The Fetishism of Cash, the Democratic Stalemate in Switzerland

On March 8, the Swiss will vote on a popular initiative with an evocative title: “Cash is Freedom.” Behind this appealing slogan lies a far deeper question: should a democracy engrave into its Constitution a monetary technology inherited from the 19th century, or should it equip itself to adapt its payment system to the challenges of the 21st?

The initiative proposes to enshrine in the Constitution the obligation to permanently maintain a sufficient supply of banknotes and coins, and to require a referendum for any project that would replace the Swiss franc with another form of money. It claims to protect individual freedom, anonymity, and popular sovereignty against a digitalization perceived as threatening.

This promise is an illusion. Freedom does not reside in a material support, but in institutions, rights, and governance rules. Equating freedom with an object — in this case a banknote — is technological fetishism. It confuses means and ends: we do not defend freedom of expression by constitutionalizing paper, just as we do not protect economic freedom by sanctifying cash.

A Constitution Is Not a Technological Museum

A Constitution should enshrine stable principles: continuity of payments, monetary stability, data protection, democratic sovereignty. It should not freeze a tool in time. The Swiss initiative makes precisely this mistake: it turns a contingent technology into an untouchable constitutional norm.

Constitutionalizing cash today is the equivalent of enshrining the telegraph in law in 2026.

Cash is not a fundamental right; it is an infrastructure. And like any infrastructure, it has a cost. Producing, transporting, securing, storing, and renewing banknotes and coins requires hundreds of millions of francs every year. As the use of cash declines in favor of electronic payments, this infrastructure becomes increasingly inefficient: its fixed costs are spread over a shrinking number of transactions. The unit cost rises, and merchants, banks, and ultimately consumers bear the burden.

But the heaviest cost is invisible. The absolute anonymity of cash is a major negative externality. In most developed economies, the bulk of the value of banknotes in circulation is not used for daily payments but for opaque hoarding, often outside the banking system. This opacity fuels the shadow economy, tax evasion, money laundering, and certain forms of criminal activity. It reduces public revenues and shifts the tax burden onto the most transparent actors — employees, SMEs, the middle class. Defending cash in the name of freedom effectively protects a privilege of invisibility that benefits primarily the powerful and marginal activities.

The Resilience Argument: A False Debate

Supporters of cash invoke resilience: “In a digital outage, only cash works.” Yet serious resilience policy never relies on a single channel. Cash has its own vulnerabilities:

• supply disruptions (as seen during phases of the pandemic)
• branch closures and the disappearance of ATMs
• physical insecurity (theft, counterfeiting)
• cash runs, such as in Greece in 2015, which nearly collapsed the banking system

By contrast, modern digital systems can be designed with:

• backup power (batteries, generators)
• redundant networks (cellular, satellite, local mesh)
• limited offline modes
• continuity plans for essential services (hospitals, food retailers)

True resilience does not lie in dependence on a single tool, but in the diversification and redundancy of payment methods.

The Rhetorical Trap

The initiative relies on a classic mechanism: transforming a diffuse anxiety about change into a crusade around a familiar object. The banknote becomes an identity symbol; monetary modernity is framed as dispossession. The fear of a dehumanized world and distrust of the state are channeled toward a technical artefact presented as the ultimate bulwark against any drift.

This displacement is dangerous. It avoids the only question that matters: what democratic framework do we want for the money of tomorrow?

Monetary Modernity Is Not the Enemy of Freedom

Money is a public good. Like water or electricity, it must be reliable, accessible, and adapted to its time.

Cash had its golden age and contributed to monetary stability in the 19th and 20th centuries. Today, it is costly, rigid, and structurally opaque.

Digital currencies are not a technocratic inevitability. They can be designed democratically to reconcile efficiency, resilience, and individual freedoms: graduated confidentiality, transaction limits, clear data governance, offline capabilities.

The question is not whether cash will disappear. It is whether society equips itself with democratic means to govern what will replace it.

Refusing to constitutionalize cash does not mean abolishing banknotes overnight. It means refusing to turn a 20th‑century tool into a 21st‑century constitutional totem. Sovereignty is not about clinging to an object, but about preserving the collective capacity to adapt our monetary system to technological, economic, and social transformations.

Monetary modernity is not the enemy of freedom. It has become one of its conditions — provided it is governed, regulated, and democratically controlled.