Why can’t you do this? Because your country has no direct democracy, but you should de able to

On June the 13 the citizens of the one country on Earth with proven, stable direct democracy in all levels of government will vote to decide issues, not to elect politicians.

They elect politicians too, but the election of politicians is not as important as in your country. The reason is obvious; the people have the power to decide any issue and prevail over what the politicians want to do, and even over the highest court of the land, you do not have that power in your country.

When the people have the power to prevail over the politicians, it does not matter much who governs or what party is in power, elections are less important, as it should be.

The people of that “promised land” of real democracy, on June 13th will DECIDE issues; it is not a consultative referendum the politicians can ignore, nor is it a plebiscite started by government, it is a referendum started by the people and the results are mandatory for government.

Even if the executive and the legislative unanimously voted against what the people decide, they still have to do it.

Voters will decide five issues:

The people who organized the first referendum propose that voters decide if the farmers, who receive government subsidies will only get money if they stop using synthetic pesticides and preventive antibiotics in animal feed.

To me, it is a common sense initiative;  I mean, what would you think if your doctor told you: “you and your family should take antibiotics as part of your diet to grow healthy”? You would think the doctor is nuts; suffice is to read in internet about the side effects of antibiotics.

But my opinion is just my opinion, let us see what the voters of that country decide. If they decide against what I think, I will not like it, but will accept it because it is a democratic decision.

Another issue voters decide is if synthetic chemical pesticides will be banned.

I do not about this one; I will have to read more about it; after all, synthetic insulin is the standard way to keep diabetics alive… Something just as useful may require synthetic pesticides. I suppose it is not the same to synthesize natural pesticides as creating totally new pesticides in the lab…

in this referendum the voters will also decide if products grown in other countries using synthetic pesticides could be imported.

But the people have to make more decisions; they will also vote to decide if the emergency law the government passed to deal with the Chinese variant of COVID should be cancelled.

The referendum on the Covid emergency law was launched by group organized to make the referendum happen; Friends of the Constitution.

So that you will know how normal referendums are, below I list the key people who organized the referendum on the Covid law. Their faces look as normal as their jobs; you can see them in https://loicovid-non.ch/#comite-daction

Direct democracy also has another huge advantage; it prevents riots and civil disorder because anybody, any group, can make a referendum happen and dial back any decision by politicians, etc.

But, please, do not go to the site until I tell you in which country all this happens, but perhaps by the names you have guessed what country I am talking about.

Marion Russek, Company manager, Co-president, Friends of the Constitution

Werner Boxler, Adult trainer, Co-president, Friends of the Constitution

Sandro Meier, Economist

Markus Häni, School teacher

Alec Gagneux, Sustainable Development Mediator

Dr. Christina Rüdiger, Secondary school teacher

Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger, Health expert

Dr. Klaus Rüdiger, Historian and teacher

Dr. Björn Riggenbach, Family doctor

Dr. Gerald Breim, Lawyer

Philipp Kruse, Lawyer

Dr. Marco Caimi, Medical Doctor

Dominik Graf, Businessman

Dr. Bruno H. Dalle Carbonare, Cell and molecular biologist

There are many other volunteers dealing with the campaign materials, the campaign shop selling materials related to the campaign, etc.

Another decision the people will make is regarding a law the government proposed to deal with CO2 emissions. The people who organized the referendum argue the law is too costly and will not help the climate. They also say, if hurts most the pockets of people of limited means.

The People’s Party sponsors this referendum.

The voters will also decide the future of a law enacted to fight terrorism.

The people who started the process for this referendum argue the law will be ineffective, that it does not define “terrorism”, goes against the rights of children and adults, violates the separation of powers, hurts the safety and security of people and is a menace to innocent citizens.

The Young LIberals, the Socialist Youth, the Greens and human rights groups sponsored this referendum.

Before voting, each Swiss household will receive from the government a package explaining the position of the government, which can be for or against the proposal, and the position of the proponents of the proposal in their own words.

The government often presents an alternative answer to what the initiators of the referendum propose.

There will also be public debates, real debates, not politicized media pushing their position. Because most citizens are interested in the issues, they also discuss the upcoming referendums at home, at work and in Internet. Many also listen to independent experts.

Debates are lively because most issues concern most people.

In case you have not guessed, the country is Switzerland.

You can find more details about the upcoming June 13 votes by downloading the phone app VoteInfo and on the website of SWissinfo.ch

VoteInfo has a lot more information, but it is not in English; you need to speak one of the four official languages of Switzerland. You can also use one of the many free Internet translation services.

Why can’t you decide like the Swiss can? Because the Swiss got fed up with  leaving all the decision-making power to the politicians, and you and your country folk, haven’t.

Representative democracies we are politically behind the Swiss almost two centuries, in dictatorships they are, politically, light-years behind.

Direct democracy is urgent to prevent the death of representative democracy, our freedoms and many other extraordinary things. Representative democracy can degenerate, and has done that, into dictatorships of the Right the Left. It happened in Germany. and other countries.

Do not complain about the politicians, act to bring direct democracy.

Victor Lopez


To have responsible and intelligent voters, there is only one way; voters must have the power to decide issues; that is direct democracy

Ordinary voters in representative democracies do not feel responsible for what happens in the country, and to the country, because the politicians decide the issues, pass the laws, etc., not the voters. Therefore, many voters feel very comfortable saying when something goes wrong in the country: “It is the politicians, it is the corporations, it is the rich, it is the unions…, it is this or it is that”.

They feel that way they are not responsible for what happens in the country because they do not “vote them in”, or they just “vote and hope”. Well, that is a copout; if voters concerned with the country disengage from the process, they just make it easier for the politicians and the lobbies to run everything the way they want.

But the involvement we need now goes beyond voting. It is a peaceful but revolutionary involvement; we have to demand and not let up until the politicians agree to renew representative democracy by bringing in direct democracy.

In a direct democracy, the people have the  power and the responsibility to revise, review and even discard policies and laws made by the politicians. The people may also propose laws.

This means that the voters decide by referendum, any action or decision made by the politicians, if approximately 1% of voters agree the issue has to go to referendum.

The system of direct democracy makes voters responsible for what happens to the country because now they have the power to act, not just complain.

In a direct democracy, voters change their voting behaviour right away; no more they fall for grandiose promises, for those demagogical promises by politicians about “making the country great”,  “more just”, “with nobody left behind”, “with a strong army”,  “high-speed trains to all cities”,  “bringing the Olympics will do wonders for our country”, and other vague or ruinous promises.

In a direct democracy the voters will decide also if the issue merits sending themselves or others to die in war.

In a direct democracy voters develop very thoughtful behaviour because they decide actual issues, they don’t just “go vote and hope”.

In a direct democracy the people no longer need “leaders” in the way the people in representative democracies do. They don’t because they decide the important issues themselves, they lead themselves.

How do we know? Because those voters already behave responsibly in raising their children, feeding them, educating them, providing for their families, being good neighbours, etc.

We also know those same voters are also responsible workers; they carry out their jobs with diligence.

So, if they do not vote responsibly, it is because they can not, because the system of representative democracy makes it impossible for them to feel responsible for what happens to the country, because they have no power to decide issues like, taxation levels, education, health care, etc.

What proof do we have direct democracy develops voters into very responsible, no nonsense, voters?, Switzerland is the proof for almost two centuries, not bad, eh?.

Representative democracy aslo makes the horizon for decision making the next election, because the next elections is what concerns politicians. In a direct democracy, the voters do not think of the next election; they think of their future, the future of their children, the long-term future of the country.

In a direct democracy, voters do not support ruinous policies because they know they will be the ones paying for them.

There is no magic to human behaviour; when humans have the power to decide on specific issues that affect their lives, they behave responsibly.

But there is another immense advantage to direct democracy; it forces voters to understand the issues because their vote decides the issues.

Among the voters there are also many experts on any issue.  Those voters enrich the debate and explain in common language even the most complex issues.

The process of direct democracy makes better decisions than representative democracies because there are more inputs by experts, particularly by independent ones, and the decision reflects the common sense most voters have.

More ideas discussed in an orderly manner, and evaluated by more people, produce better decisions

To have a country responsibly managed, there is one better way; transfer the key decision-making power from the politicians to the voters. But it will not happen if all you do is complain about “the  politicians”; you will have to forcefully demand that politicians bring direct democracy to your country; that is what the Swiss did. The Swiss had the same problems we now have in representative democracies; “we pay, we vote, they decide”. It is time to stop the nonsense of representative “democracy”.

By the way, ignore the “argument” that “Swiss voters show low voting turn outs”. It is not true, Swiss voters vote to decide issues several times each year, they vote a lot. On some specific issues voter turnout can be as low as 30%, but that happens when the issue does not concern most voters, although it concerns enough of them to trigger the referendum. When the issue concerns most voters, turnout can reach 70%.

But there is something even more important that shoots down the “low voter turnout in Switzerland” argument; over the period of 12 months, 90% of Swiss voters vote in referendums. This means that 90% of Swiss voters take part in their democratic decision-making.

Victor Lopez


Why direct democracy produces more political and economic stability than representative democracy

No need to engage in argument; let us look at the facts.

The only country in the World who practices direct democracy is Switzerland.

It is the only one because it is the only one who practices direct democracy in all levels of government; the local level, the regional (canton) level (Swiss cantons are like the states in the US or Australia, the Canadian Provinces, the German Landers or the Spanish Autonomous Regions, but with more power than any of them), the Swiss also practice direct democracy at the national level.

You can only say a country practices direct democracy if it does so in all levels of government.

In some countries they have direct democracy at the local and regional level, for example, the US, but in the US they do not have direct democracy at the national level. Given that the national federal government of the US is, by far, the most powerful government, it is obvious the US has no direct democracy.

Direct democracy is expanding slowly only because the politicians of representative democracies, and the elites dislike losing power, even if their loss of power would make the country more stable, more prosperous. They resist because if they lose power now, they will lose money, profits, privileges; for most humans, immediate benefits are more important than long-term benefits.

For whatever reason the Swiss people insisted, because of another pandemic, that they wanted direct democracy to decide themselves any issue or law they want to decide.

At first the Swiss elites resisted also; they did not want to give the final decision-making power to ordinary people, but the people insisted. The result is that, for almost two centuries, the Swiss have direct democracy. Today, even the Swiss politicians and the economic elite are very proud of the Swiss system.

Swiss politicians also enjoy more credibility with voters than the politicians of any representative democracy.

The Swiss elites with money also love the Swiss system now; they are safer than any other elite. Rich people have discovered that the people, when they have power to decide issues, they use their power judiciously. In a direct democracy, voters do not go for demagogues of the Right, the Left, or in-between. Swiss voters know they bear responsibility for what happens in the country and to the country. In Switzerland, voters know they can not play the “blame the politicians” game, voters play in representative democracies.

Direct democracy has turned Switzerland into the most stable, most democratic country in the World, ignore the “rankings” that circulate in the Web placing Switzerland behind a few representative democracies.

How do I know Switzerland is the most stable country in the World?, easy, where do wealthy people from all over the World keep their “emergency money”, “their just in case money”?, in Switzerland.

You hear about some crooked dictators hiding their money in Swiss bank accounts, that is true, some do. But you do not hear that many more wealthy people from many representative democracies, even the most prosperous ones, also have a substantial amount of money in Switzerland. Most of them do not hide it, they keep their hard-earned money, most of it earned legally, in Switzerland because in Switzerland their money is safer than anywhere else!

Interesting, eh?, that many members of the same elites who do not seem too eager to have direct democracy in your country, certainly do not push for direct democracy, like to keep their most important money in Switzerland.

Direct democracy is better democracy, is more democracy and also makes voters more responsible. Therefore Swiss voters support lower taxes than representative democracies. They have created one of the friendliest environments for entrepreneurs. But, at the same time, it is a socially responsible direct democracy. For example, the Swiss enjoy the best UNIVERSAL health care system in the World.

Judging by the performance of the country, the swiss must also have the best education system; never mind the PISA results about student accomplishments in the theoretical world of the classroom.

It is also because of political stability (perhaps Swiss chocolate is a factor also!) that many of the major World institutions have their headquarters in Switzerland.

The Swiss do not send their soldiers to die in many crazy wars either. Swiss voters are much more careful than the politicians in representative democracies before deciding this or that issue is worth dying for.

If Germany had learned direct democracy from its smaller, but wiser, neighbour to the South, they would not have engaged in the mess of the First World War, nor Hitler would have come to power, nor the rest of the madness would have happened; they still can, they still haven’t.

Conclusion: If the wealthy of your country are smart, they will push for direct democracy, they will prefer to live in a country where they do not need elaborate security, where they do not have to live in “rich people reserves” (that is what the “gated” neighborhoods are in many ways), where they do not have to worry about political turmoil.

It is interesting isn’t it?, that the country on Earth with the least political conflict is the country where the people have the most power.

Wise rich people, not politically stupid rich people, know that if the will of most ordinary voters prevails, because they have the final say on any key issue, such voters do not do foolish things or elect foolish, or worse, politicians.

So, rich, middle class, working class, or poor, you have a lot of good to gain, and a lot of bad to shed, if your country adopts Swiss-style direct democracy.

Victor Lopez

CLICK: to switch to other languages/cambiar a español u otros

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)