Found an error?
Report nowThe SVP loses – and still wins. blue News analyzes what stood out on Referendum Sunday regarding the 10-Million Initiative and what lessons politicians can learn from it.
The Swiss electorate has clearly rejected the “No to a 10-Million-Strong Switzerland” popular initiative. blue News analyzes voting Sunday and reveals the five key takeaways.
If you ask seasoned political veterans about the industry’s best-kept secret, the answer is often this: Those who choose the right words and speak in apt imagery can strongly shape public opinion in the long term. Those who take a more radical stance may lose more often—but win in the long run.
In political science, this phenomenon is called the “Overton Window.” This referendum campaign illustrates what that means like no other: The SVP managed to get politicians from left to right to essentially agree with it—even if they proposed different solutions. On Sunday, Yvonne Bürgin, leader of the Center Party faction and a staunch Christian Democrat, spoke openly of “economic migrants” and rejected them. Other center-right politicians, as opponents of the initiative, also spoke at length about criminal foreigners, even though the initiative did not concern them.
The result: The SVP’s anti-immigration stance has gained majority support through this referendum campaign. Only a few on the left still felt inclined to consistently oppose it. For instance, SP National Council member Fabian Molina vehemently resisted conceding even a symbolic victory point to the SVP.
Economiesuisse invested over four million francs in its own campaign. But public sentiment only shifted late in the game—and less thanks to the posters than to civil society movements like “No SVP Switzerland” or influencers with high-reach videos. Added to this were many citizens who, with their own campaigns and mobilization text messages in the final days, sent a clear message: Now everyone must go to the polls.
This wave was fueled by a fundraising campaign: around two million francs were raised through small donations. Studies from the U.S. show why this works: people who donate a small amount are more likely to remain engaged afterward—in the simplest case, by going to the polls.
By comparison: The FDP had a campaign budget of 185,000 francs—less than a tenth of the SP’s. The Center Party spent 125,000 francs. Such amounts, combined with the over four million from Economiesuisse, were—at least when looking at the referendum campaign online—significantly less effective than civic engagement.
Over the past twenty years, the Swiss population has repeatedly rejected the SVP’s anti-immigration initiatives and opted for a regulated relationship with the European Union.
In 2014, there was a razor-thin “yes” vote on the mass immigration initiative (50.3 percent). Nevertheless, the list of defeats is long (see info box).
Although it was another clear defeat, SVP Party President Marcel Dettling spoke of a “bad day for Switzerland.” He said he would accept the referendum result—but criticized the fact that the cities had “outvoted the countryside.” He also expressed support for holding cities more accountable for asylum responsibilities in the future.
This was met with widespread disapproval. Benedikt Schmid, president of the Young Center Party, stated clearly: “It really gets on our nerves when the issue is brought up again and again, even after such clear defeats.” Schmid criticized all sides—noting that even the left is quickly launching new popular initiatives on inheritance tax despite the public’s “no” vote.
«One should expect more decency from Switzerland’s largest party.»
Benedikt Schmid
President of Junge Mitte
His conclusion is sharp: “In the past, people had the decency to wait a few years after a referendum. Today, the same issues are brought to a vote again just a few years later, usually in an even more radical form. This severely damages the political climate.” The “smear campaign during the referendum” divided the people rather than uniting them. “One should be able to expect more decency from Switzerland’s largest party,” says Schmid. For him, the SVP is therefore a “bad loser.”
During the referendum campaign, Economiesuisse repeatedly emphasized that Switzerland relies on immigrant workers—or, to put it more critically: that the economy needs cheap labor. Defending this position among a population that does not always benefit directly from immigration was not easy.
In its press release on the referendum, the association addressed what concerns many: “A consistent and strict implementation of asylum law at the federal and cantonal levels is absolutely essential. Measures are also needed in housing policy.”
Surprisingly clearly, however, Economiesuisse also noted that the economy itself is called upon to act: “Due to demographic trends, the labor shortage will continue to worsen. There is therefore no way around the fact that we must make even better use of the domestic labor force.”
The FDP echoed this sentiment: The “most liberal form of immigration control” is to fill jobs domestically first before looking abroad.
A question that has been repeatedly asked in the corridors of the Federal Palace in recent days was: Can you say just anything about Federal Council meetings and Federal Council members?
The occasion is the controversy surrounding Federal Councilor Beat Jans. Right-wing conservative circles have repeatedly accused the SP Federal Councilor of lying and spreading “fake news.” The “Blick” reported, citing multiple sources, that he had even been formally reprimanded by SVP Federal President Guy Parmelin. Jans denied this. However, no official denial came from Parmelin’s department or the Federal Chancellery—even after repeated inquiries.
Added to this was a maneuver by SVP faction leader Thomas Aeschi: In the heat of the referendum campaign, he declared that Parmelin had personally told him to vote in favor of the initiative—even though Parmelin had publicly warned against the initiative months earlier.
Regarding the allegations, Jans said on voting Sunday: “As members of the Federal Council, we always adhere to the philosophy that the Federal Council always wins and loses as a team.” Parmelin, who was sitting next to him, added a Vaudois proverb (because he likes proverbs): “Qui répond, appond”—whoever answers prolongs the dispute.
Only when the blue News journalist pressed him on whether that meant, conversely, that one could simply claim anything about a Federal Council meeting did Parmelin become more specific: “As a rule, I do not comment on what is said in Federal Council meetings.” And then, almost casually at the end of the press conference, a denial did follow: “By the way, it’s inaccurate—yes, even completely wrong.”
Had he denied it earlier, an investigation by the National Council’s Control Committee might not have been necessary—and the credibility of his Federal Council colleague Jans would not have been damaged.
