Swiss voters to decide fate of centuries-old neutrality
A Yes vote would bar the country from co-operating with military alliances unless attacked
Swiss voters will decide on Sunday whether to impose a stricter definition of the country’s centuries-old neutrality in a referendum that threatens Bern’s efforts to deepen security and defence co-operation with its European neighbours.
The “neutrality initiative” was conceived by Christoph Blocher, the billionaire former government minister who has shifted the Swiss People’s Party further right. The party opposed Bern’s decision to join the EU in imposing sanctions against Russia in the wake of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Blocher and Pro Schweiz, a sovereigntist group opposed to closer ties with the EU, collected enough signatures to force a national referendum. The SVP is the only big political party that supports the proposal.
The initiative would enshrine “perpetual and armed” neutrality in the constitution and restrict the government’s freedom to decide what neutrality means in practice.
Switzerland would be barred from co-operating with military alliances unless it faced an attack or one was being prepared, and would be prevented from imposing sanctions unless they were approved by the UN.
Polls suggest the proposal will be rejected. A GFS Bern survey for public broadcaster SRG published this month found 63 per cent of voters opposed and 34 per cent in favour.
But the campaign has revived a much older argument over what Swiss neutrality actually means — and the considerable flexibility with which the country has historically applied it.
Neutrality developed over centuries as a pragmatic means of protecting a small confederation divided by language and religion from the wars of its larger neighbours. It also helped insulate those internal divisions from conflicts beyond Switzerland’s borders.
The policy ensured Switzerland remained neutral during world wars. But its conduct — particularly during the second world war — undermined the idea that Swiss neutrality was ever absolute.
Successive governments have instead interpreted the policy according to circumstance. Switzerland remains outside Nato and the EU, but has joined Nato’s Partnership for Peace, participated in international peacekeeping and imposed sanctions on other countries.
That room for manoeuvre is at the heart of Sunday’s vote. The government argues that imposing a stricter constitutional definition would remove the flexibility that has allowed Switzerland to adapt to circumstances.
The tensions came to a head after Russia’s invasion in 2022. Switzerland’s decision to largely adopt EU sanctions against Moscow was controversial domestically and prompted Blocher’s campaign. Critics argued that Bern had compromised its neutrality.
For many in Switzerland’s internationally exposed business community, however, following western sanctions was pragmatic given the country’s dependence on European markets and a global financial system dominated by the US dollar.
The argument has become more consequential as European security has deteriorated. Bern has sought closer co-operation with its neighbours on air defence, cyber security and military interoperability — precisely the sort of flexibility that could be constrained by the initiative.
Markus Mäder, Switzerland’s state secretary for security policy, told the FT this year that the country regarded itself as “an integral part of European security”.