For years, a section of the economic elite has been trying to impose a simple idea: without mass immigration, Switzerland would collapse. In his recent article, Ivan Slatkine, President of the Fédération des Entreprises Romandes, takes up this alarmist line, describing a paralysed Switzerland, emptied of its workers and condemned to decline. But behind these doomsday scenarios lies an attempt to defend an economic model that has become dependent on permanent demographic growth. And what if, on the contrary, the real debate was precisely whether this headlong rush is still sustainable for Switzerland?
Every time there is a vote on immigration, the same scenario is repeated. The same economic players stir up the same fears. And the same doomsday prophecies are recycled in an attempt to disqualify any challenge to the current model.
The recent article by’Ivan Slatkine, Chairman of the Fédération des Entreprises Romandes (FER), is an almost caricatural illustration of this.
Under the guise of defending Switzerland's prosperity, it piles on the alarmist arguments against the «No Switzerland for 10 million» initiative. But behind the dramatic rhetoric and dystopian scenarios, one essential question is being carefully avoided: Is the current model of mass immigration really sustainable for Switzerland?
Let's analyse the facts.
1. companies will no longer be able to find workers«
This is the employers' central argument.
But it is based on a fundamental contradiction: if Switzerland has a structural shortage of labour despite record immigration over the last twenty years, it is precisely because the economic model is based on permanent demographic growth.
However, a system that requires a constant increase in population to function is not a sustainable model: it's a system that requires a constant increase in population to function. a demographic headlong rush.
The real question is not «how can we import more and more workers? how to improve productivity, training and the value of local work.
Switzerland has long been prosperous with a much smaller population.
2. «Hospitals will collapse without immigration».»
This argument is just as fragile.
Already today, Switzerland trains a large proportion of its medical staff abroad or depends heavily on foreign professionals. This is not a sustainable solution. outsourcing of training costs to other countries.
Limiting population growth would mean doing what Switzerland should have done a long time ago:
train more medical staff and promoting health professions.
3.« Public transport and infrastructure will grind to a halt».»
This overlooks a simple fact.
Switzerland's infrastructure is now under pressure precisely because of rapid demographic growth.
Saturated roads.
Crowded trains.
Homes under voltage.
It is circular reasoning to present mass immigration as the solution to problems that it itself helps to exacerbate.
4. «Agriculture and construction will not survive»
This argument comes up again and again.
But the reality is more nuanced: these sectors are largely based on a low-cost foreign labour, often seasonal.
The question then becomes one of economics and ethics:
Do we want a model that is structurally dependent on a permanent influx of cheap labour?
Or a model where working conditions and the value of manual labour are enhanced ?
5. «Switzerland would be isolated and lose the bilaterals».»
Here again, the disaster scenario is brandished.
However, Switzerland is not a member of the European Union and has always built its prosperity on a solid foundation. on its ability to negotiate balanced agreements while preserving its sovereignty.
Free movement is not a historical inevitability. It is a political instrument that can be adjusted.
To claim that any form of demographic regulation would automatically lead to the collapse of relations with the EU is more a matter of political intimidation rather than economic analysis.
The real debate
Ivan Slatkine's editorial is based on an implicit assumption:
More population automatically means more prosperity.
However, this equation is disputed by many economists.
Because a country's wealth does not depend solely on its population, but on much more decisive factors:
Productivity, innovation, institutional stability and quality of infrastructure.
And on these points, Switzerland already has exceptional strengths.
Conclusion
The debate on the «No to 10 Million Swiss» initiative deserves better than dystopian scenarios.
It deserves proper strategic questioning:
What population model do we want for Switzerland?
What quality of life do we want to preserve?
What infrastructure capacity can we support?
Reducing this debate to a choice between «openness» and «decline» is a dangerous simplification.
Switzerland has never prospered through following or fear.
She thrived through clarity, independence, and mastery of one's destiny.