How digital civil society helped shape the Swiss e-ID

Keystone / Anthony Anex

When Swiss voters rejected an electronic identity in 2021, politicians and authorities involved critics in the redesign of the law. Erik Schönenberger from the Digital Society association calls the process “exemplary” – unlike in other areas of digital policy.

On Sunday 50.4% of Swiss voters backed the introduction of an electronic identity card (e-ID). Four years ago, on March 7, 2021, almost two-thirds of the electorate voted against one.

On March 10, 2025, parliamentarians from all political camps submitted motions in favour of an e-ID. Were politicians trying to ignore a direct democratic decision?

No. This is because these initiatives took up the main criticism of the rejected referendum proposal: they called for a state electronic ID (e-ID) that focuses on data economy and decentralised storage. The rejected e-ID proposal would have been issued by private companies. The initiatives reacted – also explicitly – to the result of the vote and included counter-arguments.

Referendums are more than a yes or no vote

This shows that direct democratic instruments achieve more over time than a yes or no. “Most rejected referendums lead to a new start, in which an attempt is then made to incorporate the result of the referendum,” says political scientist Marc Bühlmann, co-director of Année Politique Suisse and professor at the University of Bern.

However, he says the way in which a no vote by Swiss voters on a political project is interpreted is itself a political decision. He cites the CO2 Act as an example: in 2021 a narrow majority (51.6%) rejected the bill. “From the point of view of the Greens, the new CO2 Act, which was not voted on, is probably not really ‘better’ than the first one,” Bühlmann says.

In the case of the 2021 e-ID referendum, the situation seems somewhat different: a law has been rejected with arguments, and these arguments have led to a new law that has a majority behind it. The example of the e-ID also shows how authorities, faced with the pressure of having to convince a majority of voters, can include and involve criticism and civil society voices.

‘Fought on Sunday – sat together on Monday’

Erik Schönenberger is managing director of the Digital Society association. Pictured at the press conference of the supporters of the e-ID proposal in August 2025. Keystone / Anthony Anex

Erik Schönenberger opposed the privately issued e-ID in 2021. In the 2025 referendum, the co-managing director of the Digital Society associationExternal link was one of those in favour.

“Compared to the current referendum campaign, the mood was different,” Schönenberger tells Swissinfo. He says that even before the day of the vote, people were already thinking about how to proceed after the – expected – rejection.

“It was clear to the Digital Society that we were not against an e-ID per se,” he says. Accordingly, they wanted to approach the other side. “On Sunday we were still fighting each other – from Monday we sat together.”

The proposals won over a majority in parliament. “Until the law was finalised, they then formed guidelines for its design,” says Schönenberger, who was involved as a representative of civil society.

In autumn 2021 the Swiss government invited critics and interested parties to a consultation. “The authorities wanted to get a picture of what Switzerland wants for an electronic identity: is it about identification with the authorities or the creation of a trust infrastructure that can also form the basis for digital library cards?”

Consultation in favour of e-ID by civil society and academia

Dozens of responses were received during the first consultation. Some groups that took part, such as the Pirate Party, also fought against the e-ID in 2025. A conference and further consultations allowed for a debate. “The Federal Office of Justice sought the perspective of civil society and the scientific community,” he says.

In the end, the draft law was submitted for consultation in June 2022. As is usual with Swiss laws, the government published a version of the law and invited the public to express their opinion. The Digital Society did the same. “We were still critical, because although the thrust was right, the question of overidentification remained open.”

As it is now envisaged, the Swiss e-ID should only reveal the information required in each case. Anyone using it to buy alcohol online, for example, only reveals their age of majority, not their exact age or any other information, which would constitute overidentification.

Participation process more than political marketing?

The law went to parliament, was further adapted and firmed up. Schönenberger remembers how they were also consulted by politicians and authorities in part because of the specific technical feasibility. “For example there was the question how can we make it secure that the e-ID is linked to a specific mobile phone?” Schönenberger gives an insight into the phase of “hearings, consultations and final loops”.

Governments can of course also use public consultations and participation processes as a marketing tool. The Swiss authorities also used the consultations to advertise after the defeat. For example, with an animationExternal link that explains to a critical citizen: “Before parliament discusses the new bill, everyone, including you, can have their say.”

But for Schönenberger, the process leading up to the new law is far more than just marketing. Schönenberger calls it “exemplary” and hopes that other digital policy issues will be handled in the same way.

The role of civil society in Switzerland

The fact that civil society has such a role to play is probably a Swiss peculiarity. In IDEA’s recently published Global State of DemocracyExternal link, Switzerland achieved third place in the Participation category, even though the average voter turnout is low. The reason for the good result is, in addition to citizen participation, a very high score in the area of civil society.

Schönenberger also believes that civil society plays an important role in the Swiss political system thanks to concordance and the militia principle. He believes organisations such as the Digital Society would have found it more difficult in the European Union to have their concerns heard on the issue of electronic identity.

But Switzerland is sluggish, he adds. For example, the EU has long since adopted a legal framework for AI regulation. “The government is announcing a preliminary draft in a year-and-a-half,” he says, annoyed. The slowness is “exasperating”. By then, society will already be at a different point, he says.

Not everywhere in digital policy as with e-ID

Schönenberger is also concerned about the surveillance state, “which we also have in Switzerland with data retention and cable surveillance”. The upcoming “tightening” would further lead to “justified surveillance tipping over into mass surveillance”, he says. “We as the Digital Society want to stop this.”

He also sees this confirmed by Sunday’s vote result. Although a majority voted in favour, 49.6% were against. “Many people feel powerless in the face of digitalisation. That’s why the result should give us pause for thought,” he says. According to Schönenberger, the result could be interpreted to mean that the government will only succeed in convincing a majority if it involves the critical civil society.

Accordingly, he also sees his praise for the “exemplary” participation process in the design of Swiss electronic identity as a warning to the government. “Without participation and the inclusion of criticism, future digital policy laws will probably fall short of the majority,” he says.

With regard to the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) and the large tech platforms, Schönenberger currently sees “no signs of a similar level of civil society involvement”.

However, the implementation of the e-ID will not only be shaped by those parts of civil society that were in favour of e-ID: the opponents of e-ID have already announced that their concerns will focus heavily on it being voluntary and on data protection.

Edited by Samuel Jaberg. Translated from German by DeepL/ts