Switzerland was debating immigration policy before the rest of Europe cottoned on. As early as 1970, the country voted on a popular initiative proposing to cap the share of foreigners in the population to 10% (it was 17% at the time and has since risen to 27%). Although all the major parties were against it, the proposal was only narrowly rejected by citizens.

Now a cap is being discussed again. The Right-wing Swiss People’s Party (SVP) has launched a new popular initiative which aims to limit the country’s population to 10 million. With the current figure at nine million, the government — which rejects the initiative — estimates that the cap could be reached around 2040. If the initiative, which is currently being discussed in parliament, is accepted in the referendum, it would oblige the government to propose concrete measures once the population crosses the threshold of 9.5 million.

Since immigration is the main driver of population growth, the most obvious solution would be to renegotiate the treaty with the European Union on the free movement of people. So far, the EU has been unwilling to discuss serious restrictions on free movement. Therefore, opponents of the initiative warn that Switzerland would have to terminate the treaty, threatening a host of other agreements connected to it — such as the Mutual Recognition Agreement — which are beneficial to the country.

The discussion reflects an increasing unease about immigration in Europe. However, the Swiss case is unique. Under the country’s system of direct democracy, topics such as immigration more easily make it onto the political agenda, and politicians react more quickly to popular demands than they would in a different structure.

It’s easy to dismiss the Swiss as irrational xenophobes. But at least citizens can make their opinions on the topic heard through standard democratic procedures, rather than through street protests or even riots, as has happened in other countries including the UK.

Switzerland may offer a glimpse of the kind of debates that could become commonplace in Europe in the near future. While Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Greece have all wrestled over inward migration, a population cap has not really figured in any of the discussions.

There is now a broad consensus among Swiss political parties that immigration levels are too high. The only point of disagreement is how to address the problem. Leftists and liberals tend to favour using the potential of the domestic labour force better — by subsidising external childcare, for example. Yet as long as Switzerland remains economically successful, at least relative to neighbouring countries, it is likely to continue to attract European migrants. And who could blame them? Wages are twice as high as in Germany and three times as high as in Italy.

In other counties, too, migration will not be leaving the political agenda any time soon, much as the established parties might wish it to. They would therefore be wise to take a close look at the Swiss example and draw some lessons. One might be that shaming critics of high immigration and dismissing their arguments as xenophobic or irrational, or even trying to shut them out of public debate, is not going to work.

In Germany, the mainstream parties are trying hard to keep the Right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) out of power by refusing to cooperate with it under any circumstances. This Brandmauer (“firewall”) also “worked” in the recent elections in February, in the sense that the AfD is not part of the new government. However, this has not diminished the party’s growing appeal among voters. On the contrary, it may become so large that it cannot be kept out of power — only then it will not join a coalition but lead it. How this kind of radical change will turn out is anyone’s guess, but it’s hard to see how it will be any better than the incremental change that Switzerland’s political landscape has experienced.

Clearly, acknowledging the many positive effects of migration does not mean that one cannot address its potential costs, from higher rents to crime or problems with integration. The question is not whether to allow immigration or not, but about speed and scale. Switzerland’s direct democracy makes sure the government listens to voters’ concerns. Elsewhere in Europe, it is unlikely to happen at the ballot box, but on the streets.

---

Lukas Leuzinger is a journalist and editor-in-chief of the magazine Schweizer Monat.

lukasleuzinger

---