Author: victor

THE root problem in the US, and other representative democracies, is excessive government power.

It does not matter if the “right” or the “left” governs; excessive power in the hands of the executive, legislative and judiciary continues to grow.

With direct democracy, the US would not give rise to Trump, or Sanders; they would not be “necessary”.

Excessive power in the hands of politicians in the US has resulted in the current crisis.

The excessive power politicians have is a problem since the foundation of the US, it has been buidling up from the beginning.

But let me keep things in perspective; the US still is one of the most successful representative democracies, but it might have come to an end if what is happening now continues.

US politicians always have had excessive power, like politicians in all representative democracies. This is why government in representative democracies keeps growing in size and power; its control of citizens also grows. As it grows, it becomes progressively more remote to the people.

There are a few representative democracies which, function fairly close to direct democracies. This happens to some extent in Scandinavia, because consultation before making laws and regulation is wide and deep. But still does not give people the actual power direct democracy brings, Scandinavian governments have the power to govern as they wish between elections and, sometimes, they do.

This excessive power, by its own nature, continuously increases in all representative democracies: being excessive it creates a never-ending spiral of power accumulation. This happens at the expense of the power of the people. As times passes, representative democracies are less and less with the people, for the people or by the people.

This is why in the US, where the problem is worse, perhaps because of the prevailing political culture, have the problems they have.

In the US now they have things like high pay for executives, often even if they perform poorly or get fired, hyper expensive university education, a Third World social system with society divided in the hyper-rich, the very poor and a struggling middle class, no universal health care and, amazingly, many rich “leftist” politicians.

They also have Third World inner cities, breakdown of the family; most Black babies with no father, and many White, Hispanics and native American babies too.

They have riots, “defund the police” and on and on.  Millions no longer want to wait for elections because they suspect nothing will change; if the Democrats win, only brings cosmetic changes for the people, if the Republicans win, it is the same, but with different rethoric. It is all about superficiality; mere marketing.

The American people have lost control of the federal government; they are now subjects of the federal government. Half of the population is controlled by government, in turn, the government is controlled by the lobbies. The other half of the citizenry is also controlled AND, even worse, they are also dependent on the government.

The US, and other countries, have arrived at a situation where most people are fed up with the power of politicians. In desperation, millions have turned to populism of the right and the left and, in the US, away from the Republican and the Democratic parties.

If the situation is not fixed, in desperation, the majority of the people may turn to Fascism or Communism; it has happened before over and over, it will happen again.

The US is now split into two camps, with positions making normal political debate and dialogue impossible. No democracy can function forever with such deep division.

We need real power to the people; we need a peaceful, non-radical revolution to reduce the power of politicians. It is necessary to add, to the voter’s current power to elect politicians, the power to decide, to accept or reject, to vote, on the decisions politicians make.

But to get to that, the people of all cultures and ideological persuasions will have to insist together. They can disagree on everything else, but they have to agree on this.

That is what they did in Switzerland. Swiss elected politicians, initially, also resisted direct democracy, just like they do now in all the rest of democracies.

There is a reason why you do not hear even populist or socialist politicians pushing for direct democracy, they do not like it one bit because they will have far less power. All elected politicians like power for themselves, both oppose power to the people. Some may do it because they are convinced the people can not be trusted, others because power means a better life for them.

Do something if you want to have direct control of the politicians you elect!

Many people speak and say many things are not right in California. Two important ones are, the high income tax and the state budget deficit.

It is surprising such things happen in California. I say that because, at the state level, California, along with Oregon and Arizona, has developed direct democracy further than any other state in the US.

In some ways, at the state level, California’s direct democracy is ahead of the Swiss cantons. As you may know, Switzerland is where direct democracy has been developed further (if we do not include Ancient Greece).  For example, Californians can propose new laws, the Swiss can not do that, although they also have many of the tools of direct democracy at all levels of government. But, the main difference between Switzerland and California lies in the facts on the ground; in how direct democracy is put to work

Let us use an indicator of voter power and responsibility. Let us compare the income tax in a city in California, San Francisco, with the income tax of the largest city in the Swiss canton of Zurich.

Just in case you are not familiar with Switzerland; a Swiss canton is more or less comparable to an American state, a Canadian Province, a German Lander, etc. Sizes are very different though; California alone has 5 times the population of all of Switzerland and 27 times the population of the Canton of Zurich.

I believe it will help us understand how direct democracy works if we use income tax in California and in Zurich.

The comparison helps understand why California voters seem more willing to support more taxes and more spending.

In San Francisco, the highest income tax rate is 51.8%. It is distributed like this; 37% is federal tax. 13.3 is state tax and 1.5% is city tax.

In Zurich the situation is very different. In Zurich the tax paid at the canton and city level amounts to 41.3%. Of that 41%, the resident of the city of Zurich, pays more to the city than to the Canton. The highest rate of federal income tax for a resident of Switzerland, in any city is 11.5%.

This means that a resident of San Francisco pays most of his or her income tax to the distant federal government. In Switzerland it is the opposite; they pay most tax to the canton and the city.

The Swiss pay most taxes right where they live, in the US, it is the opposite.

This means that in San Francisco, a voter who, for example, votes for a law making public transportation “free” (paid by taxes), knows that the repercussion of the measure on the taxes he or she pays, at the state and city level, is much lower that the repercussion on the taxes that a voter in Zurich would have to pay.

Before approving more government expenses, the fellows in Zurich and elsewhere in Switzerland, are much more likely to say: “wait a minute!, let us look at the impact on our taxes!”.

It is easy to see how this difference makes it more likely for the voter in San Francisco to vote for measures making government spend more than in Zurich.

In California it is easier than in Zurich to think: “I decide but others pay”, in Zurich is more more difficult. In Zurich voters are more likely to think: “I decide, but I pay”.

In California, half of the income tax is also paid by the wealthiest 1% of the population. This may cause some people, with average or low incomes, to vote for propositions that increase taxes, as they are more likely to feel others will pay.

Could the above help explain why, fiscally, direct democracy works in Switzerland much better than in California?

If this is the case, it means that until the American taxpayer pays several times more income tax to the city and state than to the federal government, it is unlikely Californian voters, and the voters all over the US, will be as fiscally responsible as Swiss voters.

Perhaps the biggest problem in the US is that voters in California, and everywhere else, have no power to control how much the federal government spends. This means American voters everywhere are not likely to feel responsibility for government spending because they can not control the politicians in Congress or in the Executive.

In the US there is no direct democracy at the federal level, and in most states either. American voters have no direct say on how and how much money is spent at the federal level, which is most of the money government spends in the US. American voters can not stop any expense or law approved by the government in Washington.

If the voters do not have the feeling that they control the expenses of the government that most influences their lives, they are not likely to feel fiscally responsible.

If you are in California, or in any other American State, Canadian Province, Spanish Autonomy, Australian or Brazilian State, etc., and you want more fiscal responsibility by government, it will help to have direct democracy at the national, regional and local level. Direct democracy at two levels is not enough.

Direct democracy is like pregnancy; you can not be half pregnant. Likewise, direct democracy does not work if you do not have it at the national level.

Democracy is government by the people, at all levels.

Wherever you are, you always pay, therefore you should always decide”.

The OECD, Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development, publishes the “Better Life Index” whic ranks countries.

It is an interesting effort. It includes the following factors:

• • • Housing
    • Income
    • Jobs
    • Community
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Civic Engagement
    • Health
    • Life Satisfaction
    • Safety
    • Work-Life Balance

I will deal only with one of those factors,  Civic Engagement. Unfortunately, this factor does not reflect Swiss reality of direct democracy and how it provides superior civic engagement.

Let me reason how I arrive at that conclusion.

The OECD defines “Civic Engagement” as composed of two other factors; “Stakeholder Engagement for Developing Regulations” and “Voter Turnout”.

In “Stakeholder Engagement for the Development Regulations”, the Index ranks Switzerland as number 16.

The following countries, according to the index, have citizens more engaged than Switzerland; Lithuania 15^th, New Zealand 14^th, Slovenia 13^th, Italy 12^th, Israel 11^th, Netherlands 10^th, Poland 9^th, Australia 8^th, Estonia 7^th, Korea 6^th, Canada 5^th, Slovak Republic 4^th, UK 3^rd, US 2^nd, Mexico 1^st.

The OECD defines “Stakeholder Engagement in the Development of Regulations” as the “Level of formal stakeholder engagement in the development of primary laws and subordinate regulations”.

If by “formal” the OCDE means, “on paper”, perhaps the OCDE is correct, but what is important is not what the papers say but the facts in real life. As the Spanish say; “el papel lo aguanta todo”, which in English I translate as “anything can be made to look great on paper”.

Perhaps the root of the problem lies in that the OCED speaks of “formal engagement”, as an indicator of civic engagement.

I say this because in Switzerland they have a different system. In this system engagement of voters far exceeds the engagement of voters of any other country.  If we included canton-state-region and municipalities, Swiss engagement is even stronger; “it goes through the roof”.

In Switzerland voters, by majority decision can stop, and do so, any law or regulation proposed by government and passed by parliament. They can also propose and decide on new laws and changes to the Constitution. You can not get much more “engaged” than that.

In Switzerland, it is not up to government or parliament to “engage” the citizens either; by law, the citizens decide how engaged they want to be. This is so because Switzerland is fundamentally a direct democracy. In direct democracy the people have direct power over the politicians. This is not so in representative democracies.

Swiss voters do not just elect the politicians; they have power of decision over the decisions of politicians.

This is a radically different concept from “engagement” in its usual meaning. Swiss citizens do not need to be “engaged”. They do not need to because they are the final authority; no need for anyone to “engage” you if you are the authority.

Swiss citizens can stop any law proposed by the politicians, even if it is approved unanimously by both chambers of the Swiss parliament.

In view of the above, it makes no sense to rank Switzerland as number sixteen in terms of participation; it is evident that it is number one.

Perhaps the ranking makes sense for representative democracies, where citizens have no decision power over laws and regulations.

In representative democracies, the politicians in government and parliament make the decisions on laws on regulations; the people only have the power to elect their representatives. Electing representatives is very important, but not as important as deciding on issues, which is what the Swiss can also do.

Conclusion: The OECD should revise the concept or definition of “Stakeholder Engagement for Developing Regulations” because Switzerland is far ahead of the rest, not number 16!

Another option is to specify the criteria do not apply to Switzerland because, in direct democracy, the people have the power to “engage” as much as they wish, no need to promote that they be engaged.

The only possible higher degree of engagement would be for Swiss ordinary citizens to actually govern, not the politicians, there would be no politicians, like the Greeks did in Ancient Greek democracy. Surprisingly, or perhaps not, not even the Swiss have caught up with our Ancient Greek “cultural forefathers”. The rest of us are behind, most of humanity is political light-years behind!

It is obvious the OECD’s “Stakeholder Engagement for Developing Regulations” index is not a fair indicator when it comes to Switzerland and it should be revised.

Tomorrow I will address another, perhaps even more serious, problem with the OECD’s Civic Engagement Index.

Swiss direct democracy is, by far, the most advanced democracy in the World. This is so because the Swiss people have the power to do things the people in other democracies can not even dream of.

The Swiss can, and do, stop laws passed by their parliament. They can also ratify or reject treaties between Switzerland and other countries. Swiss citizens can also propose changes and change the constitution. Any change to the Swiss constitution also needs explicit people approval.

But Switzerland is not 100% a direct democracy, Switzerland is a mix of representative and direct democracy. It is a direct democracy because all key authority resides in the people. Switzerland is a representative democracy also because the Swiss people elect representatives to the Swiss Parliament.

However, because the Swiss people have more power than parliament and the executive, Switzerland is more a direct democracy than a representative democracy.

This is how it works; Swiss voters elect their representatives to parliament. The Swiss parliament is known as the Federal Assembly. The Federal Assembly has two chambers; the National Council and the Council of States. The members of both chambers are directly elected by the people.

It is the members of both chambers who select the seven members of the Swiss federal executive.

The Swiss Parliament can elect any adult Swiss citizen to serve in the Federal Government executive; in reality only members of the upper and lower houses are elected.

It seems odd that in a country where ordinary citizens have so much power, they do not have the right to choose their government. In Switzerland, the politicians elect other politicians to run the country. I believe that should not happen; the people should elect the executive directly.

This is the composition of the Swiss Federal Government; two seats for the Free Democratic Party, Two seats for the Social Democratic Party, two seats for the Swiss People’s party, one seat for the Christian Democratic People’s Party. These parties, together, represent more than 70% of the voters.

You may think; “are you joking? Are you telling us that in Switzerland the major parties all govern cooperatively, in coalition?” Yes, that is how it works.

The Swiss call it “the magic formula” because it has given Switzerland amazing political stability.

Because the major parties govern, the Swiss avoid the concept of “party in power”, “party in the opposition”. With this system all major political tendencies are represented in the Swiss government.

By tradition, the executive is always partially renewed, never totally renewed, after each national election. This also helps government stability.

A multi-party executive has a natural tendency to develop decisions that have the support of all members of the executive.

The executive is also stable, and promotes gradual change, because there are no governments with absolute majorities. We all know absolute majority governments can ram through laws and policies, regardless of how voters feel.

The Swiss system of cooperative coalition government is also possible because their electoral system of proportional representation helps prevent the rise of absolute majorities.

But perhaps the key factor that led Swiss political parties to govern in coalition is direct democracy.

Direct democracy gives people the power to hold referendums on any decision or law by the executive or parliament.

Perhaps Swiss politicians realized there is no point in doing things that do not have the support of a clear majority of the people, because the people can stop them

The consensus-cooperative government system makes much more sense than the “government vs. opposition” system. Imagine a business, a religious organization, the military, a university, a charity, a sports club, any organization, governed on the basis of an executive and an opposition which always radically disagree. The formula of “government vs. opposition” is inefficient; the Swiss system is more efficient and more democratic

If you believe the representative democracy of your country needs improvement; Swiss-style direct democracy will bring that improvement.

One important factor to consider; for direct democracy to work it must be present at the national level, at the state-region-province level and the local level; it makes no sense to believe the people can have a culture of being capable, responsible and mature to make decisions at one level and not other levels. Such practices do not foster the development of engaged citizens much more than traditional representative democracy.

In spite of all the positive factors Swiss direct democracy has, I believe the Swiss people, not their elected representatives, should elect their government directly. Formulas can be developed to ensure government in cooperative coalition.

Swiss men AND women have the right to elect and the right to make and stop laws and to control government expenses; do you ?

Swiss women were behind most Western women in having political power; they had to wait several decades more than in the other democracies to have the right to vote.

It might have something to do with direct democracy itself because it was the men who decided by referendum. It was not like in representative democracies, where the elected representatives could just simply pass a law giving women the right to vote. Of course, the same representative politicians can also rise your taxes and do many other things the people do not like; like raising taxes, favouring private schools over public schools and many more things.

We should not forget either that many women in Switzerland, the US, and other countries, opposed that women vote. Among other reasons, those women felt their role as mothers and wives was special already. They believed that voting involved women in political life, and that this would corrupt women as it had corrupted men.

Perhaps that also slowed down the right to vote for women, in Switzerland an other places.

Anyhow, Swiss women got the right to vote in 1971,  French women in 1944 and American women 1920. If you look at the long history of most countries, a few decades is not so much.

It is interesting to note that in the same year that Swiss women got the right to vote, a Swiss woman, Lise Girardin, served in the Swiss federal government as one of the 46 members of the Council of States, which is the Swiss upper chamber.

But note this; once Swiss women got the right to vote, the same direct democracy that slowed down their right to vote, gave Swiss women far more power than the women, and the men, in any of those countries, or any other country in the World. This is so because in Swiss direct democracy women, and men, have the right to vote and also the right to decide.

Not only that, by agreement among the major Swiss parties, there will always be at least three women among the seven Councillors who make up the national government of Switzerland. All the Councillors serve as President of Switzerland on a rotating bases. As a result, Switzerland will have far more female presidents than any other country in the World.

Even if other democratic countries, like the US, the UK, France, Germany, Japan, India, etc., can have a woman in the top job, once she is gone there may not be a woman in the top spot for years; in Switzerland there will be at least three women at the top level and many women presidents.

If we take together Swiss direct democracy and this provision of the Swiss National Council, it means Swiss women “started late” but have leapfrogged the women, and the men, of all those other countries, including those where women had the right to vote decades before Swiss women.

It is obvious that the injustice committed by Swiss men in granting women the right to vote late, does not invalidate the overwhelmingly positive aspects of direct democracy.

To say direct democracy is worse than representative democracy because of the late right of women to vote, or because of the banning of minarets in Swiss mosques, or many  more reasons, makes no sense. It does not make sense because direct democracy givers far more rights and power to ordinary citizens, men and women, than representative democracy.

The Swiss, men and women, have the right to decide. The decide on issues and can decide and prevail over the wishes of politicians.

If I had to choose between the right to vote and the right to decide, I much prefer the right to decide. The right to decide gives us, the voters, control over the politicians and it also gives us decision power on how the country, the state, the province or the town, are run. Representative democracy does not do that.

Swiss men and women are politically far ahead of the rest. They have direct democracy since 1891; a few decades have gone by for the rest of us…

Isn’t it time to for you and your country to catch up with the Swiis!

The Economist Intelligence Unit of the British magazine, The Economist, every year prepares The Democracy Index. The index ranks countries by the following factors;

Electoral Process and Pluralism

Functioning of Government

Political Participation

Political Culture

Civil Liberties

The top 10 countries, starting by the most democratic, are:

1. 1. 1. Norway
      2. Iceland
      3. Sweden
      4. New Zealand
      5. Finland
      6. Ireland
      7. Denmark
      8. Canada
      9. Australia
      10. Switzerland.

However, the Index is wrong; there is no doubt that Switzerland should be number one. The reason is obvious; no country comes close to Swiss democratic practices.

By all, or the clear majority, of the factors the Economist considers, Switzerland comes out on top.

The Swiss people have, by far, more say in how the country is run than the people of any of the other nine countries.

But let us first look at definitions of democracy. The exercise in itself is interesting;

Merriam Webster: “Government by the people”. I like this one.

Oxford Dictionary: “A system of government based on the belief of equality between people, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves”.

A democracy in which the people exercise power directly is very different from a democracy in which the elected representatives hold practically all the power, even if in both the people believe in equality.

Wikipedia: “A form of government in which the people have the authority to choose their governing legislation”.

I do not know what to make of this one. I am not saying it is bad, it just seems a bit narrow; the people should have the power to decide, beyond legislation.

Dictionary.com: “Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system”.

This has a weak point; a democracy in which the people exercise their power directly is very different from one in which the elected representatives have the power of decision.

Larousse (France): “A political system, a form of government in which sovereignty emanates from the people”.

This is too vague; “emanates” can mean anything.

I like Merriam Webster’s because it is to the point; “government by the people”.

Given the diversity of definitions, it is no wonder the Index “wanders”.

I also like Abraham Lincoln’s; “government of the people, by the people, for the people”. The Swiss come closest to this one because the Swiss people have the most power to make it so.

Actually, you only need “government by the people”, as Webster says.

No matter how you look at it; nobody can represent the people better than the people themselves.

In representative democracy the people have, sometimes, the power to decide on issues. This is the case in binding referendums. Unfortunately, in the nine representative democracies of the list, referendums are few and most are non-binding. When this happens, most referendums are little more than elaborate and costly surveys.

In a direct democracy, the people decide all key issues and their decisions prevail over the decisions of government and parliament, pretty cool.

The other nine democracies in the list have some referendums, but only when the elected representatives so decide and most are non-binding.

Not only that, the elected representatives decide on the date in which the referendum will be held.

When the elected representatives, government or parliament, decide what and when something goes to a referendum, they also have in mind their political interests and the interests of lobbies, not necessarily the interests of the people. This is not “government of the people, for the people, by the people”, it is something else.

If, on top of that, the elected representatives also have the power to decide on the wording of the referendum, this further dilutes he power of the people.

But all representative democracies, including the “top nine” in the Economist’s Index, go even beyond that in reducing the power of the people. This is so because the elected representatives pass all laws and regulations, and the people can not do much about that democratically, by means of votes.

They can demonstrate, write letters, articles and books showing their disagreement, but all that is evidence of the lack of democratic power, ballot box power, by the people.

If the people have power they are able to stop the elected representatives from raising taxes, spend public money in any way they see fit, sign treaties without the approval of the people, etc. Not only that, it is be the people who decide on taxes and the rest.

Demonstrations, etc., are an indication that democracy is not as developed as it can be. Freedom to protest is not democracy, it is freedom to protest. Democracy is when the people do not have to protest, because they have the power to directly control what government does. The Swiss people have that power, the people of the other nine democracies do not.

Here is a very short guide of what the other countries, ahead of Switzerland in the list, do in terms of people power, beyond the power to elect representatives;

Norway: The constitution does not even mention referendums! Politicians decide when the people will vote in a referendum. The result is non-binding. They have had six referendums. Not impressive. No way Norway is number one.

Sweden: It is similar to Norway. They have had six referendums since they have democracy.

New Zealand: Citizens can propose a non-binding referendum; not much “meat” here either. They have had ten referendums.

Finland: The people can propose a referendum, but the politicians can ignore the petition. They had two referendums.

Ireland: The politicians decide if there is to be a referendum. 38 constitutional referendums called by the politicians. No other referendum.

Denmark: It is also up to the politicians. They have had sixteen referendums.

Canada: It is up to the politicians. Three referendums.

Switzerland:  Binding referendums are called by the law or by the people;   600 binding referendums, yes 600. The government can not call referendums in Switzerland. This reduces the power of government even more in relation to the power of ordinary citizens.

Swiss voters regularly decide on laws proposed by parliament; the law does not pass if the voters reject it. Even if both houses of parliament, and the government, unanimously propose the law, the people can reject it.

In Switzerland, voters must also approve international treaties and, like in many countries, also decide on changes to the constitution.

Ordinary Swiss citizens can call for a national vote, legally binding, on almost any issue. In none of the other nine countries can ordinary citizens do that.

There is even more; in Switzerland there is no Supreme Court or Constitutional Court to decide on interpretation of the constitution. This is so because the people are the interpreters.

The Swiss hold more than one half of the word’s referendums at the national level, probably even many more at the state (province) and municipal levels.

That is impressive for a country of 8.5 million people in a World of billions of people.

The facts speak; Switzerland is clearly the most democratic country in the World.

It is incomprehensible that the Economist does not rank Switzerland as the number one democracy.

Nobody talks about this, certainly not the politicians of the Left or the Right.

First of all let me say that the social and political Right-Left, even Centre, are divisions that harm society because, specially Right-Left are dogmatic and rigid, like two opposing religions. Such rigidity does not favour progress or accommodation of different views.

Like religions, Right and Left have the conviction their way of looking at society and its challenges is the right way, that other ways are wrong. Naturally, as each believes its analysis is the right one, it also feels its their solutions are the right ones.

Each side believes it has the ONE “correct” answer, the “true” answer. Not easy to make rational decisions with that frame of mind.

As a result, they spend a lot of time and energy trying to discredit each other.

They disagree on almost anything; education, economics, social policies, taxes, business policies, labour laws, international relations, justice and on and on.

One of the wonderful effects of direct democracy is that it is centered on issues, not on ideology, not on political parties, or their variously ranking “priests”. Direct democracy is issue-centred, fact-centred, it is not centred on general ideologies or beliefs.

It does so because voters vote on issues. They also vote to elect people who represent ideologies, but because the voters also have to vote on specific issues, they have to focus their attention on the practical facts of each issue. This makes ideology less prominent. Less ideological polarization is one of its benefits.

Because in direct democracy voters vote on issues they have to also understand issues. They have to because they know they are responsible, directly responsible, of the effects of their decisions.

In direct democracy voters know that they are responsible, that their vote directly determines they may have to pay more taxes because they said “yes” to building a new road, a new rail network, to have a universal income for citizens or resident, to have single payer health care and so on.

That they are responsible for paying taxes does not mean they do not want government; citizens with sound judgment, rich and not rich, know that to have a stable prosperous society it is necessary to have sound public services, good universal education, good universal health system, good infrastructure and so on, and that all that requires money. This money can come through taxes or by paying directly for the services.

This does not mean that voters will not support any of those measures, the Swiss support them. What direct democracy does is that forces voters to look at every issue in terms of costs-benefits for the majority of voters. They are acutely aware their money is necessary to provide a good quality of life for practically all citizens, including the poor.

In representative democracy it is not like that; people elect the politicians who decide on what to spend the money and how much.

Unfortunately for voters, in representative democracy, for elected politicians, it is not their money. They do not feel the penalty of higher taxes or high insurance premiums because they can also vote for measures that protect them, and they do.

They may exempt themselves and the bureaucrats that help them, from paying taxes, they can increase their salaries, their travel and living allowances, etc.

To make voters temporarily happy, governments in representative democracies can also print more money to “buy” votes. They can also do things many voters love because they are not aware they will pay for them.

They can increase the government deficit, the national debt, mandate or increase minimum salaries, increase the salaries of civil servants, build an economically unsustainable high speed rail network, build more unnecessary universities to have more citizens with college education, even if there are no jobs for them, etc.

In direct democracy, politicians can not do any of that if voters do not agree.

This is why the Swiss government generally makes sounder decisions that its neighbours in France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Belgium, the Nordic Countries, the UK and the rest of the countries of the World. This is why Switzerland has rock-solid stability and prosperity.

The Swiss make usually better decisions than anyone else because the voters vote on issues and are responsible for the consequences, and their governments (at all levels) know that.

This realism has made the Swiss better socialists and better capitalists than all other nations. This is so because they have many internationally competitive companies able to pay high wages.

The facts prove it; they have the best universal health system in the World, but it is not paid by taxes, each citizen buys private health insurance.

When the person does not have enough income to pay the premiums the government provides assistance so they can.

The private capitalist insurance providers are tightly regulated by social legislation. For example, they can not make money on the medical services they must provide, but they can make money on secondary items, like having a private room in a hospital.

The end result is the Swiss health care system is considered the best in the World. If you want to know more about the Swiss health system you can check one of my earlier blogs or, better, research the issue in internet; just type “Swiss health care system” in your computer.

Many people point to the Danish, Dutch, German, British, French, Canadian universal health care system and the legislation that makes them possible, as the model for others. The fact is that the Swiss capitalist and socially universal health care system is superior.

The Swiss deliver also more competitive capitalists than those other countries in other areas.

This is why they have higher wages, they are more competitive; in relation to the population of the country, they export twice as many high tech goods and services than Germany, and more than eight times more than the US.

Their public education system is also better, better than what they have in many of those countries, although German, Danish and Dutch have pretty good systems.

To evaluate public education you have to be careful, numbers can be misleading. For example, Belgium, Finland, Australia, Israel, the United Kingdom, South Korea, Germany the US, Canada have more college graduates than Switzerland, yet Switzerland outranks those countries in practically all facts on the ground.

Another misleading indicator can be the PISA rankings in education. Switzerland ranks behind the “best”; China, Singapore, Finland an eleven others. That China is at the top should make anyone doubt the validity of the PISA rankings. PISA measures are valid for a very narrow area; classroom learning in math, science and language. This is too narrow a way to look at education. Furthermore, PISA only looks at 15 year old students.

No wonder what PISA measures does not correlate with political stability, freedom, economic prosperity, social stability, justice, respect for human life, etc., if it did, China would rank at the top, not the bottom, in many of these facts.

Overall, Switzerland is the best run country in the World, that is more meaningful than any rankings, you only have to visit Switzerland to know that; it jumps at you.

Other countries would do well to understand and learn how the Swiss do it. Direct democracy is perhaps the most important factor. Direct democracy is the factor all Swiss share. As you know, Switzerland is a multicultural and multilingual country; what unites them is direct democracy.

But do not expect the elites in your country to dig the facts about Switzerland, you will have to dig the facts and pressure your elites towards direct democracy, just like the Swiss did many years ago.

One of the results of direct democracy seems to be to produce more efficient capitalists able to deliver more efficient social measures.

One of the arguments made, by those who do not like direct democracy, is that there is the danger of  “tyranny of the majority”.

Many politicians, commentators and other in the elites, have made this argument.

However, if we look at history, at the facts, such fear does not make much sense, reality does not back it up.

Greek direct democracy never became the “tyranny of the majority”. The only other example of direct democracy, in the whole history of humanity, is today’s Switzerland.

Switzerland is not totally a direct democracy. This is so because in Switzerland they also have politicians and political parties, like in representative democracy.

But Switzerland is a direct democracy because citizens have the final say on all important laws and issues at the local, canton (state-province) and national level. The government and elected representatives do not have the final say.

It is true that Swiss politicians are not as “professional” as the politicians in representative democracies. In Switzerland many elected representatives are not full-time politicians; they keep their regular jobs.

Switzerland, like representative democracies, also has “professional” political parties.

This means that in Switzerland ordinary citizens do not directly run the government. In ancient Greece, they did. In Ancient Greece ordinary citizens were selected randomly to serve in government, even at the highest levels. Before taking their jobs another body of citizens, also selected at random, examined their fitness to serve. It makes sense to me.

In a way, what the Greeks did and what the Swiss do, reflects what the well-known conservative American commentator William F. Buckley Jr., once said: “I would rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the Manhattan phone book than by the entire faculty of Harvard”.

This is one of the best statements about direct democracy I ever read. I do not know if Mr. Buckley meant it that way, but even if he did not, it is a great argument for direct democracy.

What he was saying is that he had more faith in the ability of a large group of ordinary people, selected randomly, to provide better government, than a small elite with a high level of formal education (or money, I presume).

Ordinary Swiss citizens do not directly participate in government, but they do have the power to make sure government and parliament behave in accordance with the will of the majority, just like the Greeks had also.

Like the Greeks, Switzerland has not fallen into the “tyranny of the majority” either. It will not fall into that because, if the majority believes in democracy, it is not rational to fear their tyranny. To believe that ordinary citizens, who believe in democracy and practice it, will turn into tyrants, is like fearing sane people because they could become insane; it makes no sense.

Tyranny has never happened in direct democracy. Tyranny may happen if direct democracy, or representative democracy, collapse.

As long as the democratic majority in a democracy feels and knows its will prevails, they will not become frustrated or fearful that the elites, the wealthy and those in top positions, are running the country for their economic benefit. They will not fear either that a “cultural” elite is imposing its ideas on social and economic practices that go against the will of the majority of ordinary citizens.

The reality is that if the majority does not fear being control by the elites, direct democracy or representative democracy will not collapse. Direct democracy is probably the best way to keep that fear away.

Collapse into tyranny, of the known kind, is more likely to happen in representative democracy than in direct democracy. The reason is obvious; in representative democracy desperate voters who feel they have lost control of their country may elect a demagogue “to fix things”. The demagogue, if he or she has a parliamentary majority, can run the country pretty much as a dictator. In fact, sometimes it happens.

In direct democracy there is never need of a demagogue, a “great leader”, a “visionary”, a “prophet” because ordinary people are and feel in charge of the country.

Another danger in representative in representative democracies is that, often, the elected representatives fall under the control of pressure groups. Often, the interests of pressure groups may not coincide with the national interest; they may be even contrary to the national interest.

It is true that in representative democracies the Supreme Court can stop the government from doing certain things, but an absolute majority government can even do away with the Supreme Court, unless it requires a constitutional change approved in a national referendum.

If we recognize that in representative democracy ordinary voters must have the final say on the constitution, it is obvious they are also capable of having the final say in much more “pedestrian” matters. For example, laws and regulations, budgets, building of schools, the military, roads, bringing the Olympics, minimum wage, universal health care and on and on.

This is why direct democracy makes sense.

The experience of Switzerland and Greece tells us direct democracy is a sound system.

Stable representative democracies can make the transition now. The current political, economic and social elites, who now run such countries, will probably oppose the change because they will lose power.

Once the transition is made, the end result will be that the 2000 randomly selected people Mr. Buckley spoke about would provide, not better, but much better government than the entire faculty of Harvard, the economic elite and elected politicians. Switzerland proves it; enter “direct democracy”, “Swiss direct democracy” in your computer or phone and you will see.

Reject the argument that direct democracy presents a danger of the “tyranny of the majority”; it has never happened.

Direct democracy is the better way.

 

In the following example of the use of people power, you can see how issue-centered direct democracy overcomes the rigidity of political labels and ideology that dominate parliaments. It also overcomes the power of lobbies, not a small thing.

In the district of Upper Egandine in South East Switzerland is where this example of direct democracy took place.

Upper Egandine is a beautiful place. You probably recognize its famous resort of St. Moritz.

Upper Egandine is in the canton of Grisson, also known as the canton of Graubünden. There are 13 small towns and villages in Upper Egandine. St Moritz with 5000 inhabitants is the largest, Madulain, with about 200 is the smallest.

Being a beautiful region, it attracts urbanites from major Swiss cities. But located also in super clean, neat, prosperous, peaceful and well organized Switzerland, Upper Egandine also attracts well off people from other countries; Germans, French, English, Americans, etc.

Many of these people started to build second homes in Upper Egandine, in St. Moritz and other places.

As a result, in the early 2000s the local people became concerned the area was starting to lose its natural environment, as well as its cultural character and atmosphere.

Another major concern of the locals was the increase in the price of land; they could not compete with the well-off from outside when it came to buying land. This was affecting the house-buying ability of their children and of themselves

The person who best articulated the concerns was Franz Weber, a well known ecologist. Unfortunately, he died in 2019 at the nice old age of 91.

He said construction of second homes should be stopped or controlled much more tightly. At the time of the campaign, in some areas of Upper Egandine, one of every five homes was the second home of people from outside the area.

His position was initially supported by the “Left”; the Greens and Socialists, but soon conservatives joined because the issue also affected them. Wealthy local business conservatives might love more construction, but local ordinary conservatives did not.

Franz Weber started the initiative with a committee of 27 people. They gathered the 800 signatures required by the local law. The people of Upper Egandine voted; 71% of the voters decided that the building of second homes had to be stopped.

Several years later, what started in Upper Egandine became a national issue across Switzerland.

In 2012 both houses of the Swiss parliament debated a similar initiative. Both houses recommended that it be rejected. The upper house, known as the National Council, voted 123 to 61 against it, the “lower house”, the Council of States, also voted against it 29 to 10.

As you will guess, many businesses were also opposed to the initiative because it went against growth.

So, the politicians did not like the idea, neither did many business, but ordinary people did.

Fortunately, in Swiss democracy, if an initiative gathers the required number of signatures in the allowed time, it must be presented to all voters for approval or rejection, regardless of the votes in parliament.

The people decided; 50.6% of voters supported the initiative. Voter participation rate was 45%. Other issues have shown lower and higher participation rates. But we must not forget that during the year 80% of Swiss voters participate in referendums, this proves Swiss direct democracy is very alive.

In favour of the initiative were voters on the Left and the Right, Progressives and Conservatives, no party “loyalty” here.

The results clearly demonstrate how the elected representatives may not represent the will of the people on many issues.

This happens even in Switzerland, where elected representatives have learned to work more by consensus. They do that because they know the people can knock down what they want to do.

In traditional “representative” democracies parliamentarians and governments diverge from the will of the majority much more often than in Switzerland. This is because there are no people-initiated referendums to stop them. Think about that the next time you do not feel represented.

This initiative, and many others, demonstrate the Left-Right divide is often artificial. The reality is that, on many issues, people on the right and the left share the same concerns and vote in the same direction… if they have the opportunity to do so.

This means that direct democracy is also necessary to dial down the divide between Left and Right because it often does not exist. A less polarized atmosphere also facilitates rational decision-making.

I hope this small story helps motivate you to fight for direct democracy.

If representative democracy, where the citizens choose those who make decisions, is difficult, direct democracy where the citizens themselves decide on issues, not just who will govern, is much more difficult. Perhaps  this is why it took humanity about 300 000 years to come up with democracy.

It happened in Ancient Greece 2500 years ago.  It lasted a few centuries and then the democracy clock stopped. It took another 2000 years for democracy to revive. Unfortunately, it only did so in Europe, and in a limited way.

It happened in Europe probably because Europeans were lucky enough to have access to ancient Greek books.  Some Greek ideas were passed on to them through the Romans and others. Somehow, the Europeans also developed the common sense necessary to make democracy work.

However, even today, even among the countries with stable democracies, only one, Switzerland, comes close to  Ancient Greece democracy,  the rest follow the less democratic representative democracy.

Direct democracy is superior to representative democracy because it is more democratic; it increases the power of ordinary citizens to decide how society works. This also increases their self esteem, their confidence in themselves, the dignity of their lives; it improves the whole country.

Direct democracy is about rebalancing power; that is one of the obstacles because those with power do not want any rebalancing. To them, things are as they ought to be.

Somebody said: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. He also said: “great men are almost always bad men”.  This is why nobody, no elite, no party, no person should have a lot of power, not even when the people freely elect their representatives. The representatives must have their power limited; the final authority must be the citizens.

The quoted words above were written in 1887 by Lord Acton, an English politician and writer.

He could have also said, but he did not: “politicians love power”.

It was the Swiss who made the closest approximation to Greek direct democracy.

But in Switzerland the change did not happen because the “enlightened” political parties decided that “government by the people” was good. The Swiss political parties did not want direct democracy, they were happy with representative democracy. They used the same arguments politicians in other representative democracies continue to use, including your own country.

They are happy; “you just vote for us, we know what to do, we have that special quality that enables us to know what is good for the country, you do not have to worry”.

It was in the 1830s when the people of Swiss cantons decided they had enough of that. They pushed and pushed and gave themselves the power to stop laws drafted by the parliament and the government of the cantons. They also gave themselves the power to propose and pass new laws.

The Swiss cantons can be roughly compared to the states in the US, Australia or Germany, the provinces in Canada, perhaps the states of India, etc.

At the national level, Swiss politicians resisted direct democracy for another 40 years; it did not happen at the national level until 1874.

Notice that the Swiss tackled what worried Lord Acton, even before Lord Acton wrote those words. It is obvious the Swiss are very clever about something even more important than watches, cheese, chocolate, banking, high technologies and many other things.

But the Swiss advance has not spread yet. Perhaps it is because most people do not know about.  Perhaps it is because the politicians resist losing some power, like Swiss politicians did.

It is also possible that it is because ordinary people do not believe in direct democracy. However, in my experience, most people just do not know about direct democracy; once I make them aware of it and how it works, they like direct democracy. This is why I started this blog; to help spread direct democracy.

Swiss direct democracy has demonstrated most citizens are very responsible. You already know that in your country because most people behave responsibly with their own affairs. For example, people pay their mortgages and other loans, they look after what they own, they are responsible neighbours, responsible parents, responsible workers, etc.

The key to develop responsibility is to give people the power to experience responsibility. To feel responsible for what happens in the country they need the power to decide on issues, not just the power to decide whom to vote for.

In representative democracy the majority of people do not feel responsible for how their country is managed. They feel that way because, once the politicians are elected, once the new parliament and the new government are formed, ordinary citizens have no power; all they can do is complain. As a result, for them, “the problem is the politicians”.

To change that we have to act like the Swiss, we have to say it loud and clear, and insist for as long as necessary, that we want direct democracy.