Referendums

The quarterly dates of federal votes are fixed and announced in advance. In 2021, all four dates were used, with Swiss voters deciding on 13 ballot proposals (Tables 1–4).

Table 1.

Results of three referenda held on 7 March 2021 in Switzerland

Source: The Federal Chancellery (2021).

The first ballot votes of the year took place on 7 March (Table 1). The popular initiative ‘yes to a ban on full facial coverings’ demanded that no one in Switzerland should be allowed to cover their face in places accessible to the public, that is, on the street, in official offices, on public transport, in football stadiums, restaurants, shops or in the great outdoors. Exceptions would only be possible in places of worship and other sacred places, as well as for reasons of safety, health, climatic conditions and local customs. The initiative was accepted by a small majority of 51.2 per cent of voters and 20 cantons, and thus became the first successful popular initiative since 2014. The post-ballot survey reveals that the most important reasons to accept the initiative were related to cultural considerations and arguments about internal security. Moreover, the display of the niqab and burqa was seen as potentially misogynistic – although a majority of women voted against the initiative (Golder et al. Reference Golder, Mousson, Keller, Venetz, Salathe and Rey2021a: 4).

The second proposal of the day was a referendum on the approval of the economic partnership agreement with Indonesia. As Switzerland is an European Free Trade Association (EFTA) member, voters primarily weighed the economic potential of the agreement with Indonesia against the protection of the environment – especially the production and trade of palm oil. The referendum was called for by the Swiss Farmers’ Union and supported by members of the GPS/PES and a part of the SP/PS (Ammann Reference Ammann2020). However, the economic potential of the agreement finally prevailed with 51.6 per cent yes-votes at the ballot.

On the same day, the citizenry rejected another governmental proposal. The referendum on the Federal Act on Electronic Identification Services failed clearly with 64.4 per cent no-votes. Opponents of the new act were concerned about data protection and were unwilling to accept a solution that could provoke abuses by private issuers (Golder et al. Reference Golder, Mousson, Keller, Venetz, Salathe and Rey2021a: 5).

On 13 June, voters decided on five ballot proposals that covered a wide range of topics from agriculture, Covid-19 governance, the revised CO₂ Act and measures for fighting terrorism (Table 2). This resulted in an exceptionally high voting turnout of almost 60 per cent. What is striking in comparison with other voting dates is that a particularly large number of young people cast their vote, namely 54 per cent of all 18–29-year-olds (Golder et al. Reference Golder, Mousson, Keller, Venetz, Salathe, Estermann and Bohn2021b: 7). While the two agricultural initiatives mobilized the most, the CO₂ Act was most intensively discussed in the campaign.

Table 2.

Results of five referenda held on 13 June 2021 in Switzerland

Source: The Federal Chancellery (2021).

The first two ballot votes on that day were the popular initiative ‘for clean drinking water and healthy food’ and the popular initiative ‘for a Switzerland without artificial pesticides’. The initiatives wanted to introduce strong environmental requirements via direct payments to agriculture and a ban of pesticides. From the beginning, the public debates on both proposals were conducted together, which is why the ‘no’ side argued very similarly against both initiatives. Accordingly, also the ballot results were almost identical, with 39.3 per cent voting in favour of the clean drinking water and 39.4 per cent voting in favour for the initiative against pesticides. Furthermore, the pattern of conflict between the two proposals was almost identical. Even though a ban on (artificial) pesticides in agriculture was well accepted, higher expected food prices in Switzerland was a main argument in the counter-campaign (Golder et al. Reference Golder, Mousson, Keller, Venetz, Salathe, Estermann and Bohn2021b: 5f.). Eventually, a majority judged the demands as too extreme or found the proposals exaggerated. In the countryside, the rejection was more pronounced, while in the core cities it convinced a majority (Golder et al. Reference Golder, Mousson, Keller, Venetz, Salathe, Estermann and Bohn2021b: 5).

The third proposal of the day was a referendum on the COVID-19 act in Switzerland. This act was enacted to create a legal basis for the Federal Council to mitigate the negative effects of the coronavirus pandemic on society and the economy. The association ‘Friends of the Constitution’ had launched a referendum on the grounds that this law would create a potential for abuse and that it had been drafted without the consent of the people. At the ballot, the COVID-19 Act was clearly accepted with 60.2 per cent of votes in favour. ‘Yes’ voters were characterized by their confidence in the Federal Council, the federal office of health and the Covid-19 task force as well as their support the policy during the global pandemic (Golder et al. Reference Golder, Mousson, Keller, Venetz, Salathe, Estermann and Bohn2021b: 6).

The fourth proposal was the referendum on the Federal Act on the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO₂ Act). The CO₂ Act built on previous Swiss climate policy and aimed at creating financial incentives to promote climate-friendly behaviour. Among the major parties, only the right-wing SVP/UDC was against the Act, but interestingly, the French-speaking Switzerland section of the climate strike movement joined the camp of opponents. While the SVP/UDC criticized that the law would be too expensive, the climate strike movement argued that it did not go far enough. In the end, the law was narrowly rejected at the ballot with only 48.4 per cent of votes in favour (Golder et al. Reference Golder, Mousson, Keller, Venetz, Salathe, Estermann and Bohn2021b: 6). While environmental proposals such as the CO₂ Act are generally not easy to get accepted in direct democracy (Stadelmann-Steffen Reference Stadelmann-Steffen2011), the strong mobilization of the agricultural initiatives in rural regions not only led to two clear ‘no’ votes on these initiatives, but eventually also contributed to the rejection of the CO₂ Act (Golder Reference Golder, Mousson, Keller, Venetz, Salathe, Estermann and Bohn2021b: 5).

The fifth proposal on this well-filled voting day was the referendum on the federal act on police measures to combat terrorism. The aim of the Act was to give the police more instruments to prevent terrorist attacks. For opponents, the law was not clearly formulated and they feared that Switzerland would become a police state. Nevertheless, the referendum was rejected with 56.6 per cent of voters supporting the Act (Golder Reference Golder, Mousson, Keller, Venetz, Salathe, Estermann and Bohn2021b: 7).

On 26 September, the Swiss population voted on two proposals (Table 3). The first proposal was the popular initiative ‘Reduce tax on salaries, tax capital fairly’, which was initiated by the Young Socialists (JUSO/JS) and wanted capital income such as interest or dividends to be taxed more heavily. The initiative was rejected clearly with only 35.1 per cent yes-votes.

Table 3.

Results of two referenda held on 26 September 2021 in Switzerland

Source: The Federal Chancellery (2021).

The second vote was the referendum on the marriage for all. The referendum was against the extension of marriage to same-sex couples. However, at the ballot, as the 30th country worldwide – and one of the last in Western Europe – Switzerland accepted the marriage for all reform with 64.1 per cent of voters and all cantons supporting it.Footnote ² The bill enjoyed support among large parts of the population and was practically only rejected by people who described themselves as right-wing extremists, sympathized with the SVP/UDC or had a strong belief in the free churches (Golder Reference Golder, Mousson, Keller, Venetz, Jenzer, Schoch and Rey2021c: 4).

On this day, an above-average number of voters took part in the ballot, with a participation rate around 52.4 per cent, whereas marriage for all mobilized more voters than capital taxation (Golder et al. Reference Golder, Mousson, Keller, Venetz, Jenzer, Schoch and Rey2021c: 5).

On the last voting date, on 28 November, Switzerland decided about three proposals, of which two outcomes were strongly influenced by the pandemic (Table 4). Additionally, this exceptional situation pushed the overall voter turnout to a new record high: since the introduction of women's suffrage in 1971, the average turnout has never been higher than in 2021 (Golder et al. Reference Golder, Mousson, Keller, Venetz, Seebacher, Jenzer and Rey2021d: 4). The first proposal was the ‘nursing initiative’, which calls on the federal government and the cantons to do more for the nursing profession, for example, in the area of training, and also to regulate working conditions and wages. Although the issue had been on the political agenda for years, the pandemic gave special visibility and relevance to the concerns of the initiative and, thus, served as a crucial success factor. The proposal was approved by 61 per cent of voters. According to a follow-up survey (Golder et al. Reference Golder, Mousson, Keller, Venetz, Seebacher, Jenzer and Rey2021d), the ballot result was also an expression of trust in the trade unions and in the nursing staff, and further related to values for a strong welfare state and for solidarity.

Table 4.

Results of three referenda held on 28 November 2021 in Switzerland

Source: The Federal Chancellery (2021).

The second proposal was the ‘judge initiative’. The initiative proposed a new election process for federal judges who would be drawn by lot from a group of candidates chosen by a committee of experts. The proposal was clearly rejected with 32 per cent of yes-votes. The results reflect a general pattern in Swiss politics whereby Swiss citizens exhibit strong trust in the existing institutions and are reluctant to change them at the ballot box.

The third vote was the referendum on the COVID-19 Act. For the second time in the year, and only three months after the first vote, the population could again express their opinion on the pandemic governance in Switzerland. The referendum mainly focused on the Covid-19 certificate (i.e., the proof that a person has either been vaccinated against Covid-19, received a negative test result or recovered from Covid-19). Once again, the population backed the coronavirus policy of the Federal Council and Parliament and accepted the law with an approval rate that was even higher than in June, rising from 60 per cent to 62 per cent (Golder Reference Golder, Mousson, Keller, Venetz, Seebacher, Jenzer and Rey2021d: 5).