On 16 May 2004, the people of Fribourg ruled on a venture rare in Switzerland: the complete rewriting of their cantonal Constitution. The text then in force dated from 1857. A Constituent Assembly, elected for the purpose and meant to be "representative of Fribourg society", worked for several years — between the clash of ideas and the search for consensus — to propose an entirely new charter.
The project introduced several innovations: an expanded catalogue of social rights (broadened family allowances, supplementary benefits for families, rights of the elderly), transparency provisions, and above all a new instrument of direct democracy, the popular motion, allowing 300 citizens to bring a proposal before the cantonal parliament.
The issue split the right: while the Christian Democrats, Socialists and Greens backed the text, the SVP, FDP and employers' associations opposed it, fearing the spending explosion they believed the new rights would trigger. On 16 May 2004 the new Constitution was accepted by 58.03 % of voters. It came into force on 1 January 2005.
▲ Result — ACCEPTED 58.03 % YES (44,863 yes against 32,446 no). Federal guarantee granted in December 2004, entry into force on 1 January 2005. | Significance of the vote One of the rare complete rewrites of a cantonal constitution in French-speaking Switzerland at the time. Broad popular support despite opposition from the SVP, FDP and employer circles. |
Actors and figures
▲ Yes camp • Constituent Assembly (majority) • Christian Democratic Party (PDC) • Fribourg Socialist Party • Fribourg Greens • Trade unions (Fribourg Trade Union) | ▼ No camp • SVP/UDC Fribourg • FDP / Radical Party • Fribourg employers' associations • Opponents of the new social rights |
Arguments and verdicts — 22 years on
▲ Arguments FOR (Assembly / PDC / SP / Greens) A modern constitution will anchor concrete new social rights for families and the elderly. ✓ Confirmed The enshrined rights materialised: broadened family allowances (including for the self-employed, non-working mothers and adoption), supplementary benefits for families, and a "Senior +" programme flowing from the rights of the elderly. The popular motion will give citizens a new instrument of direct participation. ~ Partly confirmed The instrument exists and has been used, but the cantonal parliament frequently rejected the popular motions filed. The government itself acknowledged the tool did not have the participatory effect hoped for. | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (SVP / FDP / employers) Implementing the new rights will make cantonal public spending explode. « Fearing the spending that applying the Constitution would generate, the SVP and FDP opposed it. » — 20-year assessment, La Liberté, 2024 ✗ Refuted No cost explosion attributable to the Constitution has been documented. The social programmes were rolled out within a controlled budget; the canton's more recent financial strains stem from distinct causes. The text is too ambitious; better to keep the tried-and-tested old constitution. ✗ Refuted Twenty years later, the assembly's alumni association concludes that "the Constitution of 16 May 2004 holds up". The federal guarantee was granted without reservation, and the text underwent only a light tidy-up, with no fundamental questioning. |
Factual assessment · 22 years on (2026)
1 Confirmed | 1 Partly confirmed | 0 Partly refuted | 2 Refuted |
| ✓ | The federal guarantee was granted in December 2004; the Constitution came into force on 1 January 2005 and passed the twenty-year mark without trouble. Source: Federal Justice Department / Canton of Fribourg, 2004-2024 |
| ✓ | The text's social rights materialised: broadened family allowances, supplementary benefits for families, "Senior +" programme for the elderly. Source: Canton of Fribourg / La Liberté, 2024 |
| ~ | The popular motion, the flagship instrument of 2004, was frequently rejected by the cantonal parliament; the government admits it did not have the hoped-for effect on citizen participation. Source: Le Temps / Canton of Fribourg, 2024 |
| ✓ | Twenty years on, the assessment by the assembly's alumni association is positive — "the Constitution of 16 May 2004 holds up" — and only a first partial tidy-up was needed. Source: La Liberté / Frapp, 2024 |
Twenty-two years after 16 May 2004, the factual verdict is clear: the new Constitution kept its social promises, and its opponents' fears did not come true — with one nuance, which comes from the Yes camp itself.
The supporters were right on the essentials. The social rights they championed did not remain a dead letter: broadened family allowances, supplementary benefits for families, a Senior + programme for the elderly. The text obtained the federal guarantee without reservation and passed the twenty-year mark, praised as solid even among the ranks of its former architects.
The opponents, for their part, were wrong on their central prediction. The spending explosion they announced has not been documented: implementation took place within a controlled budget. Keeping the old 1857 Constitution would have preserved nothing essential that the new one failed to contain.
One half-kept promise remains, and it is down to the Yes: the popular motion, hailed as a democratic leap, ran into the lawmakers' recurring "no". The tool exists, but parliament often refused to act on it, so much so that the government admits it did not have the hoped-for effect. Fribourg's direct democracy was enriched on paper more than in practice.