On 25 June 1995, Swiss voters accepted the 10th revision of the old-age and survivors' insurance (OASI/AVS) by 60.71 % of the vote — in a referendum launched against it. With turnout of just 40.42 %, the reform cleared the ballot box while deeply dividing the left.
The package is a quintessentially Swiss compromise. On one side, it brings major advances for women: an individual pension for everyone, splitting (halving of income earned during marriage between spouses) and credits for child-rearing and care tasks. On the other, it raises women's retirement age in stages from 62 to 64 — the financial counterpart demanded in return.
It is this increase that triggers the referendum, filed by the Swiss Federation of Trade Unions, the Christian-National Federation of Trade Unions and women's and pensioners' organisations, with more than 141,000 signatures. Socialist Federal Councillor Ruth Dreifuss, head of the Department of Home Affairs, defends the reform as a clear gain for women, despite the bitter pill of the higher age.
The political line-up is unusual: almost every party — the Radicals, Christian Democrats, SVP, but also the Social Democrats and Greens — recommends a Yes, while only the unions, the Labour Party and the Lega oppose it. In force from 1 January 1997 for splitting and credits, the reform will raise women's age to 63 in 2001 and then to 64 in 2005.
▲ Cantons that accepted Aargau, Appenzell Inner-Rhodes, Appenzell Outer-Rhodes, Bern, Basel-Landschaft, Basel-Stadt, Geneva, Glarus, Graubünden, Lucerne, Nidwalden, Obwalden, St. Gallen, Schaffhausen, Schwyz, Solothurn, Thurgau, Uri, Vaud, Zug, Zurich (21 cantons) | ▼ Cantons that rejected Fribourg, Jura, Neuchâtel, Ticino, Valais (5 cantons) |
Actors and personalities
▲ Yes camp • Federal Council (Yes recommendation) • Ruth Dreifuss (SP), Federal Councillor, head of the FDHA — sponsor of the reform • Radicals, Christian Democrats, SVP, SP, Greens almost the entire party spectrum • Business associations Vorort, Employers' Association, Farmers' Union, Trade Association • Women's organisations in favour of splitting and credits | ▼ No camp • Swiss Federation of Trade Unions (SGB) initiator of the referendum • Christian unions (CNG) later Travail.Suisse • Swiss Labour Party (PdA) • Lega dei Ticinesi • Dissenting left-wing sections SP Geneva, SP Jura, Greens Graubünden |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) Splitting and credits: an equality gain for women « Raising women's retirement age is the necessary counterpart to a significant improvement in their position within the OASI. » — Ruth Dreifuss, Federal Councillor (SP), 1995 ✓ Argument confirmed In force since 1 January 1997, the individual pension, income splitting and credits for child-rearing and care have become permanent pillars of the OASI. They markedly improved the pensions of many women — especially divorced and widowed ones — and are still hailed as an equality advance. Source : FSIO, "History of the OASI 1948-2023" A sustainable and workable rise in the retirement age « The gradual move to 64 is needed to secure the financing of the OASI. » — Yes camp (Federal Council, centre-right parties), 1995 ✓ Argument confirmed Women's reference age was raised to 63 in 2001 and then to 64 in 2005, exactly on the announced timetable. The reform was implemented without the social upheaval predicted by its opponents and helped stabilise the OASI accounts during that period. Source : FSIO; FSO, OASI statistics | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) Making women pay the OASI bill « Women are being asked to swallow a bitter pill: two more years of work to balance the OASI. » — Union referendum committee, 1995 ✗~ Partly refuted The age was indeed raised and women did work two years longer. But the same reform also lifted many women's pensions through splitting and credits: the predicted "regression" was, for a substantial share of women, offset by concrete gains. The record is therefore mixed. Source : FSIO; VOX analyses 1995 A first step toward 65 and beyond « This rise to 64 is only a stage: the door to 65 for women is now open. » — Union opponents of the reform, 1995 ✓ Argument confirmed The warning came true. The OASI 21 reform, accepted on 25 September 2022, raised women's reference age to 65, and debates on a general increase to 66 or 67 continue. The "next step" logic flagged in 1995 materialised twenty-seven years later. Source : FSO, OASI 21 vote of 25.09.2022 |
Affiches de campagne (13)
Factual record
3 Confirmed | 0 Partly confirmed | 1 Partly refuted | 0 Refuted |
| ✓ | An equality gain that held Splitting, the individual pension and child-rearing credits entered law in 1997 and were never called into question. They rank among the most durable social reforms of the decade. Source : FSIO |
| ✓ | The age raised, as announced The promised timetable was kept: 63 in 2001, 64 in 2005. Implementation went ahead without major disruption. Source : FSIO |
| ~ | The "next step" forecast confirmed The unions predicted that 64 would only be a stage. OASI 21 raised women's age to 65 in 2022: the feared mechanism duly kicked in. Source : FSO |
The 10th revision of the OASI embodies the Swiss art of compromise: a package in which each side finds both a victory and a concession. Women gained the individualisation of their entitlements — splitting, their own pension, credits — at the price of two extra working years.
On the ground of verifiable promises, the Yes camp kept its word: the equality advances came into force and benefited many insured women, while the rise in the retirement age unfolded on the announced timetable, without the feared social earthquake.
The opponents, for their part, were wrong about the scale of the "regression" — largely cushioned by the new entitlements — but right about the trajectory: 64 proved only a waypoint before the 65 of OASI 21. A quarter-century was enough to prove them partly right.