Author: victor

Sweden has been one of the better-run countries in the World for decades.

For many years, a coalition of left-wing parties governed Sweden. They are pragmatists who realize the welfare state needs a strong, highly efficient private sector. You could say Sweden was, still is, a social-capitalist country.

Swedish capitalists have created major international companies like Assa Abloy, Electrolux, Ericsson, Essity, H&M, IKEA, Skanska, Spotify, Vattenfall and Volvo.

Sweden’s leftist parties have also created a country with excellent and abundant public services.

But in the 1980s the Swedish political and social elites made a mistake, a big one. For whatever reason, the governing politicians and others decided that Sweden should open its doors to refugees and immigrants. The politicians decided, like in all representative democracies, without the people having a formal say or control of the decision.

As a representative democracy, in Sweden, the elected politicians in parliament and government can pretty well decide whatever they consider good for the Swedish or the World. There is no mechanism for letting people decide.

Unfortunately, the new policies on immigration were not popular among many Swedes of different political tendencies, not just “conservatives”. This was because of the violence, poor integration of many immigrants, etc., affected Swedes of all ideologies.

Most politicians, the media, and many commentators equated opposition to immigration to racism. The result was that many ordinary citizens opposed to immigration were shamed into silence.

Nevertheless, the shaming did not change opinions; surveys showed most Swedes opposed to immigration in the way it was being handled by the government.

Slowly, the frustration of many voters led them to support the Sweden Democrats, a right-wing party. The party has been growing from 1% of the popular vote in 2002 to 17,5% in 2018.

Today, Sweden is more polarized than ever before; the parties and the people are polarized, although it does to reach the level of the US.

Direct democracy would have prevented polarization in Sweden, in the US too.

By not having direct democracy, the Swedish people can not gather, for example, 100 000 signatures to support a referendum on immigration, or on taxes, or anything else, and force the government to hold a binding referendum on the issue.

It is interesting to look at how the Swiss and their direct democracy system, handled immigration. In Switzerland, the people have the power to stop decisions made by the executive and the legislature, even if the decision by the legislature is unanimous.

In the Swiss system, politicians do not have the power to do what they did in Sweden.

In 2014 the Swiss gathered 100 000 signatures to support its initiative for a referendum on mass migration. Anyone is allowed to gather 100 000 signatures; a group of citizens, a political party, or any other organization.

The referendum showed that 50.33% of the voters supported ending mass migration.

If the public mood changes, another group of citizens, a party, etc., can gather the 100 000 signatures required to hold a referendum to do just the opposite or on another issue.

For example, the same conservative party who launched the initiative on mass migration, launched another one earlier on, in 2002, against “asylum abuse”. 50.1% of the voters rejected the initiative; end of discussion.

Because the Swiss politicians, the cultural elites, the media, etc., are used to having the people decide, to them opposing or supporting mass migration, or asylum seekers, is not related to racism, it is just another problem to be dealt with democratically, by letting the voters make the decision.

To equate opposition to mass migration to racism, and to silence those opposed to mass migration, was a huge mistake for Sweden. It is another example of the mistakes politicians with too much power make that harm democracy.

So, if your country is a parliamentarian democracy and has become polarized by immigration policies or other issues, spread the word about direct democracy.

Direct democracy is a more democratic system and also helps avoid polarization.

The system of checks and balances refers to the need to ensure that none of the three branches of government is too powerful.

In a representative democracy, the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary must be kept in check by the other two, that is good, although it does not always work. But even if it works it is not good enough because the people can not do the checking and balancing of the three branches.

In a representative democracy, the people have no way of controlling the actual decisions made by any of the three branches.

All the voters can do is wait until the next election; the newly elected may pursue different policies, but they have no less power than those running the country before the election. This means elections do not change the situation.

When the Executive belongs to the same party holding the majority in the Legislature, the government can behave almost like a “dictatorship of the elected”.

As for the judges of the highest court, nobody checks and balances them, unless the politicians directly decide who will be a high court judge. I do not know what is worse; judges without control or judges controlled by the politicians.

The key check and balance any democracy must have is that the people must prevail over the three branches.

Some critics of direct democracy fear “mob rule”. Those who say it do not know direct democracy, or are elitists who do not really believe in democracy or understand it.

In a direct democracy there is no need to fear mob rule because the people follow democratic rules, that is why they have a democracy!

If they do not have those values, they cannot have direct democracy or representative democracy.

The people of stable representative democracies are ready for the transition to direct democracy; their track record proves it.

They have direct democracy in Switzerland. This is why Switzerland is the most stable and most democratic country.

Before adopting direct democracy, Switzerland was also a stable representative democracy for many years. Direct democracy has made Switzerland even more stable.

Switzerland is also a plural country. It has four official languages and four different ethno-cultural communities. Even if the clear majority (60%) of the Swiss are German speaking, they respect the minorities. As democrats, they know it is the right thing to do and the intelligent thing to do. There is no “mob rule” in Switzerland !

The US, and other representative democracies are splendid countries, but until the voters are the final decision-makers, democracy has a way to go.

If you believe the collective will of the majority of voters must prevail over the will of elected politicians, and over the high court judges, then you should push for direct democracy.

The problem is the system of representative democracy. If this surprises you, I will explain how I came to this conclusion.

The title of the article refers to the United States, but representative democracy is intrinsically weak anywhere, even in the calmer, more stable countries.

I write about representative democracy because I believe in democracy. The only “improvement” that makes sense in authoritarian or authoritarian regimes is their demise.

The key problem in a representative democracy is that politicians have too much power. They have too much power to make decisions, to make laws, to appoint important judges, to sign treaties, etc.

Because they have too much power, it is only logical politicians in such an environment will fight hard, even viciously, to gain power; the system pushes them.

Mostly directly, but also indirectly, politicians in representative democracy decide everything. The only thing they do not decide is who will win the election, although they often manipulate the electoral system to win.

Another adverse effect of so much power in the hands of politicians is that special interest groups pour lots of money into politics. They do that to “have the ear” of the politicians on economic and non-economic issues.

If US politicians, and politicians elsewhere, have less power but the voters have more, democracy benefits.

One benefit is that bitter antagonism among the parties, which spills over to voters too, will disappear. This will happen because when voters have the power to be the final decision-makers on laws, treaties, the constitution, they focus more on the practical aspects of the issue and less on partisanship.

Another positive effect is that special interests will invest less money in politicians with less power. This is so because it makes no sense to spend money on people who can not do much to help you.

If the people become the final decision-makers on laws and on the Constitution, there is no need to have high court judges making “landmark” decisions either.

This is very important; some decisions made by the high courts change society deeply. In a democracy, only the voters should make, democratically, such decisions. The elected representatives should not make them, and even less so the judges, no matter how talented and honest the judges may be.

Because high court judges have so much political power, the parties in the US and in other representative democracies, fight very hard to appoint such judges. They want the judges to reflect the political orientation of the party.

Another positive effect of direct decision-making by voters is that it makes them directly responsible for the consequences of their decisions; they can no longer blame the politicians. Voters who make actual decisions, not just elect representatives, become very responsible because they are responsible.

Restricting voters to electing representatives is bad because it lets voters off the hook. In a democracy, it must not be like that; “the voter pays, the voter decides and is responsible for his or her decisions”.

More responsible voters are more rational voters too; they are not swayed by the grandiose, “messianic” messages of politicians about “vision” and “leadership”. Politicians quickly learn such messages fall on deaf ears. Powerful voters do not need, or want, “powerful” leaders. They want politicians who listen and correctly interpret, because they have to, what the voters want.

Such power in the hands of the people has another positive effect; political parties will work cooperatively and the crazy antagonism evaporates. The parties work together because they know voters are the final decision-makers, not them. Hard, polarizing fighting, like the parties do in the US and in other representative democracies, no longer make sense.

Al these positive effects are not theoretical speculations. We know they happen because we have the actual experience of Switzerland. In Switzerland, the Swiss people, not the politicians or the judges, are the final decision-makers on laws, treaties, and on the constitution itself.

I find it interesting that Swiss politicians also appoint the judges to the Supreme Court, but it does not matter much in Switzerland; the Swiss Supreme Court does not have the power to interpret the constitutionality of laws, the people do.

The Swiss Supreme Court can not make those “landmark” decisions the US Supreme Court makes. In Switzerland, only the voters make “landmark” decisions. This is how it must be in a democracy.

In other representative democracies, polarization is not as apparent as in the United States, but it has grown. This is obvious, otherwise, the “populist” parties of the right and the left would not exist, or would be much smaller.

Whether or not you are American, if you are tired of the politicians and the judges deciding, instead of you deciding, tired of the infighting and the division, then do something: push for direct democracy.

In 1892, the Swiss Animal Protection Association launched a popular initiative to ban the ritual slaughter of animals.

The elected representatives of the Swiss people; the Swiss Executive and the Swiss Parliament, opposed the initiative, but the people voted and on August 20^th, 1893 ritual slaughter was banned.

Judaism requires the ritual slaughter of animals. Animals to be eaten by must be killed with sharp knife across the throat of the animal. Moslems also have a similar requirement.

Religious Jews, religious Moslems probably feel the same way, dislike the prohibition to kill the animals in the ritual way they have been doing for centuries.

The law in Switzerland now says that Jews and Moslems can kill the animals in the way prescribed by their religion, but only if they have been stunned first, in order to minimize their suffering.

Direct democracy means that the will of the majority must prevail. In direct democracy, laws and rules do not derive from God, Prophets, or Holy books; the people make the laws.

It is perfectly reasonable to believe in God, to believe God makes the rules, but it is also reasonable to believe rules must be made by men.

Religious people have a reasonable point in wanting to follow their beliefs and traditions. But the people who believe it is important to avoid animal suffering also may want to follow their direct democracy tradition of rule by the majority.

The issue with ritual religious slaughter is: what comes first; what the God-given or God-inspired holy books say, or what the majority of the people say?

In a democracy, the Ancient Greeks settled the issue2500 years ago. The Greeks decided that, in a direct democracy (Greek democracy was direct, not representative) the laws are made by men, not by the gods, by priests interpreting God-inspired books or by politicians or judges, and that the will of the majority must be the law of the land.

Just like ritual slaughter is important for the feelings of religious people, it is important for the feelings of people who believe in direct democracy that reasoned, openly discussed, not hurried, political decisions made by the majority of the people, must prevail

In Switzerland, those who want to practice ritual slaughter can gather the required signatures for a referendum and have the Swiss people vote again on the issue.

It would be not the first time the Swiss people change their minds. They did it with respect to the United Nations; in 1986 the Swiss decided not to join the UN but in 2002 they changed their minds and joined.

Some Jews have said anti-Semitism motivated the decision to ban ritual slaughter in Switzerland. I do not know, but even if that is the case, the argument is not about Jews but the way religious Jews want to practice ritual slaughter. The argument on the table is about animal suffering, not about Judaism.

Overall, it is much better for Jews in Switzerland to have the majority of Swiss decide to prohibit ritual slaughter than to have the political or judicial Swiss elites allow ritual slaughter against the will of the majority.

Direct democracy is about rule by the majority of the people while allowing any political, cultural, or religious minority to freely present their arguments in an atmosphere of rational debate and respect.

 

Swiss direct democracy is not perfect, but even when it performs “undemocratically” is far more representative than any representative democracy.

Direct democracy transfers power from the politicians and the elites to the people. This has created a chain reaction of good collateral effects that mitigate flaws and mistakes.

In Swiss direct democracy, like it would be the case in any properly functioning direct democracy, the politicians have to govern for most of the voters; they have no choice because the voters have the power to prevail over the politicians on any issue of importance.

This has produced a politically unifying effect; the major political parties have realized that it only makes sense to draft laws supported by the majority of the Swiss people. To do that, the parties work cooperatively in a coalition.

Because the major parties work together, whatever the government does, in the executive or the legislative, normally has the support of most voters, if it does not it will not fly.

The coalition government in Switzerland does not happen because, like is the case in other democracies, the governing party lost its majority and has to seek allies. In Switzerland, the coalition government is the norm since 1959.

The parties who share power in Switzerland represent 70% to 85% of the voters. This is a vast majority, bigger than what majority governments have in other democracies.

I do not know why Swiss voters do not give an absolute majority to any party, but they do not. I will look into that in another post.

The smaller parties do not take part in government but can, like any other group of Swiss citizens, gather signatures to call for referendums and stop what the government wants to do. The referendum clears the air democratically in the open. This does not happen in a representative democracy.

Another curious aspect of Swiss direct democracy is how it handles changes in the political support of governing parties. It does not seem to very fair, but is interesting.

For example, in the 2019 Swiss federal election, the Green Party managed to elect 28 parliamentarians, surpassing the Christian Democratic People’s Party of Switzerland (CVP), who obtained 25.

Before the election the CVP was one of the four major parties in the Swiss government, after the election it dropped to fifth place.

Traditionally, in Switzerland, the four parties who elected the most parliamentarians form the government.

Perhaps because of established ties, or because of political debts among the traditional major parties, the other three parties agreed that the CVP would continue in government. They left the Green Party out. I suppose they did not want to include a fifth party because if they did, one of the other parties would lose a spot in the fixed 7 seat government.

In direct democracy, the power of government is much lower than in representative democracies.  What happened to the Greens in Switzerland is probably unfair, but not too important. If the Greens feel they have a popular position in an issue, on even on this issue, they can get a referendum going.

The situation illustrates how the great power the Swiss people have over the politicians, keeps the effects of the unfair decisions by politicians to a minimum.

The power of the voter in Switzerland also makes unnecessary the “checks and balances” people talk so much about in representative democracies. In a direct democracy, the executive, the legislative and the judiciary are constantly “checked” and “balanced” by the Swiss people.

In direct democracy what really counts is the power of the people. Should it not count wherever you are?

 

 

Representative democracy is in dire straights in the West, in the rest barely exists.

The root problem with representative democracy is that gives the government, the legislature, the judges and the economic and intellectual elites the power to progressive accumulate more power.

In all representative democracies, the power of government has increased without the explicit consent of citizens.

Ordinary citizens feel it in their bones. They experience how every year there is one more tax to pay, one more permit is necessary, one more paper to fill out, one more obligation or prohibition. It does not happen by chance; it happens because the politicians and the bureaucrats have the power to accumulate more power.

The rise of rightist and leftist “populists” is not the problem of representative democracy, it is the symptom. The people see how the elite they elect talks about “the people”, “justice”, “education”, “jobs”, etc., decade after decade, but it does not happen. What happens is more and more responsibilities and more limits to their freedom every year.

It is no longer a matter of “the Left against the Right”. Millions of voters perceive the differences among Left and Right are cosmetic; both row in boats of different colours, but in the same direction.

The political, economic and social elites in the West speak and behave as if the leaders of the new leftists and rightists are the devils who fool the people.

The elites believe the people can be easily fooled, perhaps because they have been doing it themselves for decades.

But the people are patient, not stupid. Their frustration and anger builds until it explodes.  History shows it. The elites should know that.

Sometimes is even worse, the elites treat those who support populists as if they were a bunch of idiots who do not understand what is good for them. But it is the other way around; it is the elites who do not understand ordinary people.

Therefore every revolution catches the elites flat-footed; think of the French Revolution, the American Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Cuban Revolution.

Revolution does not always mean things will improve for ordinary people, they often make life worse, but that is after the old regime is gone.

The elites seem to believe that because they have more years of formal education, because they know more about academic subjects, they are wiser, superior to ordinary people; it is a huge mistake.

The elites in a representative democracy are not really democrats; democracy is government by the people. For it to be “government by the people”, the people have to be the decision-makers in all important issues affecting their lives. They have to be so in the country, the city, the town and the village. In representative democracy, the people vote but do not decide.

The elites in representative democracy agree that the people can elect who governs, and no more; that all important decisions should be made by the elected representatives, the top bureaucrats and the “experts”, who often are lobbying experts too.

Other elements of the elite, the rich, the intellectuals and the media commentators, also believe they are wiser than ordinary people, and even wiser and morally better than the elected representatives. They are convinced they have the wisdom to suggest to the elected representatives what is good for ordinary citizens.

Under representative democracy, things can not change. The people have the power to elect their representatives, but they always elect people who belong to the same elites, nothing really changes.

The system is not too different from the time when kings ruled; the king may die, but another king took his place, the aristocracy did not change, etc. In representative democracy we have freedom to speak and criticize, and that is a huge advance, but we still no power to decide.

Direct democracy is based on a different idea; that the people must have the power to elect representatives and to make the decisions. Direct democracy is about the majority, the people, deciding, because the majority knows what is best for the majority.

Direct democracy turns the power pyramid upside down; at the top we have now the people.

Because the people make the key decisions, in direct democracy the politicians have no choice but to carry out the will of the people. In a direct democracy, the people are the real boss.

We know direct democracy works because Switzerland is the best-run country in the World. Don’t take my word; just inform yourself about Switzerland and its direct democracy.

In the 1800s the Swiss had it with politicians. In 1848 they could not take it anymore. They decided the politicians would not make the major political decision, the people themselves would make those decisions.

Most Swiss politicians, as well as many in the and the economic and cultural elites, opposed the idea. You know the argument, the elites in your country use it now; “truckers and bus drivers, electricians, housewives, owners of small shops, factory workers, salesmen, etc., just do not have the education to make important decisions about laws, budgets, taxes, international relations, economic and social policies, etc”.

“That is our job, to decide on their behalf. Us, the professional politicians, the wealthy executives who run the complex business of the very and super-wealthy, the intellectuals and commentators who spend our whole lives thinking about these issues, we are the ones with the capacity to understand what is good for society”.

“Yes, we are divided in two major opposing bands; the Left and the Right.  “Each side “knows” the other is wrong, but we reach that conclusion after “rigorous”, “educated”, “rational” analysis. Such a task is beyond the skills of the majority of the population”.  “As we all “know”, most voters are swayed by emotion, not by seasoned rational arguments”.

The elites also say: “Even the best-educated among the population; those with university degrees, the doctors, the lawyers, the accountants, the engineers, the dentists, etc., who have the intellectual ability to grasp the issues, they do not have the time to study them and decide correctly”.

“Therefore, representative democracy is the best option; the people elect representatives to make the hard decisions. The representatives listen to the intellectuals and the commentators to further guide their decisions”.

I think the arguments are weak, but wrapped-up in nice-sounding sophistry, (I could use a more direct word…)

The Swiss people said to all that: “We no longer buy that. We changed our minds. We believe we are smart enough to run our lives, do our jobs, run our small business, raise our families, we are sure we are also smart enough to make the political decisions by ourselves, directly. We do not need middle-men”.

The Swiss radically changed the rules of the game. They did it without bloodshed, (this is not a small credit to the average Swiss and also to the elites).

The Swiss liked the people-initiated referendum to make major decisions so much that the idea rapidly spread to the Swiss cantons, cities, towns and villages. The cantons in federal Switzerland are like the states in the US and Australia, the Canadian provinces, etc.

In today’s Switzerland, popular referendums are routine. Every year the Swiss vote 3 to 4 times. Each time they decide on laws, on changes to the constitution, rising or reducing taxes, approve or reject budgets, etc. They do it at the national, cantonal, and local level.

The overall history of Switzerland is not radically better than the history of current stable representative democracies. If they did it, others can too.

The Swiss truckers, bus drivers, housewives, doctors, lawyers, small business owners, etc., have proven that by making the major political decisions themselves, they have produced the best-run country in the world; prosperous, stable, peaceful, free, with excellent health care, excellent education, excellent social protection, a high-tech powerhouse, etc.

By taking politics into their own hands, the Swiss are no longer fed up with politics and politicians. Why should they be, if they are the ones who call the shots?

This radical resetting of the balance of power has also made elections in Switzerland far less important than in representative democracies. When the politicians have less power than the people, it does not matter much who gets elected, or which party gets the most votes.

The parties and the politicians know that too. They realize the laws and decisions they develop need the support of the people to pass. If they do not have that support, the people can call a referendum and stop whatever the politicians want to do.

But the change goes beyond stopping the politicians; the Swiss people also have the power to propose national, cantonal, and local laws. They can propose changes and change the national constitution and the constitution of the cantons, increase minimum wages, approve a universal income, buying weapons for the Swiss Army, build a new public swimming pool, a new road, etc.

Another wonderful effect of people’s power has been that the politicians of left, right and center, work cooperatively to make laws and policies. Each knows that the other’s voters also have to support the new law for a law to pass.

Because they have to work cooperatively, Swiss politicians also avoid the aggressive fights in parliament, in the media, etc., that dominate in representative democracies

Politics in Switzerland is a far more subdued affair than in representative democracies.

Direct democracy, real people power, also prevents the rise of demagogues of the Left or the Right, with their promises like; “if you vote for me, for my party, we will bring peace, prosperity, justice, harmony…”. They only have to add “paradise…”.

It is time you and your fellow citizens push for this bloodless revolutionary change, don’t you think?

 

Switzerland is not getting a fair shake in many of these international indexes, perhaps others don’t either.

The country is for me very important because it is the best society in the World, by most measures. I am not Swiss, just in case you thought I am.

Switzerland is also a direct democracy at all levels of government; national, state-regional, and local. It is the only direct democracy humans have now. Some day all countries will have direct democracy, just like they all now have Internet.

Direct democracy means “the people are the final decision-makers on all important issues”; not the elected representatives, not the judges in the highest courts.

Direct democracy is the next step in the development of representative democracy.  I have no doubt the best representative democracies are ready now for the transition to direct democracy.

Such a move will overcome the key problems we see in most representative democracies.

The Better Life Index is wrong in its ranking of Switzerland. Its ranking does not help the advancement of direct democracy. Direct democracy is necessary for a better life.

But let us look at the OECD’s “Better Life Index”.  The Index includes several categories.  I will analyze only the categories in which I have enough knowledge.

Education is one category the OECD considers is a big factor for a better life.  I am certain education is The Essential Factor for a better life.

Unfortunately, I do not think the way the OECD looks at education captures the factors that produce a better life. I even believe some factors the OECD looks at are wrong or irrelevant. I will show why I believe that.

Under “Education”, the OECD includes Educational Attainment, Years in Education and Student Skills.

Educational Attainment refers to the percentage of students who have completed upper secondary education.

In Educational Attainment, the OECD ranks Switzerland behind Finland, Australia, Estonia, Denmark, Canada, Slovenia, Japan, Sweden, Poland, Germany, Korea, Check Republic, Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Norway.

Another indicator is the Number of Years Students Spend in the Educational System. By this indicator, Switzerland ranks behind Australia, Finland, Denmark, Belgium, Sweden, Iceland, Greece, Netherlands, Lithuania, Slovenia, Norway, Ireland, Germany, Latvia, Spain, Czech Republic, New Zealand, Estonia, Poland, and the United Kingdom.

Just look at some countries ahead of Switzerland on that list! It is absurd to consider years of education as an indicator of the quality of life of a country.

Several of the countries ranked ahead of Switzerland are barely functioning democracies. They are plagued by corruption, low technological development, high unemployment, weak health care systems, much lower standard of living, political and social instability, etc.

To see how this ranking is not just wrong, it is ridiculous, do this: assume that fewer years of education produce a better life. Now look at the countries ranked even lower than Switzerland, countries with even FEWER years of education; Chile, Canada, Korea, United States, Austria, Portugal, Italy, France, Slovak Republic, Hungary, Japan, Brazil, Israel, Mexico, South Africa, Luxembourg, Colombia.

Compare now this list with the list of countries with MORE years of education than Switzerland.

It is obvious several with fewer years of education than Switzerland are much better societies than several with more years.

The OECD should scrap years of education as a factor in the quality of life.

Another indicator the OECD uses is Student Skills.

To assess student skills, the OECD considers the results of the well-known PISA surveys as the indicator. Unfortunately, the PISA surveys measure reading skills, math skills, and science skills IN THE CLASSROOM, not in the actual world of work or family life.

PISA does not consider the ability to apply those skills in real-life situations. It considers neither skills that are even more important to have a good and advanced society; skills such as work cooperatively, solve real-life problems, psychological maturity, initiative, self-responsibility, tolerance of different views, creativity, common sense, ability to discuss problems, and on and on.

In student skills, the OCDE places the following countries ahead of Switzerland: Japan, Estonia, Canada, Finland, Korea, Slovenia, Ireland, Germany and the Netherlands.  Again, overall, Switzerland is ahead of them in the real World.

My conclusion: How can education, as measured by the indicators, be so important when Switzerland has higher standard of living (with no natural resources), better health care, better democracy, more rights, more social and political stability, etc. than the countries ranked ahead of it in “Education”?

Something is wrong with the Better Life Index.

I do not know what educational factors really produce a better life, but those in the OECD Index need a heavy tune-up. As it is now, the Index hemorrhages credibility.

The real factors correlating education with a better life are not those in the Index. Direct democracy is a better life.

 

We see in representative democracies how the constitutional court decides if this or that law is constitutional, such courts also “make new laws” in some of their decisions.

This should not happen in a democracy. In other representative democracies the supreme court, such as the US the Supreme Court, has those powers.

Through their decisions, such courts change health policies, labour laws, welfare benefits, marriage laws, abortion laws, etc.; they “legislate”.

That should not happen because it is not democratic. In a real democracy, only the voters should make such decisions.

In Switzerland’s direct democracy, they do that. It is not possible for the Swiss Supreme Court to create new laws with its decisions. Furthermore, the Swiss Supreme Court, under the Swiss Constitution, can not review any Swiss federal law to decide if the law is “constitutional”. Neither can it decide on issues such as abortion.

Greek democrats 2500 years ago made the point for all of us; ordinary people with common sense make the laws and decide on the laws; no god or gods, holy books, “special leaders”, kings, priests, aristocrats, “wise men”, the rich, the academics, the pundits, the intellectuals, or the judges, should make such decisions.

Let me give you an example of how they do it in Switzerland.

On June 2nd, 2002, the Swiss decided in a national referendum to make it easier for women to have an abortion. The Swiss Supreme Court, or the elected politicians did not decide, the voters did.

The option to make abortion more readily available won;  72% of the voters supported it. The same voters rejected the alternative proposition to ban abortion; 82% voted against.

Those who lost can argue abortion is immoral, but they have to accept the decision because it comes from the majority. It does not come from polls or from what the politicians believe is “right”, or from the judges.

The people who lost the argument know the only way to win next time is to work hard to persuade the Swiss people to vote again and to vote differently; no riots, no demonstrations, just arguments.

In contrast, in the US, many citizens fear now a conservative Supreme Court could reverse the decision to legalize abortion. If that happens, there will be riots.

In the UK and the Netherlands, they are wiser than in the US; they do not give that kind of power to their supreme courts. In those countries, the legislative power is the ultimate authority. This is better than having the judges decide, but it is even better if the people are the supreme authority.

There are other positive effects of direct democracy. Because Switzerland’s Supreme Court has no political power, politicians in Switzerland do not fight over Supreme Court nominations the way US politicians do.

In other representative democracies with Constitutional Courts, things are not much better than in the US because such courts are also politicized and have power similar to the US Supreme Court.

In Switzerland, they politicize the Swiss Supreme Court because the political parties appoint the judges. It would be better if the people elected the Swiss Supreme Court Judges.  However, the situation does not create political problems for democracy because the Court has no political power to decide on the constitutionality of laws or to make decisions equivalent to new legislation.

All democracies should have, at least, the Swiss system of a Supreme Court that can not decide on national laws or make “landmark” social and political decisions.

If you believe the Supreme Court, or the Constitutional Court, in your democratic country has too much power, do something about it.