70.15 per cent voted No to the neutrality initiative. 72.52 per cent voted No to the food initiative. Not a single canton voted in favour. That is a remarkably clear result.
The two proposals had little in common. And no one should claim that everyone who voted No did so for the same reasons.
Still, one common interpretation suggests itself: Switzerland twice rejected the idea that security can be created through rigid constitutional constraints.
Neutrality Requires Room for Manoeuvre
Neutrality does not mean standing still.
The neutrality initiative would have significantly restricted Switzerland’s scope for security cooperation. Cooperation with military or defence alliances would, in principle, only have been possible once an armed attack against Switzerland had taken place or was being prepared. Sanctions against belligerent states outside the UN framework would also have been heavily restricted.
That may sound consistent. But it would have come at the cost of flexibility.
If cooperation can only begin once the threat has already materialised, it begins too late.
Security is built beforehand. Through dialogue. Through exercises. Through partnerships. Through relationships that work before they are urgently needed.
The No vote was therefore not a rejection of neutrality. Neutrality remains. What was rejected was the attempt to lock its application into a much narrower constitutional framework.
And that matters.
Cyberattacks, geopolitical pressure and organised crime do not respect borders. A sovereign state must therefore be able to decide when, with whom and how it protects its interests.
Self-Sufficiency Is Not the Same as Security of Supply
The food initiative raised a similar question about what security actually means.
It aimed to raise Switzerland’s net self-sufficiency rate from around 46 per cent to at least 70 per cent within ten years.
More domestic production can strengthen security of supply. But that does not mean greater autarky automatically creates greater resilience.
Switzerland has limited agricultural land, a high population density and a deeply interconnected economy. Its food security therefore rests on several pillars: domestic production, imports and mandatory reserves.
That is not a weakness.
It is diversification.
Every risk manager knows the principle: resilience is not created by putting everything on one card. It comes from multiple sources of supply, reserves and alternatives.
A strong Swiss agricultural sector therefore remains essential to food security.
But so do reliable trading partners.
Sovereignty Means Being Able to Decide
That leads to the broader point.
Sovereignty does not mean having as little to do with others as possible. Sovereignty means retaining the ability to decide for yourself.
A country that voluntarily removes its future options does not automatically become more independent.
Switzerland therefore does not have to choose between independence and cooperation.
It can remain neutral and cooperate on security.
It can strengthen domestic agriculture and continue to trade internationally.
It can defend its own interests without isolating itself.
A small country at the heart of Europe is strongest when it remains independent in its decisions while staying reliably connected to others.
The double No vote of 27 September can therefore also be read in this way:
No to self-restraint.
Yes to room for manoeuvre.
Switzerland does not become more sovereign or more secure through less cooperation.
It does so by preserving the freedom to decide for itself whom it works with.