Swiss say ‘no’ to population cap but want solutions-driven debate on migration

The right-wing Swiss People's Party did not talk about foreigners but about the problems facing population growth. Keystone / Jean-Christophe Bott

Swiss voters on Sunday clearly rejected the right-wing Swiss People’s Party’s proposal to cap the population at ten million. But the problems associated with immigration are broadly recognised, says political analyst Urs Bieri of the gfs.bern research institute.

Swissinfo: Voters clearly rejected the ‘No to ten million” immigration initiative by a 55% majority. Why?

Urs Bieri: In Switzerland, we have spent a long time debating the problems caused by immigration. In the eyes of the electorate, these problems do exist. But in the end, they weighed on the initiative itself, particularly its weaknesses, and these proved to be significant.

Urs Bieri is a political analyst at the gfs.bern research institute. gfs.bern

Most voters were worried about staff shortages in the care sector or the hospitality industry. They were concerned about a strained relationship with the European Union, and had fears about the financing of the pension system. Taken together, this meant that opposition to this initiative was quite clear.
 
Swissinfo: This was one of the most important referendums in recent years. What is the key takeaway from this vote?

U.B.: There are two. The first relates to the Bilateral Agreements III. The public does not want to radically jeopardise relations with the European Union. Second: the Swiss recognise the difficulties surrounding the free movement of persons and migration. The significant ‘yes’ vote (45%) shows that politicians must now find solutions to the effects of immigration.

 
Swissinfo: Voter turnout was unusually high, and the Swiss People’s Party mobilised beyond its base. Who did it reach?

U.B.: The Swiss People’s Party stopped talking about ‘foreign infiltration’ and instead about overcrowded trains and expensive housing. That’s a new angle. It has also convinced new people and brought them to the ballot box, people who struggle to find a flat in an urban area or who cannot find a seat on the train in the morning. These people are not necessarily right-wing conservatives. They may well be apolitical. But they may be middle-class or perhaps even left-leaning.
 
Swissinfo: At the same time, mobilisation by left-wing parties and trade unions in the cities helped defeat the initiative.

U.B.: Yes, but there was above-average turnout across Switzerland. We expect around 59% nationally – one of the ten highest turnouts since women gained the vote – and in cities. Incidentally, the ‘no’ vote was not a decision for or against expensive housing, but rather for an open Switzerland, for a strong relationship with Europe and for a debate on migration that is not guided by a population cap but which seeks solutions. 

Swissinfo: A clear urban-rural divide and the so-called ‘Röstigraben’ [regional language divide] were again visible. Why?

U.B.: These divides reappear whenever there are European and migration issues. They were evident again this Sunday in the 20-percentage-point difference between cities and rural regions. That is clear. It shows that Switzerland remains divided on these issues.

Swissinfo: Are these divides widening?

U.B.: Yes. Migration is an issue with a very long tradition of referendums and strongly rooted in a clear left-right divide. But cities have become more left-leaning. As a result, the gaps have widened further.

Swissinfo: Switzerland has voted on immigration many times in the past. Are there any trends?

U.B.: There has been a significant shift. The debate used to revolve around foreign infiltration; today it centres on overcrowding. Switzerland no longer talks about the people coming into the country but about the problems caused by population growth. This makes the discussion much more down-to-earth; it is no longer xenophobic or focused on immigration. It is therefore also more appealing to people who may be positively disposed towards migration but who feel the negative consequences of population growth.

Swissinfo: The Federal Council [executive body] warned of risks to bilateral relations with the EU. How important was this argument?

U.B.: All arguments had an impact, including this one. The public are aware that the EU can become irritated by Switzerland’s Eurosceptic decisions. This time, they probably gave this greater weight than during the mass immigration initiative in 2014, for example.

Swissinfo: Does the vote result weaken or strengthen the Swiss People’s Party ahead of the 2027 national elections?

U.B.: It could go either way. We now know how the majorities are distributed on this issue: not on the People’s Party’s side. However, it has secured votes far beyond its potential, which can certainly be seen as a respectable achievement. And the issue isn’t going away. If politicians continue to do nothing, this could well have a mobilising effect for the party next year. It would then be the only political party to have at least offered a solution.

Swissinfo: Will migration become a key issue in next year’s election campaign?

U.B.: Migration is always among the top four issues in Switzerland. Today’s vote should not be interpreted as the public not seeing this as a problem. The problem will persist and will need to be discussed.

Swissinfo: Was there a clear winner this Sunday?

U.B.: Parliament and the Federal Council are the winners. They secured the backing for two proposals. Their last defeat was at the end of 2024. At the moment, the Federal Council and parliament are doing really well.

Edited by Mark Livingston. Adapted from German with AI/sb