On 27 September 2009 the Vaud electorate rejected, by roughly 54 % No, the popular initiative “For a unified and more efficient police”, nicknamed the “d’Artagnan” initiative. Launched by Vaud’s gendarmes, it proposed merging the cantonal gendarmerie and the dozen-odd municipal police forces into a single corps. Turnout was about 45 %.
At the time, public security in Vaud rested on a fragmented patchwork: a cantonal gendarmerie on one side, municipal forces with wildly unequal means on the other — from the powerful Lausanne city police to tiny corps of a handful of officers. Depending on where they lived, residents enjoyed neither the same services nor the same police presence.
The cantonal government and a majority of the Grand Council opposed the merger, preferring a counter-project negotiated with the communes: the “coordinated police”. Rather than abolishing municipal forces, this model imposed common standards on every corps under coordinated command. That path won at the ballot box.
Rejecting the initiative therefore did not freeze the status quo: it paved the way for the law on Vaud police organisation (LOPV), passed in 2011 and in force from 1 January 2012, whose concrete effects can now be measured against both camps’ promises.
▲ Yes — about 46 % Nearly 46 % of voters backed a single police force: a respectable score, but not enough to pass the initiative. | ▼ No — about 54 % The No prevailed at around 54 %, carried by the government and the communes. Turnout: about 45 %. |
Actors and figures
▲ Yes camp • Professional Association of Vaud Gendarmes (APGV) — initiative committee, author of the text. • Advocates of a single cantonal police — in the name of efficiency and equal treatment. • Vaud SVP/UDC — sympathetic to a single corps, an idea it would later revive. | ▼ No camp • Vaud cantonal government — sponsor of the “coordinated police” counter-project. • Union of Vaud communes and municipal associations — attached to keeping municipal forces. • City of Lausanne and large communes — with their own police they refused to dissolve. • Grand Council majority — in favour of coordination rather than merger. |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) A fragmented and unequal police landscape « Depending on where you live, you do not get the same police or the same presence on the ground. » — Initiative committee (Vaud gendarmes), 2009 ✓ Argument confirmed The diagnosis was contested by no one: the government itself adopted it to justify its counter-project. That shared finding is what made reform inevitable, in one form or another. Only a merger can standardise « You need a single police force so every officer has the same skills and the same resources. » — Professional Association of Vaud Gendarmes ✗~ Partly refuted Standardisation did happen — but without a merger. The LOPV imposed common standards on every corps (24/7 availability, minimum staffing). A single police force was therefore not the only route to equal treatment. | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) Coordination is enough, without merging everything « No need to abolish municipal forces: a coordination agreement will reach the same goals. » — Government and communes (counter-project) ✓ Argument confirmed The coordinated-police model was implemented through the LOPV and has held since 2012: common standards, coordinated command. The efficiency goals advertised were largely achieved without a single cantonal force. Preserve local proximity and communal autonomy « Communes know and deliver neighbourhood security best. » — Counter-project supporters ✓~ Partly confirmed Communal autonomy was preserved in principle. But the new requirements (24/7, minimum staffing) pushed many small communes to drop or merge their police into regional bodies: the promised proximity in fact receded. |
Factual assessment
2 Confirmed | 1 Partly confirmed | 1 Partly refuted | 0 Refuted |
By rejecting the “d’Artagnan” initiative on 27 September 2009, Vaud voters did not choose immobility: they preferred the path negotiated by the government and the communes. Yet the gendarmes’ diagnosis — a fragmented, unequal police landscape — was contested by no one.
The “coordinated police” introduced by the LOPV on 1 January 2012 imposed common standards on every corps, including round-the-clock availability. Part of the initiative’s aims — uniformity, efficiency — was thus achieved, but without a single force.
The No camp’s promise — to preserve local proximity — proved only partly true: lacking the means to meet the new requirements, many small municipal forces disappeared or merged into regional organisations.
Fifteen years on, the canton lives with a hybrid system the SVP/UDC has repeatedly proposed to re-merge. Proof that the question posed by “d’Artagnan” was never quite settled.