By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Zurich voters rejected a proposed pay raise for local politicians by a margin of 53.2% to 46.8%, with 45,350 voting against and 39,881 in favor. The increase, supported by several center-left parties, would have raised annual salaries from an average of CHF 16,000 to CHF 28,000, including pension contributions. Opponents, including the Swiss People’s Party and Radical-Liberal Party, argued the increase was excessive and threatened the city’s militia-based political system. The referendum was triggered by a parliamentary initiative, partly in response to a threatened counter-referendum.
Read the original article here
Voters in Zurich recently rejected a proposed pay increase for their local politicians, with 53.2% voting against the plan. This resulted in a clear defeat for the initiative, garnering 45,350 votes against the raise compared to 39,881 in favor. The relatively low voter turnout of 36.7% indicates that while a significant portion of the electorate actively opposed the increase, a substantial number remained apathetic to the issue.
The proposed ordinance aimed to significantly boost parliamentarians’ salaries, raising the average annual compensation from CHF 16,000 to CHF 28,000, a substantial jump considering employer contributions and pension fund inclusions. Proponents of the raise argued it was long overdue, citing a considerable increase in workload since the last adjustment in 1998. They envisioned a more structured compensation model, replacing the existing monthly expense allowance with a basic lump sum of CHF 1,000 and additional compensation based on council meeting attendance.
The referendum itself stemmed from a joint effort by several political parties—the Social Democrats, Greens, Liberal Greens, Centre Party, and Alternative Left—who, despite supporting the raise within parliament, opted for a public vote. This decision, however, wasn’t entirely altruistic; it came in response to a threat by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party to launch its own referendum opposing the increase. The Radical-Liberal Party joined the People’s Party in opposing the pay raise, citing the proposed wages as excessive and a threat to the traditional militia system, arguing it would push towards a professionalized parliament, a point echoed by other commentators.
The debate surrounding this pay rise has highlighted some interesting aspects of political compensation globally. Many commentators drew comparisons to systems in other countries, noting the stark contrast between the self-determined pay increases common in some nations, which often result in substantial boosts for those in power, and the Swiss system, where voters retain the ultimate power over politicians’ compensation. This fundamental difference underscores the varying degrees of accountability inherent in different democratic models. Several comments touched upon the difficulty of attracting competent candidates when the compensation is insufficient to cover the time commitment involved in local politics, suggesting that a low salary could inadvertently discourage qualified individuals from participating.
Several contributions to the discussion brought up the issue of the minimum wage, suggesting that when the pay for politicians is not significantly higher, people are more concerned with issues of corruption or the influence of wealth on the political landscape. This is particularly pertinent given the existing pay of local Zurich politicians. Concerns about the risk of corruption were raised by several commentators, who argued that insufficient pay could lead to increased susceptibility to bribery.
Several commentators suggested that for a part-time role like local politics, a better model would be to index salary increases over time, removing the need for periodic, highly-contested referendums. Others argued that a “living wage” would be more appropriate than the current low compensation, to incentivize people to get involved in public service. The point was made that, unlike systems with career politicians, the Swiss system relies on citizens participating in their local governments, making it more representative. However, the relatively low pay poses a barrier to entry for those who are not independently wealthy or able to secure supplemental employment. This raises concerns about equitable representation, as it effectively limits political participation to those with existing financial stability.
The discussion also highlighted a fascinating historical context, referencing the militia-based political system common in Switzerland. This system, characterized by citizens serving their communities alongside their regular occupations, underscores the long-standing tradition of civic engagement. However, whether a modern, complex political landscape can truly thrive with the existing compensation model remains a critical question. The current debate in Zurich serves as a clear reminder of the enduring tension between the ideals of citizen representation and the practical challenges of securing sufficient compensation for those undertaking public service. While the rejected pay raise highlights a unique aspect of Swiss democracy, it also reveals the wider challenges of maintaining equitable and effective representation in local government, globally.