Found an error?
Report nowCash as a guarantee of freedom and crisis security? On March 8, the electorate will decide whether coins and banknotes should be expressly protected in the constitution or whether the counter-proposal from the Federal Council and Parliament will suffice.
In March, the Swiss electorate will decide on the so-called cash initiative and a direct counter-proposal from the Federal Council and parliament. The topic up for debate is one that concerns many: the future of coins and banknotes. We explain in five points what this vote is all about.
The popular initiative calls for two new provisions in the Federal Constitution. Firstly, the Confederation should be obliged to ensure that coins and banknotes are available in sufficient quantities at all times. Secondly, any replacement of the Swiss franc with another currency should be put to a vote of the people and the cantons.
At the same time, a direct counter-proposal from the government and parliament will be put to the people. This also provides for two new constitutional articles: Firstly, it states that the Swiss currency is the franc. Secondly, the Swiss National Bank will be obliged to ensure the supply of cash.
Anyone looking for differences will notice that they are not immediately apparent. Neither creates any additional rights for the population. Both proposals stipulate that the National Bank must guarantee the supply of cash. In the case of the initiative, there must also be a vote in the event of a currency change.
The population will be able to vote on both proposals on March 8. There is also the additional question: which of the two proposals should be implemented if both proposals are accepted?
Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter wants to enshrine the supply of cash in the constitution.
sda
Switzerland will vote on the cash initiative in the next referendum.
Picture: Keystone
Many staunch supporters of cash hope that the initiative will stop the decline in cash payment options. However, the Federal Council and Parliament assume that neither the initiative nor the counter-proposal would change the obligation to accept cash.
Both proposals are limited to ensuring the availability of cash, not an obligation to accept cash. The obligation to accept cash is currently regulated in the Currency Act. It states that up to 100 coins must be accepted and that the National Bank and public cash offices accept coins at face value without restriction.
However, the authorities regard this regulation as so-called dispositive law. This means that the obligation to accept coins only applies unless otherwise agreed. Within the framework of economic freedom, companies may stipulate that they only accept digital means of payment. Citizens can therefore not legally enforce the acceptance of cash.
Neither the popular initiative nor the counter-proposal have any practical implications, as Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter said. There will be no new tasks and no additional costs. Neither the initiative nor the counter-proposal would result in a right to pay with cash or a compulsion to accept cash.
Statistics and everyday experience clearly show that cash has been losing importance for years. Its use has fallen sharply since 2020 in particular. Today, roughly the same number of payments are made in cash as with debit cards. By contrast, payments via smartphone, for example with Twint, have increased significantly.
The coronavirus pandemic was a key driver of this development. However, it is also being reinforced by large companies and public enterprises. SBB has abolished the option of paying for lockers or toilets with coins at many stations. BLS is planning to do away with cash at ticket machines. Many restaurants have also stopped accepting cash.
This worries many people. They fear that a tried and trusted means of payment will disappear with cash. For them, cash represents an overview and control over their own finances.
The initiators also share this concern. A central aim of the initiative is to counteract the complete monitoring of digital transactions. With exclusively digital means of payment, they fear that companies and the state could more easily track what money is spent on - and by whom. However, a second initiative, which explicitly wanted to include the obligation to accept cash in the constitution, failed due to a lack of 100,000 signatures.
