Author: victor

I keep hearing about “low voter turnout in Switzerland”.

I also hear that, somehow, low voter turnout has something to do with the quality of democracy.

The Swiss vote in 2020 on the following proposals at the national level.

Besides individuals and other groups, political parties and other organizations can also make proposals if, like everybody else, they collect the required number of signatures within a specified period.

This is how the Swiss voters decided in 2020 at the national, cantonal and municipal level. At the canton level, I only mention the Canton of Geneva. At the municipal level, I include only the referendum in the municipality of Bernex, population 10 000. Throughout Switzerland’s cantons and municipalities, referendums take place on many issues that the citizens decided they must decide.

February 9^th, 2020 referendums:

Swiss citizens voted on a proposal to increase affordable housing. They rejected it; 57% against, 42% in favour.

On the same date, they also voted on another proposal to retain anti-discrimination legislation based on sexual orientation. They approved it; 63% in favour, 38% against.

September 27, 2020 referendums (Includes several postponed from May 17^th because of the virus):

Proposal to restrict immigration. Rejected; 61% against, 38% in favour.

Proposal to make it legally easier to kill wolves threatening farm animals. Rejected; 52% against, 48% in favour.

Proposal to increase the tax allowance if you have children. Rejected; 63% against, 37% in favour.

Proposal to block the purchase of new fighter aircraft for the Swiss Air Force. Accepted; 50.15%, 49.85% against. You can not get much closer!

Proposal to stop new paternity leave benefits law for fathers. Approved; 60% in favour of stopping the law, 40% against.

November 29, 2020 referendums:

The voters will decide the fate of two initiatives.

One proposes a change to the constitution to make Swiss multinational companies liable in Switzerland for violations of human rights and damages to their environment in their activities abroad.

The other initiative proposes to ban the financing of Swiss producers of war materials.

But there is more to Swiss democracy than decisions by voters on national issues. At the Canton (Equivalent to a state or province in a federal government) and local level, the Swiss people also are the last authority; not the executive, not the elected representatives, not the Supreme or Constitutional court.

For example, in the Canton of Geneva and the city of Geneva, like in all cantons and municipalities, they also have referendums on cantonal and local issues.

Interestingly, the official name of the Canton of Geneva is “Republic and Canton of Geneva”. The name alone gives you an idea of the autonomy and power of the Swiss Cantons. They have more power and autonomy than, for example, the states in the United States, including states like California where they also have referendums, “the devil is in the detail”, but that is a topic for another day.

The initiative proposed that financing of public services must be preserved, that the level of municipal and cantonal tax and progressive taxation shall be also maintained.

It passed. 50.03 voted in favour, 49.97 against. Yes! you can get even closer results than the results on the proposal to buy aircraft for the Swiss Air Force!

A referendum in the Canton, to make 23 Swiss Francs (25 USD) per hour the minimum wage. Passed; 73% in favour, 27% against.

A referendum to accept the modification of Swiss federal road laws in the Canton of Geneva. Passed; 59% in favour, 41% against.

Municipal referendum. Town of Bernex, near Geneva. Population 10,000.

A referendum on the acceptance of the deliberation of the municipal government to open a credit line of 1 960 000.00 Swiss Francs, (2 144 000 USD), for the development of streetcar stops in the municipality.

The referendum rejected the recommendation of the municipal government; 60% voted for rejection, 40% for acceptance. Notice the referendum was not on the decision by the government. It is clear the decision power lies within the people, not the government.

Voter turnout in each referendum oscillated between 40 and 60%. In other cases, the turnout has been as low as not much above 30%, an as high as 75%. Most of the time the turnout is around 40%.

Many observers do not go beyond these numbers and speak of “Switzerland’s low voter turnout”, even of “voter fatigue”. They are wrong, wrong.

Voter turnout in Switzerland can be low on particular referendums because people vote on the issues that concern them.

For example, concerning the referendum on affordable housing and anti-discrimination legislation, the turnout was 42%. For most Swiss voters, those two issues were not pressing. We do not know why; perhaps they feel the vast majority of Swiss have no problems finding housing, perhaps they believe discrimination is not a problem.

Many more turned out, about 60%,  concerning immigration, hunting, taxes, paternity leave and the purchase of fighter aircraft.

Nevertheless, in Switzerland, no issue is closed. Things can change; they could organize another referendum on any of those issues, and new ones.

The more interesting figure is that if we take one year, 80% of the Swiss vote. This is higher than any other democracy. That turn out in Switzerland is low and voters are burned out is wrong, they make no sense. Whoever says that has not looked beyond the surface or does not want to see…

Voter turnout can be low or for many reasons, in Switzerland and everywhere else. Voters can turn out in low number because they feel they do not need to bother because the country is well run, or for the opposite; citizens have given up on elections and politicians, perhaps they are just accumulating anger until they explode.

The Swiss have more trust in government than any other democracy. Surveys also show the vast majority are satisfied with direct democracy.

Swiss direct democracy is more democratic than any representative democracy because the people decide more often and in the most important issues. Any representative democracy is also more civil, humane and fair than any non-democracy.

For example, they could directly elect the members of the Swiss executive, the Federal Council.

It is odd that in a direct democracy the people do not elect the executive. Even odder is that in most representative democracies, all of them less democratic than Switzerland, the people do elect the executive.

In Switzerland, the Swiss parliament, the politicians, elect the executive. It is not very democratic to leave the people out of the decision.

But the Swiss people do not seem too bothered by such an undemocratic way of electing the executive.

Perhaps it is because, despite what the Swiss Government website states: “The Federal Council is the highest executive authority in the country”, the highest executive authority in Switzerland is the people, not the Federal Council or even the Parliament.

In Switzerland, the people have more authority than the executive, the legislative, and in constitutional issues, than the Supreme Court.

The Federal Council is the highest executive authority, but is always subject to the decision of the Swiss people. The Swiss people can change the way the Federal Council is elected; no Parliament, no Senate, no Constitutional Court, no Supreme Court, can stop them.

They can do it by collecting 100 000 signatures in less than 18 months and putting the proposal to a national vote.

But there is something else in Switzerland that, on paper, is not democratic either; the major political parties have a long-standing agreement to be represented in the Federal Council in proportion to the number of seats they hold. The people have no say on that either.

Right now, this is the composition of the Swiss Federal Council:

Social Democrats: 2 members.

Swiss People’s Party: 2 members.

The Liberal Party: 2 members.

Christian Democrats: 1 member.

In other democracies, there could be are revolution if the politicians alone decided who will form the executive. Many would see that as extreme corruption; “the politicians deciding who, among themselves, will run the country? No way!”. They would take to the streets. The French would probably be the first. Yet the French put up with a system that, overall, is far less democratic than Switzerland’s, go figure!

Despite those formally undemocratic practices, in Switzerland, there is no desire for revolution. I believe it is because the Swiss people control the executive and the legislative through their power to decide on anything of importance. On any issue, the Swiss people have the power to prevail.

Other factors make it relatively easy for the Swiss people to accept the current way to elect the executive.

For example, the President of Switzerland does not exist as an executive position comparable to the US President, the French President, the UK Prime Minister or the German Federal Chancellor, the Swiss president has far less power within the executive itself. The Swiss President is one of the seven members of the Federal Council. The Presidency rotates yearly among the seven members.

In Switzerland, you have an executive with less power than the people and a president with no power over other members of the executive.

In the Swiss Federal Council, all decisions are collective decisions, not always unanimous.  The vote of the President counts for two, this is the only situation where the president has “more authority”.

Because the decisions of the Council are collective decisions; every member of the Council has to “forget” about loyalty to his or her party. This may also help the Swiss people accept that the political parties elect the Federal Council; we could the decisions are “less political”.

The Federal Council and the political parties also know they can not have rigid “ideological” (or self-interest) positions; they need to accommodate the diverse interests of most of the voters they represent.

Because individual authority in the Swiss Federal Council does not exist, the Federal Council is the Collective Head of State. Only on trips abroad does the rotating President of the Council represent the Swiss Federation. In Switzerland, it is the seven who are “the CEO” of Switzerland.

While the Swiss people are the final decision-makers on everything of importance to them, the current system leaves room for lobbies to perhaps unduly influence the Federal Council, and also the Swiss Parliament, in matters that perhaps do not attract the attention of most of the people.

The Swiss system can be more democratic, but the Swiss people only have to look at representative democracies around them, and beyond, to see they have a democracy that is more democratic than any other.

 

 

The Popular Initiative allows ordinary Swiss citizens to change, by referendum, any article of the Swiss Constitution, or even the whole Constitution itself.

This very different from what happens in representative democracies. I will give you some examples.

In France the people can not call referendums to change the constitution, only the government can.

In Germany, the citizens can not change the constitution but the politicians can, without consulting the people, some democracy!

In Italy, the citizens can initiate a referendum but the politicians decide if it goes ahead. Not very impressive either.

In the Netherlands, the people can call for a referendum, but the politicians can ignore the result; incredible in a democracy (rule by the people, for the people… blah, blah, blah).

In the United States, the people have no say on the Constitution; only the politicians and the Supreme court can do that, not very democratic.

I will now show you an example of practical, down to earth, formal people’s power, and how it works.

In 2016 many Swiss people became concerned about the conduct of Swiss multinational companies in Third World countries, in relation to human rights and the environment.

I am not for or against the conduct of such companies concerning those issues because I do not know enough to have a reasoned opinion. I am using this example to show how one tool of direct democracy works in Switzerland. It could also work in your country.

The people concerned with the behaviors of those companies drafted a document to amend the Swiss Constitution. Their intention was to make Swiss multinationals legally accountable in Switzerland for their behaviour in other countries.

Under Swiss law, citizens have 18 months to collect 100 000 signatures supporting the document articulating their concerns. If they succeed, the document goes to the Swiss Federal Government and the Swiss Parliament.

Once the group presents the proposal, the Government has to respond in one of three ways: accepting the proposal, rejecting it, or presenting a counterproposal to the people who presented the proposal.

The proponents of the proposal can accept or reject the Government counterproposal. If the proponents reject the counterproposal, the Government has no choice; the voters will decide in a national popular referendum. The decision is binding for the government.

If the majority of those who voted in the referendum support the proposal, and also if the proposal wins the popular vote in the majority of the Swiss Cantons (Roughly equivalent to the States in the United States, Australia or Germany, the Provinces in Canada, etc.), then the proposal is incorporated into the Swiss Constitution and becomes the law. This is one of the ways in which the Swiss people, directly, make laws.

In the case of this initiative, the people backing it collected 120 000 signatures within 18 months, as required.

In October 2016 they registered the proposal with the Government. After discussing the proposal for several months, the Executive recommended to the Parliament to reject the proposal.

Once it received the recommendation, a committee in the Parliament discussed the issue for about another year.

After much deliberation, the Parliament ( “lower house” ) agreed on a counterproposal. The other chamber of the Swiss Parliament, The Council of States then discussed this counter proposal. The Council of States represents the Swiss Cantons. The Swiss cantons are very important because Switzerland is a federation of states (the cantons). This means that there is a balance between the overall national vote and the votes in each Canton,

In 2018 the Council of States accepted the counter-proposal.

After much discussion among the politicians, and also with business and other parties, the Swiss Parliament sent, in June 2020, its counterproposal to the proponents of the initiative. The proponents of the initiative, who represent the 120 000 people who signed up supporting it and many others, rejected the counterproposal.

This means the initiative will now go to a national referendum for the voters to decide its fate.

The referendum will take place on November 29.

On the same date, the Swiss will also decide the fate of another initiative: “For a ban on financing producers of war material”.

The Swiss direct democracy system gives all parties ample time to discuss and negotiate over any issue of concern to citizens.

This open process strengthens democracy. If the initiative wins, those who argued against it can not say they were not heard. They can not say either the decision was not democratic. If the initiative loses, its proponents have no rational choice but to accept the results. What else can they do?; their initiative was widely known, was widely discussed, and the decision to reject it was democratic.

Only you can decide if direct democracy is more democratic than representative democracy. I know it is because in a direct democracy the people decide.

If you believe you should have control of what happens in your country, then direct democracy is for you.

What a chart!

The OECD prepared the chart. In this link to the OECD, you will find more information about trust in government.

But let me discuss the chart.

The chart shows Switzerland is at the top. You probably know Switzerland is a direct democracy. I Believe this has a lot to do with Switzerland being at the to of the chart.

One could say direct democracy is: “Control by the people of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary”. If the people control what the government does, and if they see, decade after decade, how government actions reflect the will of the people, it is logical for the people to trust the government and, incredibly, in politicians too!

I suspect that another chart, reflecting the level of trust of the government in the people, would look fairly similar… Would you not like to know to what degree your politicians, and top bureaucrats, trust you and your fellow citizens? Would they respond honestly to the survey?

Direct democracy gives the Swiss people the power to stop laws, to propose new laws and to change the constitution, etc. In this way, the will of the Swiss people prevails over the will of the government. The Swiss government has learned to govern for the people and with the people.

I believe the high level of trust Swiss citizens have in their government, over 80%, is one of the most important effects of direct democracy.

I do not think the Swiss are more trusting of government by nature than the people of other lands or cultures. It can not be the culture because Switzerland is a multicultural nation (although their concept of “multicultural” has little to do with what “multicultural” means in representative democracies). The Swiss trust their government because they know the government does what the people want. The Swiss practice, better than anyone else so far, (except the ancient Greeks) “government by the people for the people”.

If you live in a representative democracy YOU KNOW it is not like that; you elect a representative government and, once the election is over, it is “hasta la vista!” (“See you at the next election!”). In representative democracies, from election to election, the people have no control over the government.

Notice in the chart how Switzerland is almost 10 points above the second-ranked country, Luxembourg, and over 10 ahead of the third one, Norway.

To give you an idea of what such difference means, just think of what a crushing defeat it would be in any democracy to lose an election by 10 points.

The next several countries in the chart, all recognized as among the best in the World in many areas; low levels of corruption, political stability, social services, etc., are about 20 points below Switzerland. The group includes the Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, Ireland, and Germany.

Turkey comes right behind. Unfortunately, Turkey is far from a solid representative democracy. For that reason, I am not very interested in the Turkish model of trust in government, even if it outranked Switzerland.

It may also surprise you to see how Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Australia, and Austria are further behind.

Even further down are the UK, France, and the United States. The three rank between 40 and 50 points behind Switzerland!. This is shocking because the three have contributed the most to the adoption of representative democracy in the modern World. In fact, in several ways, the Swiss base their democracy in American ideas (whose core originated in England). Swiss democracy also owes to the French.

Italy and Greece are at about 60 and 75 points below Switzerland. This is extraordinary; the earlier Italians, the Romans, made very important contributions to democracy, rule of law, etc.

It is interesting to note that Italy shares a border with Switzerland and many Swiss are Swiss-Italian.

Greece is geographically not far from Switzerland either. The situation of the Greeks is beyond extraordinary; more than 2500 years after their ancestors invented democracy, this nation lays in a sorry state, and not only by its low level of trust in government. Greece demonstrates how democracy can unravel.

The same thing could happen to the Swiss. It is as if democracy is the “politically non-natural state of humans”; even peoples blessed with the values and intelligence to have democracy can lose them, and democracy too.

Italy and Greece make it obvious that heritage, geographical proximity, even cultural proximity, modern communications, travel, trade, etc., do not contribute decisively to the ability to assimilate direct democracy.

If it is important for you, for your family and friends, to have trust in the government of your country, pushing for direct democracy is a good way to start.

The Swiss had to push hard for it too; it did not happen because of the great Swiss chocolate, the Swiss cheese, or by contemplating the spectacular Swiss Alps. Their politicians did not like direct democracy, most of your politicians don’t either. They don’t because they will have less power.

Tomorrow I will show a practical example of how the Swiss people are at the controls of their country. The example will show how you and your fellow citizens can also be at the controls.

It is logical that direct democracy does not need full-time politicians, and that is good. In a direct democracy, the citizens make the most important decisions. This means there is no need for politicians to work full time.

In a direct democracy, the politicians become more like civil servants of the people; they execute the will of the people. Sometimes they do that because the people leave them no choice, other times it is because they are in tune with the people, and they decide in tune with the people.

From previous blogs, you may remember politicians in direct democracy are in tune with the will of the voters because, overall, the system of direct democracy leaves them no choice.

When people make the key decisions, politicians do not have to make them; they need not work as hard, there is no need for politicians to work full time. Neither do they need large office staff to inform them, prepare papers, speeches, interviews, debates, and on and on; all that is less important when the people are the decision-makers.

Not only parliamentarians are less important in a direct democracy, the president, the prime minister, the ministers are also less important too and they need less staff.

In a direct democracy, the politicians have less to do because they have less power, as simple as that.

As you know, Switzerland is a direct democracy. It is probable that if Swiss politicians could decide, they would prefer to have more power to do more things for the good of the town, the canton (state or province), and the country.

If they had the chance, Swiss politicians would prefer to have more to do, they would need to work full-time, just like politicians do in your country now.

Swiss politicians have assimilated direct democracy, and most prefer to be part-time politicians. As many of them say, “working part-time in politics, having also real jobs, keeps us connected to ordinary Swiss citizens”. But the desire for more power always lurks. We know that because Swiss history itself proves it.

When direct democracy “came” to Switzerland, when the citizens pressured and pressured the political class until they go it, Swiss politicians did not want the change, they liked representative democracy.

Another event in Swiss history confirms politicians like representative democracy more than direct democracy; during WW II the Swiss Parliament granted the executive the power to govern by decree. This also suspended direct democracy; no longer could the Swiss people hold referendums to reject laws, etc.

The politicians liked the suspension of direct people’s power. They liked it so much they did not want to go back to representative democracy. The Swiss people had to insist and insist until the politicians relented.

It is obvious politicians, not just in Switzerland, enjoy having more power. More power requires more work. More work means working full-time in politics.

Because direct democracy requires less effort by politicians, in Switzerland, even in the national parliament, most politicians work part-time and hold also normal jobs. At the canton (state or provincial) level, and at the local level the proportion is even higher.

All of the above is logical because Swiss politicians have less to do at all levels of government.

Part-time politics has other many important advantages for the nation.

For example, the Swiss politician does not depend on his or her political job to earn a living, as much as full-time politicians do in the representative democracies of Germany, France, Italy, the UK, the US, etc. This means Swiss politicians are less attached to their political jobs. If they are less attached, it means they can leave them more easily, this helps renovation in parliament and the executive and prevents entrenchment.

If the Swiss politician depends less on his political job to make a living, it also means he or she is less dependent on big donors to finance the campaigns he or she needs to win and stay in politics.

Being a part-time politician, who also holds a job in the actual world, also keeps the Swiss politician more in contact with the lives of the ordinary citizens who elected him or her.

Another important advantage of part-time representatives is that it helps prevent the rise of the “political class”. You know, those entrenched politicians who, not only are they full-time politicians, they are so decade after decade because many know how to get re-elected decade after decade.

Someone said: “power corrupts”. This means the less power politicians have the less corruption there will be among them. This is another good reason to have a direct democracy.

If you think direct democracy is the way to improve the representative democracy your country has now, do not forget that one advantage is part-time politicians.

But to get direct democracy, wherever you are, you will have to press and press and press for it to happen, just like the Swiss did. You will also have to stay vigilant, like they did, not to lose direct democracy.

Let me get one thing out of the way; while representative democracy falls short in terms of real democracy, non-democracies, or corrupt democracies, are systems that should not even exist because they daily violate human dignity.

The best representative democracies, while they are not real democracies, are light-years ahead of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes in terms of the dignity of the lives of their citizens.

In a direct democracy, the people can stop any law the politicians want to pass. This is impossible in a representative democracy, unless the people turn to massive street protests or even riots. But even in that case, there is no guarantee the politicians will listen to the people.

In a direct democracy, the politicians know the citizens have more power than they have; there is no question of them not listening to the people.

Politicians in a direct democracy have learned the people are the ultimate authority on everything. Therefore, politicians in a direct democracy will not pass laws or put in practice policies not approved by the majority of the people.

The people decide through popular referendums. The power of such referendums is amazing.

Besides controlling the politicians, the popular referendums give their outcomes democratic legitimacy, much more so than decisions made by elected representatives.

Democracy is rule by the people, not by the representatives of the people. If the people do not rule, it is not democracy.

Democracy means, for example, that if the majority of citizens decide in a referendum that every adult citizen will receive the universal basic income, then such a decision will become the law of the land. There is nothing the politicians can do to stop it; they do not have the authority.

Swiss citizens recently voted on such a referendum. They turned the idea down, for now, but perhaps in a few years, the decision will go the other way. That is democracy at work.

It makes much more sense that the people make such decisions,  not their “representatives”. Direct democracy does away with the excessive importance politicians have in a representative democracy.

In a direct democracy, the people also decide taxation levels, immigration, international treaties, joining international organizations, the building of a new highway, a school, a hospital, etc.

It is not democracy if citizens can not do such things.

It is important to realize that not even the best representative democracies of Northern Europe come close in democratic depth to Switzerland’s direct democracy. The reason is obvious, in none of them do the people come close to having the power the Swiss people have.

It is interesting some organizations that rank democracies have the cheek to put Denmark, Norway ahead of Switzerland. they say they are “better” democracies; it is absurd.

One of those organizations is the English magazine The Economist. The magazine publishes a “Democracy Index”. The index ranks democracies based on opinion surveys.

The Economist asks questions about the electoral process, pluralism, civil liberties, the functioning of government, political participation, and political culture.

But the key factors that make a democracy a better democracy are not those.  Democracy is about people’s power. People’s power is when the citizens directly decide all important issues.

The essence of democracy is not the political process, plurality, or political participation. The essence of democracy is people’s power. For example, the citizens of representative democracy can all vote in elections, and yet the country will be far less democratic than a country where only 40% vote but do so to approve a new law, change or eliminate a law, revise the constitution, etc., not just elect someone.

Those are the hard facts; Switzerland’s democracy is head and shoulders above any representative democracy.

In the best representative democracies, such as Denmark and Norway, the politicians normally pass laws after ample and genuine consultation with the people. One effect is that such laws are supported by the majority of the people. Obviously, that is very good. Such is the situation in Denmark and Norway, however, both countries are less democratic than Switzerland. The reason is plain; the Swiss people have much more power.

The Swiss people have the power to directly decide on laws, the constitution,  international treaties and international bodies. The Danish and the Norwegian people do not have that power.

If you want real democracy, you want direct democracy.

But even Swiss democracy is not fully direct, even the Swiss can improve. This means others can set up even more democratic democracies.

 

Many countries have constitutional courts; the politicians appoint the judges to decide on constitutional matters.

Such courts have enormous power. Therefore, in the US the appointment of Supreme Court Judges is always an incredible political fight between Democrats and Republicans.

The US the Supreme Court has the power of “judicial review”. This means it decides whether a law or executive action is constitutional. Many other representative democracies have similar courts.

In a direct democracy, no court decides if a law is constitutional. For example, in Switzerland, Article 190 of the Swiss Constitution states: “The Swiss Supreme Court may not invalidate federal legislation for inconsistency with other parts of the Constitution”.

In Switzerland, it is the people themselves who decide which law will stand. They also decide when and how to change the Constitution.

This means the Swiss Supreme Court does not have the power to affect the lives of citizens like the US Supreme Court does.

This is not surprising; Swiss politicians also have a lot less power than US politicians, and than politicians in other representative democracies. The Swiss Supreme court has no power to make the decisions the US Supreme Court makes, or the power of other Constitutional Courts.

It is unimaginable in Switzerland that the Swiss Supreme Court could make decisions such as the following:

In 1803 the US Supreme Court decided that itself is the ultimate authority on what a law means in relation to the Constitution; Marbury v. Madison (1803).

The people of the US tacitly accepted the decision; they did not vote to validate it. We will never know if they really agreed.

Many more US Supreme Court decisions have changed America without the people having a say. It is not very democratic to do that, to change a society without the explicit consent of the people. No wonder what we see now in US society…

Another example is Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

The Court decided racial segregation of schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

I am not saying the decision is wrong; I agree with it. But it is not the issue in our discussion if it is right or wrong, the issue is that the people did not decide. In a democracy, they should.

It is not democratic to have the judges decide on matters of such great importance to society; only the citizens should decide.

If most citizens in a society lack the sense of fairness or maturity to decide by themselves, by referendum, it will not save such society a group of judges appointed by the politicians. The politicians themselves will not do it either; only the people can keep democracy and society going.

In fact, a Supreme Court, any Supreme or Constitutional court appointed by politicians, makes intrinsically undemocratic and politicized decisions. It is much better to have the people decide.

For example, we see how the US Supreme Court looks like an extension of the Republican and the Democrat party. That is why the parties fight tooth and nail to decide if the new judge should be “progressive” or “conservative”.

One adverse effect of the situation is that any decision the US Supreme Court makes is evaluated along political lines.

Constitutional courts in other countries are not too different from the US Supreme Court.

In Switzerland, a direct democracy, Swiss Supreme Court judges are also appointed by the politicians. The key difference is that Swiss politicians and Swiss Supreme Court Judges have far less power than the people, the people are in control.

In a direct democracy, there is no Supreme Court to decide constitutional issues; the people decide them by referendum. The referendum is far less politicized than the Supreme Court. This is so because when people vote on issues, ideological lines are far less rigid.

Another important factor that makes direct democracy more democratic than representative democracy is how the Constitution can be modified.

In a direct democracy, the people directly change the constitution, not the elected representatives.

In a direct democracy, a group of people collect the required number of signatures, this enables them to propose the change to all citizens. The citizens then decide through a national referendum. In representative democracies, this is not possible; they have very limited use of referendums and none has provision to change the constitution at the initiative of the people, by the people.

For example, in the US, it is the politicians, the elected representatives, who can decide changes to the constitution, the people have no say at all. Most other democracies are like that.

I believe the way the US Supreme Court works, and how the US modifies its constitution, are two important factors contributing to the alienation and polarization we see now in the US.

The current polarization between Mr. Trump and his opponents, and between his supporters and those who support Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders, is not the problem but the symptom of the root problem; not enough democracy.

 

 

 

Politicians in representative democracies are also very aggressive in parliament because they compete daily to create a positive public image. They do it because they hope it will help them win when the next election arrives.

In a representative democracy, politicians have heated arguments, but not because they want the support of the people for a new law or a new policy, they do it because they are thinking of the next election. As the next election is one or more years into the future, the politicians know things might have changed by them. This means that today’s fights are more for the show because they know the people can not change the decisions politicians make.

This excessive power representative democracy gives politicians, also gives them the power to continuously increase their power. Inevitably, such dynamic drives elected politicians progressively away from voters. The result is that in a representative democracy, as time passes, citizens have less and less influence and faith in those who govern. The result is a gradual loss of faith in democracy.

Another terrible effect of the polarization that representative democracy creates among politicians is the polarization of voters.

Because of this polarization, political parties and their followers often resemble fanatical “religions”. Politicians viciously disqualify each other. One consequence of this “religious” thinking is that, at election time particularly, many of the “followers” of each party feel obliged to be “faithful” and thus vote for “their” party no matter what. Even if the party has betrayed them in important promises they made at election time. Politicians know that; this makes it easy for them to forget voters, even their own, once the election is over.

Polarization also leads to uncivil behaviours; from political signs vandalized to street fights, and worse.

Such polarization of politicians and voters makes it very difficult to work cooperatively for the common good. It is almost as if the common good no longer existed; everything seems driven by the constant fighting. This is not very rational and is very inefficient.

One obvious example of the deterioration of representative democracy in the United States. In the US, Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders are the product of the alienation of millions of voters by representative democracy politicians. In other representative democracies, to varying degrees, polarization and alienation are also rising.

In the US, it is the more angry followers of Mr. Sanders, and even more radical politicians, who riot in many cities, want to destroy US history, etc. But if Mr. Trump loses the election, it is conceivable his more angry followers will then also riot, or worse.

The deterioration of democracy in the US is happening despite the many intelligent people in government and also outside. It is as if political polarization has infected many of the “brightest” minds in the nation, it has politicized even business executives.

Another very important effect of direct democracy is that it creates more mature voters. This occurs because voters know they are responsible for what happens in their village and also in the entire nation. Self-responsible people do not need “great leaders” to lead them “out of this valley of tears” to any “promised land”; such concepts make no sense to them. As you might expect, those voters do not fall for demagogues either.

Representative democracy has run its course. We need to turn to direct democracy to ensure political stability, prevent riots and polarization of the people.

 

 

 

I apologize for not writing since Sept. 16th. (I had to get the basement of my house ready for my daughter, her husband, dog, and cat to quarantine for 14 days).

Direct democracy means voters make the key decisions, not the politicians. Two of the benefits of direct democracy are no riots and no bitter debates. There are several reasons that explain why this is so.

In direct democracy voters, at any time, can decide the key issues.  Because of that, in direct democracy politicians have to listen to the voters all the time, not just at election time, like they do in representative democracy. If the politicians do not listen, the people can stop whatever the politicians want to do.

When governments and legislators listen to the people, the people are not alienated and have no need to riot or revolt.

Not only that; when voters directly decide the issues, democratically, the people who oppose the decision will accept it much more readily than if the decision is made by politicians.

Because they need the support of the people to govern, in direct democracy political parties have also learned to negotiate, to compromise, in order to please the majority of voters. They know that if they don’t do that, the citizens might kill the law or any decision politicians make.

In direct democracy, even if the politicians from all parties unanimously agreed on something, voters can still reject the politician’s decisions. Naturally, voters are unlikely to do that if the majority of them find acceptable what the politicians propose.

Because of direct democracy, the major parties have learned the best way to govern is in a coalition, cooperatively.

But there is more; in direct democracy one citizen, a small group, any political party, can make proposals to be voted on by all voters. If the people approve the proposal, the politicians, the government, have to abide by it. This mechanism also allows for the views of minorities to be evaluated by all voters. In this way, it helps prevent the alienation of minorities.

In a representative democracy, things are very different. In representative democracy, governments and parliaments only have to “listen” to voters at election time or, perhaps, if voters take to the streets or riot.

Representative democracy also makes it easy for politicians to “forget” the promises they make at election time. This is so because, between elections, voters have no decision-making power at all on the issues. Only at election time politicians have to “listen”. Often they seem to pretend to listen by telling voters whatever the polls say voters want to hear; it has little to do with a real interest in what concerns the voter.

This is why, in representative democracy, politicians do things they never said at election time they would do. Other times it is even worse; they do the opposite of what they promised, and there is nothing the voters can do to stop them.

Even at election time, voters can not change decisions already made by politicians. All voters can do is elect someone who promises to change the law, or the decision made by the previous government.

It is obvious the system of representative democracy gives politicians much more power than direct democracy. In representative democracy, politicians clearly have all the executive power, the people have none. Such democracy no longer makes sense.

The drive for such power also makes politicians in representative democracy work much more aggressively. They fight and fight to get elected and re-elected. Winning an election in representative democracy means much more to the politician than in direct democracy.

The more you learn about direct democracy, and the more you compare it to representative democracy, the more sense direct democracy makes.

Tomorrow, Part II of “Direct Democracy; no riots, no vicious debates”.

This is a continuation of the last blog about the root problem in representative democracies.

In representative democracies the people have no executive power; all they can do is elect the politicians, the politicians are the executive power.

Excessive power in the hands of politicians has also given interest groups a more powerful motivation to lobby them; it is far easier to lobby a few hundred politicians and governments than to persuade millions of voters that the interests of the corporation, or of the pressure group, coincide with the interests of the majority of citizens.

In this way politicians help the lobbies with laws and policies that may mean billions to those who the paid lobbyist represents, even if they go against the interests of the majority of citizens.

In direct democracy it is the other way around; the people have more power than the executive, the legislative and the Supreme Court or Constitutional Court of the country. The result is lobbies know it makes no sense to lobby politicians if the people have more executive power than the politicians. The result is far less influential lobbies.

However, in the US in particular, a terrible ruling by the US Supreme Court has given lobbies and rich people the means to “lobby” the people; more on this further down.

In direct democracy the people directly decide if laws and regulations passed by the elected representatives will go ahead or die. They also decide on large expenses; the government can not just go and say: “We believe the Olympics will be great for our country, therefore, we decide to support our great city of … (fill the blanks for your country) to host the 20xx Summer Olympic Games and will invest x billions in infrastructure”. They can not do that in a direct democracy country.

With respect to the judiciary, under direct democracy there is no “supreme court” to deal with constitutional issues; the people decide constitutional issues, the people “are” the Supreme Court,

The “returns” to lobbies can be protected markets, professional associations who control how many people enter a profession, government subsidies, etc.

To make matters worse, in the US, the US Supreme Court made in 2010 one decision which makes representative to democracy even les representative.

It dit it when it decided a corporation, a professional association, an organized religion, a union or a rich person, spending millions of dollars in a political advertising campaign supporting or attacking a politician or a party, is merely exercising its right to free speech.

They can spend hundreds of millions to sway voters, and they do. This is not free speech, this is a massive tool to influence free speech; it is not far from controlling speech.

The decision did not say: “Corporations, other organizations, churches, rich people, etc., have the right to say: “our organization endorses or is against such and such candidate”; that would be reasonable.

The Court went far beyond. With this “Super PAC” approval the US Supreme court made it practically impossible to have “government with the people, for the people, by the people”.

In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens argued in 2010 that the Court’s ruling represented “a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government”, well said.

If the Supreme Court rejects common sense it is worse than not having Supreme Court at all.

Many lobbies have also learned to contribute to the campaigns of politicians of the major parties. They do it as an “insurance policy”; no matter who wins, they win. The lobbies are “bipartisan”, even “polypartisan”.

This is why both parties, for example, support immigration of cheaper foreign professionals of non-organized professions; computer programmers, for example. But they do not do that with strong organized professions who also know how to lobby.

Either way, lobbying is bad for the majority of citizens because it distorts democracy, the will of the majority of the people, and their interests, get pushed aside.

So, if you want to retake democracy for ordinary citizens and ordinary workers you have to push for direct democracy; you pay, you decide.