In the early 2010s, Geneva state councillor Pierre Maudet (Liberal) launched a sweeping reform of the police. Passed by the cantonal parliament in 2014, the project abolished the gendarmerie corps, reorganised the force into several specialised services and unified the status and salary of all police officers.
The police union UPCP, hostile to the reform, launched a referendum, backed by the MCG, the Swiss People's Party and Ensemble à Gauche. The campaign turned into a standoff between the government and part of the police rank and file.
On 8 March 2015 the verdict came in — and it was tiny: the law was accepted by 55,763 yes to 55,709 no, a margin of 54 votes after a recount. One of the closest results in Geneva's history. The “Maudet law” would enter into force on 1 May 2016.
▲ Yes (accepted) • 55,763 yes — about 50.0% of the vote • Margin of 54 votes after a recount • Entry into force on 1 May 2016 | ▼ No (rejected) • 55,709 no — about 50.0% of the vote • So close that a recount was ordered • Opposition led by the police union |
The camps
▲ Yes camp • Pierre Maudet (Liberal, state councillor for security), author of the reform • The Liberal party and part of the parliamentary majority that passed the law • Supporters of a unified police, in favour of identical status and pay for all officers | ▼ No camp • UPCP (police staff union), which launched the referendum • MCG (Geneva Citizens' Movement) and the Swiss People's Party, opposed to the reform • Ensemble à Gauche, making for an unusually broad opposition front |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) A reorganised police will be more modern and more efficient. “This law gives Geneva a police force fit for the challenges of the 21st century” (Yes camp, 2015). ✗~ Largely not confirmed. From its entry into force in 2016, the reform was criticised for having disorganised the police: stalled investigations, internal malaise, a “silo” structure deemed inefficient. In 2022 parliament had to revise the law precisely to abandon that structure. Sources: Tribune de Genève, RTS, cantonal parliament (2022). The status inequalities between officers must end. “Every officer should have the same status and the same salary” (Yes camp, 2015). ✓ Confirmed. On this specific point the law held: it did establish a single status and salary for the entire police corps, removing the historic distinction with the gendarmerie. Sources: Police Act (LPol), Geneva press. | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) The reform will disorganise the police and make it less effective. “We are breaking a force that works for a bureaucratic contraption” (No camp, 2015). ✓~ Largely confirmed. The ensuing police malaise is amply documented, as are the dysfunctions of the silo structure. The need for a legislative revision in 2022, seven years after the vote, vindicates the core of the opponents' warning. Sources: Tribune de Genève, 20 minutes, GHI. The new structure will cost more and multiply senior ranks. “More chiefs, more costs, no more security” (No camp, 2015). ✓~ Largely confirmed. Later assessments pointed to a police force seen as costlier and top-heavy with senior officers, fuelling internal discontent. Criticism of the structure and costs heavily fed the 2022 revision. Sources: GHI, Tribune de Genève. |
The outcome, a decade on
08.03.2015 Date of the vote | 54 votes Margin (after recount) | 01.05.2016 Entry into force | 2022 Revision (silos abandoned) |
8 March 2015 will be remembered as one of the closest votes in Geneva's history: a margin of 54 votes, a recount, and a police reform scraping through on the line. Such a result should have counselled caution in implementation.
Hindsight largely vindicates the opponents. While the law did achieve its goal of unifying status, its central promise — a more efficient police — was contradicted by the facts: internal malaise, dysfunctions and, above all, a 2022 revision dismantling the silo structure voted in 2015.
One democratic lesson remains: a majority of 54 votes binds as much as a landslide, but it exposes the winner to years of contestation. The LPol illustrates the political cost of a reform imposed on a profession without sufficiently involving it — a classic of relations between the state as employer and its staff.