The virus crisis; a great opportunity!

At the beginning of WW II, the Swiss parliament granted the executive the right to rule under Swiss Emergency Law to deal with the extraordinary situation.

The Swiss executive is also using the powers the Swiss Constitution grants it to face the current virus pandemic.

In WW II, the Swiss allowed the executive to by-pass the legislature and also the referendums by the people.

Everybody thought that once WW II was over, Switzerland would return to direct democracy; in reality, it was not very easy.

Once WW II was over the Swiss executive was in no hurry to return power to the parliament, nor to the people.

Only two ministers in the emergency government wanted to return to direct democracy. Most other politicians did not mind too much keeping the people and parliament away from decision-making.

The Swiss people eventually became fed up and used the tools of direct democracy to return to it.

They started a people’s initiative: “Return to direct democracy”. In 1949, the Swiss people voted.

These are the results:

50.7% of the people voted for the return to direct democracy. 49.3% voted against. It seems shocking that the return to direct democracy won by such a narrow margin. For whatever reason, almost half the voters seemed to support direct rule by the executive.

Mind you, the emergency powers of the Swiss executive did not turn it into a dictatorship; the people kept their power to organise the initiative that eventually ended the emergency power of the executive.

But even if the citizens who gathered the signatures and triggered the referendum had lost, they could organise another initiative to try again. This they would do by gathering the required number of signatures if they felt the public mood had changed or they believed they could put together stronger arguments.

This is one of the most important aspects of direct democracy; people always have the power to change their minds and change reality.

They also have the power to change the constitution, the politicians do not and the Supreme Court does not either. Swiss democracy is fluid; it flows with the people in a calm, rational way.

Do not be surprised then that the politicians in your representative democracy, whatever it is, do not want to lose the power that representative democracy gives them in emergencies and, particularly, in normal circumstances.

Most politicians in representative democracies, even if they are in the opposition, do not want direct democracy. They know that even in the opposition; they have more power than the people who elected them. They also like the system; if they win the next election, they will have powers not unlike the powers the Swiss executive has during the emergency.

I hope that when the virus crisis is over, the Swiss executive will not make the mistake it made after WW II.

As for your representative democracy, perhaps you can do what the Swiss did after a pandemic in the 1800s.

This is what they did:

In 1867 the citizens of Zurich decided the politicians of their, then representative democracy, did not manage the cholera pandemic well. The people decided to take matters in their own hands and, peacefully but forcefully, pushed to have the right to put any issue to a popular referendum.

From Zurich, direct people power spread to the rest of Switzerland. Unfortunately, the spread of direct democracy stopped at the Swiss border.

It is not hard to imagine that if Germany had direct democracy, Hitler would never had risen because with direct democracy, way before Hitler, the Swiss people would have been in control of their destiny, instead of in the hands of emperors, weak leaders or crazy leaders.

Let us use the virus crisis; push for direct democracy!

Direct democracy and capital punishment

This is how humanity’s only direct democracy dealt with the issue of capital punishment.

Switzerland has direct democracy since 1848. They abolished capital punishment in 1938.

The last execution of a woman, Genevieve Guenat took place in the little Swiss-French town of Delemont, near Berne, on September 7, 1874. The last man executed was Niklaus Emmenegger, in Lucerne, on July 6, 1867.

It is interesting that women could be executed but could not vote, in Switzerland and in representative democracies too. In non-democracies, where women and men can not vote, or where voting is a sham, both men and women can be executed.

It is also interesting how so many countries consider people are not intelligent and responsible enough to vote but they are responsible enough to be executed, and not just for killing another person, sometimes, just having sex with a man or woman who is not your husband or wife can get you killed, it is absurd.

But those are other issues. Let us go back to the death penalty and direct democracy.

In the early 1900s Swiss politicians reached the conclusion the death penalty was not the rational thing to do. On December 21,  1937, the Federal Assembly of Switzerland, which includes both houses of parliament, passed a law to abolish capital punishment.

But when Parliament “passes a law” in Switzerland, it is not like in representative democracies, in Switzerland’s direct democracy, the people make the final decision, not the elected representatives.

On July 3, 1939, the Swiss people in a national referendum approved the law. 54% of those who voted said “yes”. The proposed law became the law of the land. 57% of eligible voters took part. If the majority had said “no”, capital punishment would still be the law of the land.

No civilians were executed in Switzerland since 1939, even during the WW II period.

In April 1999, in another referendum, the Swiss people approved a new constitution which included banning capital punishment for the military too.

If the people had voted “no”, parliament could have drafted another law that could be supported by the majority of citizens. Ordinary Swiss citizens could also have developed a proposal; if they collected 100 000 signatures in 18 months or less, their proposal would be put to a national referendum.

As a reference, it is interesting to note how direct democracy in Switzerland, far from being the “tyranny of the majority” or “mob rule” as some say, was ahead of so many representative democracies in the abolition of capital punishment.

Switzerland:  Abolished it in 1938 for civilians, in1999 for the military too.

Canada abolished capital punishment in 1976 for civilians, in 1998 for the military.

Austria: 1968

Belgium: 1996

Denmark: 1978

France: 1981

Germany: 1949

Greece: 2001

Ireland: 1990

Italy: 1994

Netherlands: 1982

Norway: 1979

Poland: 1998

Portugal: 1976

Spain: 1978 for civilians and in 1995 for the military.

United Kingdom: 1998

The Vatican: 2001! I was shocked, but perhaps I should not have been.

Now, the big question is; why the people in representative democracies did not have a say on the ending of capital punishment? Why couldn’t the people of all those other countries have the right to put capital punishment to a national referendum, or even to a provincial or state referendum?

How many lives would have been saved in the UK, in France, in Canada, in the US, and other countries if the people had the power to put capital punishment to a national vote?

I  believe capital punishment is justified, and the moral thing to do in some cases, but if the people decide by referendum to abolish it, it is much harder to argue against its abolition when the majority of my fellow citizens vote to abolish it than if the politicians decide to do so.

It makes no sense a system where society has to wait until politicians form a state of opinion among themselves to abolish capital punishment, or any other law, or make any new law, or even change the constitution, yet the whole country who elects and pays the politicians has no way of doing that.

It is time for direct democracy in all stable representative democracies. In democracies that are not stable, corrupt, etc., or in countries that are not even representative democracies, they will probably have to wait, unless a revolution overthrows the current tyrants.

 

If you live in a democracy, why you and your fellow citizens can not decide important issues that affect your lives?

Democracy is “government by the people”. This can only mean one thing; that the people govern, that the people decide. It does not mean “government by those elected by the people”.

Amazingly, in no current representative democracy do the citizens have the power to decide. The only decision they can make is to vote to elect representatives, who are the ones with the genuine power to decide. The people have no decision-making in-between elections; it is ridiculous.

Why shouldn’t the people of your country decide such as the following?

To what extent, people from other countries should be allowed to move to your country?

Why shouldn’t you and your fellow citizens decide if the country should close its borders, have no borders, who to let it in or keep out? Why shouldn’t you? Why should the politicians decide that?

All you can do if you want open borders or closed borders is write letters, go to the media, demonstrate, etc., but you do not have the legal power to stop the politicians.

Why shouldn’t you also have a say on what military equipment your country needs?

You do not have to be a military or strategy expert to vote on that. The politicians who make those decisions are not military or strategy experts either. They are ordinary people; they listen to the opinions of experts and then decide if the country needs 300 new fighter jets, 20 submarines, or more rockets. The average citizen can also listen to those experts and make an informed decision.

In fact, the decision by the people is a sounder decision. This is why; a percentage of the voters are more ignorant than the politicians on military issues, because of that many of them will abstain from voting. This is because most reasonable people and most voters are reasonable, do not feel comfortable deciding on issues they do not understand.

But in the population, there are many experts who are not in important organizations, or are retired experts. Such people can provide valuable input to other voters. They can do it even better than government-paid or lobby-paid experts because they are free of the bias of vested interests.

Why shouldn’t you and your fellow citizens not decide if instead of 300 fighter jets, only 150 should be bought; with the rest of the money allocated to weapons research, medical research, the health system, the educational system, or something else?

Why should you not decide if tax deductions for having children and for child care should be increased or decreased? Why do the politicians decide that for you?

Citizens can completely understand it they want to increase other taxes to compensate for that, or if other services should be reduced?; for example, fewer fighter jets.

Or, why should you not have a direct say on environmental matters?

For example, if an animal species needs protection, needs more protection or needs no protection at all? Or if blister packages should be banned?

Environmental experts, economists, and others can explain to the people the problem, just like they explain it to the politicians. The people are just as capable of assimilating information. Again, the majority of the people have no vested interest in protecting a species or removing its protection; because of that, they can make fair decisions.

Direct decision-making by the people has other advantages.

For example, it is much easier to cast an informed vote on a concrete issue than to figure out if the program of a party on a zillion issues is the correct one, as well as figuring out the credibility and character of political candidates.

Another advantage of direct decision-making by voters is that voting on issues dilutes, even removes, the “right”, “left” politics of many issues.

This is so because most citizens are not “followers of a party”. In representative democracies, the people have to choose what party to vote for. When they do this, they “vote” for the party platform. It is irrational to expect most voters to analyze a party platform. Besides, most voters do not agree with the party they vote for on all issues.

The current system, representative democracy, does not allow voters to vote on specific issues. If people can vote on issues, voting diversity is much more pronounced; the same voter may vote “right” on one issue; for example, for more fighter jets, and vote “left” on another issue, such as increasing paternity leave, or minimum wages, or for universal, taxpayer-funded, universal health care.

Do you know who can directly decide on all those issues, and also on issues they propose? The Swiss, that is who.

They also vote on many more issues at the local and canton-state-region-province level.

Why can’t you do the same? Because your politicians like to hold on to the almost oligarchic power they have from election to election. They do not want you to know there is another way. The elites do not want that either; they prefer to influence the politicians; they do not want you involved in decision-making. They want you to “vote and forget”.

The French king did not want to relinquish power either.

What do Swiss voters did that you have not done? They insisted and did not give up; “we pay, we decide”. They insisted, like the French Revolutionaries, the American Revolutionaries, and others insisted to have the right to elect their rulers.

The next step is here; we must elect the representatives, and we must also be the final decision-makers.

Could the pandemic be a blessing in disguise?

A pandemic brought direct democracy to Switzerland, which at the time was a representative democracy. The current pandemic could bring direct democracy to other representative democracies.

Some people are pushing for proportional representation, as an alternative to first-past-the-post, as an important improvement. Do not be fooled; proportional representation gives some people more voice but still zero power. Proportional representation is like giving a new toy to a kid with no shoes, it does not solve the real problem.

The key to more democracy is direct democracy, not proportional representation. Put your efforts into a direct democracy.

A representative democracy with proportional representation, or first-past-the-post, still leaves the politicians with more power than the people, it does not address the root problem; voters with little power.

In Switzerland they have a direct democracy with a proportional representation, direct democracy is much more important than representation. In a direct democracy, the people are the final decision-makers.

Proportional representation is interesting because allows more people to be heard in Parliament.

Proportional representation increases the ability of voters to be heard, but it does not increase the power or control of voters over the politicians. In proportional representation, we can say more voters have a voice in parliament, but do not have more power where it really counts; when it comes to making decisions.

Direct democracy is the real advance because, in it, voters have more power than the politicians. In direct democracy, the people are the final decision-makers.

Direct democracy is having many interesting effects on Swiss political life.

For example, in Switzerland, politicians have learned they can only pass laws the voters support, or that the voters will not oppose.

In view of that, the politicians realize it makes no sense to pass unpopular laws because the people will veto them.

To ensure the support of the majority of voters, for laws and other initiatives, the major Swiss parties, representing 70 to 80% of the voters, work together to find common ground. They negotiate until they reach the conclusion that most of the people will support the law or other decisions.

What this means is that in Switzerland there is no “loyal opposition”, they do not need it. They avoid the “us” vs. “them” fights we see in representative democracies.

The coalition government, the absence of the opposition, also eliminates among the Swiss the polarizations we see today in countries like the US or the UK, where half the population does not just disagree with the other half, they despise each other. It is totally irrational.

With less polarizations in the political parties, there is also less polarizations among the public, the media, etc.

Polarizations drive political parties and their voters towards bitter opposition and mutual disqualifications.  Democracy can not work like that, it will die. Therefore, it is urgent to bring direct democracy.

Does it not surprise you that in Switzerland, the 5 major parties govern in coalition decade after decade?

Another interesting aspect of Swiss democracy in Switzerland is that in the coalition, the “right”, the “centre” and the left govern together.

For example, right now, in the Swiss executive the following parties are represented; the Swiss People’s Party (right wing party), the Social Democrats (the socialists), the Liberals and the Christian Democrats. As I said, they represent 70-80% of the voters; pretty representative, I think.

Imagine in the United States the Republicans and the Democrats governing together! or the Conservatives and Labour in the UK!

With direct democracy, in the US they would not have the vicious fights we see between the Republican Executive and the Democrat House, or vice versa; no bitter fights to appoint Supreme Court Judges either.

Direct democracy would tone down crazy polarizations. Such situations are not in the people; in the American people or any other.

Polarization happens because elections in representative democracies bring almost oligarch-like power to those who win. Because of that, they fight like hell to discredit, dehumanize even, the other party and its supporters.

It is an interesting coincidence that modern direct democracy came to Switzerland because of a pandemic, like the one we have now all over.

If one effect of the current pandemic is that the American People, and the people of other representative democracies, successfully push for direct democracy, it would a surprising benefit of the pandemic; we could consider its victims as fallen soldiers fighting for democracy.

Americans, British, French, Germans, Canadians, etc., should push for direct democracy right now.

In 1848 the Swiss copied the Americans and the French. Today, the Americans, the French and all other representative democracies need to copy the Swiss

The American Revolution inspired the democratic movement in Switzerland. From France, the Swiss adopted the practice of the popular referendum.

Sadly, both “masters” have fallen behind the “pupil”. I am not sure if it is because the “masters” forgot what they knew, or if it is because the “pupil” kept moving forward. I suspect there are elements of both.

The French have forgotten about the referendum as the instrument for the people to exercise their power.

The Americans never practiced the popular the referendum. The American Constitution is supposed to be a “living and breathing” document. Unfortunately, the American people have no say in the life and breath of the Constitution.

In the United States, only politicians can change the Constitution. Ironically, the US Constitution states that the American people gave themselves the Constitution, but now they have no power to change the document they gave themselves, makes no sense.

The Americans went backward also when they tolerated that the Supreme Court judges have power over the people and the elected representatives. The Supreme court of the United States decides if a law is in accordance with the Constitution or not.  In this regard, the US Supreme Court has more power than the people and their representatives together; makes no sense either.

The 9 judges of the US Supreme Court can decide what is or is not Constitutional and, therefore, what is good or not for the Country. That should not happen in a democracy.

Politicians appoint the US Supreme Court judges, after much argument in the US Senate, the hearings.  We all have seen how “calm”, and “rational” the hearings have become.

In the US, whatever party has the majority in the Senate decides who will be the next Supreme Court judge. The fights are vicious, perhaps in part because the US Supreme Court judges are there for life and have huge power.

US Supreme Court judges can not be removed from office unless the Senate votes to do so by a two-thirds majority; it has never happened. The appointment for life makes no sense for people with immense power.

In the US, you have politicians with more power than the people. You also have the politicians appointing Supreme Court Judges who also have more power than the people and even the politicians. The American people have zero power over Supreme Court Judges. The judges interpret the Constitution and the people have to shut up.

In France the situation is even worse; the Constitutional Council is the highest court in France deciding what is or is not constitutional. Hold on to your seats now! In the current Constitutional Council, the following people serve; Laurent Fabius, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, Claire Bazy-Malaurie, Corinne Luquiens, Michel Pinaut, Dominique Lottin, Alain Juppe, Jacues Mezard, Francois Pillet.

They are all former presidents of France or people appointed by Presidents of France, by the President of the French National Assembly or by the President of the French Senate. Former French Presidents also have the automatic right to serve in the Council. More control of the Council by the political establishment is not possible.

It is absurd that politicians and political appointees decide what the Constitution means; the people should decide that.

Democracy is supposed to be “government by the people”, but all the people can do in representative democracies, not just in France and the US, is elect the politicians. After the election, the people have zero power over the politicians and over judges. The people can demonstrate and scream, but that’s it. The media, the lobbies and the editorialists have more power of influence over the politicians and the judges than the people.

The people should decide what the Constitution means and should also decide if it needs changes. But should do it, not by i riots or demonstrations, they should decide via a calm, free, deliberate, and deliberative public debate, followed by a referendum.

The Swiss, once again, show the way. In Switzerland, the Supreme Court is expressly barred from ruling on Constitutional matters. The politicians can not touch the constitution without the explicit consent of the majority of the people. The people are the ultimate authority on the Constitution.

If in a democracy, the people give themselves the Constitution, it is obvious the people must be the final authority on the Constitution; the people must have the power to change it and to approve or reject any change proposed by the politicians.

Changing the constitution is not rocket science or neurosurgery, it is much more complicated, that is why the people have to decide. I am convinced the common sense required to make democracy work is a far deeper intelligence than the intelligence required for rocket science or neurosurgery. It is because Common Sense takes into account many more variables.

It is time democracy be ruled by the common sense of the majority; not by elected or appointed elites. It is time for direct democracy.

Words are not facts; representative “democracies” are not in fact democracies and, because of that, they are not sustainable

We understand democracy as “government by the people”. This means that the will of the people, the will of the majority, prevails.

In representative democracies, the only moment the will of the majority prevails is at election time. Once they vote, all executive power is in the hands of the elected representatives.

The representatives have all the power; the elected executive executes, the elected legislature passes the laws, and together they decide who sits in the highest courts of the land. It is obvious they have all the power.

Representative democracy is not ruled by the people at all.

In a real democracy, the will of the majority would prevail at all times in all important issues.  To have that, we we need decision-making mechanisms that do not exist in representative democracies.

It starts with the constitution of the country; it is a funny thing that in representative democracies the constitutions, more or less state:  “the people give themselves the constitution”, yet the people do not have the authority to change the constitution.

Let me give you a few examples.

This is what the preamble to the US Constitution says: “

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Yet, in the US only the legislators, in Washington and each state, have the power to change the constitution, the people can not do that. The elected representatives change the constitution without the consent of the people.

In France, things are not very different; the President can start a revision of the constitution. If three-fifths of the legislature approve the revision, they change the constitution; the people have no say at all.

In the UK is much the same. The UK does not have a formal constitution; there are several “basic laws”. Together, these laws amount to a UK Constitution. In the UK, like in the US and in France, the people do not have the power to change the basic laws, the politicians do.

On to Germany; the preamble to the German Basic Law, equivalent to the constitution in other countries, states: “Inspired by the determination to promote World peace as an equal partner in a United Europe, the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic Law.”

It is not true the German people “… adopted this Basic Law”. The Basic Law rules Germany because the four Allied powers of WW II, and the politicians in West and East Germany, decided in 1990 the contents of the Basic Law; the Constitution of Germany. The German people never decided to adopt the Basic Law; not much democracy there.

The German Basic law also states. “All state authority is derived from the people”. Sadly, without the consent or agreement of the German people, if two-thirds of the legislators agree to change the Basic Law, they change the Basic Law.

Italy is not much different; the politicians can propose a change to the Italian Constitution. If two-thirds of the elected representatives agree on the change, then the Constitution changes, there is no requirement to involve the people.

So, never mind the solemnity of the words; “the people are sovereign”, “the people gave themselves the constitution”. What sort of sovereignty is it if “the sovereigns” can not make their will prevail?

Sovereignty means having “supreme political power”. The facts on the ground show that in representative democracies the people do not have supreme political power.

In most other representative democracies, things are not too different. The most citizens can do in very few countries, such as Denmark, is approve or reject what the politicians propose for the constitution.

Regarding ordinary laws under the constitution, forget it, the people have no power to say much unless the politicians so decide or… they take to the streets…

Only Switzerland, with its special version of direct and representative democracy, can claim that the people are really sovereign. Over there, the people do have direct control over the constitution and also over all laws under the constitution.

Because of the imbalance of power between the politicians and the people, representative democracies do not really function as democracies. They can not because the people have no executive or legislative power. As a result, politicians gradually accumulate more power and the people feel gradually more alienated. Over time, this imbalance is explosive.

Unfortunately, the “explosion-implosion” of political systems always catch the elites by surprise. It happened to the Czar, to the French King, to the English King in the US, and on and on.

The time to act is now. We need to do what the Swiss did in the 1800s; peacefully pressure, and pressure and pressure politicians until they relent, until in all our countries we have, at least what the Swiss have. We can not give in or give up, we need direct democracy urgently. Populisms are the symptoms, the illness is non-functioning representative democracies.

 

Direct democracy means “rule by the people”, not “mob rule” or “tyranny of the majority”

I am sure most of the people who dislike direct democracy believe voters should not have so much power. Somehow, they feel “I cannot trust the people”, although they exclude themselves, I suppose.

Democracy, even representative democracy, sits on the belief “I can trust the people”. If we do not believe that, we do not believe in democracy; representative or direct. Rule by elites, even if elected, is not a democracy, democracy is rule by the people.

I suspect others oppose direct democracy because it shifts the balance of power to the people and away from the politicians and those around them, the lobbies, the pressure groups, the “opinion leaders”, and so on.

For a thoughtful voter, for the average voter, it is a lot more difficult to figure out how a politician will decide once elected than to decide by himself o herself.

Ordinary voters are capable of making hard decisions; they do it in their personal and professional lives. They can also decide if health care should be universal and financed with taxes or universal and privately financed, or something in-between. Voters can also decide if taxes should be raised or lowered, or if a new highway is necessary, or if nuclear electricity should be canned.

In a direct democracy, the voters decide, but they do it after ample, open, public, and orderly debate on the pros and cons of what the politicians want to do. They listen to politicians on all sides, to experts, to others in their families, etc. After that process, the voters can make an informed decision on any issue, no matter how “complex”.

Another enormous benefit of direct democracy is that decisions are more readily accepted by the losers after a citizen’s referendum, than a decision made by a politician sitting very far. If after open and fair debate, and a trusted voting system, your side loses the argument before your fellow citizens, the only rational thing to do is accept the verdict, and people do.

In a direct democracy, the people elect representatives, but the politicians still draft laws and make decisions.

In a direct democracy, all important decisions by politicians have to survive far more thorough scrutiny than in representative democracy. They are scrutinized by other politicians, by the experts, and by the people. Keep also in mind that there are many experts among ordinary voters, even if they do not work in known institutions.

Because the people have the final say, in a direct democracy the elected representatives become useful advisors to the people. The people now have the right to say to the executive and the legislative: “look, the law you propose, the treaty you think we should sign, the purchase of new jets for the air force, keeping nuclear electricity, etc., maybe are the right thing to do, but enough of us among the voters, do not agree, we want our fellow citizens to decide if they support what you propose”.

Another advantage of direct democracy is that the lobbies can not pressure ordinary voters in the way they can pressure elected politicians; voters do not need the money of the corporations, the unions, the media, or other groups for election or re-election.

An additional benefit of direct democracy is that, because politicians do not have the final say, the pressure groups do not pressure them as much as they do in representative democracies. In this way, it is easier for politicians to make decisions for the good of the majority.

Just a word about direct democracy. California and other American States do not have real direct democracy for two reasons; the first one is that there is no direct democracy in the United States at the national level. As long as California is in the US it can not have direct democracy where it would most count; at the federal level.

The second reason is that in the United States the courts can overturn the results of popular referendums. In Switzerland, even the Supreme Court can not do that.

The facts speak for themselves; look at the history and the present of Switzerland under direct democracy. Direct democracy has been, and is, wonderful for Switzerland; a great standard of living, low corruption, the great trust of the people in government, continuous evolution of laws and the constitution to the changing values of the people, no riots, no demagogues.

The facts on the ground prove it; the German majority which constitutes 63% of the population, does not vote to oppress the French, the Italian, the Romansch or of other minorities.

Certainly, in Switzerland, there is no “tyranny of the majority” or “mob rule” either.

On the contrary, it is in representative democracies where we see the riots that can lead to mob rule. We saw that recently in France, in the United States, and other representative democracies.

If correctly implemented, direct democracy is the next step in the development of democracy. The advance representative democracies need is systemic, not ideological. It is not an “advance” to the left or the right, it is an advance in decision-making. “We pay, we decide”. The time has come.

We can trust the people.

Government in a representative democracy is not “government of the people”

The government in a representative democracy is not the “government of the people”.

You might have heard the expression: “Democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

“Government of the people” means “we, the people, govern ourselves.” The expression means that the people who govern us come from among us, ordinary citizens. The implication is that, since those we elect are “us”, the government is “ours”.

In reality, it is not like that.

Representative democracy is a clear advance over systems where those who govern are the aristocracy, nobility or royalty. Unfortunately, the “government of the people” is far from what it sounds like.

“Government of the people” seems to mean that the people are the government; that they elect representatives just because it is the practical thing to do, but government identifies with the people.

Those of us who live in representative democracies know the government does not identify with us. Only at election time do the representatives pay proper attention to voters. Electing representatives from among “people like us” has little to do with “government of the people”.

It is true those we elect do not belong to the ruling class by birth, at least most of them don’t, but in a representative democracy we have an elected ruling class, and we shouldn’t.

Once we elect the representatives, we have no power at all over them. All voters can do when the representatives make a decision they don’t like is write, complain, demonstrate, and… wait until the next election.

Unfortunately, the next election often is several years away. How can we say “government of the people” if all we can do is vote for someone else at the next election, but do nothing before that time?

We can vote them out of office, but that does not change the decision that made us mad; that is not the “government of the people”.

To elect those who rule over us does not make government, “government of the people.”

It does not matter if the government is left-leaning, right-leaning, or centrist; electing representatives do not constitute “government of the people”.

What kind of “government of the people” is it if the elected can raise taxes, change any law, make new laws, even change the constitution against the will of the people?

But there is more; in theory, those we elect come from among us, in the sense they are not nobility or royalty, but the way politics works in representative democracies, produces elected representatives who in most cases belong to the “ruling class”, to the “political class”.

Those who run the political parties, those in government and parliaments, have become a political aristocracy. The names change, the individuals may go, but while they are part of the executive or the legislative, they are a true aristocracy.

Like old-style aristocracy, our elected representatives have many privileges, and they do not ask us if we think they deserve them either; excellent salaries, excellent pensions, excellent offices, privileges while they travel, nice expense accounts, cushy well-paid jobs once they leave active politics and more.

Our elected representatives may have ordinary names and come from ordinary families, but they live like a true aristocracy while they are in office, and often also after they leave.

When one elected representative loses to a rival, that person may lose power and privilege, but the person replacing him or her will keep the same privileges, we just switch “aristocrats”

Sometimes, in representative democracies, we even have families who produce elected representatives for generations, the Kennedys are one example.

“Government of the people” only happens if the government identifies with what the people want, and not just at election time.

In the coming posts, I will deal with what  “Government by the people” and “Government for the people” mean.

The facts on the ground show only Direct Democracy is the “government of the people.”

Direct democracy develops citizens and governments who are more responsible with public money.

How do we know that?

Because there is a very interesting study; “The Political Economy of Direct Legislation:Is There a Role of Direct Democracy in EU Decision-Making?

The study was performed by two Swiss researchers, Lars P. Feld and Gebhard Kirchgässner of the University of St. Gallen’s, Swiss Institute of International Economics and Applied Economic Research.

The researches were interested in how direct democracy could help decision-making in the European Union, but the study is useful for the citizens of any country interested in responsible government.

The researchers conclude that, when the citizens directly decide public spending, the government spend less and taxes are lower, the government is more responsible.

Centering the study in Switzerland helps answering the “two million dollar question”: If voters are responsible for spending and for taxes, do they vote for spending less and controlling tax rates?, do they say “no” to the new road, the expended social program or the new public swimming?

Switzerland is also interesting because not all cities and towns offer voters the opportunity to directly approve public spending and taxes.

The researches found spending and taxes are lower in the Cantons, (a Canton is roughly similar to an American State or a German Lander), where the voters directly control spending and taxes.

They detected an even more important effect in cities and towns where voters directly control spending.

They found that the Cantons with referendums, enabling citizens to control spending, spend 10% less than cantons where citizens did not have that power.

The effects of citizen power were even clearer in cities; wherever voters can control spending, spending was 20% lower. Cities where direct democracy enables citizens to control spending also have lower public debt; the researchers found their debt per resident was 11 000 USD.

But it is important to know one thing; in Switzerland, most taxes are paid at the local and Canton (state) level, in the US and most other representative democracies, even in places where voters can control public spending at the state or local level, voters pays most taxes to the national government.

If citizens can control spending at the local level but most of the spending and taxation is decided at the national level, and there is no direct democracy at the national level, it should not be surprising voters do not feel responsible for taxation and public spending at any level; “the politicians decide, we can not do much about that.” Voters can not do much when most governing parties are big on spending.

In Switzerland, most taxes and spending take place close to the voters, at the local and canton (state) level, but Swiss voters also control the spending of the national government. Swiss voters have learned to become prudent spenders, because they know they pay, and they know how much.

The evidence indicates direct citizen control of public spending and taxes makes citizens and governments more fiscally responsible.

Some people say things like: “Direct democracy may work in Switzerland because it is a small country” (8.5 million people), but most Swiss cities and towns are like cities and towns in other countries.

The study in Switzerland is very interesting also because, by doing the study in the same country, it minimizes cultural differences. The study shows that when citizens of roughly similar cultural backgrounds behave more prudently when they have the final say on public spending. The study did not look at differences among the German, French, Italian or Romansch-speaking areas of Switzerland.

If you want your town, city, region, province, state or nation to be better managed, more responsibly managed, you can start by pushing for direct democracy on issues that are fully controlled in your country at the region, province, town and city levels.

The US needs direct democracy now, badly.

In this post I will answer those who believe direct democracy will not be of benefit to the American people.

For example, there is a website, Theconversation.com. On Sept 17, 2019, The Conversation posted their views on direct democracy and the US; “Expanding direct democracy won’t make Americans feel better about politics”, according to them.

Theconversation.com  defines itself as “an independent source of news and views, from the academic and research community, delivered direct to the public”.

Theconversation.com is one of many people who also believe direct democracy is not helpful.

Theconversation.com speaks, for example, of “the chaos there (in the UK) began in a form of direct democracy, when UK voters set in motion their exit from the European Union”.

They continue: “normally, such major policy would have been initiated, deliberated and voted by their elected officials in Parliament”. “The Brexit mess is an example of the disruptive potential of direct democracy.”

Brexit was a democratic decision but it was not direct democracy. One referendum called by a government is not direct democracy at all.

Brexit was not direct democracy because it was the government, not the people, who decided to put the issue to a referendum. In a direct democracy the people have the power to decide what and when to put something to a referendum; they do not need any decision by government.

It was not an exercise on direct democracy either because it was not a legally binding referendum; the UK Parliament has the legal power to disregard Brexit, even now. In a direct democracy, that is not be possible.

The fact is that UK is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. This means the government did not have to get the approval of citizens to join the EU either. The people had no say in the matter.

The Brexit referendum was one vote expressing the will of the majority of the people; direct democracy it is a established, systematic way for the people to be the final decision makers and to prevail over the elected representatives. That is not what they have in the UK, or in California.

In California, the courts, can even declare invalid the results of a referendum, that is not direct democracy. In Switzerland, even the Supreme Court of Switzerland can not say “no” to the results of a referendum.

As for the “disruptive potential” of direct democracy, which  concerns Theconversation.com, it is one of the best things direct democracy offers. It allows the people to cause disruption democratically; peacefully, orderly, in free and secret voting. This is as “government by the people” should be.

The writers of Theconversation.com also state that the citizen’s initiative is bad for democracy because “mainly encourages greater conflict rather than produce political and social benefits.” The also say their research shows direct democracy increases polarization.

Let us look at the facts on the ground. Lets us look at the Swiss experience with direct democracy.

The Swiss have been using citizen’s initiatives since 1891 and have more experience with them than anyone else.

There is no doubt that in Switzerland, direct political decisions made by the people, as practiced at the national (federal), cantonal (sate) and local level, are far less polarized than in America . This includes areas where the United States does not have direct democracy at all, as is the case with the federal government. More polarization than in America’s national elections is not easy to find! State governments without direct democracy at all are also heavily polarized.

Real direct democracy does to society precisely the opposite of what Theconversation.com states about polarization. For example, in Switzerland, the national federal government is always a coalition of the 4-5 major parties, they include 70% to 80% of the electorate. The coalition includes parties on the Left, Right and Center.

Theconcersation.com is wrong; if you want less polarization in the United States, or any other representative democracy, direct democracy will reduce polarization.

By evolving into a direct democracy, at all levels of government, the US will not live again the situation it has now. The root problem in the US is that the President, Congress and the Supreme Court have more power than the people. That is why they fight so hard for those positions, that is what generates polarization.

When the people have more power than the three institutions mentioned, the incentives to fight viciously, and even to cheat, will radically diminish. That is the experience of Switzerland.

 

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

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)