Neutrality initiative clearly rejected – neutrality yes, rigid interpretation no

Conservative and liberal interpretations of neutrality are at odds with one another

Whilst the core conflict clearly ran along party political lines, it was underpinned by two different conceptions of how neutrality should be shaped. On the one hand, there was a more conservative view, which sought to enshrine neutrality more firmly and bindingly. On the other hand, there was a more liberal view, which retained neutrality as a fundamental principle but allowed politicians scope for action regarding sanctions and international cooperation. The SVP formed the political core of the more conservative position, whilst a broad alliance of the other major parties opposed it.

As public opinion took shape, this isolation became even more pronounced. Ultimately, reservations about the initiative began to emerge increasingly even within the SVP’s own ranks, whilst the SVP leadership conspicuously distanced itself from it. With around 30 per cent in favour, the Neutrality Initiative actually fell short of the result achieved by the Self-Determination Initiative in 2018, which at the time garnered 33.8 per cent of the ‘yes’ votes.

The clear ‘no’ vote can therefore be interpreted as a vote in favour of a nuanced approach to neutrality. The idea of neutrality itself was not called into question. However, it should remain a matter for political decision-making. The Federal Council and Parliament should continue to have room for manoeuvre, particularly with regard to sanctions and international security cooperation. It was precisely this flexibility that lay at the heart of the authorities’ position. The Federal Council and Parliament also argued against a more restrictive conception of neutrality.

At the same time, it remains unclear to what extent the public actually recognised the specific consequences of the initiative. The clear ‘no’ vote does not necessarily mean that all eligible voters shared the same understanding of what the initiative would have changed in practice. What is clearer is the political signal against a narrower and more binding interpretation of neutrality. The question of Switzerland’s stance towards Russia is also likely to have played a role in the decision at the ballot box. The VOX post-vote analysis will reveal more precisely which motives were ultimately decisive.

A lot of attention, but no majority

The ‘yes’ campaign ran a high-profile and emotive referendum campaign. It focused on a simple message centred on peace and neutrality and had an exceptionally large amount of funding at its disposal. The organisation ‘Preserving Swiss Neutrality’ alone had a budget of around 5.7 million Swiss francs, with Christoph Blocher making the largest contribution of around 3.8 million Swiss francs. The campaign started early and maintained a strong presence. Blocher’s strong commitment attracted attention and brought the issue of neutrality to the fore. However, this attention did not translate into broader support for the specific initiative.

The ‘No’ camp had fewer resources but enjoyed much broader political support. The focus was on Switzerland’s room for manoeuvre, international security cooperation and sanctions policy. A particularly concrete issue was whether Switzerland should continue to adopt sanctions such as those against Russia. It was precisely in this area that the initiative would have restricted the existing scope for action. The authorities’ position, by contrast, advocated the continued flexible application of neutrality. Even in rural areas, the initiative failed to generate significant additional support, despite being combined with the food initiative. The SVP was thus barely able to extend support for the cause beyond its core constituency.

The campaign took different forms across the language regions. In German-speaking Switzerland, the debate centred more on party politics and security policy. In French-speaking Switzerland, the ‘yes’ camp was more diverse; where peace, mediation and Switzerland’s international role played a greater part. By contrast, the ‘yes’ vote in Ticino was surprisingly clear. Ironically, in the home canton of Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis – who led the Federal Council’s campaign on the neutrality initiative – there was evidently a widespread desire to interpret neutrality more narrowly and to set clearer guidelines for the government in Bern.

The future: neutrality remains a political arena

The clear ‘no’ vote does not put an end to the debate on neutrality. Rather, it confirms a nuanced and flexible interpretation. Neutrality remains an important fundamental principle, but should not be enshrined so rigidly as to deprive politicians of their scope for action. The Federal Council and Parliament thus retain room for manoeuvre when it comes to sanctions and international security cooperation. At the same time, this is not a free pass: precisely because neutrality remains widely recognised, the way in which this leeway is utilised is likely to be closely monitored in future as well.

The next test for security policy will follow as early as November with the Military Equipment Act. Then the question will arise once again as to how neutrality and scope for action in security policy are weighed up in practice. It also remains to be seen how today’s decision will be perceived internationally. It is conceivable that the clear ‘no’ vote will be interpreted not so much as a confirmation of strict neutrality, but rather as a signal for a more flexible neutrality policy. Whether this potential boomerang effect will actually materialise, and what motives lay behind today’s ‘no’ vote, will become clear from the ongoing debate and, in particular, the VOX post-vote analysis.