They talk about transparency, but silence the essentials. The Federal Council invokes the country's interests, while carefully avoiding uncomfortable questions. Behind well-produced videos and reassuring speeches, another reality emerges: that of a package of agreements presented to the people without all the cards being on the table. What if, this time, the real issue wasn't what you're being shown... but what the Federal Council chooses not to say?
The article published by the Neue Zürcher Zeitung on 10 April 2026 highlights a central problem in the debate on Swiss–EU agreements: the increasingly blurred line between institutional information and political communication.
A one-way official communication
According to the NZZ, the Swiss Federal Council's explanatory videos present the agreements from an almost exclusively positive perspective, focusing on consensus ideas – security, prosperity, scientific cooperation – while carefully avoiding areas of friction.
This observation raises a fundamental democratic question:
Can we still speak of ’explanation« when structural drawbacks are absent?
As the article implicitly recalls, in a direct democracy like Switzerland, information must be complete, loyal and intelligible. Here, communication seems to be more about narrative framing than a balanced exposition.
The risky gamble of underestimating citizens
A key passage points out that the government could «underestimate the public's intelligence». This remark is far from trivial.
Switzerland is based on an implicit but essential principle:
The citizen is sovereign because they are informed.
This aligns with a logic already expressed by the Swiss Federal Tribunal:
«The free formation of the people's will presupposes faithful and complete information.»
If this condition is no longer met, the entire voting mechanism is undermined.
The deliberately avoided blind spots
The article points out several major omissions:
- Dynamic adoption of European law a technical but crucial notion, involving an almost automatic adoption of EU law
- Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the interpretation of agreements
- Origins of tensions in research notably Switzerland's exclusion from the Horizon Europe programme following the failure of the framework agreement
These matters are not secondary. They affect legal and political sovereignty directly.
As the German jurist Carl Schmitt already emphasised:
«Sovereign is the one who decides on the state of exception.»
Or, in a system where an external instance (like the CJEU) becomes the ultimate arbiter, the question of whether who really decides becomes central.
A perceived asymmetry by the population
The article notes a particularly interesting point:
Even if citizens don't grasp all the technical details, they intuitively perceive an imbalance.
This intuition is based on several realities:
- The EU acts as an integrated political and legal bloc
- Switzerland negotiates alone, without equivalent leverage
- Sanctions (such as on research) show an asymmetrical balance of power
This aligns with an observation by Jean Monnet:
«Europe will be forged in crises.»
In other words, pressure is an integral part of the integration process – which the article indirectly suggests.
A counterproductive communication strategy
In seeking to smooth over the debate, the Federal Council is taking a major political risk:
⮕ to reinforce distrust rather than reduce it
The article also highlights that this approach could paradoxically serve the opponents, notably the Swiss People's Party (SVP), by providing them with an ideal breeding ground: that of doubt and lack of transparency.
In a country where citizens vote regularly, any impression of information being withheld acts as a catalyst for mistrust.
Conclusion — A democracy cannot protect itself with omissions
What this article reveals, beyond the specific case of the Swiss–EU agreements, is something more profound:
⮕ A direct democracy can only function if the state accepts presenting what is troubling, too.
Seeking to persuade by oversimplifying or obscuring sensitive issues is not a neutral strategy – it’s an institutional risk.
Because in Switzerland, the people are not an audience to be wooed.
He is a ruler to be respected.
And an ill-informed sovereign does not decide freely.