Swiss decision to boost pensions was a ‘protest vote’

Supporters of the 13th monthly pension payment initiative celebrate on March 3 in Bern. KEYSTONE/© KEYSTONE/ PETER SCHNEIDER

On March 3, Swiss voters agreed to increase state pensions and maintain the retirement age at 65. Political scientist Urs Bieri analyses the results of these important votes and their implications. 

On Sunday, 58.2% of Swiss voters, and a majority of cantons, backed the “Better living in retirement” initiativeExternal link, which will grant an additional 13th monthly pension payment to help retirees struggling to make ends meet in the face of rising living costs.

In a separate vote, 74.7% of citizens rejected a people’s initiative which aimed to ensure the long-term financing of the pension system by gradually raising the retirement age from 65 to 66 over the next decade, then pegging it to life expectancy.

SWI swissinfo.ch: Support for the 13^th monthly pension payment initiative was exceptionally high. What is your analysis of the Swiss vote?

Political scientist Urs Bieri from the gfs.bern research institute. gfs.bern research institute

Urs Bieri: This is the first time that Swiss voters have clearly accepted a left-wing initiative in the field of social policy. The success can be explained by the fact that it was not just a left-wing vote.

The initiative also resonated widely with centre-right voters and, above all, the conservative right. And, in their case, it was less about solidarity and compensating for the poverty of pensioners and much more about ‘now it’s my turn’.

SWI: Where does this idea come from?

U.B.: It is a protest against the past excesses of the economy – the fall of Credit Suisse, the high salaries of managers, the past rescue of UBS and the rescue plan for [the energy company] Axpo. There is a widespread sentiment that Switzerland is able to mobilise very large sums of money for crises like the Covid-19 pandemic for big businesses, while ordinary people do not benefit.

The population has the impression that business readily helps itself to any profits while passing on losses to society. There is a now willingness to change this, especially since Switzerland recently raised the retirement age for women [to 65].

SWI: By voting to increase pensions, is Switzerland following any kind of global trend?

U.B.: No, quite the contrary. What we see in Europe is what was clearly rejected in Sunday’s other pensions initiative: an increase of the retirement age.

SWI: Were mistakes made by opponents of the 13^th monthly pension payment initiative?

U.B.: It makes you wonder what their best points of attack could have been. Parliament could have adopted a counter-proposal to this initiative, but we wanted to bury it at the ballot box. Ultimately, it was a very successful, well-led and very visible campaign by the left. The opponents’ campaign, meanwhile, was poorly received and failed to launch any kind of debate about the weak points of the initiative.

SWI: The result of the 13^th monthly pension payment initiative was decisive. Was it a perfect idea or perfect timing?

U.B.: Both. But there is also a third element – the very good campaign led by the left-wing unions. What is interesting is that the discussion revolved around the problems, that is, the loss of purchasing power and the difficulties encountered by ordinary people.

This is very unusual for initiatives because normally in the early stages, initiatives are judged by the problems they solve, and then the weaknesses are discussed afterwards. This was not the case here.

SWI: The initiators deliberately left the question of how to finance their pension proposal unresolved. Did this also help their success on Sunday?

U.B.: It seems so. The opponents also failed to spark any kind of debate on this or to draw attention to the risks.

SWI: The funding question must now be looked into. What is likely to happen in parliament?

U.B.: Heated debates. We know from past experience that not all the financing envisaged is subject to wide consensus, whether it is an increase in VAT [value-added tax] or an increase in contributions affecting employers and employees.

However, parliament cannot completely ignore this clear decision. The left will defend this victory.

SWI: How important was the vote of the so-called “baby boomer” generation, who are now reaching retirement?

U.B.: We are seeing an effect. The people who will benefit have been more supportive of the project. There are certainly nuances, but a generational gap is emerging.

SWI: Are we also witnessing a so-called Röstigraben [a divide between Switzerland’s linguistic regions] or a city-country divide?

U.B.: Yes, both. In terms of the percentage of ‘yes’ votes, there is a gap between French-speaking Switzerland and German-speaking Switzerland. In German-speaking Switzerland itself, there are differences between rural cantons and urban cantons, which have been more supportive of the project.

SWI: By focusing on pensions paid abroad, opponents also created a divide between the Swiss at home and those abroad. What’s your view on this?

U.B.: In polls, the approval rate for the initiative among the Swiss Abroad was actually slightly higher than that of people living in Switzerland. But the differences are not huge. 

And the discussion on the question of whether the Swiss Abroad would benefit unjustifiably from this increase in the old-age and survivors’ (OASI) state pension scheme was certainly lively, but it was brief. Then it got bogged down. This aspect was visibly less important than the major debates on the loss of purchasing power and the excesses of the economy.

Translated from German by Simon Bradley

Do you want to read our weekly top stories? Subscribe here.

If you are interested please register to our daily newsletter.

Every day the most important things from Switzerland directly into your mailbox.

Subscribe