Let’s give the green light for the next 700 referendums! (Part 2)

The Importance of Direct Democracy in Switzerland

by Dr. rer. publ. Werner Wüthrich

Since the founding of the Swiss federal state in 1848, voters have been called to the ballot box around 700 times to decide on federal matters. These votes have covered a wide range of issues: revisions of the Federal Constitution, amendments to constitutional articles, new or revised legislation, and major national decisions – from the creation of the canton of Jura to the purchase of fighter jets.
  Two particularly important votes for Switzerland are expected in the near future. The planned framework agreement with the European Union would integrate Switzerland more closely into EU institutions and could significantly limit the scope of direct democracy. At the same time, voters are expected to decide this year on the “Neutrality Initiative,” which aims to reaffirm and strengthen Switzerland’s traditional policy of neutrality.
  Under the heading “Let’s Give the Green Light for the Next 700 Referendums!”, Current Concerns is publishing an occasional series exploring the political significance of direct democracy in Switzerland (see Part 1 in the issue of 23 September 2025). The following article examines how the Swiss people – working together with their political institutions – have repeatedly found practical ways to safeguard the referendum at the federal level, even during difficult times.
  At the beginning of the 21st century, Professor Wolf Linder of the University of Bern and his colleagues compiled and systematically organised data on all federal referendums held between 1848 and 2007. Their work was published in the Handbook of Swiss Referendums 1848–2007, which remains publicly accessible today. After Linder’s retirement, other researchers continued the project. As a result, information on all federal referendums from 1848 to the present can now be found online at swissvotes.ch.
  Each of these votes is numbered. As of 1 January 2026, the total stands at 700. Many readers may be surprised to learn that Switzerland has held 700 federal referendums since the country’s founding. And if we were to include votes at the cantonal and municipal levels – across 26 cantons and roughly 2,000 municipalities – the total would run into many thousands.
  But the importance of referendums lies not only in their number. Their true significance emerges when they are viewed in historical context – and in the remarkable civic commitment of citizens who repeatedly engage in political decision-making for the common good.

Optional referendums and popular initiatives

The revised Federal Constitution of 1874 introduced a ground-breaking provision:
  “Federal laws and generally binding federal decrees that are not declared urgent shall be submitted to the people for approval or rejection if requested by 30,000 eligible Swiss voters or by eight cantons.”
  This article established the optional referendum, which was to have a profound influence on Switzerland’s political and legal system. The innovation was possible because referendums had already been introduced in several cantons. In the canton of Zurich, for example, the “Democratic Movement of Winterthur” played a decisive role in advancing this development.
  At the time, constitutional lawmakers faced an important question – both at the cantonal and federal levels. Political decisions often involve complex and time-sensitive issues that require swift action. The politician and railway pioneer Alfred
Escher, for example, believed that such situations favoured a purely representative system without referendums.
  Parliament ultimately adopted a compromise. Article 89 of the constitution allowed referendums only for laws “that are not of an urgent nature.” This clause created a loophole: Parliament could declare a law urgent by a simple majority and bring it into force immediately, thereby bypassing a referendum. Moreover, the constitution did not clearly define what constituted “urgency.”
  (Urgent legislation should not be confused with emergency law, which allows the Federal Council and Parliament to take immediate measures in extraordinary situations.)

Citizens take action

The Swiss public quickly made use of the new instrument. Between 1875 and 1879, citizens launched twelve referendums, collecting the required 30,000 signatures within just 90 days. These campaigns demonstrated a remarkable willingness to participate actively in politics and assume responsibility for public affairs.
  Such engagement reflected the fact that many citizens were already familiar with direct democratic practices at the cantonal level. These early experiences paved the way for the next major innovation: the popular initiative, introduced in 1891.
  With the required number of signatures – then 50,000, today 100,000 – citizens could demand a nationwide vote on a constitutional amendment. Because constitutional changes affect the foundations of Swiss federalism, they must obtain a double majority: a majority of voters and a majority of cantons.
  The interplay between referendums and popular initiatives would profoundly shape Swiss politics in the decades that followed.

The struggle for direct democracy

Until the First World War, Parliament rarely used the urgency clause to avoid referendums. This changed during the interwar period, especially during the severe economic crisis of the 1930s. During those years Parliament declared 151 federal decrees urgent, exempting them from the referendum process.
  Initially, the population supported many of these extraordinary measures. They were often intended to help farmers and small businesses, combat unemployment, fund infrastructure projects such as Alpine roads, rescue the Volksbank, or support industries like watchmaking and textiles.
  But an increasingly pressing question arose: how would these measures be financed?
  Trade unions launched a popular initiative proposing a temporary crisis levy, similar to the wartime tax introduced during the First World War. Their aim was to prevent wage cuts for federal employees.
  Parliament, however, bypassed the initiative and introduced the levy through urgent legislation that took effect immediately without a referendum. The initiators reluctantly withdrew their proposal – but public dissatisfaction grew.
  Soon afterward, wages in the federal administration, the postal service, and the Swiss Federal Railways were reduced. The Federal Council initially demanded a 10 percent cut; Parliament settled on 7 percent.
  This time, a referendum could not be avoided. Within four months, citizens collected over 300,000 signatures – more than ten times the number required. With turnout exceeding 80 percent, 55 percent of voters rejected the government’s proposal.

Distrust of the people? Searching for a remedy

As the situation persisted, criticism grew. Many believed that constitutional freedoms were being curtailed too severely. The constitutional scholar Zaccaria Giacometti spoke out forcefully, describing the practice as “parliamentary absolutism” or even “parliamentary dictatorship.”
  Between 1929 and 1933 alone, Parliament exempted 92 federal decrees from the referendum process. The loophole had effectively become a wide-open gate. As constitutional historian Alfred Kölz later wrote, the authorities clearly wished to avoid exposing economic policy measures to the “uncertainties of a popular vote.” (Kölz II 2004, p. 768)
  Public criticism intensified. Citizens asked: Why can we not vote? Almost every law is declared urgent – otherwise Parliament would not pass it. Do the Federal Council and Parliament prefer to govern without the people?
  Five different political groups eventually launched popular initiatives aimed at limiting the use of urgent legislation. Some proposed stricter parliamentary majorities before urgency could be invoked; others suggested judicial review by a constitutional court. Yet none of these proposals initially won majority support.
  A workable solution would only emerge after the Second World War.

1949: Urgent legislation becomes democratic

In 1949, voters approved the popular initiative “Return to Direct Democracy,” drafted with the participation of Zaccaria Giacometti.
  The reform preserved the possibility of urgent legislation but introduced an important safeguard: a referendum would still be held afterward, within one year. If constitutional provisions were affected, the referendum would be mandatory.
  In 1949, Zaccaria Giacometti’s circle did not foresee how much their popular initiative would one day contribute to involving the population directly in political decision-making, even in times of crisis.
  This rule – now anchored in Article 165 of the Federal Constitution – ensured that even emergency measures would ultimately remain subject to democratic oversight.

A test during the economic boom

The 1960s and early 1970s brought a crisis of a very different nature to that of the 1930s: not recession but economic overheating.
  In 1962, for example, only 62 unemployed persons were registered in the entire country. Overtime was widespread, and anyone who lost a job could usually find another within hours.
Employees in companies were working feverishly to complete all pending orders on time. The “emergency law”, which had been democratised in 1949, was frequently applied. Parliament passed eleven temporary and urgent federal decrees, all of which came into force immediately. They all violated the constitutional rights of freedom – in particular the freedom of trade and commerce – and, under the new rule of 1949, they were immediately put to a vote (cf. Rhinow 2011, pp. 36–37).
  However, these urgent federal decrees had a completely different content from those passed by Parliament in the 1930s, primarily to combat unemployment. The authorities attempted to “cool down” the overheated economy. For example, they temporarily banned the construction of luxury single-family houses (in order to free up construction capacity for infrastructure and normal housing construction). Or they banned the creation of new additional jobs for a year by capping the number of employees in companies, i.e. setting an upper limit on staffing levels. Hundreds of thousands of workers immigrated from abroad – initially mainly from Italy, which was at war.
  To make new investments more difficult, individual federal resolutions required banks to be cautious when granting loans. Social problems grew: there was a shortage of housing, emergency shelters had to be set up, school buildings were too small, and motorways needed to be built. Environmental pollution became increasingly severe, and Lake Zurich and Lake Lugano soon became unsuitable for swimming because the water was so polluted... Waste incineration plants had to be built quickly. Inflation threatened incomes. Finally, the Bretton Woods monetary system collapsed, and streams of foreign currency – mainly US dollars and German Deutschmark – sought refuge in Switzerland. Their owners tried to exchange them for Swiss francs, which were backed by gold following a referendum in 1951. Exchange rates plummeted. The National Bank introduced capital controls and levied negative interest rates of more than 10 per cent at times. This was accompanied by further urgent decisions to protect the currency and combat inflation. “Monsieur Prix” began to monitor prices. Gold rose to unprecedented heights – similar to today.
  In the eleven referendums, the people clearly said yes, expressing their confidence in the authorities and strengthening their resolve. This was important because in turbulent times (which required swift action), it is not easy for the authorities to make decisions that are both appropriate and proportionate – i.e. that do not unduly restrict civil liberties and democracy. The approval rates were mostly high. Direct democracy had passed the practical test with the new rules of the popular initiative of 1949. It was also to prove its worth in more recent times.
  Direct democracy had passed an important test.

Direct democracy in the Covid-19 pandemic

Another major test came with the Covid-19 pandemic beginning in 2019. Governments around the world imposed sweeping restrictions – lockdowns, school closures, and vaccination mandates – that significantly affected civil liberties.
  In Switzerland, the Federal Council initially issued emergency ordinances under the Epidemics Act. These were later converted into urgent federal legislation. Under the constitutional rules introduced in 1949, referendums could still be held afterward.
  In accordance with the rules of 1949, the “Friends of the Constitution” launched a referendum, and a vote was quickly held – on 3 June 2021, 28 November 2021, and 18 June 2023.
  Each time, roughly 60 percent of voters supported the government’s policy. These votes were unique internationally. They expressed democratic confidence in the authorities during a difficult crisis, helped defuse political tensions, and contributed to social stability – even though a substantial minority remained critical of the measures.

Direct democracy as a success story

Modern Swiss history demonstrates how citizens and political authorities together shape the country’s development. Direct democracy may slow the political process – but this is often a strength rather than a weakness.
  It reinforces social cohesion and helps hold together Switzerland’s diverse society with its multiple linguistic and cultural regions. Even in difficult times, it strengthens shared responsibility and helps prevent political violence.
  The roots of this system reach far back into Swiss history. The cooperative traditions of the Old Swiss Confederacy, symbolised by the Federal Charter of 1291, laid the foundations for today’s federal structures and democratic practices. (Roca 2012)
  Every referendum fosters a sense of participation and community across linguistic and social boundaries. Even those who do not vote inevitably hear about the issues, discuss them with neighbours, and form opinions.
  In times of tension, referendums created a sense of unity and stabilised the country. As recent Swiss history has repeatedly shown, the search and struggle for better solutions is part of direct democracy in Switzerland – in cooperation with the authorities.

Conclusion

Switzerland has developed one of the world’s most extensive systems of political participation. This system depends on a high degree of political independence – expressed most clearly in the country’s tradition of neutrality.
  Independence, neutrality, bottom-up federalism, and direct democracy at all political levels are essential elements of Switzerland’s political identity. Together they have helped shape the modern Swiss state and its prosperity.
  There have never been rigid ideological “firewalls” in Swiss politics – only the occasional “Röstigraben,” the cultural divide between German- and French-speaking Switzerland.
  Let us therefore give the green light for the next 700 referendums – especially in today’s world, where democracies in many countries are struggling and facing unrest. Worlwide politicians are looking for ideas on how to get citizens more involved. the challenge is not how to involve citizens more in politics – but how to recognise and preserve what direct democracy has already achieved – before we integrate institutionally into the EU, which ticks very differently, or even into NATO. We have every reason to preserve and nurture this treasure at all political levels! It is strange that referendums carry so little weight in our war-torn world, given that the evidence of their peace-promoting effect has long been on the table. On 8 March, six more referendums will be added to the 700 that have already been held at federal level in Switzerland. These are:

Law on individual taxation (optional referendum)
Climate Fund Initiative (popular initiative)
a) Cash Initiative (popular initiative)
b) Federal resolution on currencies and cash supply (direct counter-proposal by Parliament).
c) Tiebreaker question: What applies if both proposals are accepted?
SRG initiative (popular initiative) “200 francs are enough”

The questions posed are challenging. (For details, see: admin.ch => voting booklet; swissvotes.ch => votes.) A broad, nationwide debate has been ongoing for several weeks.
Further questions were added on 8 March in the votes of individual cantons. •