The exceptional right of review of the Swiss population over its foreign policy

It is very rare for a country to grant its citizens direct decision-making power on the major international issues of the moment, such as membership in the UN or the establishment of commercial relations with another country. Switzerland is one of these exceptions. For better and for worse.

In most democracies, international relations are the preserve of government and specialist advisors. Ordinary citizens only have their say by voting for those who best represent their vision on the matter.

In Switzerland, this is also the case to a certain extent. According to the Constitution, the Federal Council, the seven-member executive body, is responsible for the country’s international relations. What sets the Alpine country apart is its system of direct democracy.

What role do Swiss citizens play in international affairs?

Holding referendums on foreign policy, such as the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom, is an exception in most democracies, says Sabrina Nick, lawyer and member of forausExternal linka Swiss participatory think tank on foreign policy. In Switzerland, on the contrary, national votes take place several times a year. Although they mainly concern domestic policy, the electorate is from time to time called upon to express themselves on international issues, or internal ones but with diplomatic repercussions.

Plus

In this small country “deeply integrated economically with the rest of the world”, according to Sabrina Nick, this form of democracy “allows citizens to directly influence, even restrict, this integration into globalization”.

On which key issues have the Swiss already voted?

In recent decades, some major decisions for the country’s place on the international stage have been submitted to public opinion.

This was the case for membership in the United Nations, which established its European headquarters in Geneva just after the Second World War. However, it was not until 40 years before the question of membership was raised, in 1986. Three-quarters of the Swiss electorate then refused to join the UN, most fearing that this would harm the neutrality of the country. It was only in 2002 that the Swiss people approved the project by a majority of 54.6%, during another national vote.

The government reaffirmed the unique characterExternal link of this approach, emphasizing that Switzerland was the only country to join the UN following a popular vote.

For Sabrina Nick, the election which probably had the most impact on Swiss foreign policy was that of 1992, which concerned membership of the European External Area (EEA), considered as the springboard towards membership of the European Union (EU). Her rejection, by a very narrow majority of 50.3%, “fundamentally reshaped” relations between Switzerland and the EU, according to her. The event laid the foundations for Switzerland to renegotiate the bilateral agreements which give it access to the single European market.

The electorate subsequently approved several of these treaties at the ballot boxExternal linknotably membership in the Schengen area, which brings together 29 European countries, and is characterized by the free movement of people. These votes were a way “for the Swiss to say ‘Let’s cooperate more closely with Europe on issues of movement, asylum and security’ and to confirm the bilateral approach [dans les relations avec l'UE]HAS”. Membership in Schengen and the increase in funding for the border control agency Frontex clearly illustrate this typically Swiss approach of “pragmatic integration without political union,” adds the lawyer.

Do Swiss citizens speak out on all international issues?

Over time, people have had the opportunity to express themselves on many foreign policy issues, from approving free trade treaties to limiting immigration. Which does not mean that every political decision is automatically put to a vote.

In matters of trade, for example, it is now possible to challenge any new treaty by way of a referendum. The government granted the concession after a heated debate over human rights erupted during the signing of the free trade agreement between China and Switzerland in 2013.

Plus

On immigration, the Swiss have gone to the polls numerous times over the past half-century. A frequency that we owe to popular initiatives emanating from interest groups or political parties who want to limit the influx of populations of foreign origin or, more rarely, to relax migration rules.

Direct voting has relatively less influence on issues of foreign budget spending. The law makes it difficult for people to contest decisions taken by Parliament on budgetary issues, according to the lawyer. This is how Parliament decided to cut development aid to finance the defense effort, despite the fact that public opinion is favorable to humanitarian aid for the countries of the South.

Likewise, although a very narrow majority (50.1%) validated a budget of 6 billion francs for the acquisition of new combat aircraft in 2020, this amount has since exploded. The government rejected calls for a new popular vote on additional costs, and instead decided to reduce the number of orders for F-35 aircraft from the United States, in order to stay “within the budget approved by the people.”

What are the limits of Swiss direct democracy in matters of international politics?

The system of direct democracy has some disadvantages. First of all, its unpredictable character, analyzes Sabrina Nick. The results are far from guaranteed, whether for the electorate, as the example of combat planes shows, or for international partners.

“The EU has observed this on numerous occasions,” declares the lawyer. We are getting closer to an agreement [avec la Suisse] and suddenly, a union says “it doesn’t work,” and the treaty is contested by referendum. “For international partners, direct democracy can be complicated to manage.”

The results of the polls sometimes put the country at odds with its international obligations. This happened after the 2014 vote in Switzerland “against mass immigration”, which called for imposing quotas on the European workforce. The initiative was accepted by a narrow majority of 50.3%. As a result, the government put years of finding a way to restrict the access of foreign nationals to the labor market without breaching the agreement with the EU on the free movement of people.

The vote “against mass immigration” shows how difficult it is to explain to the public, and even more difficult to anticipate, all the consequences of an initiative on a subject as complex as immigration. It’s also difficult to prevent emotional rhetoric from influencing their decision.

What are the advantages of this direct expression of the electorate?

This direct mode of expression also has its advantages. Since Swiss citizens can oppose a political measure through direct democracy, the authorities are encouraged to carry out broad consultations upstream, “to ensure that their position truly emanates from a consensus,” declares Sabrina Nick. So everything that Switzerland negotiates internationally is solid because the needs of the population have been taken into account.”

The prospect of being questioned at the ballot box requires political leaders to inform the population and explain their decisions, she emphasizes. Likewise, if a decision put to a vote receives the approval of the people, this implies “better acceptance in the long term, such as the vote for membership in the UN. Once it is voted on, it is no longer contested.”

“This level of democratic legitimacy is quite unique in the world,” she concludes.

Relu et vérifié par Tony Barrett. Translated from English by Pauline Grand d’Esnon.

Plus