Swiss government finds itself stuck in a ‘vicious circle’ of vote defeats

Swiss Transport Minister Albert Rösti failed to gain acceptance for his motorway expansion plan. Keystone / Peter Schneider

On Sunday, Swiss voters rejected a plan, backed by the government and parliament, to expand certain parts of the motorway network. Martina Mousson, a political scientist at the gfs.bern research institute, examines why authorities again lost out at the ballot box.

SWI swissinfo.ch: What’s your overall view on Sunday’s vote results?

Martina Mousson: I was impressed by the battle around the two changes to Swiss tenancy law, which remained very close for a very long time. Results which are so tight suggest a strong polarisation in society; we can see that in three of the four proposals that were decided this Sunday.

SWI: Close results risk leading to more contentious debate and interpretation after the vote…

M.M.: Yes, that’s exactly what’s likely to happen with the motorway expansion plan, because the funds earmarked for road traffic have already been decided. The question is already being asked: what should be done with the billions of francs [which were budgeted]? The controversy has begun and will continue.

SWI: Why did the motorway expansion project, which was ahead in the polls, fail to win out? Is it impossible for car drivers to win over Swiss voters?

Martina Mousson, political scientist at the gfs.bern research institute. zVg

M.M.: I wouldn’t say that. Most Swiss people own a car, and the majority of the inhabitants also commute by public transport. Then there’s the fact that the money is there. It’s committed to a fund. So it has to be used, but perhaps not in the way that this project proposed. For voters, a more sustainable transport policy seems to be more important.

SWI: Were the planned motorway expansion projects not sufficiently distributed across the country?

M.M.: The project was the result of parliamentary debate. It deliberately included a project in French-speaking Switzerland. The weakness lay more in the fact that, in the eyes of voters, the proposed solution did not solve the overall problem, but merely shifted it to the next hotspot.

SWI: Transport Minister Albert Rösti defended the project. Up until now, he was always successful with federal votes. How difficult will this defeat be for him?

M.M.: It shouldn’t be underestimated. It occurred in an area [transport] where he has been heavily involved in the past. He’ll have to critically evaluate this result.

SWI: The government has now lost three important votes this year – on motorways, the 13th old age pension payment and reform of the occupational pension scheme. Is there a lack of public trust?

M.M.: In our polls, we have seen that the government is losing trust among the population. For the first time, we even have a relative majority who say they don’t trust the government. But the question is what happened first? Did the defeats on important issues lead to this loss of confidence? Or did the loss of confidence lead to the defeats? In any case, it’s a vicious circle. The government is perceived as weak because it loses, which in turn weakens it.

SWI: Environmental issues have been in trouble recently and the Greens lost a lot of ground in elections. Is the no vote on motorway widening also a victory for the Greens?

M.M.: Yes, it’s a result that runs counter to the anti-green spirit that prevails beyond Switzerland’s borders. It’s fair to say that after the shift to the right in the 2023 elections, the pendulum is swinging back in the opposite direction when it comes to referendums. The left and trade unions have also shown their strength in winning referendums this year.

SWI: Their victories on the two tenancy law issues were close, but the left-wing domination on the campaign trail continues. How do they do it?

M.M.: They’re clearly not taking the traditional route. If you look at their adverts in print media, you can see they had little presence there. They explored other avenues and are particularly active on social networks. They are also adopting a new tone. Some people talk about left-wing populism, as opposed to right-wing populism.

SWI: Opponents criticised the two tenancy law referendums as a single issue. But the electorate clearly had a more nuanced view on them. What happened exactly?

M.M.: The opponents’ tactic of referring to the two bills as a single “attack on tenant protection” was successful. The difference lies in the individual interests of voters. The issue of subletting also targeted commercial subletting, which was seen as a problem and a factor in price rises, particularly in cities. This issue was thus probably a little closer to the world of tenants than the one on landlords’ own needs.

SWI: The healthcare financing project was seen as a small step towards a larger reform of the healthcare sector. It seems to have worked. Is this a recipe for reform in Switzerland? The smaller the steps, the more likely success?

M.M.: I’d rather say that the broader the alliance behind a project, the more likely it is that reform is possible. What’s true is that there haven’t been any big successes in Switzerland recently.

SWI: The complexity of the health project did not mean its rejection, as is often the case with complex projects. What worked?

M.M.: The most frequently used argument, on both sides, was that of rising health insurance premiums.

SWI: The city of Zurich voted in favour of gender-neutral language use by the authorities. This is believed to be the first vote in the world on this subject. Is this typically Swiss?

M.M.: Yes, it’s typically Swiss. Generally speaking, the fact that opponents lose at the ballot box helps to anchor changes in society. We saw this clearly during the Covid-19 referendum. The more people voted on this issue, the less wind the opponents had in their sails. After a while, you can no longer say that what you’re opposing is simply an order coming from on high.

SWI: In Basel, conservative circles forced a referendum to try to stop the 2025 Eurovision Song Contest being organised. But their proposal was rejected by 66.6% of voters. Such ballots can provide an opportunity to debate controversial issues. But in this case, calm reigned, why?

M.M.: The opposition was limited to a small circle. Nevertheless, it was important that the discussion took place. That’s the integrating effect of direct democracy. In critical circles, the mood won’t much change, but they’ll see that they don’t have wider support.

Edited by Mark Livingston/adapted from German by Simon Bradley