You heard of Bitcoin and the controversies surrounding it; investors in Bitcoin say it plays the role of gold, “digital gold” they call it. Those who do not believe in it, those who feel threatened by it, because, among other things, Bitcoin means governments and banks will lose the control they have over money, say things like “Bitcoin is rat’s poison”, “it is worth nothing”, “it is a Ponzi scheme”, “it has no intrinsic value”, etc.
I think that Bitcoin is a sound new technology which shifts the control of money from governments and banks to the people. In a way, it is the monetary equivalent of direct democracy.
Direct democracy shifts the control of political decisions, laws, regulations, changes to the constitution of the country, from the politicians and the lobbies who influence the politicians, even control them, to the voters.
Unlike representative democracies, where the people have freedom to think and to elect their representatives only, in a direct democracy, the people have those freedoms, and they also have the freedom to decide issues like laws, policies, regulations and changes to the constitution.
This means that in a direct democracy, the final decision makers are the people, not the politicians. Likewise, Bitcoin and the world of cryptocurrencies, shifts control of the monetary system to the people.
But I am no expert on Bitcoin, what I want to write about here is how a direct democracy gives the people the authority to decide what to do with Bitcoin.
In some representative democracies, governments have decided to adopt or accept Bitcoin, but that is not a democratic decision because it is not a democratically made decision. It is a decision made by democratically elected leaders but it is not a democratic decision.
The decision to elect leaders is democratic because the majority of voters decide who will govern. The decision to adopt bitcoin is not democratic if the people do not have the chance to vote on the adoption of bitcoin and if the majority did not decide that Bitcoin be adopted.
Here is where direct democracy comes in, specifically Swiss direct democracy, the only one we have with a solid track record, although Taiwan has also started to follow in the Swiss footsteps.
A Swiss non-profit organisation 2B4CH (2b4.CH is its web) was established in 2017 to study the social and financial transformation brought by Bitcoin and Blockchain technology, and also the impact of cryptocurrencies in general.
The organisation decided that the Swiss people should decide if Bitcoin should be integrated into the Swiss constitution, just like the current Swiss currency, the Swiss Frank, is.
You probably know the Swiss Frank is the most serious currency in the World, that is why many rich people keep all or part of their money in Switzerland. Ity also helps that taxes are lower than in many other countries. It does not hurt either that ordinary Swiss voters have acquired, thanks to direct democracy, a level of awareness of how the economy of the country works that is unmatched by the population of any other country.
The Swiss Frank is the currency that has depreciated the least against gold, much less than the US Dollar, etc.
Direct democracy forces Swiss voters to understand how the economy and everything else works. They have to, because they are directly responsible for the direction of the country.
The awareness of the Swiss is such that they do not fall for demagogical proposals from the Right of the Left. For example, very recently decided to make gay marriage equal to traditional marriage, this irked many on the Right, and they also decided it would not be a good idea to increase taxation of capital and decrease taxation of wages, which irked many in the Left.
So, 2b4ch decided that the Swiss people should decide by referendum if Bitcoin is important and serious enough to become part of the Constitution of the country.
To do that, 2b4CH has initiated the collection of signatures. They have to collect 100 000 signatures in 18 months. If they succeed, then a referendum will take place to decide if the proposal is approved or rejected. If rejected, another group could organise the initiative again in a few years, perhaps because the political climate might have shifted.
It is very important to keep in mind that the elected politicians do not have the power to hold referendums or to reject the results of referendums. The Swiss Supreme Court, or any other, do not have the power to overturn the results of popular referendums either. In Switzerland, the people are really the boss. Swiss politicians do not speak of “serving the people” much, they have no choice.
The government does have the power to propose an alternative to the initiative, in this case, if 2b4CH accepts the counter proposal, the referendum will not take place and the government is given time to implement its proposal.
For the initiative to pass it needs to win the popular vote in the nation and also needs to win in the majority of the Cantons (states or provinces) of Switzerland, because Switzerland is a confederation.
100 000 signatures represent approximately 1% of the population of Switzerland.
Shouldn’t the people of the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Spain, Brazil, Italy, Japan, Australia and all other representative democracies have the same rights as the Swiss people? Why should the Swiss people have more rights than the people of those other countries?
Whatever decision the Swiss people make on Bitcoin, it will have the credibility of a true democratic decision; the decisions by the politicians and bureaucrats in the US, UK, Japan, India. France, Germany, etc., do not have it. Why should Biden, Trump. McConnell, Pelosi, etc., decide for the people?
Representative democracy no longer makes sense: “the people pay, the peoples decide”.
Victor Lopez
