Author: victor

All representative democracies have their own political swamps. Swamps exist at the national, state-province, and local level. The Swamp became famous because of The Swamp in Washington.

For most people, The Swamp includes the Executive, the Legislative, many career bureaucrats, and all the lobbyists around all of them. But I also include the judiciary, because the Judiciary is also an entrenched power with huge clout over American politics, and it should not have that power.

The Swamp is not a right-wing or left-wing phenomenon, it is a systemic illness.

Ordinary citizens dislike The Swamp. They dislike it because they sense, correctly, that The Swamp runs the country, but not for them.

The way representative democracies work, it is almost inevitable for them not to develop some version of The Swamp; the Swamp is a natural consequence of representative democracy.

The reason is simple; representative democracy gives all the executive power to the elected executive, to the elected legislator, and also to the judges.

The political parties can not drain the Swamp because being part of it brings them many benefits.

For example, passing a law or issuing an order that, rises or lowers tariffs, benefits one lobby or another. The lobbies who benefit are likely to help politicians at election time with big economic donations to their campaigns, with political ads, articles, books, favourable editorials and so on.

The lobbies need the politicians in the executive, and the legislative, and the politicians need the lobbies. It is a symbiotic relationship.

The fights we see in representative democracies, such as the United States, between the parties, are fights for power. What is important to them is to win the election to have the power the other side now has. No party ever campaigns to diminish the power of politicians.

In representative democracies, there are “checks and balances” to prevent that the executive, the legislative or the judiciary prevail over the other two, but the checks and balances in representative democracies do not check or balance the overall power of government over the citizens.

The newly elected government may dismantle the program of the preceding government, only to bring their own, perhaps even more controlling program. They never reduce government power (over ordinary citizens).

Regarding the judges, we have the situation in representative democracies where non-elected judges make political decisions.

But is even worse, the judiciary is accumulating so much power that often we have “government by the judges.”

In a representative democracy, the voters have zero, nada, power in-between elections, but in a direct democracy, the voters are the final decision-makers on any issue the voters decide they should be the final decision-makers; public expenses, big projects, treaties, taxes, military expenses, education, health care, etc., are some examples.

When the key decision-makers are the voters, the lobbies and other interest groups soon learn that it makes no sense to spend millions on politicians who have no power to help them.

As the lobbies spend less money in The Swamp, The Swamp drains, and many of its “creatures” leave it.

The key problem people have to overcome to bring direct democracy is the resistance of the politicians.

Direct democracy came to Switzerland, the only country with a long history of direct democracy, at all levels and branches of government, when the Swiss realized that the people, in an open, orderly manner, make better decisions than the politicians. But that realisation was not enough; they had to pressure and pressure the politicians to give up most of their power, they succeeded in 1798.

They were right; Switzerland is the most democratic, most stable, and best functioning country in the World.

Direct democracy also produced in Switzerland a political climate that is far less polarized than in representative democracies. In Switzerland, the major parties, who represent 70-80% of the electorate, govern in coalition; there is no “loyal” opposition in Switzerland because it makes no sense to have it.

In Switzerland, the judges are also kept in check; they can not rule if laws are or not constitutional. Swiss judges can not make decisions that cancel the decisions the people make via referendums either.

Direct democracy really is “government by the people”, nothing else is necessary.

If you want your country not to have a Swamp, you will have to mobilize, like the Swiss did.

Our current representative democracies are a huge step forward from absolute rulers, but another step is necessary.

Unfortunately, in a representative democracy the elected officials hold all the power. The voters only have power at election time. Between elections, the voters are mere spectators. It is time to change that; the people should have always the final say on any decision or law the people consider important.

Fortunately, we have in stable representative democracies the tool to exercise that power orderly; is called voting.

The change involves expanding voting, from just voting to decide in elections to voting on issues, and to also give voters the power to present issues to binding referendums.

Today, we only have one nation with a proven record doing that; Switzerland, but the current is starting to flow that way in other places.

Switzerland is almost a full direct democracy because the people have the power to propose laws, to stop and reject laws proposed by their elected representatives, and also to change the constitution. Switzerland is not a full democracy because the Swiss still have elected representatives, nothing wrong with that, but all decisions and laws proposed by the representatives are subject to explicit voter approval or rejection.

I refer to Switzerland as the only direct democracy because it is the only country with direct democracy at the national, cantonal (cantons are like states or provinces) and local level.

If there is direct democracy at the local or state level, but not at the national level, there is no direct democracy, particularly if the national politicians hold most of the power, it is impossible.

Introducing direct democracy at the local and at the state-province level may be important as a sort of training ground, but it must only the first step.

Because the idea of direct people’s power on issues is catching on, there are groups promoting direct democracy all over the World; it is quite likely you have one in your country, look it up in Internet.

The interest in direct democracy is growing due to growing disenchantment with representative democracy. This is because in a representative democracy the elected representatives have too much power. This allows them to make all decisions, including those that give them progressively more power and leaves voters with less and less power; no wonder many become voters disenchanted.

The ordinary citizens who still believe representative democracy is a real democracy are being naive.

To make direct democracy happen, it requires persuading our fellow citizens that direct democracy is a better system.

Although direct democracy is a logical advance, it will not happen just like that; the Greeks had to persuade fellow citizens and fight the elites to get direct democracy 2600 years ago. Almost two centuries ago, the Swiss had to do the same; you will have to do it too.

But the task is not easy; most “experts” living in representative democracies do not trust the people to be able to make political decisions, and they write and speak about that, although not openly in many cases.

They do not say they do not trust the people, they say they fear “mob rule”.

In fact, direct democracy is a safeguard to prevent the discredit of representative democracy and its collapse into mob rule or dictatorship.

We saw it happened in Nazi Germany, in Cuba, in Venezuela, and we see it in many countries now. Switzerland proves direct democracy is a guarantee against mob rule or dictatorial rule. The Ancient Greeks also proved that.

Representative democracy is suffering in the United States, something unthinkable a few years ago. We will see it the American people take the opportunity to react, and peacefully push to bring direct democracy to themselves.

But the “experts” are not the only ones who do not like direct democracy; most politicians in representative democracies do not like direct democracy either. It happened in Switzerland too.

Politicians in representative democracies know direct democracy brings a drastic reduction in the power they now have, and that they feel need for the country to function “properly” (according to them) socially, economically, politically, legally. They may be honest, but they are wrong; direct democracy is better on all counts.

What is even more important is that many ordinary citizens in representative democracies do not seem to trust the ability of their fellow citizens (of themselves, really) to vote competently on issues; we have to inform them about direct democracy and hope they will change their minds.

Those of us who know direct democracy is better, must do all we can to bring it about. Let us go from the idea to reality.

I just read an article published by DW.com on May 18^th, 2014.

I quote; “Estimates place more than half of all worldwide referendums as taking place in Switzerland. The small country of eight million residents is seen by many as an ideal model of democracy. However, recent years have shown that such referendums can lead to controversial political decisions. In 2009, a proposal to ban minarets on mosques received the majority of the referendum vote. And at the start of 2014, Europe was shocked at the referendum-based decision to restrict the number of EU immigrants to Switzerland”.

DW seems to suggest Swiss-style direct democracy is not a good system because it produces “controversial decisions”.

Do not politicians in representative democracies, like Germany, produce controversial decisions too?  Don’t they produce them sometimes, even against the will of their own people? What sort of balderdash are the DW’s editors talking about?

How about Angela Merkel’s decision in 2015 to open Germany’s borders to refugees? That decision made millions of Germans angry, and millions of other Germans happy; quite controversial. We do not know if more Germans supported her decision or were against it. We will never know because they did not vote.

It is reasonable to question representative democracy because of the power it gives governments to decide without consulting the people; when they do that, they are not acting democratically. Whatever happened to “democracy: government by the people”?

Angel Merkel’s decision was controversial in Germany because it was not a democratic decision, because the people did not vote. She did it because she felt “it was the right thing to do”, and because representative democracy gives her that power.

It is very different to create controversy the way Angela Merkel did, ignoring the will of the people, from the democratic controversy in Switzerland, when the people debate an issue and democratically decide.

After a referendum in Switzerland, there hardly is any controversy; the losers accept they lost after a fair hearing. They learned they  have to improve their arguments, or wait until the public mood changes; there are no politicians to get mad at, like in Germany.

In Switzerland, after much debate and discussion, the voters made a rational, deliberate decision on minarets and immigration.

The Swiss process allowed those who supported the building of minarets and not limiting immigration plenty of time to present their point to the public. The process did the same for the people who oppose building the minarets and want to reduce immigration. One argument persuaded more voters, that is all; that is what democracy is about.

The four positions are reasonable; to defend the building of minarets, to defend banning minarets, to reduce immigration or to maintain it at current levels. The right thing to do is for the majority to decide, it is their country.

The referendum results were clear; 57.51% of the voters said “nein” to the building of minarets, 42.49% said “ja”.  The proposal also won the referendum in 22 of the 26 Swiss Cantons (states).

The results of the referendum to limit European immigration were clear but closer; 50.33% voted in favour of limiting immigration and 49.67% voted against. The proponents of this referendum also won in most cantons; 14.5 cantons voted “yes”, 11.5 cantons voted “no.”

To make it even more democratic than in Germany, in Switzerland, it is the people who call the referendum, not the government. In Germany, only the Government can call a referendum; the German people do not have the right to do that, but they should. Also, like in Switzerland, the results of the referendum should be binding for the German government.

It is important to note the Swiss did not vote to ban Islam, ban Moslems or ban Mosques; what they did is ban minarets. They did not ban European immigration either; they just wanted to limit it.

The Swiss do not have a recent history of doing crazy things like banning a religion or their practicioners, but long time ago they did have “religious” wars. They like immigrants too; 25% of the population in Switzerland are immigrants.

Perhaps Swiss voters made a bad decision on minarets and on immigration; there is no way of demonstrating that.

Unfortunately, the track record of representative democracy, certainly in Germany, is far worse than Swiss direct democracy; it was in a representative democracy that people voted for Hitler.

In representative democracies, not just in Germany, the politicians have too much power; if the executive and parliament agree, they can do anything they want. In a direct democracy they can not because the people have more power than the politicians, that is what it is all about; power.

I believe if Germany had a direct democracy, she would not have started WW I and WW II. If it had direct democracy, they would have not ended up in the arms of Adolf Hitler either.

Given Germany’s history with representative democracy, it would be more reasonable for DW to support direct democracy than to criticize it.

Switzerland proves that direct democracy, “government by the people”, exercised through an orderly, rational process, produces sounder decisions than representative democracy.

In Switzerland’s direct democracy process, those supporting the building of minarets can also collect the 100 000 required signatures to hold another referendum on the same issue, and perhaps win. It is a better system, although not perfect.

Let us bring Swiss-style direct democracy to Germany and to other representative democracies.

 

 

In no representative democracy is that possible. In Switzerland’s direct democracy it happens all the time.

For example, there is a group in Switzerland;  “The Group for a Switzerland without and Army”. It was set up by 100 Swiss young pacifist men and women. It now has 25 000 members.

They created it in the town of Olten, in the Swiss canton of Solthurn, in September 12^th, 1982. Olten is a town of 17 000 people.

This group uses the tools of direct democracy to directly influence Swiss politics.

They can do that because in a direct democracy, you do not have to rely on a political party to push an issue, the people can directly go to the people and the people decide. They can do that even against the wishes of the executive and the legislative, and the courts stay out of it, how about that? Nothing like that is possible in the representative democracy you live in now.

In 1986 the group gathered the 100 000 signatures required to put one issue important to them to a national referendum.

What they presented to the people was a proposal; “For a Switzerland Without an Army and an Overall Peaceful Political State”. The referendum took place on November 26, 1989.

Many Swiss laughed at the proposal; they were convinced it made no sense, that voters overwhelmingly would vote it down. I do not know if the politicians laughed at it too. If they did, they all stopped laughing when they saw the results of the referendum, because the proposal received the support of 36% of the voters.

Many ordinary Swiss and the politicians were shocked; they never imagined that over one-third of Swiss voters wanted to abolish the army.

Naturally, with only 36% support, the proposal was not accepted. Nothing changed legally, but it shook other voters, the politicians, the military, etc. It was a healthy shake-up; it showed how those running a country can get out of touch with huge segments of the population. It also showed how citizens can be out of touch with fellow citizens.

If the elected representatives, and ordinary citizens, can get so out of touch with other citizens in Switzerland, over something as important as the Army, in spite of the constant people-initiated referendums on all sort of issues, you can imagine how out of touch politicians are in representative democracies.

I believe armies are necessary, but that is not the point. The point is that in a direct democracy, even small groups can put their ideas on the democracy test. There are other groups like this one in Switzerland.

Because of direct democracy, in Switzerland, left wing groups, centrist groups, right wing groups, and groups interested in any issue, can go straight to the people and have the people decide; “government by the people”.

On the contrary, in a representative democracy, you have to get the politicians to support your ideas, you can not go straight to the people for an executive decision; it is very different.

Democracy is supposed to be; “government by the people”, not “government by the representatives of the people”.

The Ancient Greeks invented direct democracy; they did not invent representative democracy. To them, representative democracy would be more like an elected oligarchy, it would not be a democracy, because it is not.

In a direct democracy the people make the key decisions at the national level, the state-province-canton level, and at the local level. Even small groups, minorities, etc., can put issues that concern them in the national, cantonal or local agenda.

They do not have to resort to demonstrations, riots or political violence; all they have to do is get a small number of their fellow Swiss to sign their proposal, and voila!, the whole people decide!

Let us get going and bring Direct Democracy to our countries.

The results of the two referendums are “Nein”, “non”, “no”, “na”.

“Na” is “no” in Romansh, one of the four national languages of Switzerland,  spoken by just sixty thousand people.

Let me say a few things about minorities before I continue with the referendums.

Some people in representative democracies say they fear direct democracy because it could become the “tyranny of the majority over the minority”; perhaps they should study direct democracy a little more.

I suppose you know Switzerland is a direct, or essentially direct, democracy.

The country has a population of 8.5 million people. Of the 8.5 million 4.3 million speak German, 1.5 million speak French, 560 000 speak Italian, and only 60 000 speak Romansh.

How can one speak of “the tyranny of the majority over the minority”, when a language spoken by only 60 000 people has not only not disappeared, but is one of the four official languages of the country?

It makes no sense to fear direct democracy when the facts show it is the best system to protect minorities and their languages. I know of no representative democracy who recognizes as official languages the languages of tiny minorities, as Switzerland has.

Therefore, it makes no sense to fear direct democracy because “it could result in the oppression of minorities”; perhaps the media and others are not informing them very well.

There is not one case of a direct democracy oppressing its minorities, but there are quite a few examples of representative democracies doing the oppressing… Of course, dictatorships, non-religious and religious, are much more oppressive, but those are inhumane regimes, not much one can expect of them.

Let me now continue with the two referendums.

The voters rejected the proposal in the first referendum; it dealt with a popular initiative to decide if Switzerland should hold Swiss companies, with operations in foreign countries, legally responsible in Switzerland for the violation of international laws on human rights and the environment.

The proposal, if approved, would also make Swiss companies responsible in Switzerland for violations of those laws by their local suppliers in foreign countries.

The voters rejected the proposal, although the majority of Swiss voted “yes” to approve it. This is how it works; for the proposal to pass and become the law of the land, it had to get a “yes” by the majority of the people of Switzerland, but it also had to win the popular vote in the majority of the cantons, and it did not.

The proposal in the second referendum received a “no” also; it proposed to forbid the Swiss government and Swiss financial companies from investing in, or financing, Swiss weapons manufacturers.

This second proposal did not obtain the support of the majority of voters in Switzerland overall, and it also failed to win in the majority of the cantons.

One interesting aspect of Swiss referendums is that the fear of them, at the national, cantonal, and local level, forces Swiss governments to seek consensus before making important decisions or pass laws.

They do that because if they do not, an individual, a group of people, a minority political party, might succeed at organizing a referendum on whatever government wants to do, and governments know they can lose a referendum. To avoid that they negotiate, they give and take, they are flexible, the conservatives accept some demands of the progressives, and vice-versa. But they do not always succeed.

In representative democracies, things are very different;  governments have no such fear because people can not call referendums. Such governments do not fear that the people may stop dead a big project or a law the government wants to develop.

In representative democracies, the major fear is losing the next election, which usually is a few years away. This allows governments in many representative democracies to govern, too often, with their backs to the majority and the minorities, but with their faces to the lobbies…

If you want your country to respect the minorities, and the majority, direct democracy is a better system than representative democracy.

Let us push for direct democracy in our countries!

In the first one, they will decide if Swiss companies must comply with Swiss and international law on human rights, corruption, and the environment.

You probably know that Switzerland, despite its relatively small size; only 8.5 million people, is the home of some huge multinationals; Nestlé (food and consumer goods), Novartis (pharmaceuticals), UBS (banking), Zurich insurance, Roche (pharmaceuticals), Glencore (mining), Credit Suisse (banking), Swiss Re (insurance), ACE-CHUBB (insurance), are among the better known, but there are many other Swiss companies active all over the World

This means the Swiss people are not just voting on moral issues of this nature because they do not really affect them economically; the results of the referendum can have a large economic impact in their own country too.

In representative democracies, voters can watch the verbal “fireworks” in the media about these issues, they can also demonstrate and scream, but they can decide nothing. They can’t because the constitutions of their countries, or the facts on the ground, give the elected representatives, not the people, the power to decide issues; the people can only elect politicians.

In the US, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, in the UK, etc., the people can vote, but they can not decide issues; the Swiss can.

The second decision the Swiss will make is if the financing of war material manufacturers should be banned.

Just like with the multinationals I mentioned above, Switzerland is also home to some world-size weapons manufacturers.

The voters will decide if the Swiss National Bank, the pension funds and foundations will be banned from holding shares of, or lending money to, weapons manufacturers.

Voters will also decide if the Swiss government will have to take the initiative to ban investing in large defence companies by all large international banks and international insurance companies, from any country.

I do not enter the discussion of the pros and cons of these issues.  My interest is direct democracy; “let my people decide”.

It is also important to know that in Switzerland, when an issue goes to a referendum, the government presents to the voters an alternative option; the government hopes its proposal will be more attractive to most voters.

This means that, even if the proponents of the “people’s” proposal lose the referendum, they don’t lose “everything” because the government proposal will become the law, if it wins the referendum. Normally, the government proposal leaves out the more controversial aspects of the “people’s” proposal. This often makes it more acceptable to some voters.

Each referendum is also preceded by ample debate. Besides, all potential voters receive information packages with the position of the government, the position of the referendum committee and the positions of the political parties. In this way voters interested in the issues can make a reasonably informed decision. This also helps losers accept defeat because they “lost” in a fair way.

This process helps avoid a “hard defeat” to the proponents of the referendum. As they say in Switzerland; “this is the country of happy losers”. This is so because “the losers” win something, even if what they proposed is rejected; it is a pretty good formula to help prevent bitterness and polarisation, don’t you think?

It also helps avoid bitterness that nothing stops the losers from bringing about another referendum later on; they can change the proposal, or perhaps the voters have changed their minds; imagine, for example, a scandal where a Swiss corporation is involved in major violations of human rights laws, it could swiftly change the mood of the public.

Nobody knows what can happen in tomorrow’s vote; the latest polls show the number of supporters of both “people’s” initiatives is dropping, even if it still is over or near 50%. We also know polls have a shaky reputation; Winston Churchill said: “There are lies, big lies, and statistics”; polling is a branch of statistics…

How come a common-sense idea, like direct democracy, is taking so long to catch on, even in mature representative democracies? Perhaps the explanation lies in the anonymous English saying: “common sense is so scarce that often it is mistaken for genius”.

I hope the news of tomorrow’s referendum will prompt people our countries to ask each other: “why can’t we decide things like that here?”

Check the news tomorrow to see what the people in Switzerland decided.

We elect our representatives, that is great…, but once they are in, they do not have to listen to us, the ordinary voters until the next election. Legally they do not have to listen to any voters, not even to the voters who voted for them. The system however allows them to, legally, listen to the lobbies. Indirectly, the representative democracy system promotes the power of the lobbies.

The only motivator for the elected politicians to listen to ordinary voters is the fear of not getting re-elected.

This is a weak motivator for several reasons.

One is that the next election is normally several years away. In that period the politicians, in the executive and the legislative, do things at the beginning of their mandate that annoys the majority voters, even their own voters. They do that because they have several years before the next election to manipulate the voters.

We also see how, when election time comes, governments distribute all sorts of “goodies”. They also distribute promises in blatant attempts to manipulate voters.

In a representative democracy, the parties not in power do similar things; they try to manipulate voters with promises. If they gain power, regardless of their ideology, they will do exactly the same as the party that was in power; ignore the voters often. They will do whatever they think is right, or convenient, and hope the voters forget at election time.

Representative democracy still is far superior to any authoritarian or totalitarian regime.  We are not interested in such regimes here; the people in those countries will have to overthrow them.

But, what sort of democracy is it, one in which the “will of the people” is often ignored or, even worse, when the elected government can do things contrary to the will of the people?

Representative democracy is “manipulative democracy”. No wonder that in representative democracies more and more people are losing trust in their governments.

The system they have in Switzerland is not perfect, but overcomes the key weakness of representative democracy.

In Switzerland, only 1% of the population, or even half of that in some situations, can decide that a decision by the executive, or a law approved by the legislature, must go to a national referendum, and they do that regularly. With the referendum, the people decide, not the executive of the legislature.

One of the strongest arguments for direct democracy is that it allows ordinary voters to stop decisions made by the executive and the legislative, but it is not the only one. Swiss ordinary voters do not have “remember and wait”, “wait and remember”, till the next election; they organize a referendum for the majority to decide.

Neither the Swiss executive, nor the legislature, can stop referendums. They can not ignore the results either, because the results are binding.

The Swiss constitution also keeps the judges out of the referendums. Swiss judges, even Supreme Court judges, can not overturn the results of popular referendums. The only area in which referendums in Switzerland are subject to judicial review is to determine if the referendum was carried out in a fair manner.

Swiss courts can declare a referendum invalid if, for example, they find voters did not receive adequate information before the vote. But they cannot overturn the results of a correctly executed referendum.

In other places, it is not like that.

In the US there are no referendums at the national level; this is very weak people’s power, but in California they do. Unfortunately, two-thirds of the results of popular referendums are overturned by the courts over there. This is weak people’s power too.

What happened to: “democracy: government by the people and for the people”, if the judges toss the will of the people out the window?

If the Ancient Greeks woke up, they would laugh, or become furious, once they saw how democracy has been twisted out of shape by representative democracy. Only the Swiss could look at the Greeks in the eye, but not forcefully either, because even Swiss direct democracy falls a bit short of Greek direct democracy.

 

 

The power of the Swiss people, under Swiss direct democracy, is not like the power of the people in representative democracies.

You would not know this if you just read the constitutions of representative democracies; in one form or another they all state that “the people have given themselves the constitution”, “that the will of the people shall prevail”, etc.

By reading that, you would think that the people of those democracies also decide key issues, but it is not like that at all.

Practically in all representative democracies, be they “presidential” or “parliamentarian”, the executive, the elected representatives, or the judiciary, make all decisions; the people are spectators. Only at election time, the people make one decision that counts.

The result is the progressive disenchantment with the governments of representative democracies; more and more ordinary people feel  “the government does not listen to us”.

In the better-governed representative democracies, such as the Scandinavians, the government traditionally practices wide and deep consultation with representatives of many groups, but it does that because it wants to, because the politicians have the good sense to do that, not because by law they have to.

But even then, there is no system for the government to do precisely what the majority of the population wants, because the people do not vote and decide

Even in Scandinavian countries, the governments seem to be slipping in governance, for example, Sweden.

In Sweden, government decisions on immigration have polarized the country. They polarized the country because there has not been sufficiently open, rational discussion of the issue, followed by a binding popular referendum. If there had been, the losers would be much more likely to accept the result; polarization would then not arise, at least not to the same degree.

Massive migration is supported by many Swedes and opposed by many other Swedes. I am not discussing if mass migration is right or wrong, good or bad. I am interested in having a system where there is public, open, peaceful discussion of the issues and, afterwards, the people, the majority of voters, decide what to do.

Switzerland is the only country whose constitution “puts its money where its mouth is”. The rest of us live in lands where “words are not facts”. The Swiss system is not perfect but shows the way.

Because of the power of the Swiss people, in two days, on November 29, 2020 they will decide the fate of a proposal to make Swiss companies legally responsible in Switzerland if they violate human rights or environmental laws in their operations abroad, just like they are in their operations in Switzerland. The proposal will make the companies also responsible if their local suppliers abroad violate human rights or environmental laws.

The results of the referendum will become the law. There is nothing that the legislators, the executive or the judiciary will be able to do to stop it. Why should the politicians in your country decide things like that, and not the people?

Perhaps this explains why 80% of the Swiss still trust their government. This is up 17% since 2007. It is the democracy with the highest level of trust, and the only one where it is has risen.

Perhaps the system that empowers the Swiss people to really control their elected representatives generates trust. Why should the Swiss not trust representatives who respect the will of the people? This is a major plus for direct democracy.

Yes, authoritarian and totalitarian regimes may show higher figures of trust but we all know such regimes can not be trusted, on anything.

So, let us stay tuned and see what the Swiss decide on November 29th. It will be also interesting to see what the Swiss government does.

Do you think you and your fellow citizens should have the right to do what Swiss voters do? If you think so, do something to make it happen in your country. For example, start to talk about it to others.

Many people are concerned that decision-making in a direct democracy will be too slow.

They ask: How will the country handle an emergency if the people have to hold a referendum to decide? How can a direct democracy not be at a disadvantage regarding representative democracies and, even more so, regarding authoritarian and totalitarian regimens if something unexpected happens?

Let us look at how Switzerland; humanity’s only direct democracy today, deals with emergencies.

The Swiss Constitution; which has been approved by the Swiss people, because it always has to be approved by the people, says:

Article 165, emergency legislation.

Note: I have simplified the official wording. I believe I do not distort what the original texts mean.

This article refers to the power of Swiss elected representatives in emergency situations.

It says that federal acts whose coming into force cannot wait, can be declared urgent by an absolute majority of the members of Parliament, and can apply immediately. Such emergency laws must be of limited duration.

If the people in a referendum say “no” to an emergency federal act, the act must be repealed one year after being passed by the Federal Assembly. But if the people approve the law in the referendum, then the law stays.

Remember that the Swiss people call the referendum; the Swiss government can not call referendums or stop them.

An emergency federal law has to be repealed within one year, unless the People approve it in a referendum.

As I have said in another post, the Swiss Constitution prohibits that the Swiss Supreme Court declare if a law is, or is not, constitutional. The constitutionality of laws is out of the hands of the Supreme Court. Switzerland does want to have a Constitutional Court either.

Laws promulgated in an emergency must be of limited duration. An emergency federal law that is not approved in a popular referendum can not be renewed.

As you can see, the Swiss constitution allows legislators to swiftly approve emergency laws; no need for a referendum up front, but it puts the people in ultimate control.

What in plain words, the Swiss Constitution (which can only be changed if the people approve) tells to the legislators is: “You can pass any legislation you consider necessary but the legislation will not stand beyond one year unless the people approve of it.

In this way, the Swiss achieve two goals; deal with the emergency and preserve direct democracy.

But there may be situations so urgent that there is no time for the legislators to act. In such situations, such as the one with the virus pandemic originating in China, the executive can act unilaterally, even without the approval of the legislature.

The executive can act under Article 185 of the Swiss Constitution. The article refers to internal and external emergency issues.

The Federal Council, which is the Swiss Executive, can take measures to safeguard the external and internal security, independence and neutrality of Switzerland.

The Executive may issue rules to deal with existing or imminent threats to public order or internal or external security. It must also limit the duration of such rules.

 In cases of emergency, the Executive may also mobilise the armed forces. If it mobilises over 4,000 members of the armed forces for over three weeks, the Parliament must be convened without delay. But if Parliament can not meet because of war or some other situation, the executive will do whatever it considers necessary to continue the protection of the country.

You could even say that in emergencies, the Swiss executive has more freedom to act than the executives in representative democracies.

You may know that after the Second World War, the Swiss executive did not want to give up its emergency powers. They felt that rule by executive orders was great. It seems people in power easily “grow” into non-democrats.

I do not know why the Swiss Parliament did not act. The Swiss Parliament elects-appoints the Executive. Perhaps they had the problem we see now in most representative democracies; if the government has majority in the Parliament, then the checks and balances go out the window.

Fortunately, the Swiss had direct democracy to fix this problem. Once Second World War was over, the people decided the government no longer needed emergency powers; they organized a referendum and revoked the emergency powers of the executive.

It is obvious; a direct democracy has the tools to act swiftly in emergency situations. It also has the tools to return to direct democracy if the Executive resists.

The conclusion: Direct democracy can act as swiftly, or even more swiftly, than representative democracies. Perhaps it is because the Swiss people know they have the power and the tools to force the executive to give up emergency powers.

In the current virus crisis, the Swiss government can deal with the emergency as well as any other. Whatever mistakes the Swiss government has made, or is making, in dealing with the crisis, they have nothing to do with direct democracy.

There is no doubt that if the current Swiss executive tries to hold on to its emergency powers longer than what the People consider necessary, the people will act, calmly, deliberately; no need for demonstrations or riots… and will revoke the powers of the executive.

The current quarrels in so many representative democracies about “losing our freedoms” would not arise if we, the people, felt certain we have more power than the executive and the legislative.

Many Swiss people do not think it is acceptable that Swiss companies abroad commit, help to commit, look the other way or tolerate, human rights violations, even by their local suppliers.

It is not enough that this or that high profile consumer goods company or computer of mobile phone multinational, or any other company, declare “we will do this or that to protect human rights”. It is not enough because we know the stock market pressure everywhere prevails over human rights. A legal wall may be necessary, but it is legitimate to debate the human and material benefits and costs of such action.

The difference between Switzerland and other advanced countries is that in Switzerland, the people have the real hard decision-making power to act and make their will the law, regardless of what the politicians think; the rest of us in all representative democracies can not

In the case of this Swiss popular initiative to fight for human rights, what triggered it was the rejection by the Swiss parliament of the proposal made earlier by some minority parties there represented.

This is one of the great aspects of Swiss direct democracy; if a minority is convinced they have a proposal representing the concerns of the majority of the Swiss people, even if the majority parties may reject it, they can go outside parliament and have the people decide.

Any Swiss citizen or group can do that; they can take any issue to the citizens, even if no party brought it up in parliament.

Because the Swiss Executive and Parliament rejected the minority party proposal, 77 civil organizations got together and launched the “Responsible Business Initiative.”

The goal of the Initiative is to hold Swiss companies responsible, before Swiss justice for human rights and environmental violations abroad committed by them or by their local supplies.

The initiative has the support of organisations dedicated to fighting human rights abuses but also of churches, unions, and even some business.

One could say the initiative has been proposed by “leftist” groups, although Swiss churches are non-political. That is not the point, the point is that ordinary Swiss citizens, of the “left”, “right” or “center”, even if they do not belong to any organization can put their concerns before the voters.

But Switzerland would not be Switzerland if it did not do things in an orderly manner. In Switzerland people just don’t take to the streets, demonstrate or riot about something and, when the issue is “hot”, put it to a referendum, or scare the politicians into rash action.

This is how the Swiss do it, and did, in this case; the proponents gathered the required 100 000 signatures. They had 18 months to do it. The rules require a relatively low number of signatures (Switzerland has 8.5 million people), and 18 months is ample time to gather them.

The proponents of the Responsible Business Initiative then presented the initiative to the Swiss government.

The Executive and both chambers of the Swiss parliament examined it. They could not kill the initiative, the law does not allow for that, but they could make a counterproposal to its proponents, which they did.

The proponents of the initiative felt the counter-proposal presented by the government did not address some of their key concerns.

The next step is for the proposal will go to a national referendum.

They also organise the referendum in a fair, orderly manner; all Swiss potential voters receive an information package containing the proposal, the counter-proposal, and the arguments of both sides. The political parties also present their arguments for or against.

There is also ample debate in the media, even among families and friends. Business groups, unions, and others present their arguments in articles, debates, etc.

This elaborate process allows the voters to be reasonably well informed when they go to vote.

That moment has now arrived; in a few days, on November 29, 2020, the voters will decide.

In representative democracies, the people never decide these issues; the politicians decide and that is no longer enough.

Direct democracy is better for many reasons. One of them is that in representative democracies the lobbies, the hiper-rich, and the “influencers” exert a lot of direct and indirect pressure on politicians. In the Swiss system, it does not really matter much if you pressure the politicians in private meetings because it is the people who make the final decision.

Should you not be able to do what the Swiss people do?