At the beginning of the 19th century, the Swiss Confederation was still a vassal state of France. After the collapse of Napoleon’s empire in 1815, the Federal Treaty was the legal guideline for the functioning of the state as part of the post-war order adopted by the Congress of Vienna. However, the Confederation was politically and religiously divided; economically, different currencies, units of weight, and duties made it more difficult to interact with each other. Tensions between the Protestant-liberal and the Catholic-conservative cantons peaked in 1847 in a civil war, the so-called Sonderbundskrieg. In the “Sonderbund” (Special Alliance), the Catholic-conservative cantons had united themselves against the rest.
The Text within 51 Days
After the armed dissolution of the Special Alliance, a 23-member commission took up the reform of the Federal Treaty. The Revision Commission held its first meeting on February 17, 1848, and 51 days later, the text of the new Federal Constitution was ready. On September 12, 1848, the Rules of Procedure declared them adopted. Switzerland thus became a federal state and the first stable democracy in Europe.
Thus, the most important pillars of today’s constitutional order were set 175 years ago: the Federal Council as an executive body, the Federal Assembly with its two chambers (the National Council and State Council), the principle of separation of powers, the federalist division of duties between the federal and cantonal bodies, free elections, and the fundamental rights of citizens.
“It was about involving everyone, especially the people. The people should also be represented, not just the cantons,” says Andreas Kley, specialist for the Swiss Constitution, on the SRF portal. “The second point concerned the Catholics. They were kept at a distance because they did not agree with the liberal ideals.”
Wealth Aggregation: Simple, Dynamic, and Secure Beyond Compare. Discover the Altoo Wealth Platform!
Voting Rights: Women and Marginalised Groups
But the constitution also reflected social conditions. The right to vote concerned only men, and different persons were excluded depending on the canton: the poor, taxpayers, criminally convicted, beggars, and people who earn little. In 1848, the circle of eligible voters was greatly expanded. A conviction or a financially precarious situation is not a basis for exclusion since 1971. Women were also allowed to vote for the first time in 1971.
There were also cantonal specialties: people with a bargaining ban were not allowed to vote in Bern, Schwyz, Freiburg, Solothurn, and Aargau; in Ticino electoral fraudsters; in Neuenburg and Geneva mercenaries; or in Solothurn beggars and land robbers. These measures were, in part, valid until the beginning of the 20th century.
New Revisions at the Beginning of the Millennium
Over the years and centuries, the text was revised over and over again, until the 163 partial revisions made it vague and difficult to understand. It contained many outdated or unnecessary provisions. That is why, in 1995, the Federal Council opened the consultation procedure on constitutional reform. Four years later, the Federal Council adopted the message on the entry into force of the new Federal Constitution and the necessary adaptation of the legislation.
On New Year’s Day 2000, together with some legislative adjustments, the new Federal Constitution entered into force. It contains a total of 195 articles, stresses the sovereignty of the cantons and states that the national languages are German, French, Italian, and Roman.
However, this entry into force is not supposed to mean an endpoint. Further reforms will be implemented step-by-step. After a referendum, the judicial reform should be implemented, creating a basis for the harmonisation of civil and criminal procedural law, improving legal protection, and relieving the Federal Court of Justice.
“We completely revised the Constitution in 1999. This process lasted from 1964 to 1999”, notes Andreas Kley. “A lengthy process is likely to take place once the initiative is adopted. But I think it is legitimate to think about our constitution. This has its own value in democracy,” concludes the law professor.
