Month: February 2021

The Index ranks the countries of the World by what the Economist considers are good indicators of the quality of democracy. Click here to see The Index

The Economist places Switzerland behind 11 other countries, this makes no sense; Switzerland far and away the most democratic country in the World.

Switzerland is the most democratic country because it practices “government by the people” more often and more deeply than any other country.

The Swiss people can prevail over their elected politicians on any issue the Swiss people consider should be decided by popular referendum. The Swiss people can declared invalid laws proposed by the elected representatives, and they do. The Swiss can also enact new laws without the consent of the elected representatives. They can change the Constitution without the consent of the elected representatives.

Not even the Swiss Supreme Court can overturn the results of popular referendums. Nor can declare the results contrary to the Constitution, the way they do in the US and most other representative democracies.

The Swiss people are the supreme authority in Switzerland; that is what “government by the people” means. There is no need to “refine” the criteria.

Unfortunately, for the Economist, democracy does not mean “government by the people”, it must mean other interesting things, but none of them can have the weight of “government by the people”, because that is what democracy is.

The Report ranks Norway as the most democratic country and places Switzerland as the 12th most democratic country in the World.

Let us compare “government by the people” in Norway and Switzerland.

In the Norwegian constitution popular referendums are not even mentioned. This means the Norwegian people have no say in the running of Norway; their Constitution does not give them that power, except voting at election time.

The Norwegian people can not call for referendums on any issue, all they can do, if the politicians do something Norwegians do not like, is: accept that their fate is in the hands of politicians, complain, riot or revolt.

Norway is one of the best countries in the World; stable, successful, with governments that listen to the people, etc., but as far as “government by the people”, as far as real democracy goes, Norway is much less of a democracy than Switzerland.

The people of Norway have no authority to decide any issue of national or local importance, except if the Government asks them. But even in that case, the Norwegian government can ignore the verdict of the people. Even if the people vote 99% in favour, or against, the issue, the government can ignore what the people want, some democracy!

Norwegian referendums do not have more weight than opinion polls.

Norway’s elected representatives; the politicians hold all political power in Norway, like in all other representative “democracies”.

Switzerland does it very differently; the control of the politicians by the people is built into the system; it is part of the of the way Switzerland works. The people can call referendums on almost anything they decide they want to decide. They do it in a civic, orderly manner; no violent protests take place because they are not necessary.

How can Switzerland, a country where the people vote more times the in Norway, on more issues and have more rights to decide how the country is run, be less democratic than Norway? To consider Norway more democratic than Switzerland is absurd.

None of the other 11 countries the Economist considers are better democracies that Switzerland either, they all are far less democratic.

The people of Iceland, Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, Australia, the Netherlands and Taiwan have far less power to decide issues or policies than the Swiss; this is why they are democracies or lower quality.

In fact, right after Switzerland, which should number one, The Economist should rank Taiwan; the Taiwanese people, in many ways inspired by the Swiss, have more “government by the people” than the other countries ahead of Taiwan.

Taiwan was an authoritarian regime not long ago. If Taiwan can, any country can evolve into a direct democracy.

I hope the next edition of the Economist’s Report considers “government by the people” as the key criteria to rank democracies. It is obvious that for The Economist “government by the people” is not the essence of democracy, but it should be; it was for the Greeks 2800 years ago, it is for the Swiss now and it is for those of us who believe in real democracy.

Please, pass this on and make others aware that the Economist rankings are wrong, mislead people and should be revised.

Victor Lopez

Ignore all the baloney against direct democracy. Some say direct democracy can turn into a dictatorship of the majority; there is a big fat zero of evidence of that!

Some people believe that if voters directly decide issues they will make short-term, frivolous, irresponsible decisions; the facts shows it is the opposite; voters make better, sounder decisions than elected politicians. There are many reasons for that, but I will leave it for another post.

Let us look now at the economy and direct democracy. The most practical way to do it is by looking at Switzerland.

I use Switzerland as the reference because it is the only society in the World practising direct democracy in all levels of government; local, cantonal (the Swiss canton are similar to states or governments in other federal nations), and also at the national level.

Let us look at how direct democracy is good for the economy too; for business and for jobs.

Look at the facts;

Value of high tech exports per capita: Switzerland is twice Germany’s and 7 times more than the US!

Economic stability: Highest in the World.

Quality of governance: Switzerland ranks number one.

GDP per capita: 69 358 USD. Second highest in the World.

Unemployment rate: 3.5%, one of the lowest anywhere.

Youth unemployment rate: 3.3%, yes 3.3%!, lower than any other developed nation.

Government deficit % of GDP: +1.4 (no deficit). Most representative democracies have deficits, often stratospheric !

General government debt as % of GDP: 41.1, one of the lowest among advanced countries.

Income tax: 40% and lower than most other countries.

Corporate tax: 18%, one of the lowest in the developed World.

Health System: Universal coverage and best in the World according to most studies.

University education: University tuition is about one thousand USD in public universities. Most universities are public and of excellent quality.

You can compare those facts with representative “democracy” countries; just enter in Internet “ranking of countries by…” unemployment, health care quality, etc.

Direct democracy is good for the economy because it develops voters into decision-makers, into very responsible voters.

In a direct democracy seductive speakers, charisma, do not much matter in politicians because politicians do not have the power they have in a representative democracy. In a direct democracy like Switzerland, voters are not interested in seductive, “smoke and mirrors” political marketing; they know there are lies, big lies and political marketing… The Swiss see that all around them.

In a direct democracy, voters quickly learn they are the highest authority in the land and they rise to that responsibility.

Fortunately, the World is re-awakening to direct democracy; we all have to thank the Swiss for being the new pioneers.

Representative democracies need to switch to direct democracy now; the politicians of representative democracies have been diverging more and more from the will of the people. This is endangering the stability of those societies where trust in politicians is at the lowest levels ever.

In Switzerland that has not happened; at 80% the level of trust, trust in politicians is the highest. The Swiss trust their politicians, nobody else comes close. This is because of direct democracy; the politicians do what the people want them to do, not what the lobbies, etc., want.

Direct democracy was, and is, another huge advance in human civilization.

So, we have now another reason to persuade others direct democracy is what we need; the economy, jobs.

Think about and then, do something!

Overall, the French Revolution was a great step forward for human dignity; the entire world is still assimilating what it means for citizens and governments some have not assimilated it yet.

But one bad thing it did is bring representative “democracy”.

The term “representative democracy” is just a way to trick (ourselves) into believing that representative democracy, the system where citizens elect the rulers, is democracy, it is not.

The argument “direct democracy” vs. “representative democracy” is false. It is so because representative democracy is not democracy.

In a representative “democracy”, the few who rule have the power to rule as they see fit, not as the people want.

In all representative democracies the elected few, the politicians, decide everything; the education your children will receive, the taxes you will pay, how fast can you drive, how the health system works, with which countries to trade, the penalties for violating laws, how strong the army of the country will be, who can become a citizen, and on and on.

In representative democracies, citizens have the power to change those who govern, but the new government continues to have the same control over the lives of citizens. The new executive and legislative just exert the control in a different direction.

But, how did this deception called “representative democracy” originated during the French Revolution?

It does not come from Ancient Greece. The Greeks invented “rule by the people”, that is what “democracy” means. To them, representative democracy would just be another form of oligarchy or of aristocracy.

The term “representative democracy” arose when of the leaders of the French Revolution, Maximilien Robespierre, declared that democracy, was not “a state wherein the people continually assembled, manage all public affairs by themselves, or even met in groups to decide the direction of society.” “Democracy is a state wherein the sovereign people, guided by laws of their own making, does all that it can properly do on its own, and does by delegates all that it cannot do itself.”

“By delegates”, that is the key term.

With that statement, Robespierre redefined democracy and made representative democracy sound as legitimate as if it were real democracy, but it is not.

Also during the French Revolution, another Frenchman, Pierre-François-Joseph Robert, saw that there is no democracy if there if we have elected representatives. He said: “those who wish to adapt all the principles of democratic government to a representative government are either imbeciles who disrupt without knowing it, or rogues who knowingly disrupt in the hope of not losing the fruits of anarchy.”

It is clear that Revolutionary Frenchmen quickly saw representative democracy is not democracy. It is time for the rest of us see it now,

An elected aristocracy is a vast improvement over the any oligarchy or dictatorship, but “rule by the people” means what is says; rule by the people, not by the elected representatives. The elected representatives can play a role in democracy, but the final decision makers on issues are the people, the owners of the country.

In all countries the people should have the right to decide, not just vote, regardless of what the government of the country, the city, etc., want.

Democracy does not mean the elected politicians can not play a role, for example presenting their arguments to persuade the voters to vote “yes” or “no”, proposing laws, etc.

The time has come to discard Robespierre’s redefinition of democracy and listen to Robert.

Human dignity requires democracy, direct democracy. The Swiss were able to transition from representative democracy to direct democracy many years ago, they did it forcefully but without blood shed, others can too.

Direct democracy also produces better practical results than representative democracy; Switzerland is the most stable country in the World, has one of the highest standards of living, best universal health care system, etc. Direct democracy is better for all, for the rich, the middle class and the poor.

Interestingly, the demand of the Swiss people for direct democracy was triggered by another pandemic in 1867.

Could today’s “virus from Hell” turn out to be the “virus from Heaven”, for humanity, including China? It could, but you will have to do something for it to happen.