Explainer: Why Swiss voters have more influence on foreign policy than almost anyone else

Direct democracy, Sabrina Nick of foraus says, “allows citizens to directly influence, or constrain, [Switzerland's] integration" in the international system. Illustration: Kai Reusser, Swissinfo

Rare is the country that gives its citizens a direct say on the biggest foreign policy issues of the day, like joining the United Nations or trading goods with another country. Switzerland is just such a place – for better or worse.

In most democracies, foreign-policy making is the preserve of the government and the people hired to advise it. The closest citizens usually come to influencing policy is by voting for those that best represent their views.

In Switzerland this is true up to a point. Under the Constitution, the Federal Council (the seven-member executive body) is responsible for the country’s foreign relations. What sets it apart is its system of direct democracy.

What role do Swiss voters play in foreign affairs?

Holding a referendum on foreign policy, such as the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom, is an exception in most democracies, says Sabrina Nick, a lawyer and board member at Swiss foreign policy think tank forausExternal link. In Switzerland, by contrast, nationwide votes take place a handful of times each year. And while these often have to do with domestic matters, occasionally citizens will vote on a major foreign policy question or domestic topics with diplomatic reverberations.

In a small state that’s “deeply economically integrated in the world”, says Nick, this form of democracy “allows citizens to directly influence – or constrain – international integration.”

What key foreign policy questions have the Swiss voted on?

Some of the biggest decisions affecting the country’s place in the world in recent decades first went through the court of public opinion.

This was the case for membership in the United Nations, which set up its European headquarters in Geneva right after the Second World War. Only 40 years later, in 1986, did the question of joining come up. Three-quarters of Swiss voters rejected UN membership, primarily due to fears it would hurt the country’s neutrality. It was not until 2002, in another nationwide ballot, that they approved it by a 54.6% majority.

Competing campaign posters from the “yes” and “no” camps in the 2002 nationwide ballot on whether Switzerland should become a member of the UN. Keystone-SDA

The government reiterated the unique nature of this approach, pointing outExternal link Switzerland was the only country to join the UN following a popular initiative.

For Nick, possibly the most consequential vote on Swiss foreign policy in modern times was the 1992 decision on whether to join the European Economic Area (EEA), considered a stepping stone to European Union membership. The rejection, by a razor-thin 50.3% majority, “fundamentally reshaped” Swiss-EU relations, Nick says. It paved the way for Switzerland to negotiate a series of bilateral agreements in return for access to the EU single market.

Voters subsequently approvedExternal link several of these at the ballot box, including joining the Schengen zone of open borders comprising 29 countries in Europe. These votes, Nick says, were a way “for the Swiss people to say, ‘Let’s go into deeper cooperation with Europe on mobility, asylum and security’, and to confirm the bilateral path [of relations with the EU]”. Approving Schengen and increased funding for the Frontex EU border agency in particular shows a uniquely Swiss approach of “pragmatic integration without political union”, the lawyer adds.

Do Swiss citizens vote on all foreign policy matters?

Over time, Swiss voters have had a say on many other aspects touching on foreign policy, from approving free trade agreements to limiting immigration. This, however, doesn’t mean that every policy decision is automatically put on the ballot.

In the case of trade, for example, the government made it possible for all new deals to be challenged via a referendum only after a heated debate over human rights erupted when China and Switzerland signed a free trade agreement in 2013.

As for immigration, Swiss citizens have gone to the polls multiple times in the past half century, largely thanks to popular initiatives submitted by interest groups and political parties seeking to put a cap on the foreign-born population or, in rarer instances, to loosen migration policy.

Direct voter-say has been comparatively limited on how the country spends its money abroad. Under the law, decisions taken by parliament on the national budget are difficult to challenge by popular vote, Nick says. Hence parliament’s cuts to development cooperation funding to boost defence spending have come despite strong public support for helping countries of the Global South.

Likewise, although a very slim majority (50.1%) approved a budget of CHF6 billion for the purchase of new fighter jets in 2020, that figure has since ballooned. The government rejected calls for a new public vote on the additional costs, deciding instead to reduce the number of F-35 jets it would buy from the United States, to stay “within the financial volume approved by the people.”

What are the limits of Swiss direct democracy in foreign policy-making?

The system of direct democracy has its downsides. Chief among these is unpredictability, Nick says. Outcomes are far from guaranteed, not just for voters – as the fighter jets purchase shows – but for international partners as well.

“The EU has witnessed this several times,” says Nick. “We’re close to an agreement [with Switzerland] and suddenly, a workers’ association says it won’t work for us,” and the deal is challenged to a referendum. “So for foreign partners, direct democracy can be quite tricky.”

Vote results can also put a state at odds with its international obligations. This happened after the 2014 Swiss vote on an initiative to “stop mass immigration”, which called for quotas on EU workers. The initiative succeeded with a narrow 50.3% majority. It took the government years to find a way to restrict labour-market access by foreign nationals without breaching its treaty on free movement with the EU.

The mass immigration vote, Nick says, also shows the difficulty of explaining to the public – let alone anticipate – all the consequences of an initiative on a subject as complex as migration, and preventing emotional discourses from influencing voters’ decision.

What are the advantages of voter-say?

Voter-say does have its upsides. The fact that Swiss citizens have the possibility to challenge a policy through direct democracy pushes officials to consult stakeholders extensively “to make sure their position is really consensus-built”, says Nick. “So whatever Switzerland negotiates internationally is solid because […] the needs of the population have been taken into consideration.”

Wanting to avoid a challenge at the polls also forces policy makers to keep citizens informed and explain their decisions, she points out.

And if a decision has to be put to voters, getting that seal of approval from the public means “stronger long-term acceptance, like the vote to join the UN – once it’s decided, it won’t be shaken.”

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

Edited by Tony Barrett/vm/ac