Author: victor

Representative democracy was really about for dignity; the Americans tired of the English king; the French tired of their king. Earlier, the English started to tire of the absolute power of the king years ago, when the English barons told the king: enough, from now on your power is not absolute! From then onwards, the English-speaking peoples developed their representative democracies.

The French were more drastic, but in the end, it was about the same issue; that the people should decide who rules.

In fact, the French Revolution, at first went further, it tried to establish the democracy of Ancient Greece, with direct rule by the people, direct democracy.

Unfortunately, perhaps because of centuries of Christianity, which promotes the idea of special, chosen people, seems most people had difficulty in France accepting that all citizens should have equal rights, that no citizens should have more rights than the rest. This is why at first the French Revolution tried to have the people themselves directly make all important decisions.

Unfortunately, some of the leaders of the French Revolution, like Robespierre, did not believe the people were capable (intelligent enough) to decide issues. Robespierre et al. did not like the absolute power of the “divine” king, but they did not like the power of the people either.

The leaders of the French Revolution sort of accepted that the people should elect the rulers, but the rise of `”imperial people”, like Napoleon, shows the French Revolution, in fact, fell behind the English in governance. To this day, the history of France and England-Britain, shows the Anglo-Saxons have done a better job at governing.

Representative democracy was a vast improvement over the absolute power of kings and emperors, but it fell short to improve the dignity and rights of people. It happened because representative democracy does not allow people to decide issues; the people can elect the representative, who are the ones actually making the decisions, but the people can not with their vote decide any issue, nor can they prevail over the will of the elected representatives.

The result has been a progressive encroachment of the elected elites, and the lobbies that support them. In practically all representative democracies the power and money of the elites has increased, at the expense of the power of the people.

The en result is a gradual, but steady, deterioration of democracy in all representative democracies; even in the better functioning ones, more and more people are becoming disenchanted with elected politicians.

The disenchantment does not happen because there has been a long streak of poor politicians, it happens because the system of direct democracy puts too much executive and legislative power in the hands of the elected and those close to them, and they end up taking advantage of that.

This is why we need direct democracy, and fast, because when representative democracy deteriorates and reaches the crisis point, what comes out of the collapse of representative democracy is usually not direct democracy, it is a totalitarian regime. This probably happens because the collapse of representative democracy discredits the word “democracy”.

Hitler came out of the collapse of representative democracy. The same happened in the 30s in Italy, Spain, and also in Cuba, Venezuale and other places.

This means that to eradicate the risk of totalitarian regimes of the Right or the Left, one party rule or one religion rule, representative democracies need to transition to direct democracy.

Representative democracy was about the people deciding who rules, direct democracy is about the will of the people prevailing over the will of the executive and the legislative on issues, policies, laws and the contents of the constitution. It is also about the highest court of the land being barred from deciding if what the people decided is constitutional; there is no higher authority than the people.

Some fear “the dictatorship of the majority”; their predecessors, who also lacked trust in the people, did not like representative democracy either.

Direct democracy is another step forward in the rights and power of ordinary people.

It is time for the Americans, the French, the British, the Scandinavians, the Japanese, etc., to take the next step to increase the dignity and power of the people. To do that, what they have to do is what the Swiss did in 1867; they introduced direct democracy. You can read all you want about it if in Internet you enter “history of Swiss democracy”.

In a Swiss-style direct democracy, the people will still elect politicians, but when the people want to, the people also decide issues, the contents of the constitution, laws and regulations, treaties, taxes, etc.

When the people decide to do something, nobody can stop them; if the majority of citizens demand direct democracy, direct democracy will come to the US and everywhere else, and the quality of governance will improve, as Switzerland has been showing for almost 200 years.

If you want direct democracy, demand it, just like the Swiss did, and do not let up until you ge it.

Victor Lopez

I hear people say that in the US and a few other representative democracies, they also have direct democracy, that is not possible. Below I reason why.

In the United States a number of states have some measure of direct democracy, from 8 to 27, depending on what you consider direct democracy.

Direct democracy is when the people decide issues.

Sometimes they decide that a new law should be enacted or an amendment added to the constitution, other times they decide a law enacted by the legislature should go to referendum.

Some analysts want to pass as direct democracy actions that are not direct democracy at all.

For example, in some US states the people can send to the legislature a people’s initiative but the legislature decides if it will be enacted or not.

Clearly that is not direct democracy at at all, such initiatives are not worth the effort and paper they are written on. They are little more than the freedom to petition. It is not direct democracy. Those who consider it direct democracy are ignorant or dishonest.

Same goes for the referendums that the legislators or the executive initiate. It is not direct democracy because the politicians decide when and about what the referendum will be.

Direct democracy happens only when the people initiate the initiative and when the executive and the legislature must comply with the results of the popular vote on the initiative, if the initiative is approved by the people and by simple majority.

Direct democracy also happens only if the people initiate the referendum and if the results of the referendum are mandatory for the executive and the legislative if the popular proposal passes.

For example, the Brexit referendum was not direct democracy at all, although it was more democratic than the usual practice of governments in representative democracies, to decide, event the most serious issues, like go to war, change the constitution or change taxes, and everything else, without the people voting on the issue.

It is not direct democracy either, if its exercise is so difficult that people are discouraged because it takes too much money or effort. This happens if the number of signatures is too high, the time span too short or if, as it happens in the US, moneyed lobbies of the left or the right take over the process, effectively making it impossible for ordinary citizens to launch an initiative or a referendum.

Another factor that kills direct democracy is if the courts can overturn the results of popular referendums and initiatives because “they are not compatible with the constitution” of the state or of the US. In a direct democracy only another popular vote can overturn the results of a popular vote. The courts can only intervene if there is fraud or other illegalities in the process.

Besides these flaws at the state level, in the US does not have direct democracy because the most important level of government in the US, the Federal Government, is not subject to direct democracy at all.

Direct democracy is like pregnancy; you have it at all levels or you do not have it; if the people do not have the last you do not have it either.

Like pregnancy also, direct democracy must be obvious, relatively easy to exercise, pleasurable and pleasant, at least until the result is known…

So, let us reject the shenanigans about fake direct democracy, as well as “deliberative” or “participatory” democracy.

There is only one democracy, direct democracy; when the people govern.

At the very least we must have Swiss-style representative-direct democracy. This means we still have political parties and elected politicians, but there are important additional provisions:

1. The people initiate the initiatives and referendums.

2. The executive and the legislative must comply with the results of votes.

2. The executive and the legislature can not initiate initiatives and referendums.

3. The judges can not overturn popular votes for reasons of “inconstitutionality” because the people make the constitutions as they go. Like a famous Spanish song says: “people make the trail as they walk”, there is no trail before people walk.

4. Collecting signatures, and the time required to collect them. is such that ordinary citizens can have organize and have initiatives and referendums voted on, several times per year.

Victor Lopez

Sooner or later, the Cuban regime will die; it may die relatively peacefully, like the Soviet, Maoist and Pinochet regime (although Pinochet’s was barely a dictatorship compared to the other two regimes), or it may die violently like the Communist Regime died in Rumania.

But it is obvious the Cuban regime is not going anywhere because it does not deliver neither “butter” nor freedom. If it at least delivered “butter”, like the current politically Communist but economically Capitalist regime in China, the Cuban regime could last longer, although once people have enough “butter”, they also want dignity and respect, which is what democracy is about.

When the Cuban regime dies, the Cuban people should not make the mistake of going for representative democracy because representative democracy, while it is a great advance over absolute kings, personal dictatorships, party dictatorships or religious dictatorships, it carries within a  fatal flaw that ends up weakening and destroying democracy.

The fatal flaw is that direct democracy gives elected politicians too much power. It gives them so much power that representative democracies are not really democracies.

“Democracy” means “government by the people”, not less. The famous expression by US President Lincoln: “government of the people, by the people, for the people” is superfluous, unnecessary; if it really is “government by the people” it needs nothing else.

If the people really govern, what else can government be but “by the people, for the people”?

The problem, the root and rotting problem with representative democracy is that the people vote but do not decide anything beyond electing the politicians. It is the politicians who decide everything.

This happens to such an extent that in all representative democracies, including the better ones like those of Scandinavia, the political parties and the politicians hold practically all the executive power.

The politicians, regardless of political orientation, as a group, have monopoly power to make laws, regulations, policies and appointments to the major institutions of the country, the people of representative democracies have zero executive power.

In the better functioning representative democracies, the politicians, by cultural and traditional reasons, usually decide to involve various groups in the formulation of laws and policies, and also foster public participation in those processes.

That is good, but the system of representative democracy does not really require such consultation; we see how even in Scandinavia the separation between the politicians and the people is growing.

There is only stable, steady, real democracy, when the people have the right, the effective power to make, and do make, all major political, social and economic decisions. Of course, the people also have the power to decide what issues are of major importance.

The Ancient Greeks did not invent representative democracy, they invented democracy, direct democracy. In Ancient Greece, the politicians did not exist, neither did they have political parties or political “leaders with vision” (or similar hogwash), the people decided everything.

Representative democracy is a verbal pirouette performed by some elitist leaders of the French Revolution to continue the elite system they had been raised into and could not resist.

For those who will say; “but the Greeks did not allow women and slaves to vote”, I will say, that happened 2800 years ago, if Greek democracy and freedom of discussion had continued, no doubt the Greeks would have concluded women should be able to vote and slavery abolished, and much sooner than we have.

What came after Greek democracy, and even the weaker Roman democracy; Judeo-Christianity and Islam, did not do much for women and slaves, and everybody else (nobody could vote). Only when Europe reconnected with the Ancient Greek ideas did the World start to move again, very slowly.

So, the Greek people decided the issues that concerned them, not the politicians. As a result they had no politicians or political parties.

At the very least, once Cubans get rid of the current regime, they should go for direct democracy Swiss-style.

Because Cubans will have the unique opportunity of breaking with the past, they should go for direct democracy, not representative democracy.

As Cubans can see, representative democracies are in not very good political and social shape. The Cubans should look at Switzerland’s semi-direct democracy, and Taiwan’s too.

Switzerland is the only experienced modern society practising direct democracy, Taiwan is a recent adopter. But Taiwan has the important merit of having transitioned from dictatoship to representative democracy to semi-direct democracy. This means the Taiwanese come from a situation more similar to Cuba’s than Switzerland.

The Cubans should seek expertise from Switzerland and Taiwan, and stay clear of the US, of Harvard, of US “experts” in democrcy as far as possible. It does not matter if the US “experts” come from the right or the left, they are all elitists who believe the people are not fit to practise direct democracy; Trump, Clinton, Bush, Biden, etc., are all the same on this; they believe in “leadership”, in leaders with “vision”. They believe the people may be smart enough to elect them; the people with the “special qualities” (watered down versions of prophets), but they also believe the people are not smart enough to decide if they want to pay higher or lower taxes, to have better or worse public services, or to build a road or a school, or if they should have universal health system (the Swiss do and is best in the World), or go to war, or have a larger or smaller army, etc.; the Swiss do all that.

Perhaps you know that in California and many other US states, they have direct democracy at the state level, unfortunately it does not work as well as in Switzerland, probably because in the US there is no direct democracy at the national level. The US Federal Government is, by far, the most powerful level of government in the US. Logically, US national politicians are not interested in direct democracy and the US people have no institutional means to force them to bring direct democracy to the nation.

Almost two centuries ago Swiss politicians did not want direct democracy either, but the Swiss, during another pandemic, took a break from making chocolate, watches and tending to the cows, and forced Swiss politicians to accept direct democracy. They have not looked back.

The US also needs direct democracy but things are not bad enough yet in the US for the majority of people to demand it.

So, I hope Cubans opt for direct democracy and become the third leg of direct democracy in the World.

Victor Lopez

No matter how many pirouettes EU politicians and Swiss politicians perform in Brussel’s “circus”, there is no way to square the circle; a direct democracy differs greatly from the collection of representative democracies who created the EU to prevent another war between the Germans and the French.

The Germans and the French created the European Union because the French are scared of the Germans, and the Germans are scared of themselves. I do not know if the French should fear the Germans or if the Germans should fear themselves, but the reality is that the EU was created to prevent another war. The motive is noble, the means, the EU, has clay feet because it does not come from the people.

The EU was not created by the German and the French people by referendum, it was created by the politicians. This does not mean it was a bad idea, but it is an idea that has become reality without the people voting and approving it.

The EU is another example of the fundamental weakness of representative democracy; the elected politicians can change the destiny of the nation without the explicit backing and approval of the people they “represent”.

If elected politicians really felt they represent the people, they would do nothing, of the magnitude of creating the EU, without the explicit backing of the peoples of Europe. But they did it because the culture of representative democracy rests on the idea that “the people are fine to elect their representatives, but the representatives are better qualified than the people to decide what is good for the people, after all, the elected representatives have more formal education than the average voter, political parties and political leaders have deep knowledge of the country and of what is good for the country, they have teams of experts that assist them, etc.”

On the surface, all that may seem to make sense, but it is wrong; the ability to decide what is good for a country has little to do with formal education, it is common sense. Common sense is the most important form of intelligence because it is the intelligence that considers the innumerable factors at play in the functioning of the country. Formal education is useful but common sense if far more important.

This is why the late W F Buckley said: “I would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the telephone directory than by the Harvard University faculty.”

A properly run direct, or semi direct, democracy, such as Switzerland, has been showing for almost 2 centuries, in some ways even more, that direct democracy provides the best governance. No representative democracy in the World is better governed than Switzerland.

Just in case someone misinterprets what I say about governance; non-democracies of any stripe; personal dictatorships, party dictatorships, religious dictatorships, are intrinsically inhuman governments that should not exist, but the people of those countries will have to fix that, just like the English, the Americans, the French and others got rid of absolute rulers.

Switzerland is governed better than representative democracies because, with direct democracy, the Swiss government can not stray from what the people want, and also because direct democracy benefits from the collective intelligence and common sense of the Swiss people. Direct democracy forces Swiss citizens to think hard about issues, because they decide them. This makes them directly responsible for the fate of the country.

The Swiss can not say; “roads are bad because the politicians spend the money in weapons”, “education is bad because the unions do this or that”, “taxes are too high (or two low) because of the politicians”, the country is polarized because of the politicians”, the government overspends because of the politicians”, “we went to war in x place because of the politicians”, etc., etc.

The hard truth is that Swiss voters are responsible for all of that,and more.

Swiss voters are adults who decide if this or that agreement with the EU is good for the country. The voters of EU countries do not decide anything, their politicians treat them as the means to reach power, not really to represent them.

In the EU, authorities are used to “dirigisme”; “us, the elites know what is good for the people better than the people who elect us”; they don not say so openly, but their actions show what they believe.

While the British, or the English, do not have direct democracy, the British people and the elected politicians are somewhat more aware than the peoples of other EU countries, that the people, not the elites decide the destiny of the country just like that. British politicians, also know, better than the politicians of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., that they represent the people of their riding, and must vote in tune with the people. It is not as good as direct democracy but is what made David Cameron decide the people had to decide EU membership in the terms the EU wanted.

Brexit is the decision of the British people, that is what democracy is about. Unfortunately for the British, it is up to the government to decide what issue to put to referendum.

In the UK, some also said that because the Parliament is “sovereign”, it could ignore the results of the referendum. What sort of democracy is one where the politicians do not have to do what the people explicitly voted and decided the politicians must do.

In Switzerland it is not like that at all; the citizens themselves decide what issues should go to referendum, and government must implement the results of referendums.

The current low in relations between Switzerland and the EU is the result of the inevitable clash between a country where government has no choice but do what the people want it to do, and the countries, and the EU itself, where politicians can do anything they want, as long as they have a majority government of get the approval of the majority of politicians.

The hard truth is that EU politicians, except at election time, they can do anything without approval of the people, Swiss politicians can not do that.

Brussels, the EU and its members do not want the Swiss to make decisions the EU does not like.

While EU governments submit to EU politicians, because they are all in the same “representative democracy wavelength”, Swiss politicians can not do that, even if they wanted to. The reason is obvious; Swiss politicians are directly controlled by Swiss voters through people started and people-decided referendums.

For example, if the Swiss decide they want to control how many people enter the country, the EU says; “no, this is how what you have to accept”. Things like that are causing friction between the EU and the Swiss people.

It is inevitable; either the Swiss abandon direct democracy, or the EU abandons representative democracy, and introduces direct democracy.

Direct democracy has growing acceptance among the peoples of the EU; this is why the EU has accepted the idea of “people initiatives” by the people, but such initiatives have no teeth.

The EU needs binding, people-initiated referendums, but in Brussels  they still believe “we know better than the people what is good for them”; it totally undemocratic.

But the idea of this fake democracy is so rooted that countries like Norway, Denmark, UK and others, where the people do not have the power to decide key issues, are ranked by an organisation, that I will not name, but that you will easily identify, as better democracies than Switzerland; it is a sad joke.

Not only the lack of direct democracy in the EU is a problem for Switzerland; the EU will break up if it continues as out of tune with the people as it shows daily.

Victor Lopez

The key difference between direct democracy and representative democracy is this: in a representative democracy people vote to elect their representatives, in direct democracy, voters elect their representatives and also vote to decide issues.

In a direct democracy, the people also decide which issue, law, regulation, policy, change the constitution, etc., they want to decide.

In direct democracy the results of the referendum on any issue can not be challenged, ignored or overturned by the executive, the legislative or the Supreme Court. In a direct democracy, the results of referendums must be implemented by government.

The only established direct or, better, semi-direct democracy we have is Switzerland.

This is what the Swiss can do that you and the people in your representative democracy can not do:

The Swiss vote 4 times each year to decide issues. They vote on issues and laws at the federal level, the canton (state) level and also at the commune (municipality) level.

The referendums are initiated by the citizens or mandated by law, and the politicians can not deny, stop or overturn a referendum in any way, nor can the Swiss Supreme Court.

To trigger a referendum, all the people have to do is collect approximately 0.5% of 1% of signatures of eligible voters, but some somewhat higher figures are also possible. The proponents of referendums have plenty of time to collect the required signatures.

In Switezrland it is easy for the people to trigger a referendum. In other countries with some form of direct democracy, it is not so easy to get a referendum under way, often because the number of signatures required is too high and/or the time allowed is too short.

Once the required number of signatures has been collected in the required time, Swiss governments prepare a package they send to to each voter.

The package contains the position of the proponents of the referendum, the position of goverments and the position of other relevant parties, such as political parties, environmental organisations, etc.

What the Economist has done is like polling people on food; they can tell you they like best their food, but does does not mean theirs is the best food; to establish that you need to dig deeper, you need some facts.

I do not know about Norway but kings in other democracies often have to profess a particular religion.

Where does this question come from? I do not know of any stable reprerentative democracy in Europe or anywhere else who uses torture.

That the US used torture on some murderous fanatics to know if others were about to murder, is clearly exceptional and justified in the eyes of many responsible citizens, but others disagree.

The right to vote is a human right; the right to vote to decide issues is another human right.

Victor Lopez.

Proportional representation gives political voice in parliament to groups that in “first-past the post” system, are not represented.

The reason is that in proportional representation, in national elections and other elections, minor parties can get candidates elected. This happens because even a few votes in each electoral district can, when added together, reach the number needed to have a representative in parliament.

In first past the post systems, that is not possible because each local political district elects one representative, and only one. All other votes in the district do not count.

For example, a party may finish second in all districts, but only the party who wins the district will have a representative elected.

Defenders of first past the post system say that it favours majority government, and by one party. They believe majority governments can accomplish more because they have the votes to pass the legislation and policies they want.

I do not believe that is good. First past the post allows the winning party to do things that are very controversial because they have a parliamentarian majority. By controversial, I mean that large numbers of citizens may oppose what the government does, it does not matter. Even worse, a majority government can do things that even its own electorate opposes. How can that be democractic?

Not surprisingly, first past the post and majority governments alienate many citizens.

In spite of its flaws, the system has worked reasonably well in the UK, Canada and other “Anglo-Saxon” countries. But I do not believe it is because the system is good. I believe it is because, for whatever reason, the “Anglo-Saxons” have shown, for the past several centuries, unusual political intelligence, unusual political common sense, regardless of what the formal system says.

You can see that clearly in the UK.

In the UK, not only do they have a first past the post system, they also have no formal separation between church and state; the Queen of England is also the Head of the Church of England. That is not very democratic, formally, yet the British people have had more political stability and better democracy than countries with a system formally more democratic; France comes to mind, as well as Germany, Italy, Spain, etc.

What this means is that it is much better to have a population with political intelligence and a system which formally has deep flaws, than a formally superior system where the people, the elites, whatever, show less political common sense.

The UK, with no proportional representation and no separation between Church and State is one of the more politically stable and more democratic countries on Earth. Unfortunately, as the British say: “you can not legislate common sense”.

Proportional representation is more democratic, but it does not solve the root problem of representative democracy; the elected politicians have too much power and the people too little. This means the government, the politicians can pass laws, regulation and adopt policies, even if 100% of the people want to stop them, they can’t, they have to wait till the next election.

Unfortunately, when the politicians can ignore the will of many people, and the people can do nothing about it, many feel democracy is not working; we do not have a democracy. Representative democracy generates alienation in many citizens who do not feel represented or listened to by the politicians, even under proportional representation.

Such pools of people are the swamps where political violence festers and explodes.

That is the key advantage of direct democracy, even in first past the post countries. In a representative democracy, as little as 1% of the voters can force a popular and binding referendum on any law or policy , even if all the elected representatives support it.

This means that ina direct democracy the people democratically decide, niot just elect politicians, they control the politicians. When citizens see that their fellow citizens have democratically decided, for example, to increase taxes, decrease taxes, institute or decrease or increase the minimum wage, increasing or reducing immigration…, anything, it is impossible for the citizens who oppose the decision taken by the majority of voters, not by the politicians, not to accept it.

Direct democracy is better democracy because in it, the people, democratically, decide any issue the people want to decide.

In a direct democracy, even a small group can force a referendum. This means that even small groups have a direct mechanism to act and know they have a say. In a direct democracy the results of popular referendums are also binding for the government; the government has to comply with the decision of the people.

So, if you want better democracy, better representation, less, or no violent demonstration, less political extremists, less polarisation, more political stability… in the US, in the UK, in Canada, in Germany, in France, in Norway… anywhere, demand direct democracy.

If you do not demand it, the politicians will never bring direct democracy because representative democracy gives them a lot more power; power  also means money, both very addictive.

Victor Lopez

Let us make a comparison; which country regulates lobbies more?; the United States or Switzerland?

The answer is, the United States. The United States has extensive legal requirements on lobbies. Th intention is to make sure lobbies do not have an excessive influence on American legislators.

In Switzerland, there is no legal control on lobbying. It is well known Swiss MPs themselves are the major lobbyists; they listen to interest groups representing business, unions, non-government organisations and, if they agree with their presentations, they defend their positions in parliament.

The Swiss system seeks consensus, this means politicians listen to all interest groups.

But Swiss politicians, and the interest groups who lobby them, also know that the power of Swiss politicians is very limited, much more limited than in the US.

This is because the Swiss system, wisely, gives the people the power to make the final decision on any law or regulation the politicians want to pass. It is truly a Sword of Damocles; the politicians, the interest groups know that if the people believe a law, a regulation, a policy approved by Swiss parliamentarians goes against the common good, the people quickly can organise a referendum. In the referendum the people to decide if they approve or reject what the politicians want to do, and the politicians must obey the decision of the people.

In Switzerland, only 1% of the voters have to sign the demand for a referendum. Once they do, the government has no choice, it must organise the referendum. The Swiss government can not organise referendums, only the people can.

It is also important to insist; the results of the referendum are binding; the government has to implement them.

This reduces lobbying in Switzerland to making sure all points of view are taken into account, so that Parliament can make a balanced decision. the balanced decision considers the interests of the lobby groups but, above all, the interests of ordinary citizens because Swiss politicians know the public will act and decide quickly, unlike the US, where voters can only get mad, scream, demonstrate, but have no direct power to reverse or stop what the politicians decide.

The US system, just like the system in all representative democracy is not democracy at all. How can it be if the people do not have the power to decide specific issues?

Keep in mind also that, because of the power of Swiss politicians is lower, in Switzerland it is not as important as in the US, who wins the election. It is not important because the people have the power to make sure that what prevails is the will of the people, not the will of the politicians or lobbies.

Unlike US politicians, Swiss politicians have much less power. In the US, once the election is over, the elected politicians have all the power to pass laws, etc., and the people can do nothing to stop them. All they can do is remember when the next election comes around. Unfortunately, the next election often is years away; voters forget, other issues come up, etc.

Because they have far less power, Swiss politicians are far less corrupt than US politicians. A UK politician, Lord Acton, said; “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The more power the politicians have, the more corrupt they are. If you are American and want less corruption, you can not do better than demand direct democracy. If you are not American and want less corruption, you have to do the same.

Switzerland could also be less corrupt if it reduces the power of politicians even more, or does away with elected politicians and parties and switches to full direct democracy, Ancient Athens style. It is hard to believe; 2800 hundred years later, nobody in the World has full direct democracy.

US politicians are more corrupt also because they need vast amounts of money to run political campaigns. To do that, they need the money of lobbies. In Switzerland, politicians are less important because they have less power and this creates less competition to get elected.

The real problem in the US and other representative democracies are not the politicians and the lobbies; the real problem is that US politicians have too much power, and the people have very little. The real root problem is not even that, it is us, the citizens, who have not woken up to direct democracy.

It is up to you to do something.

Victor Lopez

Ethereum, Bitcoin are about the removal of centralized financial decision-making, where a few decide for the many.

Direct democracy is about decentralized monetary, political, social, economic, educational, etc., decision-making.

Switzerland has been practising decentralized decision-making, with its direct democracy, for almost two centuries. And it works for the people; that is why Switzerland is the best managed country in the World, the most democratic, the most stable, the one with the most intelligent foreign policy of neutrality (the Swiss will die only to defend their country from direct attack, not in crazy wars in far-away lands), the best universal health care and many other “bests”.

It is natural Switzerland be more friendly to Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc. than the US, Canada, the UK, France, and other major representative democracies; the Swiss government, the banks, etc., are used to final decision-making, decentralized decision-making, by the people. In the other countries neither the government nor the banks are used to that, and they fear both, bitcoin and direct democracy.

Switzerland allowed the Word’s fist crypto Exchange Traded Fund (ETF), it is logical that it be so.

Representative democracies are based on centralized decision making in all areas; political, economic, social, educational. Voting is decentralized in representative democracies, power is centralized and Crypto is a threat to them.

Do not be fooled; politicians in representative democracies dislike bitcoin and the rest because it removes from them a lot of decision.making. That is why they dislike direct democracy either.

In representative democracies, politicians will, reluctantly, accept Bitcoin and the rest only if opinion polls show they will lose the next election if they do not accept it, nothing else concerns them.  Between elections, the people in representative democracies can not really control the politicians and the politicians like that very much.

Politicians in representative democracies talk a good game of “fighting for the people”, but are really interested in preserving their own power. In this way they can do what is best for the people, as the politicians see it.

For example, when Elizabeth Warren attacks crypto “because it is used for criminal activities”, is just fighting to keep the centralized decision-making power the US Congress has over the life of Americans; economic, financial and everything else. The politicians and top officials in the UK, France, Germany, etc., are much the same.

When Janet Yellen does what Warren does, it is for the same reason, protection of their power.

People like them believe, or pretend to, they are more capable than the people to make the big decisions for the country. The Swiss people prove, decade after decade, that when the people have the power to be the final decision-makers on any issue they want to decide, they make better decisions than the politicians in representative democracies; this is why Switzerland is ahead of the US and the rest in practically any area of daily life.

Warren and Yellen know the US Dollar, not Bitcoin is, by far, the preferred tool for criminal activity.

Warren and Yellen also know that after decentralized finance, Americans will demand decentralized political decision-making, exactly like in Switzerland.

Totalitarian regimes, where one party, one person, one religion rules they fear Bitcoin even more than the politicians in representative democracies, and the news tell us every day that it is so.

If citizens in representative democracies want to be really free, they must demand the right to decide themselves any issue. Acceptance of Bitcoin, Ethereum and the rest extend direct democracy.

But accepting Bitcoin, Ethereum and other decentralized finance is not the most important thing, the most important thing is direct democracy; the rest are consequences.

But to get direct democracy, we have to wake up and demand it, like the Swiss did in 1867, interestingly, also because of another pandemic.

Victor Lopez

In totalitarian regimes the citizens have as many rights as serfs in the European Middle ages, but in representative democracy, citizens have the freedom to vote and the freedom to criticise the politicians. That is very important, but is not enough.

In representative democracies the people do not have the power to stop laws, regulations and policies they disagree with, therefore they do not have freedom of decision, they are not free.

But reality is even worse; not only the citizens can not stop actions by the executive and/or the legislative, they can not propose and approve new laws or changes to the constitution.

In representative democracies it is the politicians who propose and approve everything; laws, regulations, changes to the constitution, everything!. In some representative democracies, very few of them, changes to the constitution require approval by the people in a popular referendum.

But it is even worse, much worse than that; not only the people can not stop the politicians, they must obey and follow all the laws, regulations and policies the politicians decide will apply to the citizens.

Through laws, regulations and policies, they control the lives of citizens in all areas; as employers, employees, tenants, landlords, drivers, taxpayers, entrepreneurs, doctors, engineers, car mechanics, plumbers, homemakers, wives, husbands, neighbours, students, teachers… and on and on.

The executive and the legislative control our lives form birth to death, it is time to change that.

When power changes hands, from the “left” to the “right”, all that means is that the type of control will change somewhat, but the control will not be less.

It no longer makes sense that in a “democracy” the people have no say on the laws, regulations and policies they have to comply with. Democracy is “government by the people”, how can it be “government by the people” if the people have no say on the laws, regulations and policies they have to comply with? It makes no sense, it is illogical, unfair, and has to change.

Representative democracy is not democracy; it is far superior, far more humane, than totalitarian regimes, but it not real democracy.

Therefore, it is urgent to push politicians in representative democracies to bring direct democracy. Direct democracy means the people have more power than the elected politicians, as it is supposed to be in democracy.

Direct democracy means politicians know they can only enact laws, regulations and policies that have, at least, the silent approval of the majority of the people. If they don’t,  1% of voters sign demand for a referendum on whatever law, regulation, policy or treaty politicians intend to develop. Such demand can not be turned down by government, even if the executive and the legislative unanimously wanted to.

At a minimum, we need Swiss-style direct democracy, the most democratic country on Earth, the only one, really. But the Swiss did not get rid of elected politicians, they just put in place the mechanisms to control them.

Swiss direct-representative democracy could move further, to become a full direct democracy. Full direct democracy means the people can do what they do in Switzerland, but it goes beyond, because in a full direct democracy, there are no professional politicians or political parties, they are unnecessary because the people decide issues based on the facts, not on ideologies. Political idealogies are like religions; each claims to have received The Truth; you can not get more absurd than that.

Swiss-style direct democracy is also more stable than representative democracy because the executive and the legislative have to be in tune with the people; the system of direct democracy forces them to. Therefore, Switzerland’s is by far the most stable country in the World and also the one with less political polarization.

The lower level of polarisation happens because there is no point in politicians polarizing the issues; the people decide, the people know they are the ones responsible for the fate of the country. When that happens there is no point in inflaming issues to get people excited and confused. In a direct democracy, the people do not want fireworks; they want information because they are going to decide issues, not just elect politicians.

If you want your country to be more stable, less polarized, more responsible for public money, if you want to stop those grandiose or shortsighted “glamorous” public projects, if you want better education, better universal health care, more efficient business and public services, etc., demand direct democracy.

It does not matter if you are progressive or conservative, if you want to stop the shenanigans of politicians, the waste of public money, etc., it is time you take the matter in your own hands; direct democracy is the answer.

Victor Lopez