Over 250 motions and questions: Aargau parliament struggles with its own workload

Aargau’s Grand Council, the cantonal parliament, has already received more than 250 parliamentary submissions this year, making 2026 a record year and creating a growing workload. By late October, criticism extends beyond the sheer number: members complain of longer texts, more individual questions and declining quality. Parliament and the cantonal administration must read, examine and process them all. The challenge is to contain that burden without weakening parliamentary scrutiny.

These submissions are central to parliament’s work. They allow elected representatives to question the cantonal government, demand information or seek political change. A high number is therefore not inherently a problem. The debate in Aargau is instead about whether the additional work delivers a corresponding political benefit.

More questions, longer texts

Colette Basler, a Social Democratic Party (SP) member of the Grand Council, has noticed substantially more questions being asked about individual topics. She also points to the growing length of submissions. Her assessment is blunt: “You can see that the quality is simply declining.” Her criticism concerns how parliamentary business is prepared and worded, rather than any particular political cause.

Silvan Hilfiker, who leads the parliamentary group of the centre-right FDP, also believes action is needed. He has already raised the issue with his group. For him, the responsibility of those submitting a text does not end when they hand it in. Every additional submission takes up the time of numerous other people, regardless of how precisely its questions are framed.

“The administration has to read it; we in parliament have to read it. You can certainly question whether that makes sense,” Hilfiker says. Concern voiced by both SP and FDP politicians shows that the workload is not an issue confined to one political camp. That does not yet amount to an agreed solution.

The cost goes beyond writing

The financial consequences are already apparent. Until a few years ago, answering parliamentary submissions in Aargau cost around CHF 200,000 annually. In recent years, the figure has consistently been well above CHF 300,000. Additional parliamentary sittings bring further costs. Processing the submissions is therefore not simply an internal organisational matter: it also affects the cantonal budget.

Those figures demonstrate rising expenditure, but do not establish its precise causes. They cannot provide a reliable cost per submission or show how much of the increase is attributable to longer texts or more questions. That would require a more detailed breakdown.

For people living in Aargau, the cost debate raises a fundamental trade-off. Parliamentary scrutiny requires resources. The government must be answerable, and concerns from across the canton need a place in parliament. Yet an additional question does not automatically improve transparency. What matters is whether the answer provides fresh insight and helps clarify a political issue.

Time, as well as money, is scarce in Switzerland’s part-time parliamentary system. Many members carry out their political duties alongside another job. They must nevertheless read and assess extensive documentation. As the volume grows, distinguishing between a thoroughly argued proposal and a text whose length adds no useful information becomes increasingly important.

Less public consideration as a possible remedy

The Grand Council has not adopted any measures to stem the flood of submissions. Its president, Urs Plüss of the Evangelical People’s Party (EVP), has nevertheless identified one option: certain submissions could cease to be placed on the agenda for public consideration in parliament. This is a possible change to how particular items are handled, not a restriction that has already been approved.

Plüss puts the idea cautiously: “We would prefer not to do that, but it would be a possible tool.” Which submissions might be affected, and how such a rule could work, remain open questions. Those distinctions would be politically crucial. Any easing of parliament’s workload would have to be weighed against the importance of considering business in public.

Fabrizio Gilardi, professor of policy analysis at the University of Zurich, understands the search for a solution. A large number of submissions can become a challenge for a parliament. “There certainly needs to be consideration of which measures would make sense.” That assessment does not come with a specific recommendation for Aargau’s procedures.

Responsibility starts before submission

For now, much of the responsibility rests with individual members and their parliamentary groups. Hilfiker’s intervention within the FDP illustrates an approach that requires no new rules: critically examining the quality of their own submissions. Precise questions, a clearly identifiable objective and a coherent explanation can make processing easier without excluding political concerns from parliament.

That approach addresses the issue before a submission reaches the administration or other members. It also leaves the existing parliamentary channels intact. The unresolved question is whether appeals to members’ judgement will be enough, or whether changes to the way business is handled will become necessary.

Aargau thus faces an unfinished task. Its parliament must fulfil its scrutiny role while remaining able to manage its work. Passing the threshold of 250 submissions makes the pressure to act clear, but the number alone does not settle which response would be appropriate. Whether it leads to revised procedures or, for now, calls for greater individual responsibility has yet to be decided.