Flash in the Pan with Side Dishes: How Switzerland 'Awakened' in 2016 – and Then Just Voted Again

Veröffentlicht am 01.03.2026 16:58 Blog (EN)

On February 28, 2016, something happened that is about as rare in Swiss politics as an unauthorized garden shed: The SVP lost at the ballot box – decisively. The Implementation Initiative was sunk. And immediately the grand words began: Reorganization of the political landscape, civil society renewal, end of SVP interpretive dominance. The rhetoric briefly smelled of revolution – at least of a very engaged aperitif.

The NZZ hit the brakes on March 1, 2016. Not because it wanted to downplay the No (on the contrary), but because it sensed: Switzerland likes to confuse a political firework display with a new world order. And anyone who has ever tried to start "a new era" in this country knows: First you need a form. Then a consultation. Then a committee. Then comes the next voting Sunday and everyone is sober again.

What the NZZ Said Then – Translated into Human Terms

The editorial (Simon Gemperli) acknowledges the significance of the No: A Yes would have had "devastating consequences" – for the rule of law and the economy. But: deriving a lasting turning point from this voting campaign would be risky. It could also simply have been a flash in the pan – the NZZ paints the picture from "firework display" to "flash in the pan" quite relishingly.

The core of their diagnosis:

Civil society is a booster – not a replacement engine. Movements, fundraising campaigns, campaign networks: great for tempo and attention. But parties and associations must do the "homework" themselves.
Business was (once again) late to the game. Economiesuisse & Co. seemed defensive, partly absent in the voting campaign – although institutional questions like the later Self-Determination Initiative are directly relevant for companies (legal certainty).
Spoiler alert 2016: The next conflict will definitely come. Asylum law revision, immigration, EU policy – the showdowns will come again, just perhaps without the same "scandalization potential."
And: The "Self-Determination Initiative" gets into trouble. Even within the SVP there are concerns about running again with a constitutionally problematic proposal. But the party also knows: A No rarely applies "forever" in Switzerland.

In short: The NZZ wasn't the party pooper in 2016 – more like the person at the party who says: "Nice that you're dancing. Tomorrow is still Monday."

What Became of It: Results Instead of Revolutionary Romanticism

Let's look at what has actually happened at the ballot box since then (Switzerland does love measurable things):

Implementation Initiative (28.02.2016): rejected, around 58% No. (Bainvegni Benvenuti)
Asylum Law Revision (05.06.2016): accepted, 66.78% Yes. (swissvotes.ch)
Self-Determination Initiative (25.11.2018): rejected, 33.73% Yes (so ca. 66% No), not a single canton in favor. (swissvotes.ch)
Limitation Initiative (27.09.2020): rejected, 61.7% No. (Federal Chancellery)

If you binge this as a series, it results in less "new era" than "recurring season finale": The SVP tests a hard thesis, the counter-alliance mobilizes, the proposal fails – and the basic theme still remains on the table.

And precisely here the NZZ thesis seems surprisingly robust: The No in 2016 was important, but it didn't magically rewrite the rules of the game. It rather showed that mobilization is possible – when the occasion is big enough.

Business Has Done Its Homework (A Little)

The NZZ criticized the restraint of business associations in 2016. Two years later, with the Self-Determination Initiative, business appeared much more visibly. Economiesuisse explicitly refers in retrospect to engagement within a broad No alliance – including conspicuous campaign actions. (economiesuisse)

That's pretty much exactly what the editorial demanded: earlier, more vigorous, more institutionally alert.

2024/2025: "Foreign Judges" Reloaded – This Time with Climate

Anyone who thought the topic "international law vs. national law" was buried in 2018 has underestimated Swiss politics. It's like a raclette oven: turned off, it never really seems off.

At the latest with the ECHR ruling on the KlimaSeniorinnen (April 2024) the old reflex returned: Interference from Strasbourg! The SVP parliamentary group publicly demanded the termination of the ECHR. (SVP Switzerland) Corresponding motions landed in parliament. (Parliament) And then the very Swiss twist: The National Council opposed an ECHR withdrawal in 2024. (SWI swissinfo.ch)

Parallel to this, the WOZ criticized the political reaction to the ruling as a defensive stance and power question – including very clear texts on the debate about ECHR and implementation. (woz.ch)

If that's not proof that "a No doesn't last forever": 2018 initiative sunk – 2024/25 the same conflict comes back to the village via a different ramp.

Weltwoche vs. WOZ: Two Glasses, One Topic, Lots of Temperature

Weltwoche (Critically Viewed)

The Weltwoche has had a clear right-wing course since the 2000s; several descriptions note that under Roger Köppel it made a turn to the right and has publicly supported SVP-aligned positions. (Voxeurop) Köppel himself was also (until 2023) an SVP National Councilor. (Wikipedia)

In the logic of this milieu, "Strasbourg" is often told as a cipher for foreign domination: international courts as a democratic problem, not as a rule-of-law safeguard. You can do that journalistically – but it has a price: The debate easily tips from the concrete conflict (What does this ruling mean?) to permanent agitation (Who doesn't belong here?).

Note: The Weltwoche website is not directly readable by my tool for technical reasons; I am therefore evaluating the documented journalistic orientation (sources above) and the typical argumentation pattern in this spectrum, not individual current Weltwoche articles verbatim.

WOZ (As a Conscious Counterpoint)

The WOZ does the opposite of "neutral": It openly says it has a left-wing perspective. (woz.ch) In the ECHR/KlimaSeniorinnen debate, it frames the topic strongly around rule of law, power relations and the question of who wants to evade political decisions (keyword: "hegemony"). (woz.ch)

That's also not "objective in a vacuum" – but at least honestly labeled.

Has the NZZ Thesis Held Up?

Bottom line: yes, pretty much.

2016 was not a "new mode," but a high-mobilization moment.
Parties/associations had to learn to appear earlier and more clearly (you could see that in 2018). (economiesuisse)
The major conflicts over sovereignty, EMRK/ECHR, Europe haven't disappeared – they've just gotten new occasions. (SVP Switzerland)

Switzerland hasn't "awakened beyond the SVP." It's more what it always is: a country that argues, votes, rediscovers the argument – and tells itself that this time everything is really different. Until the next Sunday.