On 16 May 2004, Switzerland voted on the eleventh revision of the OASI (old-age and survivors' insurance, AVS/AHV), passed by Parliament in October 2003. The aim was to consolidate the pension scheme's finances. The flagship measure raised women's reference age from 64 to 65, aligning it with men's; the text made retirement more flexible and delivered savings, notably on widows' pensions.
The same day, a linked object — a VAT increase in favour of OASI and disability insurance — was also put to the vote; it too would be rejected.
A facultative referendum was launched by the Swiss Trade Union Federation (SGB), backed by the Social Democrats, the Greens, Travail.Suisse and AVIVO, with 152,031 signatures. The Federal Council, Parliament and the centre-right parties defended the revision; the left and the unions fought it, seeing a social dismantling on women's backs.
The ballot verdict was emphatic: only 32.10 % Yes and all 26 cantons rejected the revision, on a turnout of 50.8 %. But the story did not end there: the central measure would return — and eventually pass, eighteen years later.
▲ Cantons that accepted No canton accepted the revision. | ▼ Cantons that rejected All 26 cantons rejected it: Zurich, Bern, Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz, Obwalden, Nidwalden, Glarus, Zug, Fribourg, Solothurn, Basel-Stadt, Basel-Landschaft, Schaffhausen, Appenzell Outer Rhodes, Appenzell Inner Rhodes, St. Gallen, Graubünden, Aargau, Thurgau, Ticino, Vaud, Valais, Neuchâtel, Geneva, Jura. |
Actors and personalities
▲ Yes camp • Federal Council and Parliament • FDP, CVP, SVP, LPS plus EDU, FPS • economiesuisse, SGV, farmers' union business and farming circles | ▼ No camp • Swiss Trade Union Federation (SGB) referendum committee • Social Democratic Party (SP), the Greens • Travail.Suisse, AVIVO • EVP, CSP, PdA, SD, Lega |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) Raising women's age to 65 is necessary « Harmonising the retirement age at 65 is essential to put OASI on a sound footing and for the sake of equality. » — Federal Council, 2004 campaign ✓ Argument confirmed Confirmed in hindsight. The measure was ultimately adopted by the people themselves with the OASI 21 reform, accepted on 25 September 2022. The 2004 rejection merely delayed the reference age of 65 by eighteen years. Source: Federal Chancellery; OASI 21 (2022). Without reform, OASI finances will deteriorate « Failing reform, OASI's balance will deteriorate inexorably as the population ages. » — Yes camp, 2004 ✓ Argument confirmed Confirmed. Without structural reform, OASI recorded pay-as-you-go deficits from the mid-2010s, making the TRAF contribution (2019) and then the OASI 21 reform (2022) necessary. Source: FSIO; FFA. | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) A social dismantling on women's backs « This revision makes women pay for putting OASI right and dismantles social gains. » — SGB and the left, 2004 referendum committee ✗~ Partly refuted Partly refuted. The flagship measure — women's age at 65 — was later accepted by the people (OASI 21, 2022), showing it was not the absolute taboo described; it passed only narrowly (50.55 %), however, and with compensation measures. Source: Federal Chancellery. Raising the age without compensation is unfair « You cannot raise women's age without compensation and without real pay equality. » — No camp, 2004 ✓~ Partly confirmed Partly confirmed. This demand shaped later reforms: OASI 21 specifically included transitional compensation measures for women close to retirement, acknowledging the fairness problem raised in 2004. Source: FSIO; OASI 21. The real cure is financing, not cuts « OASI must be financed with additional revenue, not pared back through savings and a higher age. » — Left and unions, 2004 ✓ Argument confirmed Confirmed. OASI was ultimately stabilised above all by additional financing: the TRAF contribution (~2 billion/year from 2020) and the VAT increase adopted with OASI 21 in 2022. Source: FSIO; FFA. |
Affiches de campagne (23)
Factual record
3 Confirmed | 1 Partly confirmed | 1 Partly refuted | 0 Refuted |
| ✓ | The flagship measure eventually passed — eighteen years later Women's reference age of 65, rejected in 2004, was accepted by the people with the OASI 21 reform on 25 September 2022 (50.55 % Yes). Source: Federal Chancellery. |
| ✓ | Finances that did indeed deteriorate Without reform, OASI ran pay-as-you-go deficits from the mid-2010s, confirming the Yes camp's warning. Source: FSIO. |
| ~ | Compensation, the heart of OASI 21 The 2004 criticism about the lack of compensation was heard: OASI 21 provided transitional measures for women close to retirement. Source: FSIO. |
The crushing No of 2004 was not an eternal No to reform, but a No to this reform. Voters penalised a text seen as unbalanced, placing the consolidation burden on women and on widows' pensions, without what were judged sufficient trade-offs.
Hindsight vindicates both camps on different points. The Yes camp was right on the financial diagnosis: without reform, OASI slid into deficit, and the flagship measure — women's age at 65 — was ultimately accepted by the people with OASI 21 in 2022. But the No camp was right on method: it took compensation for women and, above all, additional financing to get the reform through.
In between lay a decade and a half of deadlock: an «eleventh revision bis» failed in turn in 2010, and it took until 2022 to break the impasse. The 2004 rejection came at a cost — that of lost time — but it also durably steered reform toward a balance between savings, compensation and new revenue.