Adopted in 1874, the Federal Constitution was revised more than 140 times in a century. The text had become a patchwork: dated language, obsolete provisions — such as the ban on absinthe — and, above all, numerous fundamental rights that existed only in Federal Court case law, never set down in writing.
From the 1960s, the idea of a formal “update” matured. After lengthy work (1987-1998), Parliament adopted in December 1998 the federal decree on an update of the Constitution. The intent was clear and repeated: codify existing law, modernise and structure the text, without introducing any substantive change.
The campaign was low-key: turnout would not exceed 35.9%. The Federal Council and almost every party backed the revision. Opposition came from two opposite corners: a nationalist right fearing changes slipped in unnoticed, and part of the left finding the reform too timid.
On 18 April 1999, the text was accepted by the people (59.2% yes) and the cantons (double majority, 13 to 10). The new Constitution came into force on 1 January 2000, replacing that of 1874.
▲ Cantons that accepted Zurich, Bern, Lucerne, Zug, Fribourg, Solothurn, Basel-City, Basel-Country, Grisons, Ticino, Vaud, Neuchâtel, Geneva, Jura | ▼ Cantons that rejected Uri, Schwyz, Obwalden, Nidwalden, Glarus, Aargau, St. Gallen, Schaffhausen, Appenzell Inner-Rhodes, Appenzell Outer-Rhodes, Thurgau, Valais |
Actors and personalities
▲ Yes camp • Federal Council (in favour) • CVP, FDP, SP, Greens, LPS, EVP, EDU, AdI, Lega (Yes recommendations) • SVP (national Yes recommendation despite dissenting sections) • Business (economiesuisse, USAM, Swiss Farmers’ Union) • Trade unions (SGB, Travail.Suisse) | ▼ No camp • Freedom Party (FPS) • Catholic-Conservative Party (KVP) • Swiss Party of Labour (PdA) (revision deemed too timid) • Swiss Democrats • Dissenting SVP and EDU sections (SVP BS, LU, SG, SO, SZ, UR, ZG, ZH) |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) A modern, readable Constitution « The 1874 text has become unreadable and riddled with outdated provisions; it must be updated. » — Yes camp (Federal Council), 1999 ✓ Argument confirmed The 2000 Constitution removed obsolete articles, modernised the language and clarified the structure. It is unanimously recognised as more readable and systematic than the 1874 text. Source : Federal Constitution of 18 April 1999 (SR 101) Writing fundamental rights into the text « Rights recognised only in case law must appear in black and white in the Constitution. » — Yes camp, 1999 ✓ Argument confirmed The new Constitution codified a genuine catalogue of fundamental rights (Art. 7-36) hitherto scattered across case law, and explicitly enshrined guarantees such as the right to strike (Art. 28). Source : Art. 7-36 and 28 of the Constitution | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) An update that smuggles in changes « Under the guise of tidying up, novelties are introduced and traditional foundations threatened. » — Nationalist right (FPS, Swiss Democrats), 1999 ✗~ Partly refuted The revision remained essentially a formal update: no major substantive upheaval followed. A few genuine novelties, such as codifying the right to strike, nonetheless give the critics partial grounds. Source : Constitutional scholarship; Federal Council message A too-timid revision, a missed opportunity « They settle for a dusting-off instead of tackling the real reforms the country needs. » — Far left (Party of Labour), 1999 ✓~ Partly confirmed The criticism holds in part: the update was deliberately minimal. The substantive reforms — popular rights, judicial reform — came separately afterwards, and the Constitution has since been amended dozens of times. Source : Constitutional reforms from 2000 |
Affiches de campagne (2)
Factual record
2 Confirmed | 1 Partly confirmed | 1 Partly refuted | 0 Refuted |
| ✓ | A Constitution in force and still standing The text came into force on 1 January 2000, replaced the 1874 Constitution and remains today Switzerland’s basic law. Source : Federal Constitution (SR 101) |
| ✓ | Fundamental rights now written down The catalogue of fundamental rights and guarantees such as the right to strike now appear explicitly in the text, serving as a reference for the courts. Source : Art. 7-36 of the Constitution |
| ~ | A living text, endlessly amended Since 2000 the Constitution has been amended dozens of times by popular initiative (minarets, expulsion of foreign criminals, immigration…), confirming both its vitality and the merely initial nature of the 1999 update. Source : Federal Chancellery, constitutional revisions |
The 1999 update kept its main promise: to modernise and clarify the Constitution without overturning its substance. The 1874 text, grown unreadable, gave way to a structured basic law, stripped of its dross and still in force a quarter of a century later.
Its most lasting contribution is undoubtedly the codification of fundamental rights: guarantees hitherto recognised only in case law became written law, offering citizens and courts a clear reference.
Both oppositions have largely worn off. The right’s fear — changes introduced on the sly — did not come true, apart from a few specific novelties. The left’s criticism — a too-timid revision — was, by contrast, well-founded: the major reforms came later and in small steps.
Twenty-five years on, the 2000 Constitution looks less like a rupture than a loosened foundation, designed to last while being continually supplemented by direct democracy.