In a nationwide referendum on Sunday, Swiss voters narrowly adopted a digital-ID proposal put forth by the nation’s federal government.
The proposal, formally titled the “Federal Act on Electronic Proof of Identity and Other Electronic Evidence (E-ID Act, BGEID),” passed with 50.39 percent of the popular vote. Notably, a majority of cantons (the Swiss equivalent to states in the United States) voted against the proposal (15.5 against, versus 7.5 in favor, including half cantons). Since the referendum did not involve a constitutional amendment, however, the proposal did not require a majority of cantons to pass.
The now-approved measure creates a government-managed digital-identification system. Under its provisions, users’ data will be stored on their smartphones and used only for identity verification (as opposed to broader purposes), and requires only the minimum information to be revealed to a third party (e.g., when purchasing alcohol at a store). The digital ID is optional; Swiss citizens may continue to use the county’s existing national ID card.
Second Attempt
Sunday’s referendum was the federal government’s second attempt at implementing a digital-ID system. Voters rejected a previous proposal in March 2021, with 64.4 percent voting against it, mainly due to concerns about users’ data falling in the hands of private companies, which would have managed the originally proposed program.
Although the Swiss Federal Assembly (parliament) modified its second proposal to address those concerns, any digital ID poses a fundamental threat to individual freedom and privacy, and would massively increase government’s ability to track citizens’ every movement. Furthermore, digital IDs are part of the United Nations’ totalitarian Agenda 2030 plan to impose central planning on a global scale, and the UN and Bill Gates are working to implement a “digital public infrastructure.”
Additionally, conservative groups opposed to the measure argued that a digital ID would eventually become mandatory, and that any system still risked handing over citizens’ data to large companies and being used for purposes beyond simple identity verification.
Unexpected Opposition
Despite the measure passing, Sunday’s referendum result was significantly narrower than expected. The proposal passed the Federal Assembly by wide margins — 170-25 in the National Council (lower house) and 43-1 in the Council of States (upper house) — with only members of the conservative Swiss People’s Party and two minor affiliated parties objecting.
Although opponents gathered enough signatures to force a referendum on the legislation, polling suggested that nearly three-fifths of voters would support it. Ultimately, the measure barely passed, and was rejected by majorities in most cantons.
Swiss media and analysts saw the narrow passage as resulting from high turnout by conservative opponents of the measure. Swiss public broadcaster Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen analyzed that the result “should give the Federal Council and the parliamentary majority pause for thought,” and “is not a good sign for other digitization projects in Switzerland.”
Dangers of Democracy
Sunday’s referendum illustrates the dangers of democracy, specifically of the majority imposing its will on the minority, even if it infringes on the latter’s individual freedom. Although opposition to a digital ID was widespread — voters in a majority of cantons opposed the concept — this potentially far-reaching policy became law with only a 50.4-percent popular majority.
Switzerland, whose current system incorporates direct democracy, holds nationwide referendums up to four times a year. Despite now being accepted as foundational to the Swiss political system, nationwide referendums were virtually nonexistent before the 1870s, more than 20 years after Switzerland became a federal state. Notably, once Switzerland adopted federal direct democracy, it quickly inspired multiple U.S. states to do the same in the form of “citizens’ initiatives.”
The U.S. Founding Fathers recognized the dangers of democracy, and instead created the U.S. federal government as a constitutional republic. For example, James Madison wrote in The Federalist, No. 10, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
The word “democracy” is nowhere to be found in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution — and this is intentional. In contrast, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution requires each state to have “a Republican Form of Government.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.