Schena sees rigid 10-million cap as reason for the failure of the naturalization initiative

Schena told the media verbatim: «Der starre 10-Millionen-Deckel hat viele Stimmberechtigte abgeschreckt. Es entstand der Eindruck, dass die vorgeschlagene Lösung mehr Probleme schaffen als lösen würde – etwa bei den Beziehungen zur EU, beim Fachkräftemangel oder beim Familiennachzug.»

Three risk areas in focus

In her view, the rejection was less a vote against naturalizations in general than a reaction to the specific mechanism proposed. The cap appeared too rigid and left no visible room for adjustments.

Schena studied political science at the Universities of Lucerne and Bern and holds a master's degree in "Swiss Politics and Comparative Politics" from the University of Bern. With her academic expertise, she places the debate in a comparative context of European migration policy.

In terms of content, she distinguished between the initiative's underlying aim and its concrete design. While the underlying aim — a form of steering of naturalizations — does enjoy a certain degree of acceptance among the public, the rigid numerical limit provoked critics who feared disadvantages for Switzerland.

Schena also pointed to the geopolitical dimension: an overly rigid cap could strain bilateral agreements and cooperation with European partners. The recruitment of skilled workers from abroad would also be jeopardized if the impression arose that Switzerland was shutting itself off in the long term.

Political assessment and outlook

Schena also sees friction when it comes to family reunification: if close relatives were no longer allowed to join family members because of an upper limit, this could disrupt integration processes and weaken social cohesion. In her view, more flexible regulation could have commanded a majority.

The debate comes at a time when polling institutes such as gfs.bern traditionally gauge public sentiment on migration-related ballot items. The academic accompanying research on such votes provides data that policymakers and media use as a reference.

Schena argues against drawing the conclusion from the vote that naturalizations are generally unwanted. Rather, the next proposal would need to contain more flexible mechanisms and clearer communication about the economic and social consequences.

It remains to be seen whether the initiative's supporters will make another attempt with an adjusted mechanism. Schena indicated that a revised version without a rigid cap would have better chances of securing a majority.