Federal popular initiative

The federal popular initiative (German: Eidgenössische Volksinitiative, French: Initiative populaire fédérale, Italian: Iniziativa popolare federale, Romansh: Iniziativa federala dal pievel), is a Swiss civic right enabling 100,000 citizens with voting rights to propose a total or partial amendment to the Federal Constitution and submit it to a popular vote.

[7] At the end of 2019, the municipality of Sion in southwestern Switzerland launched an experiment in participatory democracy, based on the model of the Citizens' Initiative Review already tested in the US state of Oregon.

[note 1] However, it was only codified between 1831 and 1838, following the massive use of petitions that were to force the Regeneration, in the cantons of Aargau, Basel-Landschaft, Thurgau, Schaffhausen, Lucerne and St. Gallen, in the form of a request for total constitutional revision.

[18] In the 1860s, a few years after the one that had led to the 1848 Constitution, a new democratic upsurge took place in several cantons; directed against the nature and duration of political mandates, deemed excessive, it resulted in a sharp increase in cantonal democratic rights including, in addition to the appointment of authorities and control of the administration, popular and legislative initiative, as well as the lowering of the number of signatures and financial limits required and the end of counting abstentions as positive votes.

[27] Faced with these repeated requests, the National Council decided to clarify the situation and drew up a proposal based on a motion, allowing 50,000 citizens to request a partial revision of the Constitution, but only in general terms and presented by three conservative deputies: future Lucerne Federal Councillor Joseph Zemp and State Councillors Johann Joseph Keel of St. Gallen and Martino Pedrazzini of Ticino.

In 1893, Numa Droz, a federal councillor from Neuchâtel and an outspoken opponent of the popular initiative, wrote the following, which has gone down in history: "The contemporary history of Switzerland can be divided into three periods: that of parliamentarianism, from 1848 to 1874; that of democracy, following the federal revision of 1874, which established the optional referendum; and that of demagogy, which began two years ago with the introduction of the right of initiative for partial revision of the Constitution";[35] two days after the vote, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung drew an alarmist picture of the future: "Agitation, holding public and secret assemblies, collecting signatures, keeping [.

[36] In the period following the enactment of the federal law on popular initiatives on 27 January 1892[37] and the beginning of the 21st century, the concept remained virtually unchanged, despite a few requests for material limitations in response to specific events.

[38] The modifications that did occur were confined to two specific areas: the number of signatures required to trigger an initiative and the timeframe allocated for federal authorities to process them.

Initially set at 50,000, the number of signatures required for a federal popular initiative came under regular attack from 1922 onwards: no fewer than five interpellations or postulates were tabled calling for an increase until 1972,[39] when the Federal Department of Justice and Police organized a consultation on the subject; the results of this consultation were mixed: while the majority of cantons and major organizations were in favor of increasing the number of signatures, all the political parties in the center and on the left rejected the idea, advocating the status quo.

In its message accompanying the proposal, the Federal Council noted that this amendment "consists merely of a pure and simple adaptation to conditions which have changed since 1874 and 1891 in terms of society and law" and "is not motivated by the desire to resolve the many problems posed [...] by the initiative and the referendum".

[42] Slightly modified by Parliament (which reduced the number of signatures required to launch a referendum from 60,000 to 50,000), the bill was accepted by popular vote on 25 September, 1977 by 19 cantons and 56.7% of voters in the case of the initiative.

On 20 June, 1986, the distribution of deadlines within the four-year period was revised, with the Federal Council having two years to prepare its message (30 months in the event of a counter-proposal), the remainder being devolved to Parliament.

[50] A new popular initiative "for faster direct democracy" was launched in 1997 by the Denner distribution company, despite the fact that, following a new amendment to the law on 21 June, 1996, the overall deadline had been reduced to thirty months, with one year reserved for the Federal Council.

[56][57] However, the Council of States instructed its Political Institutions Committee to take from the proposal those ideas "likely to win a majority of votes in favor", with the aim of "eliminating the shortcomings of the current system" and "not facilitating or complicating the exercise of popular rights".

Again in 2013, several voices, including those of the think tank Avenir Suisse and former Secretary of state Jean-Daniel Gerber (in an interview with the Neue Zürcher Zeitung), called for a reduction in the number of popular initiatives put to the vote.

[74] On the same theme, French philosopher and political scientist Denis Collin denounces the idea of popular initiative referendums because of the excessive risk of demagoguery, and explicitly cites Switzerland as an example.

[76] These risks of populist excesses or the imposition of an almost "tyrannical" will of a majority on a minority (to use Professor José Woehrling's expression) were highlighted in the study carried out by the Canadian authorities in 2002, following the proposal made by the Minister for the Reform of Democratic Institutions, Jean-Pierre Charbonneau, to introduce this right into the national constitution.

The legislative amendment of 21 June, 1996 specifies that this committee must comprise a minimum of seven and a maximum of 27 persons (the first odd number allowing for one representative per canton) with full civic rights (thus excluding minors and foreigners).

This preliminary check by the Chancellery, previously optional, was made compulsory with the entry into force of the Political Rights Act on 1 July, 1978, to prevent a federal popular initiative from being invalidated on the grounds of non-compliance with the signature lists.

[104] In most cases, however, the Federal Council uses the entire period allotted to it to issue its opinion; while this is sometimes justified by the need to await the finalization of legislation currently being drafted on the subject (as was the case, for example, with the initiatives to reduce working hours or to protect water resources in 1984), this tendency is also used politically to attenuate the effects that led to the submission of the federal popular initiative and, therefore, to minimize its importance to the public, as in the case of the popular initiative "for effective tenant protection", submitted in 1973 during a major housing crisis; the Federal Council waited until 1976, a year in which the economic situation was favorable for tenants, with low inflation and a fall in mortgage rates, before issuing its report, in which it noted "the important role played by the close relationship between rent trends and the economic situation".

[114] In the case of an initiative drafted from scratch, Parliament is obliged to submit the text reproduced on the signature lists without the slightest alteration to the double majority of the people and the cantons; however, it has several methods at its disposal for giving its opinion and making it known to the population.

This limitation was put in place to avoid cases, common at certain times, where more than five years elapsed between the submission of a federal popular initiative and the holding of the vote.

[140] This procedure was widely criticized, in particular for favoring the status quo too much, or preventing voters from expressing a sufficiently nuanced vote in the event that their first choice was not followed.

[152] Parliament has a different interpretation of this criterion, going so far as to split a federal popular initiative proposing both a change in the naturalization procedure and in that dealing with the expulsion of foreigners "jeopardizing the security of the country", and to organize two votes, each on half of the text.

[160] When such a request is formally granted, the Federal Council is obliged to organize, in the short term, a first vote which only deals with the question of principle calling for a complete revision.

Since the 2001 revision of the Parliament Act, and following a proposal by the National Council's Political Institutions Committee,[161] the Federal Assembly has been authorized to take a position on the substance of this request, which must be approved by a simple majority of the people to be validated.

This class struggle was also reflected in the federal popular initiatives put forward by the two camps in the interwar period: the Socialist Party's proposal to levy a single wealth tax to pay off war debts (rejected on 3 December 1922 by 87% of voters)[171] was countered by a proposal to authorize the arrest of Swiss citizens who endangered the country's internal security, enabling the authorities to imprison citizens taking part in mass demonstrations (also rejected on 18 February, 1923 by 89% of voters).

[181] As part of its new "New Switzerland" program, adopted in 1942,[182] the Socialist Party launched a number of federal popular initiatives at the end of the war, calling for the right to work, economic reform, guaranteed purchasing power and full employment.

However, it was challenged by the Alliance of Independents, which also tabled a number of initiatives calling for the guarantee of full employment, a reorganization of the National Council to combat absenteeism in Parliament[183] and the introduction of a 44-hour working week.

During this period, in addition to initiatives linked to traditional left-wing ideas, two new themes emerged: the fight against nuclear power (military or civil) and environmental protection.