Skip to main content

Download the 2026–2029 Development Plan now

Written by Mireille Braun on . Posted in Current news, Unkategorisiert.

«Democracies around the world are facing increasing pressure»

What are the causes of the current crisis in democracy? How does it affect the organization of a state? What does this mean for freedom of speech and assembly, or the separation of powers? These questions lie at the heart of the research conducted at the Center for Democracy Studies in Aarau.

Our new Development Plan for 2026–2029 outlines how our work aims to address these questions. In it, we outline the direction of our research, the partners we collaborate with, and how we are positioned as an interdisciplinary center.

20260217_Zentrum für Demokratie Aarau_Entwicklungsplan_2026-2029

Democracy research across continents

Written by Nina Rothenberger on . Posted in Current news, Unkategorisiert.

This year’s Swiss Summer School in Democracy Studies saw a significant step toward the internationalization of research collaboration: the University of Zurich (UZH) and the University of Canberra (UC) signed a memorandum of understanding. The agreement marks the beginning of a deeper institutional partnership between the Center for Democracy Aarau (ZDA) and the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at UC.

The cooperation between the two centers goes beyond the Summer School: Close scientific ties already exist today – for example, through reciprocal research visits, joint publications, and international project applications, including to the SNF, Horizon Europe, and the Australian Research Council. The memorandum of understanding now provides a formal basis for this successful collaboration.

Basis for future projects

The agreement was signed in the presence of both partner institutions: Prof. Daniel Kübler (UZH/ZDA) and Prof. Simon Niemeyer (UC) formalized the agreement. The aim is to promote the exchange of researchers and students, to hold joint courses and conferences, and to launch new research projects.

With this MoU, UZH and UC are sending a strong signal for the expansion of international cooperation in democracy research and making an important contribution to networking science and practice in a global context.

Zentrum für Demokratie Aarau, Medienmitteilung, Überdurchschnittliche Mobilisierung der Bürgerlichen bei Aargauer Volksabstimmung

Above-average mobilization of the middle classes in the Aargau referendum

Written by Mireille Braun on . Posted in Current news, Media releases, Unkategorisiert.

On May 18, 2025, the voters of Aargau approved a revision of the tax law, while the popular initiative «Equal pay in the canton of Aargau – now!» was rejected. It was significant that the middle classes in general and FDP sympathizers in particular took part in the votes. In addition to the left-right divide, trust in the government also played a major role in the tax law. In the case of the equal pay initiative, however, there were clear differences between the genders and age groups. This is shown by the survey on the cantonal referendum on May 18, 2025, which was conducted at the Center for Democracy Studies Aarau.

In the cantonal referendum on May 18, 2025, voters in Aargau approved a revision of the tax law with 54%, while the popular initiative «Equal pay in the canton of Aargau – now!» was rejected with 63%. Voter turnout amounted to just 31.6%, which can be linked to the fact that no votes were held at federal level.

Highest turnout in the ranks of the FDP

In terms of voter turnout, it is worth noting that ideological positioning played a major role: respondents who categorized themselves as right-wing (6-7) or far right (8-10) were more likely than average to vote (41% each). In contrast, slightly fewer than 30 percent of those in the middle of the political spectrum, as well as those on the left and far left, went to the polls. This means that the middle classes were better mobilized than voters in the center and on the left.

Looking at party sympathies, the extraordinarily high proportion in the ranks of the FDP (61%) is striking. No other party supporters took part in the cantonal votes anywhere near as often. In second place were the supporters of the GLP (43%), followed by the center (40%), those of the SP (38%) and the SVP (32%). Of the six largest parties in Aargau, the Greens were the least successful in mobilizing their base (29%). Among those not affiliated to a party, however, less than one in six people entitled to vote took part (15%).

Tax law – also a matter of government trust

Voting behavior on the tax law was strongly influenced by the left-right divide. On the far left, the bill was clearly rejected with a no vote of 81%. In contrast, almost as many on the far right were in favor (69%). The decisive factor in this constellation was the center, where a narrow majority in favor of the revision resulted (55%).

There were also clear differences in support for the tax law according to party affiliation. While the majority of FDP supporters approved the bill (75%), the tax law met with less approval among the other three major parties in Aargau, which had also issued a «yes» slogan. Among sympathizers from the center (60%), the GLP (56%) and the SVP (54%), only narrow majorities resulted in favour of the tax law. A remarkable contrast also emerged in the left-wing camp. In contrast to the supporters of the SP, who clearly rejected the bill (72%), the tax bill was approved by every second person among Green Party supporters (50%).

In addition, the voting decision depended heavily on trust in the government. Those with a high level of trust in the Aargau cantonal government were 72% likely to approve the bill. In contrast, the proportion of those with very low to low trust in the cantonal government was only 28%.

Among the «yes» motives, two considerations were in the foreground: the most common reason given for acceptance was the competitiveness of the canton of Aargau in tax competition (19%). The tax relief for the middle classes was cited almost as often (18%). On the other hand, almost half of those against were primarily bothered by the fact that the wealthy would be favored (47%).

Equal pay initiative – gender and age as key factors

The equal pay initiative revealed striking demographic differences. Gender was the most important factor. Overall, the women who took part were divided. In fact, every second woman was in favor of the popular initiative (50%). In contrast, only around one in four men who took part supported the proposal (27%). Women also attached greater importance to the equal pay initiative than men.

Age also played a major role. In general, approval decreased with increasing age. On the one hand, the clear acceptance among the youngest category of 18 to 29-year-olds (65%) and the clear rejection from the age of 50 are striking. The «yes” share in this segment amounted to less than 30%.

In terms of party sympathies, it can be stated that the equal pay initiative was clearly accepted on the left. A clear majority of Green supporters voted in favor of the proposal (83%), while three out of four SP supporters ultimately voted yes (75%). The supporters of the GLP (34%), the center (34%), the SVP (27%) and the FDP (17%) rejected the popular initiative, which was in line with the party slogans. As with the tax law, the FDP base was characterized by a particularly high degree of unity.

There were two main reasons for rejecting the equal pay initiative: almost one in three people who rejected the initiative stated that there was no need for cantonal regulations if equality laws already exist at federal level. This was followed by concerns about smaller companies that already have a high administrative burden (24%). On the favorable side, the view that equality has not yet been achieved enough was in first place (24%). The need for legal provisions was also important for approval (19%).

Further resources

Bernhard Laurent, Cheon Junmo, Lüscher Sandro, Koelewijn Kymani Shayra, Sorrentino Gianluca, Serdült Uwe. «FOKUS Aargau: Studie zu den Aargauer Volksabstimmungen vom 18. Mai 2025.»FOKUS-Aargau-Berichte, 11. Aarau: Zentrum für Demokratie Aarau (ZDA), Juli 2025. (German)

Contact

Dr. Laurent Bernhard
Project coordinator, Center for Democracy Studies Aarau
laurent.bernhard@uzh.ch

About the CDA

The Centre for Democracy Studies Aarau is a scientific research centre supported by the University of Zurich, the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, the Canton of Aargau and the City of Aarau. It conducts basic research and addresses current issues relating to democracy – regionally, in Switzerland and worldwide. www.zdaarau.ch

Zentrum für Demokratie Aarau, Medienmitteilung, Politische Meinungsbildung: soziale Medien als Underdog?

Political opinion-forming: social media as the underdog?

Written by Mireille Braun on . Posted in Current news, Media releases, Unkategorisiert.

Even though political parties spend large sums on social media campaigns during referendum campaigns, Instagram, Facebook, and other platforms are only a key source of information for a few when it comes to voting. How does this fit together? Results from a research project by the Center for Democracy Studies Aarau provide clues and raise questions about the regulation of social media.

One thing is clear: social media still plays a small role in shaping public opinion in Swiss elections. Nevertheless, parties invest considerable sums in social media campaigns during elections and referendums to convince voters of their positions. Data from the post-vote survey on the Environmental Responsibility Initiative (UVI) of February 9, 2025, from the “Direct Democracy Switzerland in the 21st Century (DDS-21)” project (see box) now provide two indications why the role of social media in political opinion-forming in Switzerland should not be underestimated. This also raises the question of social media regulation.

Users today are the young, but they are also getting older

As expected, people aged 18-24 used social media most frequently: First, in the youngest age group, more than a third of voters used social media specifically to inform themselves about the proposal. At the same time, only around 10 percent did not use social media at all. Thus, social media was only crucial for political information in the run-up to votes for a small number of eligible voters. However, because media habits remain relatively stable, this will likely change in the future, giving social media a more important role.

Daniel Kübler, professor at the Center for Democracy Studies Aarau, explains what this means: «Today’s young people frequently use social media. This accessibility also offers political actors the opportunity to reach young voters at an early age and mobilize them for politics.»

Minimum standard for political content

As the importance of social media increases, the question of how to regulate Instagram, Facebook, and other platforms arises. Based on the study’s findings, it can be argued that now is the time to conduct a social and political debate about possible regulations for these platforms. The goal should be to establish minimum standards for political content in order to ensure transparency regarding the financial resources used by political actors.

Gabriel Hofmann, doctoral student and research associate in the project, notes: «A majority of Swiss voters use social media in some form. Even if political content is only in the background, they are accessible to political actors, at least through paid content. Therefore, it is important to know which political actors buy reach and with which criteria.»

If this basic requirement is met, social media can contribute to better information for voters due to their low threshold.

About the project

«Direct Democracy Switzerland in the 21st Century (DDS-21)»
The project «Direct Democracy Switzerland in the 21st Century (DDS-21)» is funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) and examines current issues in voting research. A representative online survey of Swiss voters is conducted after each vote. The project examines four research questions in more detail: How does political advertising influence voters? What does the digitalization of the media landscape, and social media in particular, do to the opinion-forming process? How can political knowledge and political competence be measured? And finally, how are fundamental moral and political values ​​related to voting decisions?

Further resources

Contact

Gabriel Hofmann, doctoral student and research associate at the Center for Democracy Studies Aarau
hofmann@zda.uzh.ch, 062 836 94 57

Prof. Dr. Daniel Kübler, director, Center for Democray Studies Aarau
daniel.kuebler@zda.uzh.ch, 078 815 67 60

About the CDA

The Centre for Democracy Studies Aarau is a scientific research centre supported by the University of Zurich, the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, the Canton of Aargau and the City of Aarau. It conducts basic research and addresses current issues relating to democracy – regionally, in Switzerland and worldwide. www.zdaarau.ch

National and cantonal referendums in comparison

Written by Mireille Braun on . Posted in Current news, Media releases, Unkategorisiert.

«The World of Referendums: 2024 Edition» examines Swiss referendums at national and cantonal level over time. The report is based on the Referendum Database (RDB) of the Centre for Democracy Studies Aarau (CDA), which records referendums worldwide and makes them comparable.

The cantons are growing weary of voting

Figure 1: The number of cantonal referendums is declining. It seems that the cantons are becoming weary of voting. However, the reasons for this development are still unclear.

  • Mandatory referendums: Since the 1970s, the number of mandatory referendums in the cantons has been steadily declining. Mandatory referendums account for a large proportion of referendums at cantonal level (around 60% since 1970). As a result, the total number of cantonal referendums has also fallen.
  • Optional referendums: The number of optional referendums has remained relatively constant since the 1970s, rising slightly since the 2000s. However, for several years now, there has been a downward trend towards the level seen in 1970.
  • Counterproposals: Counterproposals to cantonal popular initiatives remained constant for a long time until they increased sharply in the 2010s, along with the number of popular initiatives. Today, the number of counterproposals is approaching the level of 1970 again.
  • Popular initiatives: Compared to 1970, the number of cantonal popular initiatives was initially significantly higher in the 1980s and 1990s. After a brief decline in the 2000s, the number of cantonal referendums peaked in the 2010s. Since then, the number of popular initiatives has returned to a level similar to that seen in the 1980s and 1990s.

Fig. 1: Development of cantonal referendums over time, 1970–2024 (1970 = 100%), smoothed. (Source: RDB)

The cantons practise direct democracy in different ways

Same instruments, different applications: Although the cantons draw on the same toolbox of direct democratic instruments, there are significant differences between them in practice. Depending on where they live, Swiss citizens experience very different forms of direct democracy. This is reflected both in the number of votes per canton and in the type of votes.

Number of referendums

Figure 2: Zurich leads the way with around 600 votes since 1970, followed by national votes, Basel-Landschaft and Solothurn. With just under 300 votes, the canton of Aargau ranks in the upper midfield. At the bottom of the scale is Jura, the youngest Swiss canton, with around 80 votes, followed by Fribourg and Vaud with around 120 votes each. The former Landsgemeinde cantons of Nidwalden, Obwalden and Appenzell Ausserrhoden have held the fewest votes. The two Landsgemeinde cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus are not included in the chart.

Fig. 2: Number of national and cantonal referendums (excluding Landsgemeinde votes), 1970–2024. (Source: RDB)

Type of referendum

At the same time, the cantons differ greatly in terms of the types of voting used:

  • At the national level, around two-thirds of all votes are triggered by signature collections. One-third of these are popular initiatives and optional referendums. The remaining third are mandatory referendums or counter-proposals.
  • At the cantonal level, only around one third of referendums are triggered by signature collections. The remaining two thirds of cantonal referendums are 1 Landsgemeinde votes are only partially recorded in the RDB. This is why the cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus are completely missing, as they primarily use Landsgemeinden for direct democratic decision-making. Referendums have been recorded for Nidwalden since 1997, for Appenzell Ausserrhoden since 1998 and for Obwalden since 1999. mandatory referendums, counter-proposals and executive/legislative referendums, which do not require a signature collection.
  • Figure 3: There are significant differences between the cantons in terms of the type of vote. These can be illustrated by the proportion of popular initiatives in the total number of referendums in a canton. The cantons of Vaud (40%) and Nidwalden (34%) have the highest proportion of popular initiatives. With 17%, the canton of Aargau is in the middle of the pack. In contrast, Valais and Graubünden have the lowest proportion, with 5% each.

Fig. 3: Proportion of referendum types in selected cantons, 1970/1997–2024. (Source: RDB)

Explanatory approaches

  • Changes over time: The decline in mandatory referendums at the cantonal level could be attributed to changes in cantonal constitutions. However, this would need to be investigated in greater depth, as would the changes in the number of other types of votes at the cantonal level.
  • Differences between the federal government and the cantons: In general, there are fewer votes in most cantons than at the federal level. The authors believe this is because most cantons have stricter requirements than the federal government regarding the ratio of signatures to the number of eligible voters. This makes it more difficult to launch popular initiatives and optional referendums. The population also tends to be less interested in cantonal proposals, which in turn makes it more difficult to collect signatures.
  • Differences between cantons: The cantons use direct democratic instruments in different ways. The authors think this is because of how each canton’s constitution is set up. For example, direct democratic tools are more diverse in German-speaking Switzerland than in French-speaking Switzerland or Ticino. Also, the number of signatures needed to get something on the ballot tends to be lower in German-speaking Switzerland than in French-speaking Switzerland or Ticino.
  • Direct democracy toolbox: As a constitutional requirement of the federal government, all cantons must provide for mandatory constitutional referendums and popular initiatives on partial or total revisions of their constitutions. Beyond that, the cantons are free to use the direct democracy toolbox as they see fit:
    • All cantons have mandatory and/or optional financial referendums, which do not exist at federal level. Financial referendums require expenditure above a certain amount and/or duration to be approved by the people.
    • Around half of the cantons have a mandatory legislative referendum in addition to the mandatory constitutional referendum. This means that, in addition to constitutional amendments, certain legislative amendments are also subject to a mandatory vote.
    • In some cantons, generally binding parliamentary decisions and parliamentary ordinances are also subject to optional referendums.
    • In some cantons, the parliament can also launch a referendum.

Further resources

Report

Ezzaini, Juri, Jonas Wüthrich, Salim Brüggemann, Kymani Koelewijn, Gianluca Sorrentino, Robin Gut, and Uwe Serdült. ‘The World of Referendums: 2024 Edition.’ Study reports from the Centre for Democracy Aarau, 30. Aarau: Centre for Democracy Studies Aarau (ZDA), 2024. The report and data set are available at https://report.rdb.vote/ and https://c2d.ch/ respectively.

The Referendum Database RDB

The report «The World of Referendums: 2024 Edition» is based on data from the Referendum Database (RDB). The database was founded in 1994 at the University of Geneva. It contains key figures on all national referendums worldwide, as well as a growing number of subnational referendums. The additional institutional variables for each country and interactive graphics make the RDB a valuable tool for researchers and interested citizens. An interdisciplinary team of lawyers and political scientists at the Centre for Democracy Studies Aarau manages the RDB and continuously develops it further. Additional reports are published periodically.

About the Centre for Democracy Studies Aarau (CDA)

The Centre for Democracy Studies Aarau is a scientific research centre supported by the University of Zurich, the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, the Canton of Aargau and the City of Aarau. It conducts basic research and addresses current issues relating to democracy – regionally, nationally and globally: www.zdaarau.ch

Contact

Robin Gut
Project manager «The World of Referendums: 2024 Edition»
076 470 87 05
robin.gut@zda.uzh.ch

Citizens’ Assembly discusses ways to tackle rising healthcare costs

Written by Mireille Braun on . Posted in Media releases, Unkategorisiert.

  • The 2025 Citizens’ Assembly, consisting of 100 randomly selected residents of Switzerland,
    is meeting for the first time this weekend at the University of Zurich.
  • During the kick-off weekend, participants will gain an in-depth understanding of the topic of «rising healthcare costs» and determine a focus for further discussions.
  • The research project coordinated by the Centre for Democracy Studies Aarau (ZDA) at the
    Universities of Zurich and Geneva is investigating whether and how citizens’ assemblies
    enrich democratic debates.

Rising healthcare costs are among the most pressing challenges facing Switzerland.
With premiums skyrocketing, hospitals closing and healthcare staff overworked, healthcare policy is in crisis – solutions are needed. This weekend, the Citizens’ Assembly is meeting at the University of Zurich. At this kick-off meeting, 100 randomly selected participants from across Switzerland with different backgrounds and experiences will come together to discuss the issue.
from all over Switzerland with different backgrounds and experiences will engage in conversation with one another.


The Citizens’ Assembly is a new way for citizens to come together to discuss important social issues and negotiate solutions. The focus is on ordinary Swiss residents: people of all ages, from
a wide range of professions and regions of the country. Over the course of several weekend events and digital meetings, they will take an in-depth look at the current problem of rising healthcare costs. This randomly selected group reflects the diversity of perspectives and experiences within society and thus brings its own concerns and needs to the discussion.


Basic insurance, hospitals or coordination of care?


During the opening weekend, participants will receive a comprehensive overview of the
functioning and objectives of the Citizens’ Assembly. In addition to getting to know each other and
familiarising themselves with the topic of ‘rising healthcare costs’, participants will define a
focus for further discussions. The aim is to narrow down the topic and determining what is particularly relevant to the People’s Council – for example, basic insurance, hospitals, volume expansion, coordination of care, or health promotion and prevention.


New impetus in health policy


The research project investigates whether citizens‘ assemblies are suitable for conducting important social debates. Particularly in the field of health policy, where political decision-making often stagnates, citizens’ assemblies could provide new impetus. The topics for the citizens’ assembly were selected in a transparent and broadly supported process, which identified healthcare costs as a particularly urgent issue.

Prof. Dr. Daniel Kübler, co-initiator at the University of Zurich, says: «With the People’s Council,
we are creating a space where the population can directly express their views on socially important issues. In health policy in particular, we need solutions that take into account the interests and concerns of citizens.»


Citizens’ Assembly drafts final report with reform proposals


Participant and mother of two Anaïs Zingg (30) from Zuzwil in the canton of St. Gallen is excited:
«I’m looking forward to discussing rising healthcare costs with people from all over Switzerland.
It’s an issue that affects us all. Hopefully, we can make a difference as a People’s Council.»

The Citizens’ Assembly will present its findings in spring 2025. A final report is intended to form the basis for an objective, public debate and provide policymakers with a differentiated picture of opinions. In it, the Citizens’ Assembly will prepare arguments for various reform proposals and take a position on them.

This form of participation creates new spaces for social debates, strengthening the quality of public opinion formation and debate culture. This could be significant not only in health policy, but also in other areas of society.

Further information: www.pnyx25.uzh.ch

Photos of the opening weekend: https://www.flickr.com/gp/200893765@N03/77z6315bw6
(are continuously updated on the weekend)

Contact: