on the street constantly asked him about his living arrangements, SP members asked unsettling questions, and Weltwoche published lengthy commentaries. Political opponents deliberately spread the narrative that he only came to Schaffhausen on Sundays to empty his mailbox before driving back to Zurich – a lie that took hold in reader letters.

His wife suffered particularly from this situation. She was constantly approached, felt ashamed, became a public figure against her will. The couple discussed whether she should give up her career, but decided against it – they didn't want to let a court ruling dictate how they should live.

Humility Instead of Bitterness

What is impressive in this conversation: Stocker's absence of anger or resentment. He explains this with a personal attitude of humility that he learned from older people. He compares his loss to the life realities of other people – he is doing well, he has family, health, a new job. Why should he present himself as a poor man?

At the same time, he takes responsibility: It's not the "evil opponents" who are to blame, but rather the Federal Court decided and the voters voted. He refuses to shift the blame.

Stocker's thesis on the "signal from the cosmos": Perhaps the world of federal parliament with its lobbyists, self-promotion, and party mechanics was not his world. Perhaps he should focus more on his passion – age policy – where his motion actually triggered something in the system.

Blind Spots from Left and Right

Despite all his humility, Stocker does criticize Swiss institutions. The Federal Court may have ruled correctly in legal terms, but it reveals: Laws lag behind reality. In 20 years, he predicts, people will laugh about the residency issue.

More broadly, he argues that both left-wing and right-wing politicians have blind spots. The left is romantic about migration issues and ignores problems. The right too often sit on boards of directors and in single-family homes and don't understand the reality of ordinary people. This works better in the States Council than in the National Council, where party doctrine carries more weight – there you have to follow or get "put in your place."

Life After the Mandate

Stocker describes the time after his defeat as surprisingly liberating. After one or two weeks of vacation, he quickly switched to a new mode. Today he works as a consultant for municipalities, cantons and organizations in the field of age policy – the city of Zurich, the Association for the Blind, various municipalities in the canton of Schaffhausen are clients. Additionally, he sits on two boards of directors (People's Pharmacy and a subsidiary company) and will soon become president.

The luxury: He doesn't have to actively acquire clients – inquiries come on their own. His network in age policy is strong.

What surprised him: How little he actually misses. He misses certain people and topics, but not the daily self-promotion, the "coffees" in front of the Federal Palace, the ideological debates about topics he had no opinion on. When he was still States Council member, he often came home from Bern thinking: "Thank goodness I'm not part of that anymore."

Stocker travels a lot – to Hamburg, Cologne, Munich (where his wife's family lives), works with business colleagues in Zurich. He can spend time with his son, meets with friends, chooses jobs he enjoys. The second half of 2024 was "really good."

Looking to the Future

When asked whether there will be political mandates again, Stocker answers: "I really don't rule anything out in life." But he never planned political offices – it was always about timing. Who would have thought that Thomas Minder would lose to him? You can't plan that.

Over the next three years there could be municipal or city council elections – maybe, sometimes they wonder when that would still be exciting. But: "It's also very cool right now as a self-employed person, and who knows."

Key Statements

• Crisis as a turning point: The defeat was brutal, but not destructive – Stocker responds with inner attitude instead of anger.

• Privacy as a political battlefield: The public discussion about his family life deeply hurts him and his wife, but also shows how political opponents instrumentalize private realities.

• Institutional time lag: Laws and institutions in Switzerland lag behind life's realities – the residency issue will be seen as antiquated in 20 years.

• Party logic vs. independence: The National Council forces adherence to the party line, the States Council allows more independence – but ideological constraints exist there too.

• Humility as a survival strategy: Stocker's ability not to see himself as a victim but to take responsibility and practice humility shapes his well-being after the defeat.

• Age policy as a calling: Stocker's motion on age policy actually triggered something in the system – that is his real subject, not federal parliament.

• Just got away with it? Without the new election, Stocker would have kept his mandate – the story also shows how fragile political careers are.

Metadata