Author: victor

We, the people, pay the taxes, we pay the salaries of the politicians; it makes sense we the people should be the final decision makers, not the politicians.

That makes Switzerland very different from representative democracies; in Switzerland, “we the people, decide issues”.

In representative democracies, the people elect the politicians, but the politicians make all the decisions.

The people in a direct democracy elect the politicians, but they also have the final say in all important executive and legislative decisions, they propose laws and changes to the constitution AND approve them, not the politicians.

Today I will look at how the Swiss change their constitution.

When the elected politicians in Switzerland agree on a change to the Constitution, even if both chambers of parliament agree, they can not make the change; they must propose the change to the people.

The people decide if they agree with the proposal by voting in a national referendum, if the result of the referendum is a “yes”, then the constitution is changed.

If the people reject what the politicians propose, the politicians can go back to the draw board, or they can forget the changes.

But there is another very interesting twist in Switzerland; the people can also propose changes to the constitution without the agreement or consent of the politicians.

To do that, any citizen, group of citizens, political party (no matter how small), environmental group, religious groups, etc., all they have to do is collect 100 000 signatures, approximately 1% of the population of Switzerland, in 18 months or less.

Once they do that, their proposal goes to a national referendum, just like when the politicians propose the change. The difference in Switzerland is that the politicians propose and do not decide, but the people propose and decide.

It is also very important to know that in Switzerland’s direct democracy, the Swiss Supreme Court can not overturn the decisions of the people.

In representative democracies, the Supreme Court, sometimes called Constitutional Court; can overturn the decisions of parliaments. They do not overturn the decisions by the people because the people can not make decisions; in representative democracies there is nothing to overturn.

One of the healthiest effects of the system of direct democracy is that politicians know they can only propose changes that are in tune with most of the voters. To increase the chances that the people will approve what the politicians propose, the major parties in parliament, who represent 70-80% of the voters, work cooperatively to draft the changes; no heavy handed adversarial politics in the Swiss parliament. This also helps prevent polarization of the country around the major parties, unlike what happens elsewhere.

Remember also that minority political parties, or parties with no representation in parliament, and others, can also propose changes to the constitution if they collect the 100 000 signatures. This makes that the Swiss direct democracy system a great equalizer of political power; a group of citizens, a small party, etc., have the same opportunity the Swiss parliament has to have their proposal to change the constitution become reality.

This is why when I see The Economist’s Democracy Index ranking several representative democracies as more democratic than Switzerland’s direct democracy, I laugh. I also feel sad for what I used to believe was a serious publication.  To see the index: democracy-index-2020

The magazine places Norway as the most democratic country in the World. Unfortunately, in Norway, (in other ways a great country) the politicians alone can change the constitution; they do not need the approval of the people, they do not even have to consult the people and, if they do, they can ignore the wishes of the people; some democracy! Democracy means government by the people.

Never mind the Economist and Norway; if you pay, you should decide. Electing the politicians is no longer enough. Democracy does not mean rule by the elected politicians, it means the people rule.

Representative democracy is an oxymoron, really; if the people are represented and the representatives decide, then the people do not decide, that is not rule by the people, it is not democracy, it is something that resembles democracy, it is better than totalitarian or authoritarian regimes, much better, but it is not democracy.

If you want democracy in your country, you will have to do more than blame the politicians or complain, you will have to spread the word about direct democracy until the people demand it, and do not give up until they get it.

Direct democracy did not land in Switzerland from Heaven…, they had to demand it, insistently.

Let us look at minorities in the only time-tested direct democracy the World has now; Switzerland.

Switzerland is made up of four founding cultures who speak German, French, Italian and Romansch. German-speakers make up 63% of the population, French-speakers 23%, Italian-Speakers 8% and Romansh-speakers 0.5%.

Although the Romansh language is spoken by a tiny minority, it is one of the four official national languages. No other democracy does that; France, Spain, the UK, Sweden, Canada, the United States, etc., with much larger minorities, do not do that, and suffer never ending tensions because of it.

Have you ever heard that Breton or Corsican are official national language of France, or Gaelic in the UK, or Galician, Basque or Catalan as official languages of Spain, or any aboriginal language of Canada, the US or Mexico? You haven’t because they are not.

But it gets even more interesting; of the 8.5 million Swiss, only about 60 000 people speak Romansh and they no not make up the majority in any of the Swiss cantons, (a canton is equivalent to an American state, a German lander, a Mexican state, a Canadian province or a Spanish autonomous region).

Why has the German-speaking majority, and also the other major French-speaking and Italian-speaking minorities, recognize in such clear and official manner the language spoken by such a few people?

It can not be because of their votes count for much at election time in the national elections. They do it because they know it is good for themselves too because it prevents alienation and frustration when people are not respected and recognized.

But there is more to Swiss direct democracy; in Switzerland, if you get 50 000 signatures, or 100 000 in other cases, any issue has to be put to a national referendum.

There is also a very important detail; in Switzerland, the results of popular referendums are mandatory; the parliament and the executive have to respect and implement them. Also very important; the Swiss Supreme court can not overturn the results of popular referendums because they may be “contrary to the constitution”. In a direct democracy “the people are sovereign”, for real.

In Switzerland, if 50 000 or 100 000 people, between 0.5 and 1% of the population, sign up to a proposal anyone can make; “this issue should go to national referendum”, it goes.

But the issue does not even have to affect the 50 000 or 100 000 people, a much smaller group of people can force a national referendum on an issue they consider important, as long as they get the signatures. This gives significant power to the smallest groups.

Small and large groups, tiny and large political parties, can force national on other issues, and they do; making Swiss companies responsible for human rights and environmental violations in their foreign facilities, gay marriage, immigration, taxes, commercial treaties with other countries, budgets, new weapons for the armed forces, gun laws, and on and on.

Direct democracy provides a mechanism for social minorities, minority political parties and other groups, to have the whole nation decide.

Popular referendums in Switzerland have even been used to create new cantons. This has happened when a significant portion of the population of a canton are convinced they need a canton of their own.

The political diversity of Switzerland is amazing also; there are 15 political parties with representation in the national parliament and, amazingly, the Swiss parliamentarians and the executive work cooperatively; does that happen in your country?

There are another 10 parties with no representation in the parliament but, remember, they can organize referendums; they have power beyond their numbers. The 50 000-100 000 signature system allows citizens to go the people for a decision, over the heads of the executive and parliament.

So, if you belong to any minority, or to the majority, but want to avoid having frustrated minorities and peaceful getting along, no other system comes close to direct democracy. Ignore what some academics, opinion makers and politicians in your representative democracy may tell you.

Besides, direct democracy develops voters into much more responsible voters; it happens because voters now decide, they don’t just vote for someone; they know they are responsible for the fate of the nation.

 

Very few people know it, the people elected to the Swiss federal government, and other Swiss politicians, are part-time politicians. With part-time politicians, Switzerland is the best run country in the World; interesting and surprising.

You know Switzerland is a rich country, but you may not know they have the best universal health care system in the World as well. There are many other areas where the multicultural Swiss excel.

The Swiss believe that even the politicians who serve in the federal parliament should be part-time politicians. They believe it is good for the country when elected representatives work also at a regular job, in this way they also live the actual life of ordinary voters and will understand them better.

Perhaps the 80% approval rating of Swiss politicians has something to do with the fact Swiss politicians are “of the people”; they do not make up a political class, like politicians in representative democracies do.

Another interesting fact is that Swiss part-time politicians have a much higher approval rating than their full-time counterparts in other countries.

For example, in the Unites States, the approval rating of the US Congress hovers around 15-25% time after time. But something is wrong when, despite such dismal performance, 90% of the members of the US Congress are re-elected, time after time.

So, US politicians do a terrible job, according to US voters but, somehow, the voters keep them in their jobs time after time; something is wrong in the US system, but is another issue.

Other representative democracies are not doing too good either; in the UK, France, and most other representative democracies, the approval of politicians is below 50%.

The Swiss people are more satisfied with their part-time politicians than you are with those who work for you full-time. But, do your elected representatives work for you full time?, or do they work full-time for themselves, to get re-elected, and for this or that lobby or pressure group?

Switzerland shows that James Madison, “father of the US Constitution” was wrong;

Jameson wrote in Federalist No. 62 that “It is not possible that an assembly of men called mostly from private pursuits, continued in appointment for a short time, and led by no permanent motive to devote intervals of public occupation to a study of the laws, the affairs, and the comprehensive interests of their country, should, if left wholly to themselves, escape a variety of important errors in the exercise of their legislative trust.”

The Swiss prove the opposite; not only part-time politicians “escape” with fewer errors; they can perform much better than full-time politicians.

I believe there is another factor that makes part-time politicians better; direct democracy.

In a direct democracy, all the key decisions are made by the people; after all, democracy is “government by the people”, not by elected representatives. The idea that a country governed by the representatives of the people  is a democracy is wrong. The Greeks invented (direct) democracy, not representative democracy. “Representative democracy” is an oxymoron.

In Switzerland the voters work harder because they decide, they don’t just vote to elect politicians.

This why both chambers of the Swiss Parliament meet only 3 weeks during the year. Also, Swiss politicians do not need the crazy big staff politicians in representative democracies need.

Because in Switzerland the people decide, Swiss politicians have a lot less power, less responsibility and less work.

Logically, Swiss parliamentarians are also cheaper than their counterparts in countries other countries;

US:                 175 000 USD

Japan:            150 000

Austria:          145 000

Canada:         140 000

Germany:      130 000

UK:                    115 000

France:           100 000

Switzerland:   72 000

Another advantage for the Swiss of having part-time politicians is that the politicians spend more time in their districts; listening to the people, living with the people, working among the people. One effect of that is that Swiss politicians govern more in tune with the ordinary citizen.

Isn’t it time to push for direct democracy and part-time politicians? Isn’t it obvious part-time politicians produce better results than full-time politicians, at least if the country is a direct democracy, or a semi-direct democracy in which the elected politicians have their power drastically reduced?

No time to lose; we need to push for direct democracy to improve democracy, and remove the dangerous discontent with representative politicians, who do not represent the people well, in so many countries.

The Index ranks the countries of the World by what the Economist considers are good indicators of the quality of democracy. Click here to see The Index

The Economist places Switzerland behind 11 other countries, this makes no sense; Switzerland far and away the most democratic country in the World.

Switzerland is the most democratic country because it practices “government by the people” more often and more deeply than any other country.

The Swiss people can prevail over their elected politicians on any issue the Swiss people consider should be decided by popular referendum. The Swiss people can declared invalid laws proposed by the elected representatives, and they do. The Swiss can also enact new laws without the consent of the elected representatives. They can change the Constitution without the consent of the elected representatives.

Not even the Swiss Supreme Court can overturn the results of popular referendums. Nor can declare the results contrary to the Constitution, the way they do in the US and most other representative democracies.

The Swiss people are the supreme authority in Switzerland; that is what “government by the people” means. There is no need to “refine” the criteria.

Unfortunately, for the Economist, democracy does not mean “government by the people”, it must mean other interesting things, but none of them can have the weight of “government by the people”, because that is what democracy is.

The Report ranks Norway as the most democratic country and places Switzerland as the 12th most democratic country in the World.

Let us compare “government by the people” in Norway and Switzerland.

In the Norwegian constitution popular referendums are not even mentioned. This means the Norwegian people have no say in the running of Norway; their Constitution does not give them that power, except voting at election time.

The Norwegian people can not call for referendums on any issue, all they can do, if the politicians do something Norwegians do not like, is: accept that their fate is in the hands of politicians, complain, riot or revolt.

Norway is one of the best countries in the World; stable, successful, with governments that listen to the people, etc., but as far as “government by the people”, as far as real democracy goes, Norway is much less of a democracy than Switzerland.

The people of Norway have no authority to decide any issue of national or local importance, except if the Government asks them. But even in that case, the Norwegian government can ignore the verdict of the people. Even if the people vote 99% in favour, or against, the issue, the government can ignore what the people want, some democracy!

Norwegian referendums do not have more weight than opinion polls.

Norway’s elected representatives; the politicians hold all political power in Norway, like in all other representative “democracies”.

Switzerland does it very differently; the control of the politicians by the people is built into the system; it is part of the of the way Switzerland works. The people can call referendums on almost anything they decide they want to decide. They do it in a civic, orderly manner; no violent protests take place because they are not necessary.

How can Switzerland, a country where the people vote more times the in Norway, on more issues and have more rights to decide how the country is run, be less democratic than Norway? To consider Norway more democratic than Switzerland is absurd.

None of the other 11 countries the Economist considers are better democracies that Switzerland either, they all are far less democratic.

The people of Iceland, Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, Australia, the Netherlands and Taiwan have far less power to decide issues or policies than the Swiss; this is why they are democracies or lower quality.

In fact, right after Switzerland, which should number one, The Economist should rank Taiwan; the Taiwanese people, in many ways inspired by the Swiss, have more “government by the people” than the other countries ahead of Taiwan.

Taiwan was an authoritarian regime not long ago. If Taiwan can, any country can evolve into a direct democracy.

I hope the next edition of the Economist’s Report considers “government by the people” as the key criteria to rank democracies. It is obvious that for The Economist “government by the people” is not the essence of democracy, but it should be; it was for the Greeks 2800 years ago, it is for the Swiss now and it is for those of us who believe in real democracy.

Please, pass this on and make others aware that the Economist rankings are wrong, mislead people and should be revised.

Victor Lopez

Ignore all the baloney against direct democracy. Some say direct democracy can turn into a dictatorship of the majority; there is a big fat zero of evidence of that!

Some people believe that if voters directly decide issues they will make short-term, frivolous, irresponsible decisions; the facts shows it is the opposite; voters make better, sounder decisions than elected politicians. There are many reasons for that, but I will leave it for another post.

Let us look now at the economy and direct democracy. The most practical way to do it is by looking at Switzerland.

I use Switzerland as the reference because it is the only society in the World practising direct democracy in all levels of government; local, cantonal (the Swiss canton are similar to states or governments in other federal nations), and also at the national level.

Let us look at how direct democracy is good for the economy too; for business and for jobs.

Look at the facts;

Value of high tech exports per capita: Switzerland is twice Germany’s and 7 times more than the US!

Economic stability: Highest in the World.

Quality of governance: Switzerland ranks number one.

GDP per capita: 69 358 USD. Second highest in the World.

Unemployment rate: 3.5%, one of the lowest anywhere.

Youth unemployment rate: 3.3%, yes 3.3%!, lower than any other developed nation.

Government deficit % of GDP: +1.4 (no deficit). Most representative democracies have deficits, often stratospheric !

General government debt as % of GDP: 41.1, one of the lowest among advanced countries.

Income tax: 40% and lower than most other countries.

Corporate tax: 18%, one of the lowest in the developed World.

Health System: Universal coverage and best in the World according to most studies.

University education: University tuition is about one thousand USD in public universities. Most universities are public and of excellent quality.

You can compare those facts with representative “democracy” countries; just enter in Internet “ranking of countries by…” unemployment, health care quality, etc.

Direct democracy is good for the economy because it develops voters into decision-makers, into very responsible voters.

In a direct democracy seductive speakers, charisma, do not much matter in politicians because politicians do not have the power they have in a representative democracy. In a direct democracy like Switzerland, voters are not interested in seductive, “smoke and mirrors” political marketing; they know there are lies, big lies and political marketing… The Swiss see that all around them.

In a direct democracy, voters quickly learn they are the highest authority in the land and they rise to that responsibility.

Fortunately, the World is re-awakening to direct democracy; we all have to thank the Swiss for being the new pioneers.

Representative democracies need to switch to direct democracy now; the politicians of representative democracies have been diverging more and more from the will of the people. This is endangering the stability of those societies where trust in politicians is at the lowest levels ever.

In Switzerland that has not happened; at 80% the level of trust, trust in politicians is the highest. The Swiss trust their politicians, nobody else comes close. This is because of direct democracy; the politicians do what the people want them to do, not what the lobbies, etc., want.

Direct democracy was, and is, another huge advance in human civilization.

So, we have now another reason to persuade others direct democracy is what we need; the economy, jobs.

Think about and then, do something!

Overall, the French Revolution was a great step forward for human dignity; the entire world is still assimilating what it means for citizens and governments some have not assimilated it yet.

But one bad thing it did is bring representative “democracy”.

The term “representative democracy” is just a way to trick (ourselves) into believing that representative democracy, the system where citizens elect the rulers, is democracy, it is not.

The argument “direct democracy” vs. “representative democracy” is false. It is so because representative democracy is not democracy.

In a representative “democracy”, the few who rule have the power to rule as they see fit, not as the people want.

In all representative democracies the elected few, the politicians, decide everything; the education your children will receive, the taxes you will pay, how fast can you drive, how the health system works, with which countries to trade, the penalties for violating laws, how strong the army of the country will be, who can become a citizen, and on and on.

In representative democracies, citizens have the power to change those who govern, but the new government continues to have the same control over the lives of citizens. The new executive and legislative just exert the control in a different direction.

But, how did this deception called “representative democracy” originated during the French Revolution?

It does not come from Ancient Greece. The Greeks invented “rule by the people”, that is what “democracy” means. To them, representative democracy would just be another form of oligarchy or of aristocracy.

The term “representative democracy” arose when of the leaders of the French Revolution, Maximilien Robespierre, declared that democracy, was not “a state wherein the people continually assembled, manage all public affairs by themselves, or even met in groups to decide the direction of society.” “Democracy is a state wherein the sovereign people, guided by laws of their own making, does all that it can properly do on its own, and does by delegates all that it cannot do itself.”

“By delegates”, that is the key term.

With that statement, Robespierre redefined democracy and made representative democracy sound as legitimate as if it were real democracy, but it is not.

Also during the French Revolution, another Frenchman, Pierre-François-Joseph Robert, saw that there is no democracy if there if we have elected representatives. He said: “those who wish to adapt all the principles of democratic government to a representative government are either imbeciles who disrupt without knowing it, or rogues who knowingly disrupt in the hope of not losing the fruits of anarchy.”

It is clear that Revolutionary Frenchmen quickly saw representative democracy is not democracy. It is time for the rest of us see it now,

An elected aristocracy is a vast improvement over the any oligarchy or dictatorship, but “rule by the people” means what is says; rule by the people, not by the elected representatives. The elected representatives can play a role in democracy, but the final decision makers on issues are the people, the owners of the country.

In all countries the people should have the right to decide, not just vote, regardless of what the government of the country, the city, etc., want.

Democracy does not mean the elected politicians can not play a role, for example presenting their arguments to persuade the voters to vote “yes” or “no”, proposing laws, etc.

The time has come to discard Robespierre’s redefinition of democracy and listen to Robert.

Human dignity requires democracy, direct democracy. The Swiss were able to transition from representative democracy to direct democracy many years ago, they did it forcefully but without blood shed, others can too.

Direct democracy also produces better practical results than representative democracy; Switzerland is the most stable country in the World, has one of the highest standards of living, best universal health care system, etc. Direct democracy is better for all, for the rich, the middle class and the poor.

Interestingly, the demand of the Swiss people for direct democracy was triggered by another pandemic in 1867.

Could today’s “virus from Hell” turn out to be the “virus from Heaven”, for humanity, including China? It could, but you will have to do something for it to happen.

Direct democracy must become a fundamental human right.

Direct democracy is to representative democracy what the right of colonies to govern themselves was to colonial powers.

I do not know why most people in representative democracies seem to accept that system as the most desirable system. I say this because there is a better alternative to representative democracy. That alternative is direct democracy.

Direct democracy turns representative democracy on its head; instead of the elected representatives making the decisions on issues, the voters do.

Most voters I know now are reasonable and competent people, if we bring direct democracy they will vote with common sense.

They would vote responsibly to decide on: the use car seat belts, entering a commercial treaty,  abolition of the death penalty, increases or reductions of budgets, taxes, building new roads or railroads, the military budget, modification of any law or the constitution, introduction of new laws and regulations, etc.

Decisions made by voters, after proper public debate, are more representative of the voters, but are also better decisions than decisions made by elected politicians. There are several reasons for that.

Among the voters, there are many skilled experts on any issue; those experts can explain to voters in conferences, documents, debates, etc., the pros and cons of issues.

Another one is that ordinary citizens want the best for themselves, their families, their towns and their country. They also want their children to have a wonderful future. This is better because lobbies can not pressure citizens the way lobbies pressure politicians, often at the expense of the common good.

Another important reason that strengthens decision-making in a direct democracy is that decisions made by the citizens have a democratic credibility that no decision made by elected representatives has.

Even if a direct democracy is not fully a direct democracy, such is the case of Switzerland, because they still have elected representatives, it can be a pretty good direct democracy.

This happens in Switzerland because the Swiss people have more say than their elected representatives on any important issue. They even have more power that the Swiss Supreme Court on constitutional issues.

For example, there is no way the Swiss Supreme Court could decide, like the US Supreme Court did some time ago, that corporations, unions and other entities can contribute as much money as they want to political campaigns. The result of that thoughtless, yes thoughtless, decision by half plus one of the US Supreme Court Judges has been the almost total control of electoral campaigns by those with money. Money controls much of the messages in the US now.

The Swiss have direct democracy, nobody else come close, because the people have control; not the politicians, not the judges, not big money.

Swiss-style direct democracy is spreading without the Swiss pushing it. Taiwan is one important recent case. It is important because a few decades ago, it was a dictatorship, like its neighbour China still is. But this also means China is also capable of becoming a direct democracy. Imagine how that would advance the whole of humanity, not just the Chinese…

To summarise; “We pay we decide”.

If you are not free to decide collective issues, you are not really free; somebody else has that freedom to decide “on your behalf”. Direct democracy stops that and makes you free.

 

Democracy’s definition is straightforward; democracy means “rule by the people”.

By the way, if democracy is “government by the people” you do not need to amplify it to “government of the people and for the people”. Democracy is “government by the people”, it is enough.

The Greeks did not invent “representative democracy”, they invented democracy. There is only one kind of democracy; direct democracy, the rest is not democracy. To the Greeks, representative “democracy” would be an “elected oligarchy”, not a democracy. It is time to stop distorting what the Greeks di 2800 years ago, and fool the people in the process.

How can “representative democracy” be a democracy if the people do not govern? In a representative democracy, in all of them, the people vote but do not govern, the politicians govern.

Representative democracy is an enormous advance over absolute kings, rule by priests, totalitarian regimes by individuals or political parties, but it is not democracy, it is not “government by the people”. That is why, in most representative democracies, voters do not trust elected politicians.

In a representative democracy the people vote and select the rulers, but the rulers govern, not the people.

Among modern countries, only Switzerland comes close to doing what the Greeks did.

Like in representative democracies, the Swiss also have elected politicians and political parties; in this they are no different. What makes the Swiss more democratic, and closer to Greek direct democracy, is that the Swiss people have more power than the representatives they elect.

This is how the Swiss system works; the people, not the politicians, have the power to call for popular referendums on anything the politicians do. The results of referendums are mandatory for government, not even the Swiss Supreme Court can overturn the results of a popular referendum.

In some cases, even if the people do not demand a referendum, a referendum has to be called for the people to decide.

The Swiss people can veto laws and policies; they can also modify the constitution. The elected politicians, no matter how many of them agree, can never prevail over the will of the people.

All Swiss citizens know they can start a referendum. They also know that decisions made by referendum have the democratic legitimacy that no decision by elected representatives can have. This is so for winners and losers of referendums and helps prevents riots and many other problems we see in representative “democracies”.

What do Swiss politicians then do? They propose laws and policies. Most of the laws and policies they propose are not challenged or turned down by the people. This is so because Swiss politicians know any decision or law they propose the people can reject.

It is also because of this that Swiss politicians have learned to work together; they negotiate… and negotiate… and negotiate, until they know most voters will support their decision.

Another benefit of the need parties have to cooperate is that in the Swiss parliament, the media, etc., you will not see the aggressive, often hateful and demagogical, debates we see in representative democracies.

While the Swiss do not practice direct democracy to the degree the Greeks did, the fact that the Swiss people have more power than the elected politicians gives the Swiss people the power they need to prevail and make Swiss democracy “government by the people.”

Swiss politicians can not “betray” voters either; they do not have the power to do that. No wonder Swiss politicians are the most trusted in the World.

Tired of politicians governing instead of you and your fellow voters?

Isn’t it time to switch to direct democracy? I am convinced it is.

Politicians, opinion makers, intellectuals and common citizens in representative democracies often say that direct democracy can not work because citizens are not competent to make sound decisions on issues.

In representative democracies they see voters often make the wrong decision by electing people that are unfit for public office, sometimes because of intellectual or knowledge limitations, other times because they have character flaws.

Many opponents of direct democracy say things like:

“If voters already make huge mistakes when they elect politicians, just imagine what mistakes they will make if they decide on complex issues like the economy, technology, law, science, education, energy, medical care, the environment, etc.”

When people do not know how direct democracy works, it is understandable many will think that way.

What those people do not know is that direct democracy does not work like that because direct democracy changes votes because it changes voters.

We know it because the World has only one country that practices direct democracy today; Switzerland. Other countries have some elements of direct democracy but if direct democracy is not practised at the local, city, region and national level, you do not have direct democracy.

Switzerland is the best governed country in the World, how can that be if it is a direct democracy?

Well, direct democracy fosters responsible voting. Swiss voters have to vote responsibly because if they do not, they know the dire consequences are their own fault; they can not blame their elected representatives.

So, the evidence shows that direct democracy has the opposite effect to those who fear it believe; when the voters have the last word on issues, on policies, on laws, on regulations, on the constitution, and the politicians do not, the result is better governance, much better.

Why do you think Switzerland is the most stable country in the World, economically and politically? Why do you think they consider the Swiss Franc a more stable currency than the US Dollar, any other dollar, the Euro, the British Pound or any other currency?

Sometimes it seems as if the elites of other countries are happy with Switzerland being a direct democracy; because of its stability they have a nice safe place to keep their “emergency big bucks”. These same people dislike to give up the power representative democracy gives to them and to the politicians whose campaigns they finance, in their own countries.

But it seems more and more people are catching on; direct democracy is the better way, including for those in the elites who want a more stable country for themselves, even if it requires they throttle their short term greed.

Direct democracy makes voters responsible. Because of that, the voters in a direct democracy demand information for and against the issue before they vote; they listen to experts, to debates, etc.

So, if you want your country, it does not matter which country, to become as stable, prosperous and well-run as Switzerland, you better do something, now.

Insist on direct democracy because you and your fellow citizens will vote more intelligently, more responsibly.

By the way, Switzerland also has the best universal health care system in the World. Direct democracy produces an interesting balance of capitalism and socialism, and far from the “Capitalism vs. Socialism” absurd fight we see in too many countries right now.

Rick Shenkman, in Politico Magazine, made reference on September 8, 2019 to an article published by Shawn Rosenberg, Professor of Professor of Political Science and Psychological Science in the University of California.

Rosenberg predicts “In well-established democracies like the United States, democratic governance will continue its inexorable decline and will eventually fail.”

First of all, the affirmation is contradictory; a well-established democracy is stable and will not fail.

“Our brains.” says Rosenberg, “are proving fatal to modern democracy. Humans just aren’t built for it”.

Human brains are not built either to speak, to write, or even to eat with fork, knife and dishes, for mathematics, for using computers or to enjoy to classical music, etc., they have to learn all that.

But human brains are built to be curious, to learn and invent. One invention is democracy, and we can teach it to others.

It is obvious Mr. Rosenberg does not know well democracies that work far better than the US. He seems to generalise from his particular knowledge.

What Mr. Rosenberg could do is live in Switzerland for a few years to observe Swiss direct democracy at work.

He will see that, even if the “human brain is not wired for democracy” (it does not have to be), democracy can work reasonably well, certainly better than in the US and most other “established”, “advanced” countries.

The key is direct democracy; when the citizens have more decision-making power than the elected representatives, when they don’t just vote to elect others, when they make political decisions. This is “government by the people”; it means citizens handle the effects of their decisions. When that happens, they decide very responsibly. This is why Switzerland is the best governed country in the World.

But Mr. Rosenberg, unfortunately, says other “interesting gems”. Again, I quote Politico:

“He has concluded that the reason for right-wing populists’ recent success is that elites are losing control of the institutions that have traditionally saved people from their most undemocratic impulses. When people are left to make political decisions on their own, they drift towards the simple solutions right-wing populists worldwide offer: a deadly mix of xenophobia, racism and authoritarianism”.

Anyone who says “the elites are losing control of the institutions that have traditionally saved people from their most undemocratic impulses,” is an elitist, not a democrat.

Where does he get the idea that people have “undemocratic impulses”? The people do not have undemocratic, or democratic impulses, but I know humans have the impulse to find freedom and respect, which is what democracy is about.

As for his affirmation: “When people are left to make political decisions on their own they drift towards the simple solutions right-wing populists worldwide offer: a deadly mix of xenophobia, racism and authoritarianism.”

Switzerland proves, decade after decade, that when the people make the key decisions they decide responsibly, they do not fall for populists or demagogues of the right or the left.

Reject Mr. Rosenberg’s wrong and harmful views. It is time we fight everywhere, with arguments, people like him, who transmit to the next generation wrong ideas that weaken democracy.

I suppose it is not Mr. Rosenberg’s intention, but his words undermine democracy and strengthen the arguments of the enemies of democracy.

The foolishness impulse it is obvious exists. Perhaps democracy is too much for Mr. Rosenberg.

The rest of us should push now for direct democracy, to avoid the collapse of representative democracy by neutralizing bad ideas, of which Mr. Rosenberg is, sadly, not the only generator.