Author: victor

In many stable, prosperous representative democracies, there is a concern that voter turnout is low. It seems too many voters feel their votes do not count. Unstable, corrupt “representative” democracies are not yet culturally capable of direct democracy. Dictatorships are “light-years” away.

In stable representative democracies the people play an important, but infrequent role. They elect their representatives, but once the election is over the people can not decide on anything.

In-between elections it is the elected politicians who make all the decisions; they appoint judges, they pass new laws, they eliminate other laws, they decide how to apply the laws, they decide how much public money is to be spent and where it will be spent, they decide what treaties to sign with which country, they decide if it is necessary to build a new road, harbour or pool, or to raise or lower taxes, etc.

From election to election, if voters do not like a law or a decision, all they can do is write letters to the elected representatives and the media, demonstrate, post in internet, start a blog, use bumper stickers, wear hats and t shirts with slogans, advertise, they can also sue and hope a jury or judge agrees with them, etc., but power, real factual power, in-between elections, the people have little.

The situation will not change until we push enough for representative democracy to evolve into direct democracy.

All we can do under the current system is try to scare the government and parliamentarians into thinking that if they keep doing this or that, or do not do this or that, they will lose the next election.

Unfortunately, elections are complicated and costly activities. Perhaps that is why in most representative democracies they have elections every 4 or 5 years. This is too long time; by the time the next election comes up voters might have “forgotten”, or have in mind more pressing issues. Politicians will also work hard to convince us, again, they will do what most voter want if we vote for them.

Sometimes the party in power or its leader lose so much credibility that the party decides to ditch the leader to avoid the voters ditching both of them. The idea is to make voters believe that with the new leader things will be very different. Generally, that does not happen. It does not happen because political parties are tied to ideologies, a sort of “political religions”, of “ideological rails” they have to stay on. They are also tied to alliances, to lobbies and pressure groups whose support they need to get elected.

Political parties are trapped into  their beliefs but corrupt ones also pretend to be driven by ideas like “freedom”, “justice”, “equality”, etc. In reality, they use them to dupe voters in general, even their own supporters, while they enrich themselves and their “friends”.

From election to election, because of the ideology of the parties and the pressure groups, governments and parliamentarians often do not make decisions thinking of what the majority of voters want.

Direct democracy fixes most, if not all, of that.

In direct democracy we still vote to elect representatives and government but there is a crucial innovation; we also vote to approve or rejects laws and projects the government proposes. Notice that in direct democracy the government only “proposes” because the people have the final say, amazing!, don’t you think?

This means that the people vote specifically to decide if the new law proposed by parliament becomes a law or dies, if a high speed rail is built, if health care will become universal, if a new pool or school is built, if a new treaty is signed or if taxes will be raised or lowered.

But those who do not want direct democracy try to convince us direct democracy is not as good as representative democracy,

One argument they use is: “in direct democracy the people get tired of so much voting, this is why in Switzerland, only about 40% of the people vote”.

This is a fake argument.

On most issues, it is true that only about 40% of eligible Swiss voters turn up. But most people who do not turn up do so, not because of “voter fatigue”, they do not turn up because the issue may not interest them enough, or are not clear on how to vote and prefer that others decide.

In many representative democracies voter turnout is not much better, except where the law makes it illegal not to vote, what a law! If you can not decide not to vote, what kind of freedom is that?

Let us go back to Switzerland.

For example, on a referendum to stop urban sprawl 64% of Swiss voters voted to allow urban development, 36% voted against. The turn out was low, only 38%.

But on other issues turn out is very high; 57% voted to build a huge road tunnel, 43% voted against, but the turnout was 64%.

But the really important number about turnout is that over the whole year, Swiss voter turnout is 80%. This means that every year 80% of Swiss voters go and vote in referendums.

It is obvious Swiss voters do not have “voter fatigue”. It is the opposite; it is the voters in representative democracy that seem fatigued. I suspect they are tired of many things; of the polarization that party ideology generates, of the politicians often governing but not thinking of the majority, of lobbies and pressure groups having too much influence.

In spite of that I usually go and vote, but I totally understand many feel voting is not worth the effort; “politicians do not govern for us” many say.

To change things we have to make “noise”. Enough “noise” to bring about direct democracy. If we do that we will make sure governments govern for the majority of ordinary voters.

We can also introduce proportional representation so that more voters are represented in parliament. But make no mistake; proportional representation without direct democracy will not change the root problems of representative democracy.

 

Stop blaming the politicians!, WE are the problem, not the politicians.

Saying things like; “You can not trust the politicians”, “they lie”, “they do not keep their promises”, “they are controlled by the leaders of big business, the rich, the leaders of big unions, aggressive activists and all sorts of pressure groups and lobbies”, “they are not interested in the little guy”, “they promise this and that just to get our vote but they forget about us until the next electoral campaign”, and on and on.

All that might make us feel like you are doing something, but we are not. I can understand it, but the root problem is not the politicians, or even the lobbies, the root problem is us, the voters.

The problem is that we give politicians too much power. I am not referring to the politician as a person but to the role and responsibility of being a politicians. No matter whom we elect, no matter who runs the government; local, regional or national, the end result is roughly the same; governments too often do not govern for the people; they govern for some of the people.

It does not matter much either if the country is a presidential republic, a parliamentary monarchy or some other form of legitimate democracy; politicians, public decision makers have too much power to make decisions that affect all of us.

Those we elect can no really do anything about this. It is not that they are bad people or that they enjoy being dominated by the lobbies or their own party apparatus; it is that representative democracy puts too much power in the hands of those elected. In many countries to get elected you need to run expensive campaigns; you need money, lots of it.

You also need the support of lobbies. This is so because some influential lobbies can torpedo your candidacy by “defunding” your campaign, or by running a campaign against you. They may do that if you oppose what they support or if you support what they oppose.

In some democracies, the state gives money to politicians to campaign. This makes politicians less susceptible to the lobbies, but the lobbies still have lots of influence. This is so because politicians know that once they retire from politics, or if they lose and election, the lobbies can offer them, as a reward for how they behaved, good jobs in corporations and institutions in which their vote counts.

Because of those factors, in representative democracy various groups “screen” who is going to be a candidate and, therefore, who gets elected.

Representative democracy also subjects those elected to the pressures of groups and business after the politician has been elected. This happens because those agents want to make sure he or she will not forget their interests.

Elected politicians also know that, once elected, the campaign for reelection begins right away. the pressure does not let up.

Another important problem in representative democracy is that the political parties have too much power. For example, they often directly decide who will be candidate.

The overall effect is government which is not for the people (sometimes is even against the interests of the majority). Trust in politicians also drops every year. Over the long term such dynamics shake democracy to its foundations and may even destroy it.

However, once power shifts from politicians and parties to the people other things happen also. For example, it is no longer so important what politicians and lobbies want to do. This is so because the people can stop anything representative politicians want to do.

When politicians have less power the lobbies also lose some interest in politicians. They are more likely to keep quiet or they decide to to make their case in the open, to all voters.

The things that happen in representative democracy, that we do not like, do so because we consider ourselves democrats, but we have not been willing to act to change the facts on the ground. We are not democrats as long as we do not insist democracy is “government of the people, by the people, for the people”. So far the only modern people who have done so are the Swiss, never mind what many beautiful speeches and constitutions say.

If you believe the government in your country is not “government of the people, by the people, for the people”, who is supposed to insist, pressure, protest until it is? It is you! It is irrational to expect the elected politicians to fix this.

Even if a politician wants to increase the power of the people, many of his colleagues, his own party, the lobbies and most of the elite, will do all they can to stop him or her. The reason is clear; none of them likes to lose power. Power is money, is prestige, is social standing, is ego, is sexy.

Politicians themselves also want to have power for other reasons; to do what they believe is right for the country, for example.

You also often hear politicians and others speak of the importance of “leadership”. Some people believe leadership; that “great special people” are necessary. Democracy, even representative democracy is not about that. Democracy is about ordinary people deciding who among them, mere mortals, seems best suited to govern.

Because politicians have power and feel they need it, they will no give it up, in whole or in part, easily. Besides feeling they need the power, it very human to enjoy the sensation of having power power, of having control; it feels good to know you are powerful.

Therefore, it is obvious that it is us, the people, who have to demand the power shift; we need politicians with less power and the citizens with more.

For such demand to happen, much more than just saying “this or that is not right and should be changed” is necessary.

History proves it; representative democracy did not happen because the kings, the priests and other “special” people, came to the conclusion it was a better system than their absolute power. Representative democracy has been a huge leap forward for human kind (still for a minority) but we had to fight, sometimes violently, to get it.

Fortunately, direct democracy is not as dramatic a switch as the switch from absolute rule to representative democracy; it should be possible to do it peacefully. We are not talking about eliminating the politicians or their jobs; we just want to lighten their job specs.

To have “government of the people, by the people, for the people”, all you need is “government by the people”, the other two will happen automatically.

Direct democracy means that the people, in an orderly and organized manner, after receiving information on all sides of an issue, not after listening to politicians, they go to the voting station, vote and decide how the village, city or country is to be run.

Direct democracy is about voting on issues, not just voting politicians. Because of that, one positive affect is that it depoliticizes politics; this is a big improvement.

In direct democracy, voters are the final authority on any law, on the constitution. Voters can also also propose new laws to their fellow citizens and have them decide.

In direct democracy the people are the final authority; not parliaments, not judges, not supreme courts, not constitutional courts. The final authority is you.

Direct democracy also makes citizens grow. This is so because it gives them the responsibility to decide on issues. In direct democracy you vote, you decide and you live with the consequences; no more blaming the politicians.

Direct democracy brings to the voting booth the responsibility the voter already does in his or her personal and professional affairs. Most people are very responsible with their personal and professional affairs; they behave responsibly at work, they pay their mortgages and loans, they do so because they are directly responsible for the consequences if they do not. Direct democracy is like that, forces us to vote fully aware we are directly responsible for the results of our vote, not the politicians.

But for direct democracy to happen you have to move; you have to write, you have to demand, you might need to peacefully demonstrate.   You have to make direct democracy THE ISSUE, until politicians accept the switch, or a new party promotes it and gets a sufficient number of votes to force the changes in the laws and the constitution.

Aren’t the politicians supposed to be our servants? Why the servants of the people have more power than the people? I tell you why; because we do not fight to have “government by the people”.

Direct democracy arrived in Greece because of a crisis; the elites did not like it, even if the Greeks had left royalty and dictators behind centuries before. It also arrived in Switzerland against the will of elected politicians. I doubt your country will be different.

The current health crisis caused by the virus, and the economic crisis it created, can be a great opportunity to bring about direct democracy.

Direct democracy is not about radical “messianic”, “magical”, changes to bring perfect equality, perfect justice, perfect rights, and on and on. It is not about that because we know such radical “solutions” are often much worse than the problems. Direct democracy is about improving how society is managed by having voters directly decide issues and make changes.

Let us get going!

 

 

It is interesting to know that in many democracies, according to this or that poll, the majority of voters support, or oppose this or that law.

Much more interesting, because it is much more important, is to let voters decide on the laws, or even propose new ones..

Two examples just a few months ago in Switzerland illustrate the difference between representative democracy and (direct) democracy.

On February 9, 2020 Swiss voters decided to make it illegal to discriminate people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

The history behind the vote is very educative for anyone interested in direct democracy.

Swiss law had already made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, culture-ethnic origin or religion. Swiss politicians, the Swiss Parliament, decided it was time to expand the protection to homosexuals and other sexual orientations.

But some people in Switzerland disagreed with the proposed bill. The got moving. They were able to get 50 000 Swiss citizens, within 100 days after Parliament passed the law, to back them up. This forced the government to hold a referendum on the proposed law. The people would decide if the law would stand or would have to be withdrawn.

Notice how a bill approved by the elected representatives of the Swiss people could be challenged by a relatively small number of ordinary citizens, and/or political parties, before the law comes into effect.

Most bills approved by the Swiss representative politicians are not challenged. This is because Swiss politicians have learned to develop laws that have the support of the vast majority of voters.

Most voters know this. This means that in most cases the people who oppose the bill are a relatively small number and understand than in democracy the will of the majority has to prevail.

But sometimes, those who oppose the bill believe they are the majority, or believe that the majority will support them. When this happens, they do what the people who challenged the bill forbidding gay discrimination did, they gathered 50 000 signatures and people voted in a national referendum.

If the results of the referendum supported them then the bill would not pass. The politicians would have to go back to the drawing board, or drop the bill until society is more receptive to the proposed law.

But, perhaps the biggest strength of the referendum is that, if the people who oppose the proposed law lose the referendum they will have no rational choice but to accept the results. Conversely, if they win, the losers will have to accept the result. This is great for democracy and long term stability.

The losers will not be able to go around complaining that the new bill “offends the traditions of the country”, “is an attempt against traditional practices”, etc. If they do, they quickly will be told things like: “You believe in democracy, right? You thought that most people would support you, but the vote clearly indicates that they do not; you had your opportunity, you lost the argument, so move on”.

It would be ridiculous for a person who considers himself or herself a democrat, a person who had the opportunity to put the matter to a vote by fellow citizens, and did so, to continue complaining that “protection of gay rights weakens traditional customs, or that gays did not need the protection of the new law”, or whatever. The people have voted, end of the issue. Of course, the debate can continue; perhaps public opinion will change.

Not accepting the results of a referendum would be like not accepting that someone got elected; irrational and totally antidemocratic.

In this particularly case, the opponents of the law clearly lost the referendum; 63% of voters said “no”. The law protecting gays became the law of Switzerland. It is interesting that 37% voted with the losers. This shows that large minorities have to learn to accept defeat without taking to the streets,… or worse.

Some people say “the Swiss were late in the introduction of such law”. They were late, but if the result of moving more slowly is to settle the issue for good, because the people have spoken, it is much better for long term stability; when the political elites, the lobbies, the judges, the “opinion leaders” decide it does not carry the same weight. When the people “speak” with their vote it is almost ridiculous for anyone to argue with that.

In countries where the politicians decide, where the people can not decide, the arguments never end. The reason is obvious; decisions made by democratically elected politicians are not democratic when the majority of the people oppose them, it does not matter that the representatives have been legally elected. Democracy is about the will of the majority of the people, not about the will of the majority of those elected by the people.

Of course, it could have gone the other way. People would say: “but it is clearly wrong not to protect gay people”. That is an opinion.

In democracy there are no sacred principles emanating from a god, from some extraordinary prophets or visionary politicians. In democracy we have only the will of the people. We hope that most people have enough common sense to make the right decision. Each voter may use religion, reason, intuition, inspiration, etc., to decide their vote, but that is an individual issue.

In the case of Switzerland I believe they made the right decision on gays, but that is only my opinion. Even if I opposed them, democratically, they reached the right decision.

No matter how many human rights experts say gays should be protected, what counts is the will of the majority. If the human rights experts have really good arguments, they should be able to persuade the majority of voters that gays should be protected. In the case of Switzerland it seems their ideas were successful.

But the opposite can also happen.

In another case, the Swiss also voted on something else on the same day. They voted on a law proposed by citizens. The proposed law mandated 10% of housing in Switzerland be dedicated to “social housing” (“social housing” means housing were the landlord is the government or non-profit cooperatives). The result of the referendum was “no”, Swiss voters decided Switzerland does not need more social housing.

Many ordinary people and social experts may claim that it is an injustice because a number of Swiss people can not find housing they at a reasonable price. They made their argument, the voters decided and those who did not like the result had to move on; just like the opponents of the law protecting gays.

In this case, the issue was not to challenge a law proposed by the politicians. In this case the issue was to vote on a law proposed by citizens. This in Switzerland they call an “initiative”. Initiatives allow ordinary citizens to propose laws. A number of Swiss citizens and political parties believed the people would approve the introduction of such law.

The promoters of the initiative had to gather 100 000 signatures, but they had more time to gather them, they had 18 months, much longer than the 100 days to challenge a parliamentary bill.

The end result was that the majority spoke and the minority had to accept the decision, just like the minority had to do in the case of protection of gays.

That is what democracy is: “government of the people, by the people, for the people”, not “government of the representatives of the people, by the representatives of the people, for the representatives of the people”. Sadly, in too many stable democracies we even have too much of the last part…, but that is another issue that direct democracy also tackles effectively.

So, let us get moving and bring democracy to your land. Elected representatives? no problem, but the final word has to be by the people.

The Swiss are like everybody else; those with more formal education and more money really believe they are “more qualified” to tell the rest how they should think and behave.

Fortunately, the ordinary Swiss are not like everyone else, so far.

This “more qualified” bit is a “class” thing, almost a “caste”.

This is what happens:

Those with money believe they are special because the fact that they have money “proves” they are “smarter”. Likewise, those with more formal education also believe they are “smarter”; after all, to do complex calculations, to write well, to analyze human and technical problems, you have to be “smart”. If your writings elevate you to the category of an “intellectual”, who can question you are smarter?

But there is more to this “I am smarter” thing.

Those with money, particularly if self made, believe they are smarter than those with high university degrees and even the “intellectuals”. They do so because, to make money you really have to be smart in the “real world”. Somehow, the sort of intelligence required to make money is, to them, more elevated than the intelligence required for academic subjects.

But it does not end there; those with high degrees and/or “intellectuals”, feel somehow superior to the fellows who make a lot money, and to everyone else, of course. They feel that way because, who can doubt that the intelligence to write a great book, to develop a new psychological insight or to do the calculations to send a rocket to the moon, is superior to the intelligence required to set up a new business or make a business decision that generates millions in profit, etc.?

If we look at moral superiority, the businessman does not stand a chance; we all “know” to make money you have to manipulate, deceive and a number of other disgusting practices. Unfortunately, in academia they do not fly much higher; there is envy and resentment of the one who “publishes” more in the more prestigious journals, there is personal animosity because of academic discrepancies, etc.

And, you know what?, even in academia some make a lot more money than others, among other things, by selling, selling books for example… interesting.

There is special category among the rich and those with higher formal education, the “famous”. Those who are famous believe they have something special that makes them even more qualified. Otherwise, why would millions pay attention to what they say?

But we have an even more special category of people; “the leaders”. The “leaders” are sometimes also the rich, the famous and the intellectuals but more often, the “leaders” are the politicians; any politician elected, to even the more modest public office, tends to think he or she has “leadership” qualities. It is “obvious”, as the reason they voted for him or her is because the people, the ordinary people, “saw” in the politician those qualities.

Too many people among those with money, with higher formal education, the famous and, above all, the politicians, are convinced their condition also makes them smarter to speak and decide on any issue of importance to society.

Of course, they are wrong. The intelligence required to set up a great business, to be a prestigious intellectual, a successful politician, is not synonymous with common sense.

We all know of people with money, intellectuals, famous people and politicians, who do not have common sense. We also see ordinary people without common sense.

Common sense is the most important form of intelligence. You only have to look at how Merriam-Webster, Oxford and Collins define common sense:

“Sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts”.

 “The ability to use good judgment in making decisions and to live in a reasonable and safe way”.

 “Your common sense is your natural ability to make good judgments and to behave in a practical and sensible way”.

You can not go far without common sense, no matter how “smart” you are.

In my opinion, the majority of people with money, the intellectuals, the politicians, even the famous, have common sense. I also believe the majority of ordinary people also have it.

Ordinary people, voters, exercise common sense when they elect politicians. I am referring here to ordinary voters in stable democracies. In unstable democracies I do not know; perhaps they choose wrong.

To have a stable, prosperous democracy, common sense has to be present in the majority of voters; otherwise they will make too many mistakes at voting time and select the wrong representative. Voters make mistakes even in stable democracies sometimes, but it does not happen too often, and they do not make catastrophic mistakes, otherwise they would not be stable democracies.

Most elected politicians agree that, generally, ordinary voters have the common sense necessary to choose the right person to represent them.

But a surprise pops up; too many of those elected politicians believe that same voter, who decided to vote for him or her, does not have enough common sense to decide if the village, the town, the region or the nation needs a new school or school system, a new road or transport network, a new tax, a new immigration law, a law on gay marriage or health care, or a new trade treaty.

It is also interesting that in most democracies changes to the constitution require approval by popular referendum. This means politicians recognize the people have, not only common sense, but wisdom. They recognize the people have the ability to decide on the key document of the country.

In view of all that, it is obviously absurd to say voters do not have the capacity to decide on any law, school, health care system, treaty, etc.

There is no doubt that in stable democracies the citizens are qualified to make decisions on specific issues.

To decide, ordinary citizens will need information. They will need to listen to the experts, just like politicians do. Any issue can be explained in ordinary language by the experts. Once that is done, the common sense of the voter enables him or her to decide.

That is why in Switzerland they do it that way, and it works.

The Swiss have not done away with politicians; they have elections, and the politicians propose laws. What they have changed is that the people decide on the laws and the issues. They decide on any decision or law politicians want to make.

Citizens can also propose new laws and changes to the constitution.

In both cases citizens decide by voting in a referendum. They decide on anything of importance; taxes, health care, road building, nuclear power, education, etc.

If the Swiss can decide if a new school is necessary, on gay marriage, on universal health care, on a new road or new treaty, why can’t you?

I tell you why, it is because you have not fought for the right to be able to. The Swiss had to fight. They fought with arguments. They fought and they won; that is why they have direct democracy from the local to national level, and you do not.

By the way, with direct democracy people will not riot, like they do in so many representative democracies. This is because all decisions have the legitimacy of explicit support by the majority of voters. No decision made by representative politicians, no matter how intelligent they may be, has comparable legitimacy.

It is in your hands to bring direct democracy to wherever you are; don’t sit on them!

 

 

 

 

In 2018 the US Economic Policy Institute calculated compensation of the average CEO in the largest 350 US companies was 14,4 million dollars, 271 times the 58,000 dollars annual average pay of the American worker,.

The Economic Policy Institute is a left-wing think tank. Their motives to research and publish the data may be “politically motivated”, but the data is what it is.

To remove the “political”, “leftie”, etc.,  “aroma”, let us fly over to Switzerland; a country with very solid democratic institutions and more friendly to entrepreneurs and business than even the US.

Switzerland also is a country with amazing executive talent. This is demonstrated by the hard fact that Switzerland exports, in relation to its population, twice as much in high technology goods and services than high tech export powerhouse Germany, and EIGHT TIMES more than the US. To do that you must have pretty good executives, executives also pretty good at developing very good employees at all levels.

In 2013 the Swiss acted when executive pay became “only” 40 times the pay of the average worker. They took matters into their own hands; the way direct democracy allows them to.

The Swiss got spooked because some very highly paid executives, like those at one of Switzerland’s more prestigious and “stable” banks, UBS, screw up big when they got sucked into US quick money financial schemes engineered by other “super bright”, even more highly paid, executives, who wrecked the major US financial institutions.

Thomas Minder launched the initiative. He is a Swiss entrepreneur and independent politician who sits with the Swiss People’s Party (a sort of Swiss-style “populist” party). The Socialist party also supported the initiative.

Herr Minder started the petition to have the issue decided by all voters in a referendum. The organizers gathered the required 100 000 signatures, about 1% of the population, and a referendum to amend the Swiss Constitution took place.

It is interesting that supporters of the initiative spent only about 200,000 dollars.  Those against it spent 8 million. It seems that in direct democracy big money can live happily, but does not call the political shots.

70 per cent of voters said yes to the initiative. The initiative changes the Swiss Constitution; another example of real government by the people.

The initiative was also designed to control the “golden handshakes” and “golden parachutes”, not just excessive pay at work.

Later on there was another initiative who really scared executives, perhaps it scared Herr Minder too; its goal was to cap executive pay a 12 times the salary of the lowest paid worker in the company.

The latter initiative did not pass, but it was a warning to what can happen when ordinary citizens, of all political tendencies, get mad at the abuses of the foolish elites and have the power of direct democracy. They do not need to demonstrate, set cars on fire, riot or fall into the hands of flame-spewing “revolutionary” demagogues. In direct democracy ordinary people get organized, vote and settle the issue.

While the Swiss people acted, people in other countries; the US, France, UK, Canada, etc., all they can do is watch the news about excessive pay, listen to politicians of the left raise hell over “inequalities”, and to those on the right mumble something, but more muted, and…, nothing changes.

The result is that the pressure for change may continue to build to dangerous levels, until society “explodes”. The explosion may elect a government that caps executive pay, nationalizes companies for “social mismanagement”, promises “money and happiness for all”, etc.

Is it not time to bring direct democracy to your country?

THE TEXT OF THE SWISS INITIATIVE:

The initiative is now the law of the land. Notice how the initiative does not come down with radical measures; basically it limits itself to make sure shareholders control executive pay.

The text:

The Federal Constitution of Switzerland of April 1999 is amended as follows:

Art. 95 paragraph 3 (new)

(3) In order to protect the economy, private property and shareholders and to ensure sustainable management of businesses, the law requires that Swiss public companies listed on stock exchanges in Switzerland or abroad observe the following principles:

(a) Each year, the Annual General Meeting votes the total remuneration (both monetary and in kind) of the Board, the Executive Board and the Advisory Board. Each year, the AGM elects the President of the Board or the Chairman of the Board and, one by one, the members of the board, the members of the Compensation Committee and the independent proxy voter or the independent representative. Pension funds vote in the interests of their policyholders and disclose how they voted. Shareholders may vote electronically at a distance; proxy voting by a member of the company or by a depositary is prohibited.

(b) Board members receive no compensation on departure, or any other compensation, or any compensation in advance, any premium for acquisitions or sales of companies and cannot act as consultants or work for another company in the group. The management of the company cannot not be delegated to a legal entity.

(c) The company statutes stipulate the amount of annuities, loans and credits to board members, bonus and participation plans and the number of external mandates, as well as the duration of the employment contract of members of the management.

(d) Violation of the provisions set out in letters a to c above shall be sanctioned by imprisonment for up to three years and a fine of up to six years’ remuneration.

II

The transitional provisions of the Federal Constitution shall be amended as follows:

Art. 197 section 8 (new)

8. Transitional provisions for article 95 paragraph 3

Pending implementation of the law, the Federal Council shall implement legal provisions within one year following the acceptance of article 95.

Transparency International states:

“Lobbying is an integral part of a healthy democracy, closely related to universal values such as freedom of speech and the right to petition of government. It allows for various interest groups to present their views on public decisions that may come to affect them. It also has the potential to enhance the quality of decision-making by providing channels for the input of expertise on increasingly technical issues to legislators and decision makers. According to a 2013 survey of 600 European parliamentarians and officials, 89 per cent agreed that, “ethical and transparent lobbying helps policy development”.

This is the link to TI’s report where they make the statement: https://transparency.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2015_LobbyingInEurope_EN.pdf

I do not agree with TI. I do not believe lobbying is an integral part of a healthy democracy. It may be an inevitable part but it is not healthy.

The reasons are obvious; lobbying is a way for interest groups to push their agendas by directly influencing elected politicians. By this influence lobbies expect the politician to pay special attention to the interests of the lobby. By definition, the interests of the lobby are not the interests of the public in general. If that was the case lobbyists would leave the politicians alone to govern for the people as best they see fit.

But the lobby is not interested in that because lobbies pursue interests of groups, not the general interest.

A business lobby may be interested in allowing massive immigration because if more people compete for jobs labour will be cheaper. A labour lobby may want the opposite, even if excessive restrictions of immigration make wages excessively high and products too costly for other wage earners.

A professional lobby may want the government to pass legislation to make it very difficult for qualified professionals from other countries to immigrate and practice their profession. The formal reason may be “to protect the public”, the real reason may be: “to protect our excellent incomes”.

I understand the desire of business, unions, professional groups, etc., to help their members. The reality is that lobbies are interested in the “common good”, as they understand it.

In representative democracy lobbies have a tremendous advantage; the can work on the politicians every day. They can have face to face meetings with elected representatives, their staff, presentations, tours, etc., all year round. The average voter can not do that because in most cases he or she does not have the time, the means and the expertise.

The voter elected the representative. At voting time the voter has a lot of power, but just for one day. From then on the lobbies have the upper hand.

Transparency International also says lobbies are good because lobbying “allows for various interest groups to present their views on public decisions that may come to affect them”.

Interest groups need lobbies to present their views on public decisions that may come to affect them but, how about the average voter? Is he or she not affected by the public decisions? Why should he or she not have a voice? Obviously, if lobbies can speak to the politicians in depth, so should everybody else.

OK, it is not practical; the politicians and their staff would do nothing else but meet people if every voter participated.

This is where direct democracy, again! tackles the problem.

In direct democracy, lobbies can lobby as much as they want, politicians can listen to them and  pass laws taking into account the concerns of the lobbies. All of this is important, but much less important than in representative democracy.

In direct democracy anyone, with the help of a small group of people and a relatively small amount of money, can set up a challenge to whatever law the politicians pass. The challenge normally takes the form of binding referendum. All eligible voters will vote on acceptance or rejection of the law and the government hast to comply with the result.

Because there are plenty of people, political parties and others, who follow the passage of new laws. Pretty soon they will raise the alarm if the law seems flawed. They will trigger a debate which may end up with the collection of the required number of signatures, 1% of eligible voters, for example. Once they have the signatures, the government has no option but to call for a referendum to decide if the law will be passed or killed.

Over the years, the politicians in direct democracy and the lobbies have learned it only makes sense to pass laws that will not be rejected by the people.

In Switzerland, the lobbyists know that. In direct democracies they have to lobby far more gently.

In other words, to control lobbies the trick is not to put the emphasis on controlling how the lobbies lobby but to control the outcome. There is no better method to control the lobbies than the people by means of referendums.

In another report AI also speaks of Swiss lobbies being poorly regulated. I do not think regulation and formal rules to control lobbyists is the answer. The answer lies in giving the people the power to approve or reject the results of what the politicians want to do, lobbies or no lobbies, by means of citizen-initiated binding referendums. I do not understand why TI does not promote this solution.

In the United States lobbying is highly regulated but there is no comparison between the US and Switzerland on the negative influence lobbies have on democracy; corruption, laws to help private interests, pork barrel politics, etc. All that is a far worse problem in the US than in Switzerland.

Switzerland ranks 4th in TI corruption index, the US ranks 23rd.

A few years ago, an article in the American business magazine Forbes stated: “Con men, swindlers and cheaters pay bribes. Sophisticates hire lobbyists because lobbyists get better, more lasting results while only rarely landing in the slammer”.

Transparency International does a great job in other areas; with lobbying they goofed. I wonder why TI defends lobbying…

Direct democracy in your country will be a more effective way to reduce the influence of lobbies.

The fact that 89% of elected representative politicians in the European Parliament say: “ethical and transparent lobbying helps policy development”, should raise alarms in European voters.

TI also says: “It (lobbying) also has the potential to enhance the quality of decision-making by providing channels for the input of expertise on increasingly technical issues to legislators and decision makers”.

There is no need for lobbies to do that. Inviting any interested parties to participate in open transparent hearings, debates, etc., will provide decision makers with the input and expertise they need. At the same time, the public will see what is going on; much better than lobby regulation.

Making lobbies “transparent” may be better than nothing, but it does not address the root problem. The root problem is too much power in the hands of elected politicians and too little power in the hands of voters. In other words, the final decision makers have to be the voters, not the usual decision makers.

To give you an idea how direct democracy works, let us start with citizen’s initiatives in Switzerland.

The Swiss law of citizen initiatives allows ANY citizen or any group, even if they are completely outside parliament, to propose a partial or total change to the constitution of the country.

If your country was as democratic as Switzerland, you would have the power to do that too.  All you would need to do is persuade 100 000 people, who are legally entitled to vote, to sign in support of your initiative.

You would have 18 months to collect the 100 000 signatures. In Switzerland the requirement is 100 000 signatures, in your country could be more or could be less, depending on its population and other criteria.

Is it not amazing that one single person or a small group, completely unrelated to political parties, unions, business lobbies, etc., can change the constitution of their country? It is not incredible they can do that without speaking with the politicians or obtaining their support at all?

If a Swiss voter has an idea for the constitution, that person can get the whole country to vote on his ot her proposal!

The law requires the person to get 7 to 20 voters to form the committee that will help him or her draft the proposal.

This requirement of 7 to 20 people, helps screen out absurd ideas. Anyone person alone can have an absurd idea that him or her looks like total common sense; it is more difficult to get seven other people to support the absurd idea.

Once you have your working group you contact the Swiss federal government. There they explain to you all the steps you have to follow.

Your committee will have to draft the contents of the initiative in any of Switzerland’s four official languages.

Because it is Federal initiative, the government will translate it into the other 3 official languages.

Then you prepare a list form for the 100 000 people will put their name.

In the next step the Swiss federal government publishes a notice that the initiative process has started. As I said, from the date of the notice, you have 18 months to get the 100 000 people to sign.

The validity of the signatures is determined by the local municipalities. This makes sense because they are best placed to detect fake signatures.

Obviously, to give the proposal widespread diffusion you will need money, donations, appearances in the media, debates, etc. People can help you with unlimited money and other resources.

Once you get the 100 000 signatures, which amounts to about 1% of the population, the referendum will be held. It will be held no “if or buts”, but it will not be held immediately.

The Swiss have many checks and balances; they like to go slow and sure footed.

Things go slow because the law allows the Swiss federal government and the federal parliament to have the opportunity to give their opinion on the initiative and to propose alternatives. Sometimes this takes years. Whatever their opinion, the referendum will be held, they can not stop it.

I am not sure if it is a good idea to allow politicians to slow down the process like the Swiss do. However, I respect the experience of the Swiss. They know more than anybody, except the Ancient Greeks, about direct democracy. By the way, the Greeks had direct democracy, not representative democracy.

The alternatives proposed by the politicians are included in the referendum. This means that when the people vote they do not vote just “yes” or “no” to your initiative, the can also vote for the alternative the government proposes and select it instead of yours.

It makes sense to keep the politicians involved because their experience and responsibilities may allow them to provide valuable input to the process. Perhaps they can improve your proposal.

So, why can’t the people in your country do what the Swiss can? There is only one reason; the politicians lose power with direct democracy. Nobody likes losing power, even if it is only a partial loss of power. Swiss politicians did not like it either, but the people pushed until the politicians passed the laws of direct democracy. The law of citizen initiatives is just one of many direct democracy laws.

At the local and canton (state or province) level, there are also many direct democracy laws.

In the Swiss direct democracy system the politicians do not lose their jobs, political parties do not disappear either. The same will happen in your country.

Because it is not a revolution to eliminate politicians, a number of your politicians may even support direct democracy. They may do it because they realize it promotes stability. Politicians, like all people with some common sense, like stability for themselves and their families.

Direct democracy is just the natural evolution of representative democracy, but you have to give politicians a push to bring it about.

Again, I only refer to politicians in stable representative democracies.

In non-stable democracies, affected by corruption, by lack of freedom, feeble separation of power, perhaps poverty of many citizens, direct democracy will not work. For example, when a country is corrupt it corrupts most ordinary citizens too because it is almost impossible to survive otherwise. How can you switch from such situation to direct democracy! It is possible, but very difficult.

In non-democracies the situation is even worse; they have terrible guard dogs to prevent citizen power. The “politicians”, the “great leaders”, the “great party”, the “great religious regime”, do not need to listen to the people because the people of such regimes are convinced “they know better” than the people what is good for the people. They will not hesitate to imprison or kill anyone who threatens their power. It is crazy but…

Let us stick to stable representative democracies.

In representative democracies the politician always tells you: “vote for me because I am listening to your concerns”.

Well, tell them direct democracy is a better way of listening to you, the voter.

If the politician is not in power he or she will tell you: “we (our party) are different, we will really listen to you, but we need your vote to throw the rascals out”. Of course, you know what happens once you throw “the rascals out”; once the new party is in power becomes “the rascals”.

There is another problem in representative democracy; you have your ideology. It is not easy to vote for “that other party”, the party who opposes the progressive or conservative ideas and measures you support; you feel you have to be “loyal” to those ideas. Because of that you are much more likely to continue voting “your party”, even it made decisions you strongly disliked.

Direct democracy will change everything with a small change in the way politicians listen.

You see, in Switzerland, because they have direct democracy, the vast majority of decisions politicians make are supported by the people and no referendums are needed. This is so because Swiss politicians have learned to make decisions the majority support, or at least do not oppose them.

In direct democracy we ask the politicians in power to go a step beyond current listening; to let us, the voters, tell them we formally agree with their decisions when enough people want to have a vote on the decision.

Who knows?, perhaps even the politicians in “the opposition” will join you in the push for direct democracy.

Let me give you an example of how direct democracy is clear progress.

Suppose that in your village or town the local government formed by elected representatives decides to build a new road, or decides to make available for commercial or housing developments some public land.

If you do not agree with the decision, in representative democracy all you can do is call or write the mayor or the councilor who “represents” you. You can also demonstrate, get media attention (if the media is free AND independent), distribute flyers, set up billboards, etc.

But even if the majority of people “represented” by the politicians making the decision oppose their decision, there is not much the people can do to stop it because the people do not have legally the mechanism to stop the decision.

If the politicians decide your protests could hurt them at the next election, it is possible they will change their mind, but that is far from certain.

It is far from certain because they make political calculations; by the time next election comes around perhaps you have forgotten, or you have to swallow your frustration because the same politicians you were angry at, have done other things you support.

Representative democracy is a good system that needs improvement. It needs improvement because it is still a system allowing governments to make decisions that go against the wishes of the majority or that ignore what the majority thinks.

In representative democracy, once you vote them in, politicians have a lot of freedom, too much freedom between elections, and not just the government; often government and opposition parties join forces against the will of millions of voters. That does not make sense; voters should have the final say on all issues voters decide they should have the final say.

Under representative democracy governments can also count on the fact that since they are a “progressive” or “conservative”, you will vote for them because you are also progressive or conservative. In a way, ideology becomes a chain that keeps you chained to “your” political party.

In real life, moderate progressives and conservatives can have the same opinion on issues, such as building the new road or opening up more land for development. Without direct democracy they can not join efforts to control the government or parliament, even if the majority of voters want to.

Is it not much better for the citizens, the community, to have voters vote their agreement with the politicians on controversial concrete issues? It is not better also for the politicians over the long term, because such cooperation generates trust in them? The quality and stability of democracy is directly related to the trust citizens place on the people they elect.

Direct democracy is a system to make better decisions, it produces decisions that are better technically and politically. They are better because decisions are subject to more study and more rational debate.

Over the long term, direct democracy is also better for all those who now lobby representative politicians; the very rich, the large companies, and other groups on “the right” and “the left” (except the extremists on both sides). It benefits us because it promotes stability. All reasonable people want and need stability; the reasonable rich, the reasonable large and small business and their reasonable employees too.

Another important benefit of direct democracy is that it trains citizens to look more into the concrete aspects of the issues and less at ideology. This is good because ideology-based decisions are less focused on the “here and now”, when that happens people make less than optimal, or make outright bad, decisions.

Direct democracy is superior because, to their own ideas politicians can add the ideas of the people. It is not just a matter of being more inclusive, it is smarter too.

In business, more and more companies are learning they make better decisions when they learn to seek the input of employees and customers. Because of that they are better run and  make more money. Such cooperative business management is superior to traditional management. Cooperation between government and voters is also superior. Direct democracy is a proven system to bring cooperation to politics.

No doubt direct democracy is one of the key factors making Switzerland the most stable country in the World.

In the next post I will describe in detail how you would go about having a binding referendum on any law the elected public representatives pass at the local, state, provincial, regional or national level.

 

“Crisis are opportunities!” By now only the most pessimistic reject that.

The pandemic is an opportunity to update representative democracy. The disparities in wealth and political power are the other motivators to bring direct democracy.

The economy and the pandemic can trigger the shift to direct democracy. We believe it but, even better, we know it because it has happened before. It happened 2700 years ago in Greece and it happened in 1867 in Zurich.

The Zurich cholera epidemic provoked the rebirth of direct democracy. Yes, rebirth, because the inventors of direct democracy are the Ancient Greeks. They did it 2700 years ago.

Democracy, direct democracy, was developed in Athens as a way to resolve a crisis. In their case it was an economic crisis not unlike the one we have now caused by the virus.

The Greeks did not go through the “representative” democracy stage; they went from aristocratic rule (Ancient Greeks did not go for kings), to direct democracy.

This is what happened; 2800 hundred years ago exaggerated wealth disparity made ordinary Greeks mad at overly rich Greeks. Most people were reduced to work for somebody. To meet their debts many sold themselves as slaves to the rich.

In a way we have something like that now; we could say millions and millions of people are enslaved by debt to the rich. Often they live from pay check to pay check; when they lose their jobs tragedy strikes.

So we have right now the “ideal” situation for change without violence; we have the virus pandemic and we have the economic crisis. Both are enriching the rich and pushing the rest down or out. Even before the pandemic the rich were becoming richer much faster than ordinary citizens were able improve their salaries and wages. The result is the wealth gap, the health gap, the happiness gap, the anxiety gap, the alcoholism and drug gap; ordinary citizens fall further behind.

So solve the mess in Ancient Greece, in Athens, the rich decided to listen to Solon.

Solon was an important fellow. He had been the Archon, a sort of CEO of Ancient Athens. He had prestige and credibility.

Because of the social and economic mess the elites who run Athens feared violent revolution. Revolution would not be good for them; the rich are the ones with the most to lose. Revolution might even kill them, take their wealth away, and everybody end up in a totalitarian regime that would take everything else away.

Solon introduced economic reforms. The two most important were: canceling the debts of citizens and giving them back the land they had lost to pay debts.

It is quite amazing that some wealthy Greeks did not kill him, but I suppose they decide it was better to lose money and political power, as insurance, to avoid losing everything in a revolution. They knew that if the masses get mad, the power of the elites goes up in smoke.

Solon also decided political reform was necessary. He decided that not only wealthy aristocrats would run Athens; he opened political power to citizens in general.

He decide that all citizens would participate in the Popular Assembly. Citizens were all adult males who were not slaves. The Assembly was the body that made the laws, elected officials and decided on appeals to the most important decisions of the courts.

However, Solon decided that the highest government positions would be reserved to people above a certain wealth level. This was later removed.

If you look at how representative democracies are run today, in more than one way they are not far from what was happening in Athens before Solon.

In representative democracies, and I refer only to stable, not corrupt, representative democracies, the politicians are the governing aristocracy. We vote them in but once elected there is nothing voters can do about the laws they pass.

We also have the political influence of the rich and the executives and large shareholders of big companies. These groups do not govern directly but they have a lot of influence over the politicians. They have it by donating money to the political campaigns of politicians and parties.

They also have influence over politicians because corporation, official institutions, universities, etc., often offer politicians, once they leave politics, well-paid and socially prestigious positions. The elites do not have to threaten or say much; politicians know that “proper” behaviour has rewards later on.

It is amazing, but we have not caught up to the Greeks. Yes, women vote now, and we do not have slaves, but the people who vote in representative democracies have a lot less power than the people who voted in Ancient Athens. In Ancient Athens, citizens, voted to elect politicians and voted also to make laws and decide issues. Now we just vote to elect politicians.

The Swiss are close to the Ancient Greeks in citizen power, but are not there yet either.

It is time to let the people directly make the decisions, like they did in Ancient Greece and how they do now in Zurich.

What happened in Zurich? you may be thinking.

As the cholera epidemic advanced in Zurich, the people saw how the authorities handled the health and social effects of the epidemic. They lost trust in the authorities. They also saw how many rich could escape the epidemic by fleeing the city. They lost trust in the elites too.

The mess motivated ordinary citizens of Zurich to get rid of representative democracy; they pushed until the people became the final decision makers on laws and on the Constitution of Zurich. From Zurich, the idea spread to all of Switzerland. They still elect politicians but the power has shifted, from the politicians and the elites, to ordinary voters.

It is time direct democracy spread to all representative democracies and, eventually, to the rest of the World. For the long-term good of the rich and the rest of us we need “GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE”, we need direct democracy.

You might think that in democracies, elected politicians would support more power for the voters because more power for voters is more democracy, but many do not support that, why?

I do not doubt the democratic values of the vast majority of elected politicians, at least those in stable, reasonably well-run democracies. For example, in Central and Northern Europe, several English-speaking countries and a few others.

Why then so many elected politicians oppose direct democracy?

Here are some of the arguments I will give if I am an elected politician to oppose direct democracy:

“Some issues are too complicated for ordinary people to grasp”.

“People need leaders. Leaders are people with special qualities. To select good leaders you need a good pool of practising leaders. It seems logical to select the best leaders from among the elected representatives”.

“If the voters directly made important political, economic or social decisions there is a grave danger that the rich, lobbies, influential commentators, demagogues, etc., will fool the average voter; the results would be catastrophic”.

“To get people to decide directly on so many important issues will take a long time. This will cause decision paralysis. Just imagine how long it will take for most ordinary persons to understand so many issues”.

“Most voters elect us because they do not want the responsibility of making concrete decisions”.

“The average voter, perhaps most, lacks the formal education necessary to understand many issues. They will not be able to vote intelligently”.

“People will easily fall prey to demagogues; democracy will die quickly”.

“We have been elected to govern because it is not practical for the people to govern themselves”.

“History shows all peoples needed leaders, people with special knowledge and vision to lead, especially at critical times. Great nations always had great leaders”.

“People may be intelligent enough to vote for me but not intelligent enough to grasp issues”.

There is one argument elected politicians will never make but is one of the most important, or the most important;

“If the people start to decide by themselves then, us, the elected politicians, become less important. If we become less important, our status, our income, our special prerogatives (privileges) will disappear, our incomes while we are in politics will drop and we will not find as many high-paying and prestigious positions in private industry, foundations, academia, the media, etc., once we leave politics. We are not making these arguments up front because they are in bad taste”.

The reality shows that the most advanced society in the Ancient World, the Greek city-states, they were not monarchies, theocracies, oligarchies, dictatorships, or even representative democracies; they were direct democracies.

Likewise, in the Modern World, the best governed country overall is another direct democracy; Switzerland, although it is not yet quite as direct as the Greek city-states.

This shows no great visionary leaders are needed to have the greatest societies. “All is needed” is ordinary people making the key decisions and controlling the decisions made by those who lead.

In Greece they were so direct that the people decided all major issues and also governed.

Switzerland has, however, one key element of direct democracy; the people make major decisions and directly control the decisions made by the elected representatives.

It is time to, at least, do what the Swiss do; do not do away with elected politicians, let them demonstrate their vision and leadership qualities, let them propose where they want to take us. We just want to decide if we want to go.

Good leaders will persuade us to follow them; why object to us formally saying we will follow by approving what they propose?

We want our elected politicians to propose new laws, joining international organisations, change the constitution, a new tax law, spending millions on high speed trains, having a space program, having universal health care, having gay marriage, immigration laws, building a new school, building the Olympic stadium, and on and on.

We can also tell our politicians direct democracy will lighten their responsibility. Who does not want a little less responsibility? Tell your elected representatives you want to take on some of their responsibilities, that you are ready to do it for free!

You can also tell them that millions of eyes see more than hundreds of eyes, we just need an orderly way to organize the seeing.

Tell them also that us, ordinary citizens, are far from the “corridors of power”. This  gives us a healthy distance from certain interests, pressures and benefits.

But the Swiss had to work very hard, like every other democratic people, to have democracy. You will have to work hard too. Direct democracy will not “cascade down”. If, on top of that, the political parties in your country are not even internal democracies, then you can forget about your elected politicians ever wanting direct democracy.

Even after you have direct democracy you may have to fight to keep it.  The Swiss had to when, in the 1940s, elected politicians were given special powers during Second World. The politicians enjoyed the added “responsibility” and did not want to back to direct democracy. Fortunately, ordinary Swiss decided they wanted it back and forced a national referendum on it. It passed, but just by a hair; barely over 50% of voters wanted direct democracy back!

Conclusion: Elected representatives will not bring direct democracy to your village, town, city, region or country; you will have to push for it. Now is the time to push.

Thanks for your comments.