The postal voting pack for the federal referendums on September 27.
Keystone / Laurent Gillieron
The two proposals put to the vote on Sunday, which were overwhelmingly rejected by the Swiss electorate as a whole, did not fare any better among the diaspora. On the issue of neutrality, Swiss citizens living abroad voted in a remarkably similar way to the rest of the country. The food security initiative, however, received slightly more support.
Sunday’s votes resulted in both initiatives being rejected by more than 70% of the vote. The neutrality initiative, which sought to enshrine a strict interpretation of neutrality in the constitution, was rejected by 70.2% of voters and by all the cantons.
The vote by Swiss citizens living abroad on this issue was almost exactly the same. In the 12 cantons for which the Federal Statistical Office has detailed figuresExternal link, expatriates rejected the initiative by 70.4%.
Such a high degree of similarity is rare, notes Agnese Zucca, project manager at the gfs.bern institute. “This sends a clear message of unity regarding what the population wants in terms of neutrality, whether they live in Switzerland or abroad,” she explains.
Zucca is not surprised by the clear rejection by the Swiss Abroad, “which is consistent with the way Swiss citizens living abroad tend to vote on this type of issue relating to foreign and security policy”.
More
More
Six takeaways from the rejection of the neutrality initiative
For Zucca, what is most notable is rather that Swiss citizens living abroad – who are generally more urban and progressive, and who generally vote further to the left – did not reject the proposal even more decisively than the rest of the country.
Looking at how Swiss cities voted, she says there are varying levels of support, but these were much lower in certain cities such as Bern (11% in favour), Zurich (17%) and Basel (19%).
A ‘counterpoint on environmental issues’
The food initiative also suffered a real drubbing at the ballot box. Nationwide, 72.5% of voters said no. Here too, every canton rejected the proposal.
However, among the Swiss Abroad, the rejection was less resounding. Nearly 37% of expat voters supported the proposal – nine percentage points higher than the figure for the Swiss population as a whole.
This result was anticipated by the gfs.bern research institute. The latest Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (SBC) poll even predicted this 37% approval rate among Swiss citizens living abroad.
For Agnese Zucca, there were no surprises “not only because we know that Swiss citizens living abroad tend to vote more to the left, but also because we have seen the same kind of trend in recent years, for example with the CO₂ Act and the initiatives on pesticides or drinking water.”
“Swiss citizens living abroad are more sensitive to environmental issues and almost always provide a counterpoint to the domestic population,” she concludes.
Zucca adds that the core demands of the initiative were, on the whole, supported by the Swiss population. It was the specific issues – relating, for example, to the funding or feasibility of the measures – that ultimately tipped the balance in favour of a no vote.
“It is conceivable that Swiss citizens living abroad were less exposed to these arguments, but also that these arguments carry less weight for them than for Swiss citizens living in Switzerland,” she observes.
Average turnout
Nationwide, this vote saw a turnout of 47% of the electorate – a figure that is towards the lower end of the average (49% over the last five years) and lower than in other votes this year. Among Swiss citizens living abroad, turnout stood at 24%, which is also in line with the average.
This modest turnout comes as no surprise to Agnese Zucca. The neutrality initiative was the driving force behind this referendum, she said. However, “early polls were already suggesting that it was mobilising support mainly among the Swiss People’s Party electorate,” she points out. “Subsequently, it became quite clear that it was not likely to secure a majority, which probably explains why it did not mobilise voters to any great extent.”
Edited by Katy Romy. Translated from French, sub-edited by Thomas Stephens
