Swiss voters are heading to polling stations today, Sunday, to vote on a proposal aimed at tightening the country’s traditional neutrality policy and enshrining it more strictly in the constitution, amid divisions over the initiative’s implications and opinion polls pointing to its rejection. Supporters of the proposal fear that a “no” vote would be understood abroad as a complete abandonment of Swiss neutrality.
Proposal would restrict Switzerland’s military ties and sanctions
The proposal would require the constitution to guarantee that Switzerland’s neutrality is “armed and permanent”. If approved, it would prevent the country from establishing closer ties with NATO, rule out joining any military alliance unless Switzerland came under attack, and prevent it from imposing sanctions on other countries unless those sanctions were requested by the United Nations.
The roots of Swiss neutrality date back to 1516, while it has enjoyed international recognition since 1815 and has been enshrined in the country’s constitution since 1848. Switzerland’s traditional position is based on the concept of “armed neutrality”, combining non-involvement in foreign conflicts with the maintenance of strong military capabilities. However, Russia’s war in Ukraine has revived debate over the limits of Switzerland’s non-involvement in foreign conflicts.
War in Ukraine revives debate over neutrality
The debate intensified particularly after Bern decided to support the European Union’s economic pressure, prompting the pro-sovereignty Organisation for Switzerland to collect enough signatures to call a nationwide referendum under the country’s system of direct democracy.
The Pro Switzerland association, which has close ties to the right-wing populist Swiss People’s Party, put forward the proposal being put to a vote. Its supporters seek to strengthen the principle of neutrality and establish a stricter definition of it in the constitution, limiting the authorities’ ability to adjust its application according to political and geopolitical circumstances.
If the initiative is approved, Switzerland’s position would not be limited to refraining from involvement in armed conflicts and closing its territory to warring parties; it would also stop imposing sanctions on countries that start wars, such as Russia. United Nations sanctions would remain exempt from the ban, while trade relations would continue as usual, including with countries that have started armed conflicts.
Voting procedures and timing of results announcement
The initiative exposed deep divisions over the practical meaning of neutrality, despite the Swiss commitment to it as a fundamental part of their country’s policy. After initial opinion polls suggested the result could be close, two surveys published last week showed that a clear majority, well above 60%, intended to follow the government’s recommendation and vote against the proposal.
Opinion polls clearly point to rejection of initiative
“We have lost our compass in recent years by taking extremely tough positions against Russia, while adopting very weak positions towards Israel”
Russia praised the initiative after strongly criticising Switzerland’s joining the European Union’s sanctions and accusing Bern of abandoning its neutrality. Some opponents of the proposal, meanwhile, described the initiative as “pro-Moscow” and linked the proposed restrictions on sanctions to Russian interests amid the war in Ukraine.
Socialist MP Samuel Bendahan warned in a recent debate that Russian President Vladimir Putin “will rub his hands with delight if we approve this initiative”. Both sides of the debate say they want to preserve Switzerland’s neutrality, but disagree over whether establishing a strict definition of it would protect the country or narrow its political options.
The government and parliament rejected the proposal, saying it involved excessive doctrinal rigidity and would limit Switzerland’s room for manoeuvre at a time of mounting geopolitical tensions. Nearly all the country’s main political parties also opposed it, with the exception of the Swiss People’s Party, the country’s largest party, which has been closely associated with the initiative since its inception.
Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis said during a recent televised debate that “neutrality has always been applied with a degree of flexibility”. He said Switzerland had no plans to lift its ban on selling weapons to countries experiencing conflicts, but stressed at the same time that “neutrality does not mean indifference”.
Cassis added that his country “will not turn a blind eye when we see violations of the very international rules that allow us to live in peace”, defending the authorities’ ability to adopt political and economic positions on international conflicts without abandoning the principle of non-military involvement in them. Despite the initiative’s links to the Swiss People’s Party, its list of supporters includes figures from different political currents.
Among the most prominent is independent doctor Samuel Sumaruga, who belongs to no political party and is the son of a prominent Socialist senator and grandson of a former president of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Sumaruga warned that Switzerland could “sink” if it did not adopt a strict definition of neutrality, expressing concern that it could appear internationally to have “abandoned its neutrality” entirely.
He believes that the absence of a clear neutral position could lead the country to drift towards NATO and lose its distinctive standing as an influential mediator and host for international organisations and negotiations. Speaking about the risks he expects from rejecting the initiative, Sumaruga said: “I believe that if we vote ‘no’, we risk losing that”, referring to Switzerland’s international role and its standing in mediation and hosting negotiations and organisations.
The neutrality referendum coincides with other proposals being put to Swiss voters today, Sunday, including an initiative calling for the country’s food self-sufficiency rate to be raised to 70%, compared with the 42% recorded in 2024. Opinion polls indicate that voters are also leaning towards rejecting those proposals.
