On 1 June 2008, Swiss voters clearly rejected the SVP's popular initiative "For democratic naturalisations". Launched after a series of Federal Court rulings, the initiative sought to enshrine in the Constitution each municipality's right to decide for itself which body grants citizenship — including by popular vote — and to make such decisions final, and therefore immune to appeal.
The backdrop was the Emmen case (Lucerne): in 2003 the Federal Court had ruled ballot-box naturalisations unconstitutional, because they make it impossible to justify a rejection and expose applicants to arbitrary or discriminatory decisions. The SVP wanted to restore that popular "last word".
The Federal Council, Parliament and all the other major parties recommended rejection, arguing that the initiative breached the principles of the rule of law and removed elementary legal safeguards. The campaign — marked by the "Stop mass naturalisations" posters — was among the tensest of the decade.
The result was emphatic: 63.75 % No, and a single accepting canton (Schwyz). Eighteen years on, the legal framework has evolved in the exact opposite direction to the initiative — which is what this fact sheet tests against the record.
▲ Cantons that accepted Schwyz (the only canton accepting the initiative). | ▼ Cantons that rejected The other 25 cantons. Heaviest rejections in Geneva (≈ 82 %), Vaud, Neuchâtel and Jura (> 80 %), Basel-Stadt (≈ 71 %), Valais and Fribourg (≈ 75 %), Bern (≈ 63 %). Lucerne, canton of the Emmen case, rejects it at ≈ 56 %. |
Actors and personalities
▲ Yes camp • SVP (initiating party) • "Democratic naturalisations" committee • A few cantonal FDP sections (Lucerne, Zug) • FDU (Federal Democratic Union) | ▼ No camp • Federal Council (Pascal Couchepin, President; Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, FDJP) • Federal Parliament (large majority) • FDP, The Centre (CVP), SP, Greens • 72 constitutional-law professors (public call for rejection) • Trade unions (SGB) and human-rights organisations |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) The people must keep the last word on naturalisations « Decisions on naturalisations have always been taken democratically in Switzerland. » — SVP initiative committee, 2008 ✗~ Partly refuted After the rejection, municipalities kept democratic procedures (communal assemblies, elected commissions). But the absolute, appeal-proof popular "last word" was never restored: the communal decision survives only framed by the duty to justify and the right of appeal — contrary to what the initiative sought. Source: Citizenship Act (BüG), in force since 1 January 2018. Without popular control, naturalisations will spiral « Stop mass naturalisations! » — SVP campaign slogan, 2008 ✗ Argument refuted No spiral followed the rejection. The number of naturalisations stayed under control, around 40,000 a year, and the new 2018 act instead tightened the conditions (settlement permit C required, ten years' residence, oral language level B1). The feared explosion never materialised. Source: FSO, naturalisation statistics. | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) Ballot-box naturalisations are arbitrary and discriminatory « Direct democracy implies respect for the rule of law, which is not compatible with discrimination and arbitrariness. » — Pascal Couchepin, President of the Confederation, 2008 ✓ Argument confirmed The Federal Court case law arising from the Emmen case (from 2003) was durably upheld: an unjustified naturalisation refusal is unconstitutional. The practice of unmotivated assembly votes disappeared, confirming the No camp's analysis. Source: Federal Court rulings, Emmen case; municipal practice after 2008. Removing the right of appeal would breach the rule of law « The initiative aims to infringe the principles of the rule of law. » — Federal Council, dispatch to Parliament, 2006 ✓ Argument confirmed The right to appeal a naturalisation decision was preserved and then consolidated. The 2018 Citizenship Act codified procedural safeguards (reasoned decisions, legal remedies), confirming the line defended by the initiative's opponents. Source: Citizenship Act 2018; State Secretariat for Migration (SEM). |
Factual record
2 Confirmed | 0 Partly confirmed | 1 Partly refuted | 1 Refuted |
| ✓ | The rule of law prevailed durably The No camp's position prevailed over the long run: naturalisation remains an act subject to rule-of-law safeguards — reasoned decisions and a right of appeal. The unmotivated ballot-box vote never returned. Source: Federal Court case law; Citizenship Act 2018. |
| ✓ | No spiral in naturalisations The fears of "mass" naturalisations brandished by the Yes camp did not materialise. The framework was even tightened in 2018, with stricter access conditions. Source: FSO; SEM. |
| ~ | The communal decision survives, but framed Municipalities still naturalise, via assemblies or commissions, but can no longer refuse without justification. The outcome is a compromise between local democracy and individual rights — neither the SVP's "everything to the ballot box" nor full centralisation. Source: Citizenship Act 2018. |
Eighteen years after the vote, the record's verdict is clear: the line defended by the No camp prevailed and was consolidated by the legislature itself. Naturalisation is now firmly treated as an act subject to the rule of law, with a duty to justify rejections and a right of appeal.
The fears stoked by the SVP — an explosion of naturalisations without popular control — did not come true. Far from spiralling, the system was instead tightened by the 2018 act, which now requires a settlement permit, ten years' residence and proven language skills.
The initiative nonetheless left a mark: it forced a fundamental debate on the balance between direct democracy and individual safeguards. Municipalities retain a real but framed decision-making role. It is this compromise, not the model proposed in 2008, that shapes naturalisation in Switzerland today.