‘Russia’s attempt to exert influence did not go down well’

A sobering result: former Swiss parliamentarian Walter Wobman (left) and Pro Schweiz president Stephan Rietiker on Sunday. Keystone / Keystone / Peter Schneider

Swiss voters have rejected the neutrality initiative, but what of neutrality do they want? Urs Bieri from the gfs.bern research group explains what can – and cannot – be gleaned from the September 27 result.

SWI swissinfo.ch: Urs Bieri, Switzerland has clearly voted against a stricter version of neutrality. But what kind of neutrality is it for?

Urs Bieri: That’s the question. The population is obviously in favour of a neutrality that gives the government room for manoeuvre and allows it to take decisions on a case-by-case basis. It has clearly come out in favour of this view of neutrality – a situational view.

But the question was also whether there is a problem that would justify an alternative conception of neutrality. And here, the population’s answer on Sunday was no.

SWI: There are already many interpretations of what Sunday’s result means. Was it a vote against Russia?

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

U.B.: This is indeed a context for these discussions. And Russia also tried to exert influence on this vote. That was not appreciated – particularly by people who lived through the Cold War, and who thus developed a friend-or-foe mindset.

SWI: Can we conclude from this that the Swiss population has clear sympathies for Ukraine?

U.B.: It’s difficult to draw that conclusion, but sympathies evidently lie more on this side than on the other.

SWI: What about the idea that this was a vote in favour of a more activist neutrality policy?

U.B.: I wouldn’t go that far either. The result supports the position of the government, which has concluded that sanctions against Russia are right tool. That was the basis of this discussion; the population made its decision through this lens.

SWI: The Swiss People’s Party and parts of the pacifist movement backed the initiative, but above all Christoph Blocher with a great deal of money. How do you interpret that?

U.B.: Indeed, Christoph Blocher made the largest recorded donation by a private individual since such figures have been openly available. Apparently, for him it wasn’t just about winning a majority, but about driving a discussion that is important to him and that he wanted to lead. Looking at the result, he didn’t ultimately succeed. This suggests he was led by his heart rather than his head in this case.

SWI: Did the initiative at least manage to unite People’s Party’s supporters behind it?

U.B.: That’s something that needs to be looked at. The People’s Party’s potential [among voters] is currently one to two percentage points higher than the 29% who voted yes on Sunday. As said, our surveys showed the older generation was particularly irritated by Russia’s meddling and voted no – this included those from the People’s Party camp. And overall, the party was visibly isolated, and did not succeed in winning votes beyond its own circles.

SWI: The debate about Swiss foreign policy is not over. With an upcoming referendum on the arms export law, discussions are set to continue. What signals can politicians take from this vote?

U.B.: The next big test is indeed coming in November. It’s certainly not a disadvantage for the war materiel reform if the population wants flexible neutrality. Looking at Russia and Ukraine, you could also assume that certain arms deliveries will be questioned less than in the past. But I wouldn’t simply transfer today’s decision to the next vote. Citizens will make a different – a new – decision in November.

SWI: How do you interpret the clear defeat for the food security initiative?

U.B.: This initiative is interesting because it at least addressed a problem. The population clearly acknowledges climate issues and think climate protection is necessary. The same applies when it comes to environment issues.

SWI: But backing for the initiative dropped sharply over the campaign, despite an extremely hot and dry summer. Why did its backers not manage to make more of the population’s concerns?

U.B.: Ultimately this is down to the fact that, towards the end of the campaign, its weaknesses were judged more harshly. People’s questions about it stem from everyday experience: can I still eat meat, and if so, how much?

But questions also came up at a more structural level: is it even possible to achieve a self-sufficiency rate for food production of 70%, and within ten years? All of this led to this very clear no.

SWI: This initiative was run without any support from political parties or in parliament. Has there ever been an initiative which was successful in such a situation?

U.B.: Yes, the 2013 fat cat initiative, which aimed to curb excessive bonus payments. It is possible to have a broad impact even under such conditions. The initiator of the food initiative, Franziska Herren, already proved this with her drinking water initiative in 2021. That time, she managed to get 40% of votes; this time it’s less than 30%. This shows that the message didn’t come across to the population as well this time around.

SWI: With two clearly rejected initiatives today, Swiss voters have once again roundly backed the government and parliament. Is the government greatly trusted at the moment?

U.B.: Trust in the government is at rather medium-high levels – nowhere near as high as five or ten years ago. Nevertheless, it shows that parliament and the government are indeed backing policies which are in line with what the population expects.

Edited by Samuel Jaberg; adapted from German, sub-edited by Domhnall O’Sullivan