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?<\/p>\n
The article published by the Neue Z\u00fcrcher Zeitung on 10 April 2026 highlights a central problem in the debate on Swiss\u2013EU agreements: the increasingly blurred line between institutional information and political communication.<\/p>\n
According to the NZZ, the Swiss Federal Council's explanatory videos present the agreements from an almost exclusively positive perspective, focusing on consensus ideas \u2013 security, prosperity, scientific cooperation \u2013 while carefully avoiding areas of friction.<\/p>\n
This observation raises a fundamental democratic question:<\/p>\n
Can we still speak of \u2019explanation\u00ab when structural drawbacks are absent?<\/p>\n
As the article implicitly recalls, in a direct democracy like Switzerland, information must be complete, loyal and intelligible<\/strong>. Here, communication seems to be more about narrative framing than a balanced exposition.<\/p>\n A key passage points out that the government could \u00abunderestimate the public's intelligence\u00bb. This remark is far from trivial.<\/p>\n Switzerland is based on an implicit but essential principle:<\/p>\n The citizen is sovereign because they are informed.<\/strong><\/p>\n This aligns with a logic already expressed by the Swiss Federal Tribunal:<\/p>\n \u00abThe free formation of the people's will presupposes faithful and complete information.\u00bb<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If this condition is no longer met, the entire voting mechanism is undermined.<\/p>\n The article points out several major omissions:<\/p>\n These matters are not secondary. They affect legal and political sovereignty directly.<\/p>\n As the German jurist Carl Schmitt already emphasised:<\/p>\n \u00abSovereign is the one who decides on the state of exception.\u00bb<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Or, in a system where an external instance (like the CJEU) becomes the ultimate arbiter, the question of whether who really decides<\/strong> becomes central.<\/p>\n The article notes a particularly interesting point:<\/p>\n Even if citizens don't grasp all the technical details, they intuitively perceive an imbalance.<\/p>\n This intuition is based on several realities:<\/p>\n This aligns with an observation by Jean Monnet:<\/p>\n \u00abEurope will be forged in crises.\u00bb<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In other words, pressure is an integral part of the integration process \u2013 which the article indirectly suggests.<\/p>\n In seeking to smooth over the debate, the Federal Council is taking a major political risk:<\/p>\n \u2b95 to reinforce distrust rather than reduce it<\/strong><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n In a country where citizens vote regularly, any impression of information being withheld acts as a catalyst for mistrust.<\/p>\n What this article reveals, beyond the specific case of the Swiss\u2013EU agreements, is something more profound:<\/p>\n \u2b95 A direct democracy can only function if the state accepts presenting what is troubling, too.<\/strong><\/p>\n Seeking to persuade by oversimplifying or obscuring sensitive issues is not a neutral strategy \u2013 it\u2019s an institutional risk.<\/p>\n Because in Switzerland, the people are not an audience to be wooed.<\/p>\n He is a ruler to be respected.<\/p>\n And an ill-informed sovereign does not decide freely.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Ils parlent de transparence, mais taisent l\u2019essentiel. Le Conseil f\u00e9d\u00e9ral invoque l\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat du pays, tout en \u00e9vitant soigneusement les questions qui d\u00e9rangent. Derri\u00e8re des vid\u00e9os bien produites et des discours rassurants, une autre r\u00e9alit\u00e9 se dessine : celle d\u2019un paquet d\u2019accords pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 au peuple sans que toutes les cartes soient pos\u00e9es sur la table. Et […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1047,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1046","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-politique-interieure","category-ue"],"yoast_head":"\nThe risky gamble of underestimating citizens<\/h3>\n
The deliberately avoided blind spots<\/h3>\n
\n
A perceived asymmetry by the population<\/h3>\n
\n
A counterproductive communication strategy<\/h3>\n
Conclusion \u2014 A democracy cannot protect itself with omissions<\/h3>\n