Author: victor

I will take this break because there is a lot of discussion about the so-called “wealth tax” some populists on the Left propose, some from the Right are also for it.

There are people on the Left who oppose it too, normally progressive rich people. There are also many rich people on the Right who oppose it. The rich who oppose the wealth tax are shortsighted. The rich of Switzerland seem smarter than the rich of other places,

Switzerland, again, shows that the Left-Right division is a fake division, that what is important is the issues.

As the Swiss people see it, since late in the 18th century, a wealth tax makes sense, it is a fair way to deal with an important economic and social issue.

You probably know it but, just in case, let me tell you Switzerland is, overall, the best run country in the World.

The Swiss have the World’s best democracy (to say there are better systems than democracy, like all totalitarians and authoritarians claim, is absurd because if humans do not freedom to speak, criticize the authorities and kick the authorities out of power by elections and override them with people-organised referendums, they are not living a full human life, even if they are wealthy).

By the way, forget also the silly rankings of democracies by The Economist, placing Switzerland in 11th place, it is a joke; Switzerland practices direct democracy (the people decide any issue they consider is important enough for the people to decide) at all levels of government, no other democracy does that. No country comes close to Switzerland in democratic quality.

The Swiss also have the World’s highest standard of living. They have attained it through smart hard work, with no natural resources.

They also have the best universal health care system in the World (the wealth tax does not seem to have hurt them in this regard either).

Their education system must be best in the World too, otherwise they could not have the best political system, the best economic system, the best universal health care system and even more “bests”.

On education, the famous PISA rankings of education systems are also out to lunch; they measure the performance of teenagers in math, science and language in a classroom. Anybody knows education is much more than the classroom and is much more than math, science and language, as the Swiss demonstrate.

I say all this also because it means that if the Swiss have a wealth tax, it is not harming Switzerland much.

It is interesting to note also that Ancient Greek Democracies also imposed a wealth tax on their richest citizens. Like the Swiss, the Ancient Greeks were way ahead in freedom; freedom to think, to choose rulers, to create in all fields, etc.

The Ancient Greeks were ahead even of all the West until the Renaissance, and still are ahead of most of the World, including several European countries.

So, if the Swiss do it and the Ancient Greeks did it, it is reasonable for others to conclude that perhaps a wealth tax is a rational measure.

One important reason the Swiss (even the wealthy), and the ancient Greeks too, consider a wealth tax reasonable, is because it helps create political stability by applying common sense (the highest form of human intelligence) to political and social stability; “people should contribute to society in direct proportion to their abilities and their wealth”.

But even in one area the Swiss have not caught up to the Greeks; during some of the brightest periods of Ancient Greek direct democracy, there were no taxes at all. The “tax” consisted in  the wealthy paying directly for public works. For example, if a new bridge was necessary, a local wealthy family would pay for it and give it to the city.

The family would not set up a toll booth and call it “another business center…”

In Switzerland, even people of the conservative, some say populist, SVP (Swiss People’s Party) feel the wealth tax is a fair tax, there is no debate.

But the Swiss know how to look at the details too, sometimes they seem to want Switzerland run as a Swiss watch. They decided, by tradition, because the wealth tax precedes most of the Swiss institutions of direct democracy, that all cantons (states or provinces) must impose a wealth tax but, to accommodate the particularities of each canton, the people of each canton decide the tax rate and how to apply it. In some cantons, if a wealthy person owns a donkey, they asses the donkey at 500 USD.

The wealth tax in Switzerland starts at low levels. For example, in the Canton of Zurich, you pay 0.07% (135 USD) tax if your assets (not income) amount to 200 000 USD. If your assets reach one million USD, you pay 0,21% (2,103 USD). At two million you pay 0.31% (6,144 USD). Most other cantons diverge little from Zurich’s levels.

You could think this would produce a “race to the bottom” on taxes among cantons, but it has not. Perhaps in a future blog I will write about why that race has not happened.

The Swiss seem to believe the wealth tax contributes to political stability by removing some of the hard earned privileges the rich enjoy. If the wealth tax helps promote political stability, the smart, not too greedy rich are happy with the tax too. They know that if the masses become angry, one of the people they go after are the rich.

So, there you have it; if you are wealthy and not too greedy you should support the wealth tax, it is in your own interest.

Of course, instead of the tax, it would be even better socially if today’s rich did like the rich in Ancient Greece during some periods; directly pay for public goods and services.

Would it not be great if instead of taxes, the rich voluntarily paid for building the new road or bridge?. We would put their name on them and thank them; much better than paying taxes.

In a way, the system is similar to what some rich people already do when they pay for a university buildings, etc.

In the US they could have the “Bill Gates Highway”, the “Jeff Bezos Hospital”, the “Elon Musk Power Station”, etc. In Canada we could have the “Weston Expressway”, the “Irving Museum”. In other countries they could do the same. I rather see Bill Gates name, or Musk’s, or even Rockefeller than a politican’s.

We could expand the system to corporations; they could also show social responsibility by financing public services; “GM Public Hospital”, “Goldman Sachs Assistance Program for Families on Welfare” (Other banks could join), etc. The responsibility of corporations has to go beyond the astound stupid sentence of Milton Friedman: “The Social Responsibility Of Business Is to Increase its Profits.”

It seems the US, Canada and most other countries could do worse than following the Swiss, and drop the foolish debate about the wealth tax.

In the next blog I will continue with the adoption of direct democracy in Canada and other places.

Victor Lopez

The Swiss have introduced some interesting practices to representative democracy that would also improve Canadian representative democracy.

One is to avoid having cantons (cantons are similar to Canadian provinces, American states, German Landers, etc.) so large and powerful that would dominate national politics.

Another important measure they introduced is to avoid having large cantons along cultural and language lines. Instead, the Swiss “break up” each of their major cultural and language areas, the German and French-speaking areas, into many cantons which are independent of each other.

This is what it means in practice; 2/3 of the population of Switzerland are German-speakers, but in Switzerland do not have one large, or a few large, German-speaking cantons, they have 17 German-speaking cantons, independent from each other.

This system helps prevent that the French, Italian and Romansh minorities feel overwhelmed by German-speakers. It also helps the prevent the growth of “tribal feelings” among German-speakers, and also among the many French speakers.

Most Swiss cantons also have only one official language, that’s it; no experiments in Switzerland with “immersion” classes in the other languages of the country. The people should also decide by referendum if they want one or more official languages.

The Swiss also allow creating new cantons for language-cultural minorities, if they demand it.

Each canton should also have lots of autonomy, more than the current Canadian provinces have.

How the Swiss system would change Canada;

Switzerland has 26 cantons for a population of 8.5 million; Canada, for a population of 39 million, has only 10 provinces and 3 territories. If it followed the Swiss model, it would have 125 provinces and territories.

If we follow the Swiss criteria, Ontario, for example, would be reorganized into 46 new provinces independent of each other. Ontario, as we know it now would cease to exist.

The 46 new provinces would not be of the same size, in land area or population. The 46 would reflect the identity of the people and the area they live in; geography, major economic activities, traditions and profile of the people in the area, etc. The size of each of the 46 new provinces would also be quite different.

There would be provinces for Native Canadians, and also for French-Canadians, in the areas where there are enough of them.

It is easy to imagine the boost to the pride and self image of Native Canadians if they had their own province, proper control of their lives, instead of being governed by the Minister and Civil Servants of the Ontario Ministry of Indigenous Affairs.

Is it not the logical, the rational and humane thing to do, to give each area of Ontario, to give Indigenous Peoples and French-speakers of Ontario the right to have and run their own unilingual communities?

At the local level, Ontarians would also have direct democracy.

I hope this gives you an idea of how Canada and Ontario could be reorganized, and I hope you like it.

In my next blog I will look at Quebec and the revolutionary changes it would bring to Canada. For example, the issue of Quebec’s separatism will go away forever.

Victor Lopez

I believe the territorial organisation of a country is critical for direct democracy measures to work, the measures by themselves are not enough. But, how do you do it? I believe the Swiss, deliberately or by “historical luck”, have found a better way.

One key criteria: no province or municipality should have so much population that its voters decide who runs the country. A second criteria: each province and municipality area should have as much self governance as its inhabitants consider practical.

This means we want to create many more and much smaller provinces and territories in Canada.  We also want to create many more municipalities. We want them all to have more self-rule.

Do not worry about having more politicians. Because of the smaller governments, many more politicians would work part time, because of direct democracy, the voters will control politicians much more effectively.

 

Having more, does not preclude cooperation among the newer and smaller provincial and local governments in many areas such as garbage pickup, fire, police.

This is how things will change; Switzerland has 26 cantons for 8.5 million people. If we apply the same ratio, Canada would have roughly 125 provinces and territories. As for municipalities, if Canada adopted Swiss criteria, it would have 5500 municipalities, 50% more than it has now.

It is also possible that Canada’s vast territory would require even more provinces and municipalities; it is quite possible that Canada is more diverse than Switzerland in many ways.

“Breaking up and pushing down” governance serves two purposes; it dampens the “tribal” tendencies, often reinforced, when a group sharing a culture-language, sometimes religion too, is much larger than the rest. It also enhances the particular characteristics of each of the smaller territories.

I also believe that if Canada had the territorial organisation Switzerland has, Quebec separatism or “Ontario dominance”, “Ontario and Quebec dominance” would not have risen; there would be many much smaller French-speaking and English-speaking provinces; the French would not feel dominated by English Canada, the West would not resent the East, and the Maritimes would not feel they count for little now, in spite of being the original core of Canada. The perpetual puzzle of how to treat Native Americans would have been solved long ago too.

The Swiss system respects local identity more because even in areas with a single language and culture, people of different areas are different, we all know that.

Within each of new smaller Provinces and Territories of Canada, we should also give municipalities, towns and villages more decision-making power.

This “break up and push down” also will help give Native Canadians a stronger identity and a stronger voice, instead of being “under ministries”, some of them with, to me, almost demeaning names, like “Ontario’s Ministry of Indigenous affairs” and the not better “Federal Ministry of Crown-Indigenous Relations”.

Under the new system, the 1,6 million Native Canadians would have several provinces of their own, and many municipalities. They would speak as equals at all levels. We would also do away with the scent of patronizing charities many services established to help Native Canadians have.

With their own provinces and municipalities Native Canadians will speak, by themselves and for themselves, at all levels of government. We would not need either the regular CBC programs about “how badly we treat Native Americans”, etc. They would not be necessary because, with their own provinces and municipalities, Native Americans will have more power at all levels.

The changes will benefit Native Canadians, and rest of Canadians too, because every Canadian will have a more direct voice in local, provincial and national affairs.

Let us not worry about having too many territories, or too small either. In Switzerland, the smallest canton, Appenzell Innerrhoden, has 16 000 inhabitants. Switzerland also has municipalities with as few people as 30 inhabitants, and many with less than one thousand.

The reorganisation to strengthen local identity and power, together with direct democracy measures, will go a long way to improve governance in Canada. One effect would be to bring the level of satisfaction with government in Canada up to Swiss levels; from 46% to the Swiss level of 75% (OECD study).

The improvements will make Canada even more stable and prosperous.

In the next post I will look at the new provinces-territories and municipalities  and where they will be located, if Canada adopts the Swiss model. We will also look in more detail at how Switzerland handles being a multicultural, multilingual country (very different from Canada, and with far less friction).

Victor Lopez

I am using Canada only as an example.

I chose Canada as the first country to consider for transition to direct democracy because it is a stable, prosperous, representative democracy, it is also the country I live in.

But the key factor to consider direct democracy for Canada is the growing dissatisfaction with politicians in Canada, as in other stable representative democracies.

I believe the dissatisfaction comes from a “birth defect” representative democracy has; from the very first day, it gives the elected politicians more power than the voters. Voters have no way to control the decisions the politicians in power make; they can elect them, but they have no way to stop their actions.

Regardless of who gets elected, the party, the persons in power always have more power than the people, way more.

In some countries they have mandatory popular referendums to change the constitution, but they are the minority.  In any case, the people have only that power; the rest of laws, policies, etc., are under the firm control of the politicians.

When the party in power changes, the policies and the laws will change but the people still have zero formal, institutionalised power to stop the new government, including stopping the legislators, even if 90% of the people are against a law or policy.

In a representative democracy, the people can take to the streets, even riot, to scare the politicians, but even then, the politicians can ignore the people, and they do, unless the date for the next election is around the corner.

After demonstrations, politicians are never short of pleasant words and promises of reform. Those promises we know where they end up; as nothing, or as fake reforms, like the one in the Canadian Province of British Columbia I discussed in my previous post.

But, not only the people in representative democracies lack the power to put the brakes on government, the people also have no formal way of imposing their will on politicians on any issue most of the people want addressed.

It is obvious then that in Canada, like in the rest of representative democracies, democracy does not mean: “government of the people, by the people, for the people”. If it does not mean that, Canada, and the others, are not democracies.

But there is another problem, perhaps the biggest one, with the excessive decision-making power politicians have in representative democracies; they use their excess power to constantly increase the power, the control, they have over citizens.

In representative democracies the power of government never ceases to grow, and it does at the expense of the power of voters. Inevitably, this causes divergence between the elected representatives and the people. This is the root cause of the growing dissatisfaction of voters with governments, in Canada and in other representatives democracies.

Politician can not address the problem because the power they have enables them to unilaterally decide what is good for the people, as they see it. But what they believe is good for the people may not be so. Besides, most of the people may not agree with the politicians at all on some policies or laws issues, but there is not much they can do, other than voting out those in power. As I just said, such change does not fix the power imbalance between politicians and voters.

Others, for example, the powerful lobbies, prefer representative democracy, because they know that in a representative democracy is far easier than in a direct democracy to influence, or pressure, politicians to adopt policies and laws who favour the lobbies.

Most academics, opinion leaders, NGOs, unions and others, who could create pressure to change the system, they do not either because they often rely on the government for money, and the government relies on them for policies, etc.

Not that all those people do not want the best for the country, I believe most do. The problem is that they are “prisoners” of the prevailing mindset; they believe “representative democracy is real democracy and better than direct democracy”. In other cases, the privileges their lobbies have carved out for them traps them, even if they damage democracy.

Many voters are also feel trapped by the economic help they receive from governments, and also by various social programs; they fear a change from representative democracy to direct democracy could threaten such their benefits.

The reality is  far from that!; the facts show direct democracy makes the country more efficient, more competitive. As a result, the country has more money for better universal social programs and services.

For example, the Swiss universal health system is superior to Canada’s and to the system of any other country. For example,  in Switzerland all citizens have a family doctor, in Canada some 5 million Canadian do not have a family doctor. Waiting lists for the Swiss are days, weeks, even months shorter. It is irrational that in Canada cars, machinery, computers, etc., have better to “care” than people.

Swiss universities are also cheaper than Canadian universities and colleges. Adult unemployment in Switzerland is 50% lower than in Canada. Swiss youth unemployment rate is 3%, four times lower than Canada’s.

We better fix the problems of credibility of representative democracy in Canada, and in other places, and soon, to prevent dangerous, anti-freedom, anti-democracy initiatives form the Right or the Left.

In my next blog I will continue with direct democracy for Canada.

Victor Lopez

In theory, the Province of BC has some elements of direct democracy. In reality BC’s “direct democracy” works as a “clever” way to may it look like direct democracy. BC’s “direct democracy”; referendums and initiatives are not worth the paper they are written on.

Let us look at BC’s “direct democracy” in relation to Switzerland’s, or to direct democracy in any Swiss canton.

BC has about 5 million people, Switzerland 8.5. In most respects Switzerland is a better organized, more prosperous society that BC, but Switzerland is number one in the World, so it is not surprising. BC is also a highly developed society and a very stable representative democracy.

This is how direct democracy works in Switzerland (or any of its cantons) and how it “works” in BC.

Switzerland: If 1% of the voters request a referendum, they will hold a referendum, unless the government proposes an alternative that the committee who collected the signatures, agrees to. The 1% criteria, or close to it, is the norm in Switzerland at all levels of government.

On national laws and policies the citizens want to stop, the Swiss have to collect 50 000 signatures in 100 days.

If they want to have a referendum to change the constitution of the country, the Swiss need to collect 100 000 signatures in 18 months!

In British Columbia the requirement is 10%, but not only that, those collecting signatures must collect 10% in each of the over 70 electoral districts in BC. They have 90 days to do it.

In heavy pro-government districts, collecting 10% will be very difficult. Keep in mind that many voters may not be interested in the issue.

10% of registered voters in BC amounts to 350 000 signatures.

But there is more. In BC, there can be only one group proposing the referendum, but there can be many groups opposing it. It is obviously an unfair law. You can imagine the army of lobbyists trying to shoot the initiative down so that people will not sign. Remember the opponents only need one district that falls below 10% in signature collection to send the effort of the proponents of the referendum down the drain.

It does not end here. Even if the proponents can collect the signatures, at the last minute the legislature, the politicians can, after all the effort, say “we do not think this referendum is in the best interests of British Columbians”, and that is the end.

Even if the matter went to a vote, in BC, for the proposal to pass, they would have to vote for it half plus one of the registered voters, it is not enough that most of those who vote support the proposal.

But even if what they propose goes to referendum and most registered voters vote for it, the legislators, again, can kill it.

In Switzerland, all referendums are binding; governments must accept and put into effect the results of referendums.

In Switzerland, not even the Supreme Court can overturn the results of a referendum. The people are truly sovereign and, like the adults they are, they have to live with, or rectify with another referendum, the consequences of their votes.

There are other differences but those are enough to show BC has no direct democracy.

I am sure that the people of BC, if they really had direct democracy, just like the Swiss they would vote responsibly, they would have to, they could not blame the politicians because they decided the issue, not the politicians.

By the way, some people believe that proportional representation, instead of the first-past-the post system we have in BC and Canada, will address some representation issues. It may, but the key issue is not this or that way of electing politicians, the key issue is that without direct democracy, the politicians will still have all the decision-making power and the people none.

I am not against proportional representation; the Swiss have it, but many other representative democracies have proportional representation, some of them pretty lousy ones. What makes Switzerland different, and far more democratic, is direct democracy, because the people decide, not proportional representation. In your country, insist on direct democracy, leave proportional representation for later.

I hate to say this because I am Canadian, but the way direct democracy measures are set up in BC could be copied by any banana republic or totalitarian one party system state.

In the rest of Canada there is nothing about direct democracy at all. That is no good, but at least the system does not offend the intelligence.

In my next blog I will outline how Canada would look like, territorially and administratively, if it adopted direct-representative democracy like the Swiss.

Victor Lopez

I like to start with Canada because it is a stable country with a rich tradition of representative democracy, a country raised in the British Isles tradition of compromise, a country not given to extremes, it is also the country where I live.

I know the Canadian people can make direct democracy work because they have the political temperament for it. Canadians have a political culture of tolerance, of pragmatism, not given to ideological extremes of the left or the right.

Direct democracy in a country like Canada does not mean revolution or riots, direct democracy is only the natural next step to advance democracy in all stable representative democracies.

I will make now make several observations about what turning to direct democracy would mean for Canada and, for other countries too:

Canadian voters will continue to elect representatives at the national, provincial, territorial and local governments, just like they do now.

Elected representatives will continue to form the government; the executive and parliament.

Politicians in the executive and the legislative, in all levels of government, will continue to develop policies, legislation and regulations.

The executive and the legislative will continue to be able to start changes to the Canadian Constitution.

It will be necessary to revise the Canadian Constitution and the laws that govern the Canadian provinces (the Canadian provinces do not have constitutions) will have to be changed. Local laws will also need revision.

Besides voting in elections, voters will also vote on the policies, laws and changes to the constitution the elected politicians propose. But they will only vote when the people decide it is necessary to stop a policy, a law, a regulation or a change to the constitution. Most of the time the people will not intervene because in direct democracy, and precisely because of it, the executive and the legislative will govern in tune withe will of the people, as it must be in a democracy, specially in matters of importance.

To trigger voting by the people, at all levels, on policies, laws, regulations and the Constitution will require that signatures be collected first. The number of signatures required for a decision by the people would be 1% of eligible voters. They will have to collect the signatures in a practical period.

The results of the referendums will be binding for the executive and the legislative; these are not consultative referendums or plebiscites.

The executive and the legislative may not call referendums. Referendums will take place because the people start them, but political parties, unions, citizen’s groups and other may also start them if they collect the number of required signatures. Governments should not call referendums because the control of the content and timing will be conditioned by the tactics to win the next election, not by what is best for the overall good, as we se how they are now.

Besides being able to stop the politicians, the people may also propose policies, laws and changes to the constitution if they collect the required number of signatures within the required time. Like in the case of stopping the government, these initiatives will be selective.

Canadian courts, including the Supreme Court will not rule on the constitutionality of the results of any decision by the voters. This may surprise to some, but direct democracy is about the people having the right to decide and also the obligation to face the consequences of their decisions, both go together.

In a direct democracy there must not be a Supreme Court to rescue the people from their bad political judgement, or to mess things up big time, like when the US Supreme Court make the absurd decision to give corporations the same political rights of individual citizens.

It is an absurd decision because with big, corporate and rich people, money dominating campaigns, the money contributions of ordinary citizen mean almost nothing. We could say that US political campaigns, at all levels, have turned into a game of “how to use big money to persuade voters to vote for a candidate or a party who needs the big money to get elected”.

It is obvious the US Supreme Court has created a catch 22 situation for US politicians; they have to serve the people, the average voters, but they need the money of rich corporations and rich individuals to get elected. It makes no sense because the interests of the big donors and ordinary people often are mutually exclusive, no wonder the people are turning to “the Trumps” and “the Sanders”.

In Canada, the situation with donors may not be as bad but still the lobbies and pressure groups have too much influence on politicians because of the absence of direct democracy institutions and processes.

My next blog will be about how the Canadian Province of British Columbia introduced fake direct democracy provisions.

There is also a town in British Columbia, Rossland, that introd.uced direct democracy measures at the local level in the 1990s but I am not able to come up with anything about direct democracy and Rossland now. In the towns website I am not able to see any reference to citizen’s initiatives or referendums. Perhaps direct democracy died out in Rossland. Let us know what the situation is if you can, I will try to contact the town, but that will be in a few days.

I will also write in other blogs about how Canada, in theory, practices some aspects of direct democracy, but they are not effective because “the devil is in the details” of the execution.

You should investigate what happens in your country; there may be provisions to practice direct democracy to some extent, but the elected politicians and the lobbies have managed to keep them largely irrelevant because of the details of implementation. What they do is as if you put a powerful motor in a car but, out of view, the brakes are always on, they slow the car down an the driver gives up.

Victor Lopez

 

I said in my last blog direct democracy measures will only take root in stable representative democracies. I also said unstable democracies do not yet have the political culture to become direct democracies, but there could be exceptions.

As for no-democratic countries, their political cultures are still alien to democracy, and more so to direct democracy. Often, most of the people in of those countries do not appear to believe in democracy. But I have no doubt that, like the Western Europeans did,  they will develop the necessary values and skills to realise and execute democracy because it is the most humane, civilised, fair system ever devised by humans, and direct democracy is even more so.

It is too bad that since Greek democracy died over 2000 years ago, even the Europeans, the people closest to the Ancient Greeks, mere only able to resuscitate democracy in the 18th century (not fully even now, not even the Swiss). The rise of Christian-Jewish beliefs in the West, and the World, did little for democracy…

Let me take Canada as the first example of a country with a stable representative democracy, and how it could organise itself to add direct democracy measures and institutions and reap the “collateral benefits” of having them

This subject, adapting the Swiss mixed system of direct and representative democracy to other countries, will extend for several posts.

I use Canada to illustrate, how a stable representative democracy, can add direct democracy institutions to be more democratic, even more stable and more efficient, bringing to its people a higher standard of living, better educational system, better universal health system, more trust in government, more political and social stability, more civic engagement, better control of the lobbies who by-pass voters, etc.

First, I will give some details about Canada to help visualise how Canada, and perhaps your own country, would look if it adopted or adapted the model of territorial organisation of Switzerland.

In other posts I wrote about the direct democracy institutions, in the coming posts I will write about the territorial organisation that favours direct democracy and why they do.

Canadians reading the post may already know some, or much, of the information I will use about their country, on the other hand, they may be interested in how Canada could look under direct democracy.

I believe Switzerland’s territorial organisation, together with direct democracy institutions, are the root cause of Switzerland’s success, unmatched by any other country. This is why want to bring them up.

Canada has a huge extension; 10 million square kilometres; 3.9 million square miles, and a population of 38 million. This means many of its 10 provinces and territories are very large in extension, and population too.

Canada is organised Canada as a representative democracy federation of ten provinces and three territories. I will round up many figures to facilitate visualisation.

Ontario, 1 million square kilometres., 15 million people.

Quebec, 1,4 million sq. km., 8.6 million people.

British Columbia, 1 million sq. km., 5.2 million people.

Alberta, 650 000 sq. km., 4.5 million people.

Saskatchewan, 600 000 sq. km., 1,2 million people.

Manitoba, 550 000 sq. km., 1.4 million people.

Newfoundland and Labrador, 400 000 sq. km., 500 000 people.

New Brunswick, 71 000 sq. km., 780 000 people.

Nova Scotia, 53 000 sq. km., 1 million people.

Prince Edward Island, 6 000 sq. km., 160 000 people.

The three territories are:

The Northwest Territories, 1,2 million sq. km., 42 000 people.

Yukon, 500 000 sq. km.,  42 000 people.

Nunavut, 2 million sq. km.,  and a population of 40 000.

The major administrative difference between provinces and territories is the degree of autonomy, the provinces have more than the territories, their size and populations.

Just compare; Switzerland, 41,285 sq. km., (15,940 sq mi) and 8.5 million inhabitants. In extension, Switzerland is smaller than the second smallest Canadian province, Nova Scotia but in population it would be the second of third Canadian province.

Yet, Switzerland found, and demonstrates everyday, that the division of th  country into 26 cantons and giving each of them great autonomy, giving each great control over its own affairs, and also great say in national affairs, in both cases, more than the Canadian provinces, and has worked wonderfully for them. Canada, because of its extension has a far bigger need for further subdivision and for direct democracy institutions.

Within the cantons, the municipalities in Switzerland also have great independence in many political, economic and social matters; they can even leave a canton and join another adjacent one, or create a new canton, and they have done both.

I believe is due to direct democracy; Switzerland, with almost no natural resources is, overall, the number one country in the World, and certainly the most democratic, never mind the wrong rankings of The Economist’s “Democracy Index”.

Switzerland could not be the overall be, first country in the World if it did not have also the best educational system overall. With respect to education, we have to ignore another ranking, the OECD’s PISA rankings of educational systems; it places Switzerland as number 30 in the World. This ranking is even more ridiculous than the onne about democratic quality.

By the way, both rankings place Canada ahead of Switzerland; absurd. Canada is one of the best countries in the World but it is certainly behind Switzerland by almost any fact in the ground related to democracy, politics, economics, efficiency, technology, quality of life, health, education, etc.

In the exercise of bringing direct democracy to representative democracy I will be learning a great deal more about the uniqueness of each province, territory, state, district, autonomous regions, municipalities, institutions, etc., of several representative democracies, and about Switzerland too.

Victor Lopez

What I write today, and everything in my blog, applies to stable representative democracies anywhere in the World. Unstable representative democracies are not ready for direct democracy, but exceptions are always possible.

Nations which are not even representative democracies, such as nations where only one party, person, one religion governs, are not ready at all for direct democracy.

Even in stable representative democracies, whoever wins has too much power over the people. Even if the party in power changes, all that changes are the policies; those new in power will continue to have much more power than the people, that violates the spirit of democracy and has to be corrected soon, before representative democracy becomes even weaker and people become tempted by dictatorship, by people with “authority”; it happened in Germany and brought Hitler to power.

Direct democracy is necessary to prevent that degeneration. We need to invert the power pyramid, we need to put the people at the top. To make people the real final decision-makers, not just to vote and decide who will govern, but to decide issues.

The people need to have power over anything the politicians want to do; be it a policy, a law, or a change to the constitution. The people do not need to exercise their power over the politicians on everything, what the people need are the tools to exercise that power whenever they decide a democratic decision by the people is necessary.

The system has to make it practical for citizens to force the government to run a free and fair binding referendum.

In addition, the people must also have the power to propose new laws, new policies and changes to the constitution, and have the electorate decide.

The people must also be able to organise the referendums without the support of the government, even if the executive and parliament oppose the referendum, even if all parties and all parliamentarians oppose it.

It is also essential that the results of the referendums be binding on governments. The binding referendum is necessary for the people to be, and feel, responsible for their decisions, for what happens to their country, town, province or village.

If the people do not feel responsible for what happens it is because they do not decide anything other than at election time. When voters have decision-making power, voters know they are responsible and behave responsibly.

In representative democracies, voters have no direct responsibility to deal with issues, they can not because they do not decide, the politicians decide.

Democracy is “government of the people, by the people, for the people”, how can it be democracy if the people are not responsible for any decision, other than electing the politicians?, it makes no sense.

Direct democracy is essential at all levels of government; only in this way it is possible to have a generalised culture of direct democracy, of the people being the final decision-makers, of feeling and knowing they are responsible. You can not have direct democracy at the local or regional level but not at the national level; it is a bit like being pregnant…

Direct democracy is genuine progress; it is about expanding the rights, and the responsibilities, of voters.

Setting up a direct democracy requires a minimum of political maturity among voters, the practice of direct democracy develops the political maturity of voters, nothing can be better for a country, town or village.

But we do not have to “reinvent the wheel”; we have one country that practices direct democracy, and does it at the local, regional and national levels. That country is Switzerland.

Switzerland can improve, but others can catch up and surpass it; a good way to advance is to start is to know, understand, adapt, adopt what the Swiss people do and have proven it works; that is why Switzerland is the most stable, better organised, most prosperous democracy.

Introducing direct democracy does not require we get rid of politicians, no need for revolution; peaceful transition is possible, the Swiss did it, so can the rest of us.

In a direct democracy, politicians will continue to propose and execute most policies and laws. This is so because, most of the time, most of the people will agree with what they do, or at least will not disagree with them so strongly as to force a referendum to try stop them.

But even if an issue goes to referendum, it is very good for the country, the city or village; if what the politicians propose prevails in the referendum, they have won the legitimacy that only a democratic decision by the people has.

Likewise, the people will also seldom have to call a referendum to propose new policies or laws. This happens because, with the people having that power, politicians know they have to do what the people expect them to do.

This is one of the decisive advantages over representative democracy that the power of the people to call referendums brings; it forces politicians to govern in tune with the will of the people. This means the end of riots, of violent protests, etc. No “yellow jackets”, no “occupy Wall Street”, etc., in Switzerland they are unnecessary.

When governments do what the people want, the people also trust government; Switzerland has the highest level of trust in government.

As the Swiss put it, direct democracy is the great tool the people have to “put the brake and stop politicians or to push the accelerator to get politicians to act.”

Tomorrow I will discuss territorial organisation of a country and the decision-making powers of the various levels of government, so that direct democracy can take root in our representative democracies.

Victor Lopez

 

 

 

Yesterday I wrote about a referendum in the small town of Moutier. Today we know; they decided to leave Bern and join Jura.

2114 votes were for “leave” and 1740 for “remain”; 55% vs 45%. 88% of the voters participated; where did I hear “voter participation a in direct democracy is low”?; hogwash! The Swiss take part at the rate they consider the issue requires nothing to do with “voter fatigue”, and assorted verbal tricks to distract us from demanding direct democracy in our countries.

Most of the people of Moutier are French speaking, but language and culture are not the primary motivation for leaving. We know that because in the seventies, several other French-speaking municipalities organized a referendum, but not to leave Bern and join the adjacent French-speaking Canton of Neuchatel, they demanded their own French-speaking canton (state or province).

It is also important to note that Bern is a bilingual German-French canton, but the French speakers wanted much more than language recognition.

I believe in other countries where they try to make bilingualism work, they will fail because the minorities also want and need their own administrative territory to control more of their own destiny. Minorities will demand their own territorial identity and that their language be the only official language. It goes beyond language, much like the Swiss have done.

Bilingualism only makes sense in very specific areas where the minority is not a small minority and where there is a high degree of mixed neighbourhoods, business, etc.

But the Swiss have gone beyond autonomy based on language alone, that is why Switzerland has many German-speaking and French-speaking cantons, instead of one large German-speaking canton and one large French-speaking canton; it is a stroke of collective political genius.

Switzerland also proves that majority rule, including areas where the minority is the majority, direct democracy at all levels, is not mob rule at all but rational rule; much more rational than ruling by elected representatives, which is what we have in representative democracies.

Each Swiss Canton also has more autonomy and independence than a German Lander, a state in the US, a Canadian Province, a Spanish Autonomous Region, etc.

It is interesting how other federal, or almost federal, governments, like the ones of the countries I just mentioned, often speak of “local identity”, “give minorities a voice”, “recognise founding minorities” etc., but when it comes down to political power, the national government politicians insist that most power be with national government.

It is not like that in Switzerland at all, as we see in Moutier’s case and in the creation of the Canton of Jura. In Switzerland, the national government manages only the areas which the cantons can not manage, such as external relations and defence.

The result of the Swiss system is that the majorities and minorities of Switzerland, have their own territories and far more rights than the majorities and minorities in any of the representative democracies I just mentioned, or any other representative democracy.

But the case of Moutier is not unique. In 1996 the 72 inhabitants, yes, seventy two, of the village of Vellerat, also in the Canton of Bern, and also French-speaking, had a referendum to join the Canton of Jura. The proponents of the referendum won, and Vellerat is now part of the Canton of Jura. In this case, the people feel joining another canton is enough. They did not demand their own canton, although in Switzerland, some cantons are very small.

In my next post I will discuss the changes required to develop a representative democracy into a direct democracy.

The next step now for the government of Moutier, and the governments of the cantons of Bern and Jura, is to start the process of a smooth transition to ensure the people of Moutier continue to enjoy being citizens of the most stable, democratic and prosperous country on Earth.

Victor Lopez

 

In today’s case, the people of the small Swiss town of Moutier, just over 7 000 inhabitants, will decide if they will leave the Canton of Bern and will join the Canton of Jura.

Years ago, the people who now make up the Canton of Jura, also decided they were not happy in the Canton of Bern. After some political agitation, even some minor violence, the Canton of Bern, and the whole of Switzerland, decided the people of the area of Jura should hold a referendum to decide if they wanted to create their own Canton.

In the referendum, the proponents of separation won. In 1979, they created the new Canton of Jura.

The major reason for the people of the Jura to want their own Canton was linguistic, and the desire to have their own territory. This was because they speak French, but most of the people of the Canton of Bern speak German. The French-speakers are also Roman Catholics, German-speakers are Protestant.

But the key was not religion; it appears than language, culture and, above all, being in control of the territory they inhabited, played a larger role in their decision to become a new Canton. If language and religious affiliation had been the key factors, the people of the Jura would have asked to join an adjoining French-speaking canton, but they didn’t, they wanted their own canton, and they got it.

But in 1979, some French-speaking areas of the Canton of Bern decided to stay in Bern, not go with the others to create the Canton of Jura. But as time passed, it seems many people have changed their minds.

Among them are many people in Moutier. They have been pressuring to leave the Canton of Bern and join the Canton of Jura. In 2017, the Canton of Bern agreed they could hold a referendum to decide. The vote to leave won by a small margin, they got 51.7% of the vote.

Unfortunately, some people not living in Moutier illegally voted in the referendum. This prompted the government of the Canton of Bern to declare the result of the referendum illegal.

But that did not mean that issue died. The people of Moutier insisted on holding another referendum, and that is what will happen tomorrow. If the proponents win, Moutier will join the Canton of Jura.

I believe most other countries could learn from the Swiss here; how democratically, the Swiss, again, show that the will of the people is supreme, if it is not, it is not a democracy; that is the big problem in representative democracies. In such democracies the will of the politicians prevails, not the will of the people.

But the Swiss people also show something, perhaps even more important, that when people sharing a language-culture want to have control of their own territory, they must have it.

However, the Swiss do it with a very interesting twist; the Swiss reject the idea of a state with one language, one culture. They also reject the idea of one big unitary canton or region for each language-culture.

The Swiss, the peoples and cultures of Switzerland, by acknowledging that languages-cultures require territorial control they have given themselves the sense of autonomy and control they need. By preventing the creation of unitary territories for all German-speakers, French-speakers, etc.,  they have prevented the rise of “tribal-nationalist” feelings among the four Swiss cultural-linguistic groups.

Other countries, like the UK, Canada, Spain, and others, have not done that; separatism along cultural and linguistic lines, threatens, lurking in the background, the stability, even the existence, of those countries.

Unitary nations, such as France, have suppressed anything not “French”, but separatism raises its ugly head there too.

Switzerland is stable and prosperous because the Swiss people practice direct democracy and political common sense at all levels; at the local, regional and national levels.

The Swiss people are also wise when they avoid creating unitary administrative regions for each language and culture.

They are also masters of “orderly flexibility”; they show it in situations like the Jura and Moutier. In Switzerland, the people can can do anything, but not with demonstrations and riots; with orderly debates and orderly referendums, no mob rule in Switzerland. In fact, the politicians in representative democracies use emotional discourses that sound more like the screams of an excited mob.

It is time other countries adopt the wise Swiss measures, or perhaps even improve on them.

In my next blog I will discuss what happened in Moutier today, and how perhaps our countries can apply a similar approach to our political problems.

Victor Lopez