Author: victor

The sad reality is that in a dictatorship the dictatorial person, party or religion impose themselves on the people and control people by brute force; punishing them, even imprisoning or killing them, just for disagreeing with the system.

In a representative democracy, the people are controlled much less, they are free to express themselves and are, in theory, free to elect their representatives, the politicians.

No doubt representative democracy is far better than dictatorships, where people have less rights than domestic animals.

Unfortunately, the people of representative democracies still lack the most fundamental freedom, the freedom to decide issues and policies directly, by themselves, over the will of the politicians and over the supreme courts appointed by the politicians.

One of the root problems of representative democracy is that it is ideology driven, not issue driven.

This means that people are herded into political ideologies. Political ideologies are like religions; “believe this because it has the answers you need”.

As is natural, people have different opinions on everything but the political ideologies try to tell them that should not be so, that there is a “true way”.

The idea of a “true way” is completely irrational because it is obviously impossible to have two, or three or three hundred, “true ways”.

The reality is that there is no “true way” on anything, that there are opinions and preferences on concrete issues, and that open reasoning is the tool of democracy, not faith.

For example, a person who thinks the country needs a smaller army may also want more police, or the death penalty. A person who is gay might oppose a minimum wage. A hunter might also be for totally green energy. I am sure you can come up with many other examples.

But the “progressive” and “conservative” ideologies herd people; if you are in the “progressive” herd you have to think this, this and this about gays, about taxes, about army, about police, about hunting, about the environment, about minimum wages, etc.

The politicians exploit the irrational need of many people for an all-encompassing “truth”, and reinforce it to get elected.

One of the things politicians do in representative democracy is paint rival politicians as practically deranged, corrupt and fools.

Naturally, his or her followers, end up thinking very much the same about the followers of rival politicians.

The result is (irrational) polarisation and division that gradually grows worse in representative democracies; the US is the better know example, but even countries like Canada and Sweden experience growing polarisation.

It has reached the point that even free speech is under attack. At the moment, free speech is under attack by the “progressives” more than by the “conservatives”, but the situation can turn around pretty quickly.

The whole thing of “progressive”, “conservative” is a false division that prevents people from looking at each  issue and policy, rationally, without the ideological blinkers.

The politicians need money to pay assistants to produce speeches, press releases and ads, all to enhance themselves and discredit rivals. They also need lots of money to travel, for promotional materials, to organize events, to pay for expensive ads in the press, radio, tv and internet.

Because the politicians in a representative democracy have the power to decide everything, the competition is fierce.

To win the competition the politicans need the support of people with influence and, above all, with lots of money.

If to that, you are a crazy decision by the US Supreme Court allowing basically unlimited monetary and non-monetary contributions to political campaigns, you have a system where the money of the few prevails over the interests of the majority because the politicians are indebted to the donors.

The politicians are also indebted to the leaders of various pressure groups who, with their support, can deliver many votes to the politician.

But the situation is made even worse because, just to enter a political race to be a candidate, requires lots of money. This means that politicians have to kow-tow to money from day one.

That is how the voters do not have the freedom to elect, because they can only elect candidates supported by the system.

As you know, big money, “donates” to both major parties for obvious reasons.

From they one aspiring politicians are also under the control of the party apparatus. Sure, you can have the odd politician who is elected against the will of those with money, but they are so few that they have no influence on executive and legislative decisions.

The way to free people from the political herds is if people have the power to directly decide issues and policies.

In this way, each voter does not have the desperate need for “his” or “her” candidates to win; no matter who wins; the progressives, the conservatives, the greens, or even the extremists on the right or left, because the voter knows that the people can easily organize a binding refendum on anything, and that the result can not be overturned by the executive, by parliament or by the highest court of the land.

In a direct democracy, people may still support this or that party, but the system forces people think by themselves, not “thinking” as part of the herd.

So, if you want to be freer, and to bring rational decision making to your countryg regarding laws and policies, direct democracy, or semi-direct democracy is a huge step forward.

But the politicians and the lobbies do not want it for obvious reasons, which never are the reasons they put forward.

Direct democracy will only come to your country if you push for it.

Victor Lopez

Let us look mainly at the US, because the US is the best known representative democracy.

One problem with representative democracy is that leaves millions unrepresented; all those who voted the losing party.

This happens because in representative democracy, the politicians have all the executive and legislative power.

It is logical that to acquire that power, political parties fight bitter campaigns. The idea is to discredit, even paint as illegitimate, the other parties.

One of the effects of the vitriolic campaigns of the parties, is that they turn their followers into people who despise and hate the followers of other parties.

In a representative democracy it then becomes impossible for those supporting the losing parties to feel represented.

How could the people who voted for Hillary Clinton feel represented by Trump? How could the people who voted for Trump feel represented by Biden.

The truth, the sad truth, is that millions of voters consider those who vote for other parties as deranged, idiots, selfish, etc.

In other countries the polarisation is less known, but it is obvious that voters in Canada, the UK, France, etc., no not feel too different from American  voters.

It is then clear that, today, representative democracy leaves close to half the country unrepresented.

Even in countries with proportional representation, the situation is essentially the same; sure, in proportional representation, voters that in “first past the post” system, would not even elect a parliamentarian, they elect a few in proportional representation, but still have zero representation in the executive.

Even if they elect a few parliamentarians it does not count for much, except if, as it happens occasionally, those parliamentarians happen to hold the balance of power.

The other problem with representative democracy is that it is not really democratic.

Democracy means “rule by the people”. In representative democracies, the people vote, but do not rule. This is the way it is in the US and in all other representative democracies.

In representative democracies, the elected politicians in the executive and the legislative, together with the Supreme Court judges they appoint, rule, the people do not rule at all.

This is why the alienation of millions from representative democracy keeps growing. Some people ate even talking about “the Chinese model of government” as an “alternative to democracy”; in other words, the alternative is dictatorship, a dictatorship that accepts Capitalism, as long as the capitalists (and the million of workers who work for them), accept that those holding political power have all the power; it is not very different from Hitler,s Germany.

This is why we must turn to direct democracy. Direct democracy turns the tables on politicians; instead of them holding all the power, the people have all the decision-making power.

In a direct democracy, a small number of people can put almost any issue before the voters for the voters to decide.

Ordinary voters can stop any law the politicians make. Ordinary voters, not the politicians, can change the constitution, etc.

This power of the people diminishes the power of politicians, as a result they, and the lobbies who support then, and even make and break politicians, see there is no sense in vicious electoral fighting because they will not be able to do anything not supported by the people.

So, direct democracy is more democratic because is is closer to “government by the people”.

Direct democracy is also more representative because if the people have more power, it is obvious their interests are better represented.

Furthermore; once politicians realise the people decide, political parties quickly get together and co-operate to pass only laws and policies the vast majority of people support.

That is why in Switzerland, all  major parties, of left, right and center, representing 80% of the voters, govern in coalition, always.

Of course, in Swiss elections you do not see any of demagoguery, and demagogues, we have in the US and other “representative” “democracies”.

The political, cultural, media and economic elites in representative democracies know direct democracy is more democratic and more representative, but do not want it because in a direct democracy, they will have less power, less power to make money or to reach positions of prestige.

Over the long term, those elites are politically stupid because, as the awareness of people that they are being had in representative democracy grows, unrest grows. Unrest means political instability and with political instability, the elites will lose their status, they may even lose their lives.

Black Lives Matter, Trump, the Yellow Vests, Alliance for Germany, Sanders, etc., are signs that millions on the “left” and the “right” are getting angry in representative democracy.

History shows the elites are always caught by surprise when the violent uprising arrives at their doorsteps.

Direct democracy  would bring political stability to the US and other countries.

You would think the elites have lost their heads in popular uprisings often enough that they would embrace direct democracy, but they do not because their short term greed and ambition blinds them. Besides, many of them do not care if the country goes belly up; too many in the elite seem to believe countries and cultures do not matter any more; they will be surprised, once again.

If you want civic peace, prosperity and stability, push for direct democracy, like the Swiss people did many decades ago, and now have the best country in the World.

Do not take my word for it, learn about direct democracy yourself; I believe you will demand it.

Victor Lopez

 

This is just one example.

In 2019 the organisation Young Swiss Socialists was able to get 100 000 people, approximately 1% of the population of Switzerland, to sign and back their proposal to reduce taxes on salaries and increase taxes on capital.

First important thing to note; this initiative by a relatively small group of Swiss people, if approved in the popular referendum, will change the Swiss Constitution. This means the Swiss Constitution is a “living and breathing” document, continuously changing and improving democracy, as it reflects the changes in the values and concerns of the Swiss people.

The Swiss Constitution is not like the constitutions of representative democracies, in representative democracies, the Constitution is treated almost revealed absolute truth from above. Obviously the concept is balderdash; the Constitutions of all countries are written by ordinary people. Hopefully, such people are reasonable and intelligent, unfortunately, that requirement is not alway fulfilled.

Sometimes those who write the constitution claim the text comes straight from God. There is not much I can say about that…, you decide.

The hard truth is that real democracy means the people make the constitution, not the gods or those who claim divine inspiration.

This is how it was done by the Ancient Greeks, those amazing fellows who thought, without fear of gods or men, about everything there is to think about. Unfortunately, many humans feel comfortable with the darkness that claims to be light… The European started to get rid of the new dark age in the Renaissance and the Enlightment, but the job is not complete; that is another story.

The Greeks decided they would write the laws themselves, that the gods would have no say in that.

But let us take the American as an example of a well-known “Holy” Constitution. Most stable representative democracies treat their constitution in a similar manner.

The American people really can not change the Constitution. All they can do is complain, protest, take to the street and scare the politicians into changing it.

This is the process to change the US Constitution:

Article V of the United States Constitution outlines basic procedures for constitutional amendment.

1. Congress may submit a proposed constitutional amendment to the states, if the proposed amendment language is approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses.
2. Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments upon application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (i.e., 34 of 50 states).
3. Amendments proposed by Congress or convention become valid only when ratified by the legislatures of, or conventions in, three-fourths of the states (i.e., 38 of 50 states).

Look up the process in your country and see how it works.

Th American people have zero say in the process; in the US, like in other representative democracies, all the power is in the hands of the politicians, not in the hands of the people.

The party in power may change, the majority in parliament or a congress may flip, but the end result is always the same; the power is always in the hands of the politicians, their appointees and, “indirectly” in the hands of the lobbies.

The Swiss system is very different; in the case of the current Swiss initiative to change the constitution, a 27 person committee of the Young Swiss Socialists gathered the 100 000 signatures, they had one and a half years to achieve that.

The committee succeeded and presented their proposal to the Swiss government, suggesting to the government it should act to reduce taxes on salaries and increase them for capital.

The overall argument hinges on the idea that the rich are becoming richer and their share of the national wealth keeps growing, that the situation is not fair. The initiative basically tells the Swiss government: “Here, we believe this is what you should do, 100 000 of Swiss believe you should”

The Swiss government, the executive and the legislative, debated the issue but rejected the proposal.

When that happens, another mechanism kicks in; the proposal must go to a national popular referendum. This is the real teeth in the Swiss system; 100 000 people can force a national referendum. If the proposal wins the referendum, the government has to act and develop legislation, which also can be challenged by the people, to increase taxes on capital and reduce them on salaries.

Before the referendum takes place; this one is scheduled for September 21st. 2021, there will be plenty of discussion in Switzerland in families, among friends, at workplaces, in the media, debates, etc.

As part of the process, each citizen also will receive a package of information from the government. The package includes the text of the position of the committee elaborating the proposal, the counterarguments and counter proposal of the government, as well as the positions of other important actors, such as political parties. The package is devoid of demagoguery.

By the time the referendum date arrives, any Swiss voter interested in the issue will have had plenty of time and resources to understand the issue.

This does not mean that most Swiss voters will be interested enough to vote. Some may not vote because they are not interested, others because they can not make their minds up; it is not clear to them which arguments are better; those of the government saying that wealth distribution in Switzerland is less skewed towards the rich that in other countries, that various social programs produce wealth distribution and that taxing capital more might discourage savings, investing and creating new business who are at the root of Swiss prosperity, or the arguments of the proponents.

Voter turnout in national Swiss referendums varies from the 30% to 70%, depending on the issue.

By the way; low turnouts do not mean “voter fatigue”, like some enemies of direct democracy in the US, Canada, Wester Europe, etc., say. Over one year, the Swiss vote in several referendums; taking that into account, 80% of Swiss voters vote in the referendums to decide issues. They do that besides voting every four years to elect politicians.

The system has another immense advantage over representative democracy; if the Young Swiss Socialists, and the over 100 000 people who supported the initiative, lose the referendum, they will go home and think of something else, or wait until the public mood changes and repeat the process; they know, and all other Swiss know, the decision has been a democratic decision by the people, not by a minuscule group of elected politicians.

The credibility of a decision made directly by the people is much stronger than the credibility of a decision made by politicians behind closed doors, with lobbyists, with the media owners pushing them this or that way.

The issue then for the people of representative democracies is: “why do the Swiss people have so much power to act, to propose, to force the politicians to do what the majority of the people really want, and we do not have that power?”

It is because the people of representative democracies grumble, complain, about “the politicians”, about”big business”, “big labour”, etc., but do not act. What they have to do is demand direct democracy now, as good or better a direct democracy than what the Swiss have.

Besides improving democracy, direct democracy has other benefit; it frees politicians from the clutches of the lobbies. As the politicians in a direct democracy have less power, the lobbies know it makes no sense to donate millions to the politicians to get them elected, because the politicians simply do not have the power to act the way the lobbies want them to.

If you do not do not fix your representative democracy by bringing direct democracy, who will?, your kids? Is it not better your children inherit from you a better political system?

Besides, if we do not bring direct democracy, representative democracy will continue to deteriorate because the professional politicians and the lobbies they need to get elected are pulling democracy further from the people as time passes, and polarisation of politics and voters grows.

The result could be the death of democracy. Remember that Hitler, was the product of the failing German representative democracy in the 30s. By the way, Germany was a country already developed and highly educated, but the politicians of representative democracy, somehow, wrecked democracy and Hitler rose out of its ashes.

To save democracy, we need direct democracy, and also to help others like the Chinese from the mainland, (the Chinese from Taiwan already have are switching to direct democracy), and other authoritarian regimes, including religious authoritarian regimes, go beyond the acceptance of the value of private business to develop economically; to develop culturally, socially, spiritually, even scientifically, and to have a long-term politically stable country in the modern era, humans need direct democracy.

So, why do the Swiss people have the right and the power to decide if they will pay less taxes and business more? Perhaps the Swiss will decide the current system is fair, but the key point is they can, and the rest of us do not…

Victor Lopez

1. In another post I showed how Switzerland is, by far, the most democratic country in the World, never mind the intellectual contorsions and pirouettes of The Economist’s Intelligent Unit, placing Switzerland in 12th place, behind 11 representative democracies.

Switzerland is the most democratic country in the World because none of the other 11 even come close to Switzerland in the degree that “government by the people” takes place.

As we know, the Swiss people have far more power than the peoples of any of the other 11 countries, and than the people of any other country. The only other country that is starting to approach Switzerland is, this probably surprises you, Taiwan, but that is another story.

But the Swiss have not done away completely with representative democracy; the Swiss elect political representatives like in all representative democracies, but there is a huge difference.

In representative democracies, the party that wins the majority of seats governs alone. If no party wins a majority, it may govern in minority or in coalition with another party, so that together, they can form a majority coalition.

In such countries, the governing parties represent the majority of the population, but a small majority, normally not much more than 50-60%. This means that huge portions of the population have no representation in the executive, even if they elected substantial numbers of parliamentarians.

The Swiss do it differently; in Switzerland the executive is always a coalition of the major parties, the parties that, together, represent 80% of the population.

It is obvious the Swiss executive governs for the majority because the parties in the executive represent an overwhelming majority and because they negotiate all decisions until they satisfy those in the coalition.

One great advantage is that the system makes it impossible for any one party, or the two major parties, to unilaterally impose on the population policies that do not have the support of other important parties.

It is obvious then than the Swiss executive is the most democratic in the World.

Not only that, the system imposes a slow and deliberate process of decision making, except when an emergency dictates quick action.

If to that, we add that the Swiss executive reaches decisions by consensus, because the President does not have more power than any of the other members of the executive, even if his or her party represents more voters or more parliamentarians, then we can see how the Swiss executive makes decisions that truly represent the political goals of the major parties and of the majority of the people.

But let us not forget that in Switzerland they also have direct democracy. This means that ordinary people can, at any time, set in motion the celebration of a referendum challenging, and even turning back, any decision by the executive, and even any law produced by the legislature.

In Switzerland, a few citizens can get together and set in motion a national referendum on any issue. The government can not stop referendums and must enact the results of the referendums.

Not only that, the Swiss government can not call referendums, referendums are held when the law mandates them or when the people so decide.

But others can also set the wheels of a referendum in motion; any political party, even minority parties, and even parties with no representation in parliament, can.

In Switzerland any NGO, any union, anybody, can set in motion a referendum; the process to tell and instruct the executive and the legislative; “no, no you can not do that, you must do this”.

It is obvious then; Switzerland is the most democratic country in the World because it is a direct democracy and because it is a more representative, representative democracy.

The democracies of the Scandinavian countries, of the Anglo-Saxon countries, of Germany, of Japan, of the Netherlands and of a few others, are stable democracies but lag far behind Switzerland in democratic quality.

If you want the people of your country to really live in a democracy, you will have to move and do something to, at least, have a democracy as democratic and representative as the Swiss have. But perhaps your country could even surpass the Swiss…

The Swiss people took to the streets, peacefully but relentlessly, until the politicians, almost two centuries ago, relented and brought in direct democracy and also a more representative democracy.

Interestingly; the Swiss people also acted after the elected politicians botched the management of another pandemic; crisis can really be opportunities.

Victor Lopez

Let me make one thing perfectly clear; representative democracy, represented and represents a huge advance over the old absolute rulers and also over the new one person dictators, one party dictators or rule by religious dictators.

Those other regimes are morally illegitimate but, sadly, in many societies the majority of the population seem to lack the values that make democracy possible, even representative democracy.

Direct democracy is a huge improvement over representative democracy because it delivers a huge improvement to the freedom, and therefore the dignity, of ordinary citizens.

In a representative democracy the people are free to discuss issues and to vote (if the particular democracy is working reasonably well and has not fallen yet in the hands of an entrenched political caste and the lobbies who support them, as is the case now in the United States), but direct democracy delivers more; besides being free to discuss issues and to vote, direct democracy gives people the freedom and power to decide which are the real political issues and the power to decide them, as well as the power to prevent the elected representatives from making laws and policies that the people oppose.

Let me also say that a country only has direct democracy, and benefits substantially from it, if it practices direct democracy in all leveles of government; local, regional, state, provincial and national.

It is particularly critical that direct democracy be in place at the national level because it is the nation that must decide its destiny.

This is why in the US it does not really count for much that there is direct democracy at the state or local level only. Furthermore, the direct democracy practiced in a number of states in the US is flawed because the lobbies have too much power raising issues. Another problem is that in the US the decisions of voters in referendums are not final; the supreme courts of the states and the Supreme Court of the US, have the power to overturn the decisions of the people. To give such power to the courts makes a mockery of democracy.

But the Swiss have introduced another element that makes their country better, and it is not just direct democracy.

What the Swiss have done is extremely clever; besides the power the people have to decide issues and in this way control the government, they decided something else; they did away with the one elected person one elected party rule.

In Switzerland the major parties of the left right and center, who represent approximately 70-80% of the voters, govern in coalition. This ensures that the majority of the population is represented in the executive.

But the Swiss have gone beyond that, the Swiss realized that a team has more intellectual power and knowledge that one single individual. What they have done is set up a team of 7, representing those major parties, that is the Swiss national executive.

The governing team makes decisions as a team, and by consensus.

This system, besides ensuring better analyisis of issues, because seven heads think better than one, it also produces better decisions for the same reason.

In the Swiss system, the presidency of the national executive is a job that rotates every two years among the seven members. The person occupying the position of president does not have any more power than any of the other six members; he or she only represents the seven in foreign trips. When a foreign head of state of goverment visits Switzerland, he or she is received by the seven together.

Besides the advantages of better decisions, the system also has another huge advantage over the system of government centering the executive in one person.

For example, in Switzerland, if one of the team of seven shows bad judgement or loss of mental faculties, the effects on the discussions and decisions would not be crucial; in a way, the seven members control each of the seven.

The system also eliminates the dependance of the president on advisors appointed by him or her and subservient to him or her. Such advisors are limited in what they can tell him or her for obvious reasons.

This means that, unlike the governments of the US, Canada. UK, France, Germany, Japan, etc., it would not be critical if the head of the executive loses mental faculties or makes an error in judgement; there are another six people equal to him or her, not appointed by him or her, that can ignore or stop whatever he or she proposes.

In the US, it would not have been important the mental condition of President Reagan towards the end of his presidency, or the mental condition of President Biden now, or the character and skills of the Vicepresident who would substitute the President if the President has to resign.

Issues of character are not as important either; if a member of the Swiss executive is corrupt or shows a flawed character, such a presidents Nixon and Clinton, he or she can be removed without national trauma.

The Swiss executive system could be adopted in representative democracies, but it would not work well because in a representative democracy, the seven would have too much power. In a direct democracy, such as Switzerland, the people, if they so decide, have the power to keep in check anything the national executive does or proposes to do.

As you see, Switzerland is the best run country in the World because of direct democracy but also because of the seven member executive and their collective decision making.

Well, direct democracy is about collective decision making; we all decide the present and future of the country, not just the elected politicians, the elected aristocracy.

Decision making by teams of equals is superior to decision making by one individual. One extraordinary individual can make some great decisions but to make good, sound decisions decade after decade, a team is better.

One of the decisive strengths of Toyota over its rivals, is its decision making process; at the top, the decision is collective and by consensus, at the bottom and middle the system involves every employee in decision making on the job.

Toyota is more profitable and more stable than any other car company. In case Tesla comes to your mind; Tesla is a very innovative company but its money does not come from profits, it comes from investors who believe in the future of Tesla. But it is obvious that without Musk, Tesla is nothing, if Akio Toyoda, the president of Toyotd, dies or quits, Toyota will barely notice his departure.

This helps explain why Toyota, in its more than 80 year history, has only lost money in two years; 2008 and 2020. Toyota is not a direct democracy but shows that collective decision-making is superior to the “Great Executive with Vision” system.

I hope this helps you support, and act, to bring direct democracy to your country.

Direct democracy is about you having the power to decide the present and future of your country because it puts the politicians under the control of the voters.

Victor Lopez

In your representative “democracy”, you do not define the issues, let alone decide them, because your “democracy” is not such thing.

In representative democracies, the economic lobbies, the political lobbies, the media owned by a few (with a political and economic ax to grind), and the social lobbies, define the issues.

Such groups may be at odds with each other but they do not represent the interests of the majority of ordinary citizens because they have in mind their own interests, not the interests of the majority. Of course, they know that with “clever” argumentation and manipulation, and massive repetition, they can fool many voters into believing they defend the interests of ordinary people.

The hard truth is that none of such groups can defend the interests of ordinary people, they can not because they have in mind their particular interests, not the interests of the majority.

Big media, big business, big farm, big finance, big manufacturing, big unions, big political parties, the “opinion makers”, etc., are interested in what concerns them, not what concerns you. But they are not stupid, they know that with clever strategies, clever words and repetition, they can persuade many voters, at least for years, even decades, that the country is a real democracy.

The lobbyists who represent the interests of such groups also know they can pressure (or is it intimidate?) politicians to do what the lobbyists want.

These weak spots of representative democracy deprive most voters of control of their democracy. It does not matter if the ordinary citizen is a  progressive or a conservative, he or she never gets to decide what the issues are and, much less to decide the issues.

The end result is that as time passes, more and more citizens feel the elected politicians do not represent them, even when “their” “progressive” or “their” “conservative” party wins the election and governs.

The problem is compounded because to be elected, the politicians and their parties need lots of money to compete in elections. Ordinary voters can not donate to political campaigns, of candidates or parties, enough money to make other donations, or the influence of biased media, superfluous and unimportant.

In fact it is the other way around, the contributions of the lobbyists make the contributions of ordinary people irrelevant.

Consider also that many of those lobbyists also have the power to mobilize many people who work in their business, who belong to professional associations, unions, etc. This is also a factor that pressures politicians before, and also after getting elected, if they aspire to re-election, to yield in whole or in part to the pressure of lobbies.

If, to the above, you add that ordinary people have not the means to make the population aware and to educate the population, on other issues, you have a situation in which the majority of citizens, on the left, right and center, can not decide which are the issues, much less decide them.

This brings us to the closure of the vicious circle of representative “democracy”; because ordinary citizens do not have the means to rise and spread the awareness of issues, the voters can not vote motivated by the issues that affect the majority. Do not forget also that big written media, big radio, big TV and big Internet also have the power to silence issues, besides the power to raise the ones that interest them.

So, ordinary citizens do not decide what the issues are and can not vote on the issues; the cycle repeats at election time and between elections.

Representative “democracy” has another huge flaw; the elected politicians decide all issues, the people can not vote on issues to decide the issues.

In a direct democracy things are very different. It is very simple; in a direct democracy if approximately 0.5% to 1% of the population put their names and decide “this is an issue voters should decide”, then a referendum takes place and the voters decide, not the politicians. Of course, the executive, the legislative and the judiciary have to accept and execute the result of the referendum.

The 0.5% to 1% is a sound number because it ensures a reasonable minority of ordinary citizens back the issue. It also ensures that the number of signatures is low enough so that collecting them is feasible for a small group of ordinary citizens, a small pro-something or anti-something group, even a minuscule union, ecologist group, religious group, a minor political party with no representation in the local council, the regional, provincial, state or national parliament have, all of them have, the means to raise an issue and have ordinary voters decide the issue.

By giving the people this power, the power of lobbies, of the large parties, of opinion makers (or is it manipulátors?), of big media, etc., is kept in check.

This is what happens in a direct democracy; once the people collected the required signatures, the government has to hold a referendum and the government has to send to all potential voters an information package presenting the arguments of those who collected the signatures and also of those against them. Both sides are given equal prominence.

When this happens, the big lobbies, big media, big parties, etc., know they have to acknowledge this is the issue, that the people decide what the issues are, not them.

Furthermore, the lobbies also know ordinary voters decide the issues and, more importantly, ordinary people know they are in control; not the lobbies not the political parties.

In a direct democracy, ordinary citizens can stop existing laws or laws parliaments or councils draft, they can stop treaties, they can change the constitution of the country or the by-laws of their town, the health care system, the laws on marriage, the level or taxation…, anything.

When the people are in control, the people are made responsible of the effects of their votes and, as most people always do, when they bear the responsibility they behave responsibly.

In a direct democracy there is not complaining about the politicians or the lobbies, becapse the people have the power to keep them in check.

Direct democracy is the real check and balance democracy needs, not the fake checks and balances among the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. They are fake because they leave the people out; in reprerentative democracies, the people can not check and balance any of the three powers, or the lobbies or big media.

Direct democracy also makes democracy and society more stable. That is why Switzerland is the most stable country in the World, the one with the least polarisation also becaure it is the political parties pursuing power, and the media supporting them, who promote polarisation, in part to distract the people from the issues that affect them, but that the lobbies and politicians want to silence.

If you want real democracy you should inform yourself about direct democracy. I have no doubt you will support it.

Victor Lopez

 

Well, because in spite of all the grandiose talk about “democracy”, “the people”, etc., your country is not really a democracy.

At the core of any democracy is the constitution of the country, it only makes sense that the people should be in full control of the constitution of the country.

This means only the people, not the elected politicians, must have the authority to change the constitution.

In a real democracy, in Switerland, this is how they do it:

I reproduce an article by Politicalsciencenotes.com

“This article throws light upon the two methods of amendment of the Swiss constitution. The two methods are: 1. Process of Total Revision of the Constitution 2. Process of Partial Revision or Amendment of the Constitution.

Method # 1. Process of Total Revision of the Constitution:

A total revision of the constitution means the adoption of a new or totally revised constitution.

Total revision can be affected in any of the following three possible ways:

(i) If the Federal Parliament, by an approval of each of its two Houses, passes a new draft for a total revision of the Constitution, a referendum is held.

If the new draft gets the approval of the majority of voters as well as of the Cantons, it comes into operation. Rejection in the referendum by the voters or by the Cantons or by both, finally rejects the new draft and the old constitution continues to operate.

(ii) If one House of the Federal Parliament approves a draft for the total revision of the constitution but the other House rejects it, the issue is submitted to the people in a referendum. If the majority of the Swiss voters approve the proposal, the Federal Parliament is dissolved. Fresh elections are held.

Thereafter, a new Federal Parliament is constituted. It prepares and approves the draft of a revised (new) constitution. The same is then submitted to a referendum. If in this second referendum the new constitution is approved by both the majority of the Swiss voters as well as the Cantons, the old constitution ceases to operate and the new constitution comes into operation.

(iii) The proposal for a total revision of the constitution can also come through an Initiative. If 1,00,000 of the Swiss voters submit a proposal for a total revision of the constitution, the proposal is submitted to the people in a referendum. In case the proposal is supported by the majority of voters, the Federal Parliament then prepares a new constitution and it is put before the people in a referendum. If the new constitution is approved both by the majority of voters as well as of the Cantons, it becomes operative and replaces the old constitution.

After the successful total revision of the 1848 Constitution in 1874, three unsuccessful attempts at total revision of the constitution were made in 1880, 1935 and 1975. However, the attempt made in 1998-99 proved to be successful.

Draft of a total revision of the constitution was adopted by the Federal Parliament on 18 December 1998, it was adopted by a majority of the people and the Cantons in a referendum on 18 April, 1999, The Federal Parliament issued a decree for its enforcement on 28 September 1999 and the New Constitution (Totally revised Constitution) came into operation w. e .f. 1 January 2000.

Method # 2. Process of Partial Revision or Amendment of the Constitution:

A Partial Revision or an amendment of the Constitution can be initiated and adopted in two ways:

(1) A proposal for a partial revision of the constitution can be made by the two Houses of the Federal Parliament. Thereafter, the proposal is submitted to the people in a referendum. If the majority of the people as well as of the Cantons approves the proposal, the amendment gets incorporated in the Constitution.

(2) The proposal for a partial revision of the constitution can also come from the people. If 1, 00,000 of the Swiss voters submit a general proposal for a partial amendment of the constitution, the same is put before the people in a referendum. If it gets the approval of the majority of voters, the Federal Parliament drafts the amendment on the basis of the general proposal made by the people through an initiative.

This draft is then submitted to the people in a referendum. If the majority of both the Swiss voters and the Cantons approve it, the amendment gets incorporated in the constitution. However, if the initiative for a partial revision, as made by 1, 00,000 Swiss voters, is made in the form of a complete draft, the draft is discussed by the Federal Parliament.

The Federal Parliament gives its verdict either in its favour or against the proposed partial revision, in either case, the draft is submitted to the people in a referendum. If it is approved by a majority of both the people and the Cantons, the amendment gets incorporated in the constitution.

From the above account, it is clear that the process of amendment of the Swiss constitution is difficult, cumbersome and complicated. It gets completed in two stages: Proposal Stage and Approval Stage. The proposal can come either from the Federal Parliament or through a popular Initiative by 1, 00,000 Swiss voters.

At the approval stage the amendment proposal has to get the approval of the majority of both the Swiss Voters as well as of the Swiss Cantons. However in actual practice, the process has proved to be neither very rigid nor very complicated. Some eighty partial amendments were successfully incorporated in the constitution between 1874-1999.

In 1999, the Swiss Constitution was totally revised and consolidated by incorporating all the amendments made during 1874-1999 as well as by adding a bill of rights, social goals, more detailed description of the powers of the Federation and the principles governing relations between the Federation and the Cantons.

The Swiss Constitution has now 196 Articles, while before this total revision it had only 123 Articles. The maturity of the Swiss voters and the convention of working through a general consensus has softened in actual practice the rigidity of the formal process of amendment of the Constitution.

The most salient feature that makes the amendment process very distinctive the fact is that no amendment, total or partial, can be made in the constitution without the approval of the majority of the people as well as of the Cantons. A Canton is deemed to have approved the amendment if the majority of the people of that Canton approves the amendment.

In other words, popular sovereignty is really in operation in the sphere of the amendment- making process of the Swiss Constitution.”

So, there you have it; in Switzerland the people are boss, the politicians can propose only.

If in your country the politicians propose and decide your country is not a democracy, it is an elected aristocracy. Sure you decide who governs and you have freedom to speak, but those who govern decide everything and you do not have the freedom to decide issues. It is far better than a dictatorship, but it is not a democracy, no matter how many times the media, the politicians, the lobbies and the “opinion makers” (what a term!), say daily.

You can change things and make your country a democracy, at least as good, if not better, than Switzerland. But you have to do more than just complain about the politicians, or not going to vote.

Victor Lopez

First of all, do not take at face value what anyone says about direct democracy; those who are against it do so out of ignorance, or because they have an ax to grind. Those of us who are for it are entitled to our opiniong but you have to decide for yourself; to do that you have to inform yourself about direct democracy, nobody else can doeit for you.

Do not oppose or support direct democracy if you do not know what it is.

Direct democracy, in a nutshell, means that if 1% of voters decide that an issue is an issue of concern to them, and sign to have the issue decided by all voters of the village, town, city, province, region, state or nation, then a referendum has to be held to decide the issue and the results of the referendum have to be fulfilled by government.

Direct democracy does not need to mean voters decide everything, direct democracy means the voters decide anything 1% of voters decide that all voters should decide.

Depending on the nature of the issue, the voters of the village will decide, the whole nation will decide, or any in-between jurisdiction wilh decide.

The “1%”, refers to 1% of the population of the jurisdiction; in a village of 300, 3 people will be enough to call a referendum of village voters to decide if they need a traffic light. At the other end, 1% of voters means 300 000 people in a country of 30 million people, will decide that a national referendum has to take place in the nation to decide if the nation will have a universal, fully taxpayer funded, health system, for example.

Direct democracy also means the people can force a referendum on any law or regulation, from municipal by-laws to national laws.

Direct democracy also means that the people can force a referendum on any decision by the major and the council of a town or a city, and also on any decision by the national government or the national legislators.

Likewise on any policy decision or treaty.

Direct democracy means that the politicians still legislate and make policy decisions but that anything the elected politicians do, or want to do, can be challenged by a few people and put to a referendum before all voters.

Before the referendum, the politicians present their arguments, and the 1% of citizens who triggered the referendum also present theirs; then, the people, democratically, decide if what the politicians want goes ahead or is overturned or stopped.

Direct democracy also means the voters can decide if the town or village should build a new school or a new health care facility, or a new road or a new sports facility, etc.

Direct democracy means the votes of the town can decide if the illegal parking fines should be increased or reduced.

Direct democracy means votes can decide the zoning regulations of the village, town or city.

Direct democracy means voters can decide if a new gas station is needed in the village.

Direct democracy means that voters can decide if the country should go to war, or have a health care system that covers everyone the same, no matter how much money they have, or if they have a job or are unemployed, or a good job with a great company or a bad job with a bad company.

Direct democracy means voters can decide if the armed forces need to be bigger or have this or that expensive weapons system.

Direct democracy means voters can decide if universities should be 100%, 50% or 0 %, financed by the taxpayers and also if tuitions should be zero or tens of thousands of dollars, or one thousand dollars.

Direct democracy also means voters can decide if the country needs more immigrants, no immigrants or millions of them.

Direct democracy means voters can decide how strict or lax should border controls be enforced.

Direct democracy means voters can decide if the death penalty is right or wrong.

Direct democracy means voters can decide what education system the town, the city, the province, the region, the state or the nation will have.

Direct democracy means the voters can decide if the country will aspire to host the Olympic Games or the World Cup, or whatever.

Direct democracy means the politicians can not not decide anything against the will of the majority if a minority of 1% sign up to hold a referendum, and if in the referendum the voters decide against the politicians. It does not matter if it is the executive or the legislative, or both; neither branch can prevail over the will of the people. Not even the Supreme Court can judge the political decisions by the people. In a direct democracy, the results of referendums can not be declared inconstitutional, or is it “unconstitutional” ?, by the highest court in the land, no matter how experienced, how many degrees they have, or how wise the judges are.

Direct democracy also means that ordinary citizens, even those without political representation, or who do not belong to a party, a labour union, a bussiness association or a professional association, can get together and set up a working group to collect the required 1% of signatures to propose to all citizens a new law, a new policy, changes to the by-laws of a town, as well as changes to national laws and also to the constitution of the country.

Direct democracy means, for example, that a group of ecologists can force a referendum on banning chemical pesticides, or on any other issue.

Direct democracy means that hunters can force a referendum on any hunting law that affects them.

Direct democracy means that the people could force, for example, that in the US a national vote be held on universal health care. In Canada, direct democracy could determine, for example, that the number of family doctors must be increased until all Canadians have a family doctor. In the UK a new referendum could decide to rejoin the EU, etc.

But for all of this to happen, we the people, will have to write to the politicians, create groups to bring direct democracy, demonstrate, and never give up until the politicians accept the “mother of all referendums”; a referendum on direct democracy.

Local, regional and national politicians have to be pressured until they yield.

That is exactly what the people of Switzerland did. Switzerland is, by far, the most democratic country in the word, never mind the wrong democracy rankings by the UK magazine, The Economist. Switzerland is the also the best, most stable country in the World, and it is because of direct democracy.

By the way, those who oppose direct democracy are not democrats, even if their intention is to be. They are not because democracy means “government by the people”, it does not mean “government by those elected by people”, no matter how big a majority they won in the election.

Direct democracy means that between elections, the people also vote on issues of their choosing.

Direct democracy also forces politicians to listen to the people always, no just at election time. Direct democracy also forces cooperative govenrment on politicians and drastically reduces polarisation; that is why in Switzerland, the major parties, representing 70-80% of voters govern in coalition, always.

So, do not complain about the elected politicians “not doing this or doing that”, do something yourself to bring direct democracy to your village, town, city, state, province or nation.

Victor Lopez

Direct democracy will happen for one simple but powerful reason; it elevates the dignity of people. Just like representative democracy elevated the dignity of people by giving the people the power to elect their representatives, direct democracy elevates the dignity of people by giving people the power to decide laws, issues, policies, even the constitution, in addition to continue electing representatives.

Direct democracy, for the first time since Ancient Greek Democracy, gives ordinary citizens the power to truly run their affairs. Direct democracy gives voters more power than the politicians.

I do not mention non-democratic regimes because in terms of the development of human dignity, they are in the sociopolitical stone age. All those societies where one person, one party, one religion, rules are intrinsically inhumane regimes. Unfortunately, too many societies are unwilling or unable to have political freedom and find themselves ruled by various forms of authoritarian regimes. It is sad to recognize it but authoritarian regimes are better than anarchy, because anarchy is even more inhumane.

Direct democracy gives voters more power than the politicians, but it is only common sense, and fair, that it do so; the people pay the salaries of the politicians; the people pay everything the politicians do; highways, airports, research, hospital, schools, the military and on and on. The people also elect the politicians.

It makes no sense that the people not have the power to tell politicians: “we decided by popular vote you can not build that highway, you have to reduce the budget for space exploration, or for the military, but increase the budget to fight disease”. “We also want the right to decide just the opposite” (Although I believe that only in very special circumstances most of the people will vote for less cancer research and for more weapons).

Regardless of what the people decide, they must have the right to prevail over the politicians because the people pay and it is their lives; the people use the road or the airport; the people die because of cancer and so on.

Anyone who becomes interested in direct democracy, and has no ax to grind because he or she is not a politician, a lobbyist, an academic or media elitist, etc., soon sees that direct democracy is the only democracy that makes sense.

The hard hidden truth is that the Greek invented direct democracy. They did not call it like that because to them, and to anyone who takes the trouble to study it, the only democracy is direct democracy.

Representative democracy, participatory democracy.deliberative and any other   xxxx-democracy are just verbal shenanigans. Direct democracy is participative and deliberative like no other form or government can be. The reason is simple, in a direct democracy the people participate because they decide, there is no higher form of participation.

Direct democracy is deliberative because direct democracy makes the people directly responsible for what happens in the country, they no longer can blame the politicians. When people are responsible for the consequences of their votes, they deliberate as long as necessary before they vote. They do not vote impulsevily, they do not listen to demagogues either, or because they like this or that charismatic politician.

Democracy also means “rule by the people”, not “rule by those elected by the people”. If those elected by the people rule, we do not have a democracy, we have an aristocracy of the elected (and of the lobbies close to them who help get them elected).

It is “rule by the people” if the people directly rule or if the people have direct control of those elected, at any time between elections, on any issue the majority of the people decide the elected politicians must do this or can not do that.

In the 1700s some Western societies decided they had enough of rule by the king. The Americans got rid of the power of the English King with their War of Independence, the French by overthrowing and killing their king and many of the ruling elite.

The English themselves, even earlier, got rid of the absolute power of the king. Some countries, like the cantons that created Switzerland, started even earlier to stop “rule from above”.

Really, the only question is when and how direct democracy, or Swiss-style semi-direct democracy, will become the political system in the representative democracies of the West, in Japan, in South Korea, in Taiwan (the Taiwanese already started), in India, etc.

The Swiss did the transition from representative democracy to direct democracy peacefully. Interestingly, they did it because of another pandemic. The people of the city of Zurich decided they had enough, that since the authorities botched the fight against that pandemic, from then on the people, directly will be the final authority on laws, policies, treaties and the constitution; not the politicians, not even the Supreme Court. From Zurich it spread to all of Switzerland.

From Switzerland, it is spreading around; why do you think the European Union is now talking about “popular initiatives” ? (although with not much teeth in them yet), because the trend is inevitable; the people are no longer satisfied with voting to elect, they also want voting to decide issues.

Many reasonable people also believe current governments have botched the fight against the virus; perhaps they will also say: “enough!”, and the US, the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, etc., will evolve into direct democracies.

In a Swiss-style direct democracy the elected politicians are the administrators of the will of the people; there are no hot air, grandiose, statements about “the people we are”, “the vision for justice”, “the fight for equality” and other vague and demagogic postures.

In a direct democracy, the voters decide: “do we want to increase taxes?”, “should we increase the minimum wage?”, “do we want a minimum wage?”, “should we have more women in politics?”, “should we have more medical doctors?”, “should the army have more jets”, “should we sign a treaty with x country?”, “should we have universal health care covering absolutely everybody?”, “should we increase the budget for hospitals so that waiting times for elective surgery drop from months to weeks”, “should that law be stopped?, “should we modify the constitution?”, “should we send soldiers to this or that place?”, and on and on.

Direct democracy will come, it is absolutely inevitable. If it does not happen peacefully, it will happen violently. I believe than in most representative democracies, once the politicians see the people are determined to have direct democracy, the politicians will yield.

All arguments against direct democracy are just dialectic pirouettes, and smoke and mirrors exercises to delay the inevitable. Direct democracy is “rule by the people”, representative democracy is not, that is why it will die out.

Please, believe nothing I say; inform yourself about direct democracy. Do not listen to anyone that attacks or defends direct democracy; go and find out all you can. I know you will reach the obvious conclusion: “when I look at the facts, direct democracy is the way to go”.

How much longer should we wait? Do we have to wait until people explode because of the elitist behaviour of elected politicians, or because of the ways various lobbies practically have hijacked democracy, or fed up with the decisions politicians make against the will and interest of most citizens.

Direct democracy transcends partisan politics, it is not about “Right” or “Left”, “progressive” or “conservative” because it is about issues, not a about this or that “political doctrine”, or is it “political theology?

Victor Lopez

When I speak to people about politicians in representative democracies, most people on the Right, Left and Center, young and old, men an women, say they are tired of politicians and political parties.

They say they are tired of the way they spend the taxes they pay, of the level of taxation not reflected in services, of the state of education, of health care, of pensions, of involving the country in foreign wars, of election promises not kept, of doing things they never talked about during the election campaign, of how lobbies for business, unions and other groups get their way at the expense of the will of the majority. of the privileges politicians enjoy, on how the elected politicians, instead of serving the people, serve themselves and the lobbies, of how elected politicians claim to have the “leadership” and “vision” to lead the country but things do not improve, etc.

I could go on but, it is obvious there are many problems of lack of representation of the will of the majority in representative democracies.

Then I tell those people that there is another system, the system of direct democracy that gives the people the means, the authority, to make sure elected politicians do not go astray with their “vision”, or the “vision” of the lobbies and other non-elected people.

Not only that. I tell them that if the country becomes a direct democracy, the citizens will have the power to introduce legislation and to change the constitution.

At this point, many of those unhappy people start to get cold feet. They tell me things like; “we pay the politicians to make decisions”. My answer: “you just told me you are not happy with their decisions, how are their decisions going to change if our reaction is just to say we are not happpy”.

Otlers respond; “well, if the party I vote for was in power things would be better”. I say: “but both parties have been in power and we are were we are, somehow, neither party seems able to govern for the majority, that is why they get voted out regularly”

“Alternancy in power is much better than one party always in power, and ligh-years better than any totalitarian regime controlled by one party, one religion or one person, but what would you say if instead of alternancy, the parties that represent 70-80% of voters governed in coalition AND if the voters have the power to stop them, right then and there. when they pass a law or adopt a policy the majority of the people do not agree with?”

At this point, most people choose habit over progress. It is a normal reaction; unless people are desperate, they are reluctant to ditch representative democracy and go for direct democracy, for the unproven unknown (to them).

I speak to them about Swiss democracy and its combination of representative and direct democracy.

At this point, the people who live in large countries say things like: “Switzerland is much smaller”. If their country is more or less like Switzerland in size, they may say: “our culture is very different”.

Others say; “such system could become the tiranny of the majority”. I tell them, in Swtizerland they have four founding cultures; the minority cultures in Switzerland have more power and rights than minorities have in any other country”.

As you guess, practically nobody among those unhappy with politicians and parties says to me: “you know, the Swiss system is interesting, how can I learn more about it ?”.

It is logical that very few react that way; bringing to people the power of direct democracy is a huge change, even if in most representative democracies it can happen without violence, like the Swiss did.

Reluctancy to change is logical, it is prudent, it is intelligent. The trick is: how to bring change without scaring people and without making things worse.

This is why all those who are convinced direct democracy is the next logical advance for democracy, have to sort in their minds this question: “Do I want to prove to others I am right, or do I want to help them persuade themselves direct democracy is the way to go?”

If your emphasis is on showing you are right, then direct democracy is light-years away for obviuous reasons.

I am convinced that when the first human decided to put meat over the fire, cooked it and ate it, and said to himself or hersel#: “this is much better than raw”, and then told others, many reacted with expressions like: “we neved did it like that”, “it may make you sick”, “raw meat is the natural way to eat it”, “no other animal cooks meat”, etc.

I hope you will accept that the evidence to eat meat cooked is far clearer than the eveidence in support of direct democracy.

So, let us work hard to show others the facts about direct democracy, and let them decide what they want. I have no doubt that as people know more about direct or semi-direct, Swiss-style democracy, they will reach a point when most will DEMAND direct democracy, and direct democracy will happen.

Victor Lopez