Author: victor

We have it, if several facts are present. I say facts, not what the constitutions or laws say. Words, no matter how well written or how well they sound, are not facts, only facts are facts.

One fact of direct democracy is that citizens have the final say in all important issues. The people must also be able to decide what is important, not government.

The people must also the power to decide at all levels of government; national, regional, state, city, town and village.

It is essential that it be at all levels.

Only if people decide at all government levels do we have a culture of direct democracy. Without the culture of direct democracy, direct democracy can not function. This is no different in representative democracy. “It is the culture, stupid!”

We do not have direct democracy in the country if the people can; for example, force a referendum at the city level but not at the federal level, or the other way around.

Direct democracy is a way of thinking about public issues, a state of mind, a belief that citizens must “run the show”. If we have the culture, the mechanisms formalize it and they will work. If we do not have the culture, direct democracy will not work.

But the culture can be developed with the practice. Lo learn direct democracy you have to practice direct democracy. Like in any learning process, start small, with the simple stuff, and then advance. If we “bite more than we can chew” it will not work. We may then become frustrated and discouraged. Perhaps they will conclude “direct democracy does not work”.

But it is not so, direct democracy works if we develop the collective skills to make it work, just like it happens with representative democracy. You know of many countries where representative democracy does not work very well. Sometimes it even collapses into “revolutionary” authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, direct democracy is no different. In fact, for a short period, the Swiss almost lost direct democracy to representative democracy.

Ancient Greece direct democracy lasted for several centuries. Democratic Greece was head and shoulders above any other culture of the time, but then died. Direct democracy is no doubt the best system because it enables ordinary citizens to decide by themselves how to run society. But it is not a simple system.

Any important human achievement is not simple; science is difficult, classical music is difficult, research is difficult, great art is difficult, etc.

One important and positive aspect of direct democracy, is that the people do not need “visionaries”, “prophets”, “great leaders” and so on. The people develop the “vision” and decide by themselves. They do not need special people.

It is not a direct democracy either if it is the government who decides on what issues the people can vote, no matter how many times they vote. In direct democracy it is the law that establishes when the people vote and also the people decide when they want to decide.

But that is not enough. The process must be easy and straightforward. Even one single citizen must be able to initiate the process. Perhaps new technologies will make direct democracy even better.

But voting on issues is not enough. We do not have real, full, direct democracy if ordinary people do not run the public institutions also. If elected representatives run the public institutions that is not direct democracy, it is still representative democracy.

In full direct democracy ordinary citizens are selected by lot to serve in government. But there must be some form of screening such people. The screening is done by citizen assemblies which are representative of society. Membership in the citizen’s assemblies is also by lot.

The assembly does a careful screening of those who will serve. Such careful screening is more like the screening we do to select people for important positions in most democracies; most judges, official representatives, heads of public services, etc. For such jobs we do not normally rely on a political campaign. Perhaps we do this because political campaigns can be dominated by clever marketing and the “media circus” that prevent substantial evaluation of candidates.

You may be interested in knowing that in Switzerland, the national government is selected by parliament. It does no emerge as a result of a political campaign. But still is not selection by lot, followed by screening by the assembly.

In the assembly, membership is by lot but also representative of society. The assembly votes and decides who is fit to be president, minister, mayor, councilor, judge, prosecutor, police chief, etc.

The assembly could also vote on issues but it is more democratic that all citizens have the opportunity to decide on issues, except in the case of particular urgent situations, such as a catastrophe.

People also may step forward before the assembly as candidates. But random selection is also possible. Naturally, before a person can assume his or her responsibilities, the assembly, or another body where a cross section of citizens is represented, will screen those selected to serve.

This is necessary because it would be irrational to have anyone selected by lot to occupy a position that requires special judgment and/or technical expertise. All citizens are equal before the law but citizens do not have equal judgment or equal knowledge.

Just like it happens in any form of government, depending on the nature of the position, it will be necessary for that person to be assisted by technical experts.

One further difference between full direct democracy and representative democracy is that in full direct democracy there are no professional politicians.

What I mean is that the citizens serve for a fixed time and then return to their ordinary life. This is important because it prevents the creation of a political class.

A political class is not compatible with full direct democracy because if we have a political class then they are no longer ordinary citizens.

Such people can not help but have group and class interests.

Because politics is their job they will want to better their working conditions, salaries, pensions, etc. Because professional politicians make the laws it is easy to understand why politicians in representative democracies are often seen by ordinary citizens as privileged people.

Even the Swiss do not have full direct democracy. In Switzerland they have professional politicians. However, Swiss politicians are often part time politicians, even in the national government. Often they keep their regular jobs. This keeps them more in touch with “real life”.

The key difference between Swiss representative democracy and other representative democracies is that the Swiss people have the final say, and prevail over the politicians, if they so decide. In this regard the Swiss have essential elements of direct democracy.

In the next post I will complete this short discussion about real, full direct democracy and also how the Swiss show the way.

Would you like direct democracy in your country if you thought the people are ready for it?

 

In Switzerland voters reject nine out of ten national initiatives, but often it happens because governments come up with a compromise that satisfies the majority of voters.

Some people think; why do the Swiss bother collecting the 100 000 signatures required to put the proposal to a vote if they are likely to fail? Perhaps now these people will understand why the Swiss bother.

For example, the Swiss Green Party proposed to shut down any nuclear after 45 years in use. The party collected the required 100 000 signatures to put the initiative to a national vote.

Voters defeated the initiative, but something very important happened; the government had to come up with an alternative. It happened because of the increased awareness of the people on the issue. The initiative by the Green Party made voters very aware of the dangers of nuclear energy.

The government disagreed with the Green Party, but to increase the chances of defeating the initiative it had to propose an alternative, a compromise.

This is what it proposed: Instead of shutting down the nuclear plants after 45 years in operation, they would build no new nuclear plants. It also proposed to shut down existing stations once the Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate considers they are no longer safe.

In this way, the losing initiative also won. The Green party, and all those who voted to support the 45 year limit, did not get their way, but they got that Switzerland will become nuclear free. Not a bad result for them.

The compromise satisfied people concerned that going non-nuclear too fast would make electricity more expensive for private citizens and for business.

Many people also feared that switching too fast to renewable sources of electricity would hurt Switzerland’s competitive position in the World. They thought this would threaten the standard of living of citizens, threaten jobs and prosperity.

Because initiatives cause changes, even if they lose the vote, the Swiss people do not lose enthusiasm for initiatives.

Without the mechanism of the initiative to challenge current laws on nuclear plants, it is unlikely the Swiss government would have proposed as a compromise to stop building nuclear plants.

Even if 9 out of 10 initiatives go down at the ballot box, 9 out of 10 Swiss voters also want to keep the right to use initiatives. They want direct democracy. They want it because it is a better tool to influence governments, to change laws and policies, than just relying on elected representatives and parliaments deciding by themselves.

For the Green Party, the referendum on nuclear power boosted its credibility in the eyes of voters in general, not just Green Party voters. This may help the party in the next election. This means small parties play a much bigger role in direct democracy than in representative democracy. This is good for democracy because it helps represent minority voters.

As I wrote before, one of the attractive aspects of direct democracy is that promotes governance in tune with the people. No longer the elected representatives, business, unions or other lobbies will decide, instead the people will.

Direct democracy forces governments, and also opposition parties, at all levels to seek popular support at any time between elections. This helps erase the feeling so many citizens have, of not feeling represented.

Launching an initiative and collecting 100 000 signatures also forces governments and lobbies to listen to the people. No longer deals out of the public eye will the norm.

You and your fellow citizens must have the right to tell your governments at the national, regional or local level: “Wait a minute, this issue is important to us, you can’t just go and decide without us, we are the ones who have to vote and decide”. There is no reason why you should not have that right.

The truth is that political decisions are too important to leave to the politicians alone.

Let us move!

 

I found in Internet a very interesting study by  Simon Geissbühler, a respected researcher. I summarized it for you. You can read the full text in http://przeglad.amu.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/pp-2014-4-087.pdf.

Here and there I add my own comments.

First of all, the vast majority of Swiss citizens support direct democracy. Studies also tell us Swiss citizens show high support and trust in government, higher than in any representative democracy.

Direct democracy promotes political stability. Everyone knows Switzerland is probably the most stable country in the World, decade after decade.

It does it although it is a multicultural and multilingual country. It is a country with a German majority and French, Italian and Romansch minorities. There is no doubt Switzerland has far less ethno-cultural-language tensions than countries such as United Kingdom, Spain, Canada, the US, France or Italy.

As history shows it is also far more stable than many “unitary states” representative democracies like Germany, Austria, France or Italy.

Direct democracy in Switzerland has contributed to integrating different political, language, religious/confessional and cultural groups. Sure, the Swiss by popular referendum banned the construction of new minarets in mosques. This strikes many as intolerant. But in democracy, nobody is a higher moral authority than the people. If we do not accept that, then we are not democrats, no matter how much we wrap it in “moral” rationalizations.

Of course, in direct democracy, like in representative democracy, the people can make mistakes. The possible mistake of the minarets is a very small mistake in comparison with the mistakes representative democracies have made and are making with their minorities.

The historical evidence shows that, overall, direct democracy in Switzerland makes better decisions than any representative democracy in all areas, not just treatment of minorities.

Direct democracy puts politics in the hands of voters. Because of that, in direct democracy, the elites and the lobbies have less power. No need for violent demonstration in the streets against the elites because direct democracy controls de elites.

I have nothing against the elites of any political  or economic orientation, but their power must be kept in check for the sake of long term stability. The elites need stability more than anybody else. Representative democracy finds it harder to control the elites and the lobbies.

In direct democracy, small groups have more influence in the political agenda because they can initiate referendums.

Direct democracy also ensures reforms are long lasting because they have popular support.

Direct democracy is not the tyranny of the majority because direct democracy is centered on issues, not in party in ideology or overall rightist or leftist agendas. In direct democracy, sometimes the majority says “yes” to a reform opposed by conservatives, sometimes it says “yes” to one opposed by progressives.

Some say representative democracy can become “tyrannical”. This is not so,  On the contrary, in representative democracy an absolute majority government can ram through a very conservative, or very progressive, law or policy, without the direct support of the people, or even if the people oppose it. Such government can do so because it controls the legislature. In direct democracy the people can and stop unpopular laws and other measures passed by majority governments.

In direct democracy the power of the people acts also as a moderating force in governments and legislators. In direct democracy, a majority government has far less power than such government in representative democracy. This is so because the people have more power.

In direct democracy the people trust politicians more. Perhaps because politicians can not ignore the sentiments of voters once they have voted. That is not the case in representative democracy between elections.

One of the effects of ignoring voters between elections is low trust in politicians in most, not all, representative democracies. This also shows that, while direct democracy promotes more trust, trust in politicians is also possible in representative democracy. Like in many situations, “the devil is in the details of execution”.

Direct democracy in Switzerland demonstrates ordinary citizens can understand complex issues. So can people in representative democracies. I think that if we can file our taxes, understand our mortgages, master our jobs and the subjects we had to study at school and university, we can also can understand and vote on any issue, if it is explained to us. Direct democracy also pushes citizens to think harder and better to vote responsibly than representative democracy. It does so because in direct democracy people know they are responsible for the effects of their decisions. They can no longer blame the politicians.

Anyhow, politicians are not experts in most matters in which they vote. They have to rely on explanations by experts. You, the average voter can do that too.

It is not true that participation in direct democracy is low. It is low, around 40-50%, on EACH referendum, because issues may interest a significant minority, but not the majority. However, if we take into account overall voting in referendums over one year, 80% of Swiss voters do go and vote. This is very high participation, much higher than in elections in representative democracies.

Direct democracy is less susceptible to lobbies. This is so because it easier to influence politicians, in more or less private meetings, than it is to influence millions of voters in the open.

Perhaps for the same reason, direct democracy reduces the tendency of politicians to spend money to make their own political clientele happy. Studies have shown that in Swiss cantons where citizens have more direct democratic rights, public services for all tend to be better and taxes lower. It is no longer a matter of “I will bring high speed train to your city”, “I will make sure the government builds a new school for your kids”, etc. In direct democracy, the citizens decide that.

Direct democracy does not restrict social benefits to those who need them. Direct democracy promotes social benefits and also efficiency in their delivery. This is so because most voters recognize the poor and others in need must be helped, but they also recognize money can not be wasted, because they pay.

The average citizen recognizes some people must be helped because they need the help and also because poverty and marginalization is bad for all of society. There is no reason to fear direct democracy will reduce social benefits. Switzerland has an excellent system of social services and perhaps the best universal health system in the World, as well as one of the best educational systems.

The size of government in direct democracy is not smaller but it is more efficient because of citizen control.  Switzerland’s government, at all levels, is not smaller than in representative democracies. The difference is that in Switzerland what government does, and how much it does, is better controlled by voters.

So, there you have it! I hope this information to help you persuade others to support direct democracy and a better life for all, it helps me every day.

Cheers!

 

Direct democracy is much more than the citizens having the final say.

In the last post I wrote about how direct democracy lightens the load of elected politicians.

Elected politicians in Switzerland are also “representative”, but they are “less representative” because in a direct democracy the people represent themselves more because they vote in all key issues.

Every time there is a referendum in a Swiss village, town, city, canton or the nation, the people do not need an elected representative to vote “on their behalf”. It is unnecessary because the people themselves vote and decide.

In fact, in referendums, the elected representatives are just another voting citizen. Their vote carries the same weight as anybody else’s vote.

Political parties, in power or out of power, in a direct democracy also are kept humble by the system.

Let me illustrate this with an example.

Right now, some Swiss politicians are trying to pass a new law. The law would make tax deductible in Switzerland fines Swiss companies may receive in other countries.

A current example involves one of Switzerland’s most prestigious banks, Union Bank of Switzerland, better known as UBS.

The proposed law would allow the Bank to deduct a 5 billion dollar fine it has just received in a French court.

The interesting twist is that, while some Swiss politicians sponsor the law, other Swiss politicians oppose it and, even if they are in the minority in Parliament, they can stop the law by going outside parliament.

This is possible because in Switzerland, political parties can, just like any citizen, go to the people.  What they have to do is collect the signatures of 50 000 ordinary voters. This would force a referendum on the law.

If their position wins the referendum, the law is dead.

This tool makes it very difficult for governments in Switzerland to pass unpopular laws, even if governments have most votes in the assemblies of towns, cities or the national parliament.

One ordinary citizen could also stop the law. First, he or she has to set up a group capable of getting within 100 days, 50 000 signatures supporting their position. Afterwards, their position has to win the referendum.

That a minority party can also use the mechanism of referendums adds another mechanism of control of elected politicians.

This is real control by the citizens and minority parties. It is very different from the just verbal control sessions we see in representative democracy parliaments and assemblies.

Referendums triggered by the people make sense.

The explanation for direct democracy not being the norm in all established democracies is that representative politicians and lobbies do not want direct democracy.

Many elitists, who pose as lovers of democracy, but do not in fact, believe in democracy “by the people” do not want direct democracy either. Elitists do not trust the people, that is why they are elitists. These fools think they know better.

With direct democracy, democracy advanced a step further. The change is comparable to when the people decided to elect their representatives and replaced absolute kings, oligarchs, theocracy, dictatorships, etc.

Direct democracy gives more power to the owners of the country, its culture, its traditions; the ordinary citizens.

Direct democracy politicians are always in touch with the citizens because they have to. At any moment between election periods, citizens can enter into the picture and decide on any law or significant issue.

In the case of the law I am referring to, the politicians drafting the law, and also the politicians who are against it, have to take into account how the people feel about the issue right know, not just calculate the impact of the issue in the next election.

Things would be very different if the same issue of tax deductible fines arises in France, Germany, the US, UK, Canada, or any of established democracy. All that the politicians proposing a similar law would have to worry about is how to win in Parliament.

In representative democracy if Parliament, the Town Council, etc., passed the law there is not much the opposition or citizens can do stop it.

They will have to wait for the next election or, as it often happens, take to the streets to try to get governments to listen. We know such street actions can turn violent. Democracy is about reason and peaceful discussion, not violence.

In representative democracy, polls could show a majority of citizens oppose a new law. This majority could even be a clear majority. Unfortunately, in representative democracy there is no mechanism to stop the law if the law is supported by the majority of politicians in parliament.

This means that if you want to make sure that in your country, state, region, province, city, town or village, the citizens have the final say, that politicians can not pass new laws just like that, you have to do something.

You have to make direct democracy happen.

Representative politicians will not do bring direct democracy because they believe in representative democracy, the lobbies will not do it, and the establishment will not do it. All of these groups will have less power in direct democracy. Only you can push for the evolution towards direct democracy. If not now, when? if not you, who?

Your comments and criticisms always appreciated.

Victor

 

Direct democracy puts decision making in the hands of citizens. Because of that there is no need have long, heated debates in parliament.

Voters will hear all the arguments as part of the referendum process, no need to go on and on in parliament.

Because the citizens decide, elected representatives have to dedicate less time to the issues to “be right”. Instead, the people decide and hold themselves accountable; “… by the people…” as that famous sentence says.

Another effect of direct democracy is that representatives have a lighter workload and do not need as much staff to research uses, prepare for debates and appearances in the media, etc. Besides helping save time, direct democracy also saves money in this area.

It is also interesting that because people need to understand the issues in order to decide, the language used in referendum-related presentations is plain, to the point. “Legalese” and “jargonese” are less present.

There are more benefits.

Since politicians know the people have the final say on laws or policies, the behaviours of politicians, instead of antagonistic to “defeat” rivals, is more cooperative. “Let us produce laws most people will approve”, seems to be what elected representatives in direct democracy think.  Their horizon is not the next election but the next issue. It is the people who are responsible for the long-term horizon far beyond the next election.

In Switzerland they do not have such a thing as “majority government”, they govern in coalitions. You could say “the majority governs”.

Coalitions rest on cooperation. Cooperation means politicians work with the elected representatives of the other major parties to produce laws and decisions acceptable to the decision makers, to the people.

Cooperative work also requires far less time to decide than competitive, antagonistic work.  Decisions made in a cooperative spirit, are also superior to adversarial decisions. This is so because in cooperative decision-making the brainpower of all parties works more towards the common goal. 

Direct democracy also helps avoid another problem; we all see how difficult it is to tell in antagonistic parliaments if the debates are about the issues or about “being right” and getting positive media coverage. I often think parliament moderators should ask members: “does the honorable member want to be right or to solve the problem?”

Another positive effect of direct democracy is that it helps develop a culture of cooperation throughout society, in other areas beyond politics. This is not a small benefit.

Cooperation also helps efficiency because people do not waste time in arguments. This might explain why Switzerland has such high GDP per person; the Swiss are efficient, even more efficient than the famously efficient Germans.

Cooperation, which does not mean “saying yes” to the boss, also helps develop innovations requiring teamwork. Many are very surprised, I was too, when they learn Switzerland exports per person twice as much as Germany, and eight times more than the US, in high tech, high value added goods and services.

Because direct democracy politics requires less time of politicians, they have time to keep their regular jobs. This helps them stay aware of the issues that concern ordinary people. Full-time politicians live in a very different reality, remote from ordinary people, economically and psychologically.

Another effect of the lower workload of elected representatives in direct democracy is that parliament does not have to sit all year, like it does in representative democracies.

For example, both chambers of the Swiss national government sit only 4 times a year, each time for only three weeks. This means Swiss national (federal) politicians only have to be in the national capital 12 weeks in the whole year. The rest of the time they are in their districts and also doing their regular jobs as private citizens.

In the Swiss cantons, elected representatives are even in more close contact with citizens because the cantonal parliaments meet usually only for one day each month.

Since politicians in direct democracy stay closer to the lives of ordinary citizens, they draft laws and make decisions more in tune with what concerns the people. As a result, most citizens are more likely to support what elected representatives propose.

Isn’t it surprising that part-time direct democracy politicians, who have less decision making power than representative democracy politicians, and invest less time in politics, represent citizens better than full-time elected representatives in representative democracy?

The overall effect is that direct democracy gets closer to turn into facts the intentions of Lincoln’s famous sentence “government of the people, by the people, for the people”.

In the next post I will continue with the discussion on how part-time direct democracy produces better politicians and better politics.

All your comments are appreciated.

 

One key advantage of direct democracy; no riots.

If the United States had direct democracy things would be very different, and far less polarized. Trump would not be president, Black Lives Matter would not exist and the current riots would not take place.

With direct democracy, the US would evolve in a more cooperative, less convulsive, less confrontational way.

We only have one country in the World who practices direct democracy in a established, systematic manner, it is Switzerland.

In Switzerland they practice partial direct democracy because they still have elected politicians. But Swiss voters have direct power, real power, over their elected representatives. They exercise their power mostly via referendums.

With the results of referendums they force the politicians to manage and legislate in tune with the electorate. They do this at the local, state (canton) and national level.

But Swiss politicians and political parties are not in a state of playing cat and mouse with voters; they simply understand they have to work cooperatively with the voters and among themselves. As a result in Switzerland there is no opposition party because the opposition is in government too, always. Imagine that in the US and others representative democracies!

Swiss citizens have the power to  decide in the management of public affairs . This means that elites, lobbies and elected representatives can not set public policy like they do in the United States and other democracies. In the US policy and law making are far more removed from ordinary citizens.

If the US had direct democracy the current riots would not happen. They would not happen because direct democracy ensures governments are essentially sensitive to the concerns of ordinary citizens, not the interests of lobbies and “influencers”.

Direct democracy prevents turmoil because it keeps government in tune with majority and minority citizens.

In direct democracy, the citizens themselves can make changes that only elected representatives can make in representative democracies.

But it goes beyond; direct democracy voters can force elected representatives to make changes.

Voters can also stop changes that elected politicians may want to make.

In this way the government and the legislators continuously incorporate the will of the people in their decisions and actions.  By contrast, in representative democracy the will of the people counts during elections, not much between elections.

In direct democracy, people decide by means of referendums. Referendums may be mandatory by law or by the people. The power to call referendums is not in the hands of elected representatives.

Referendums take place also after serious and balanced debate of the issues. This reduces demagoguery, which in reality is the “art of seducing” voters without facts or data.

Referendums also “clear the air”. For example, if a majority of voters vote to legalize homosexual unions, those who voted against have no choice but to accept the decision. The people have decided.

Why have endless debates about gay marriage among politicians? Let the people decide.

Once the people have decided, what credibility would have those who lost if they riot?, not much.

Direct democracy also tones down “right” and “left” ideological positioning. In this way avoids polarization, a huge problem in the US now.

Polarization diminishes because direct democracy is about decisions on concrete issues, not about ideology.

Because of the excessive role of ideology we  see how “Right” and “Left” have become “faiths” who divide people into “believers” and “non-believers”. That is no good for any type of democracy.

Because of the “right-left” divide, many voters define themselves as being “conservative” or “progressive”. Once they do that it is hard for them to go against “their” beliefs and “their” party on most issues.

Another problem with excess ideology is that it also weakens voter’s ability to look at the facts in an open, pragmatic manner.

Some people say that direct democracy can become the “tyranny of the majority”.

That is not so. The people who say that are trapped in “left-right” thinking.

In direct democracy there is not a “right” or “left” majority. There are issues and the people decide.

In a referendum on a particular issue the majority may vote “left”, on another issue the majority may vote “right”. There is no permanent majority to become tyranny.

People who think in terms of the “tyranny of the majority”, do so because they see the “right-left” division as fixed as the law of gravity. It is not so. “Right-Left” exists only since the French Revolution.

“Right-Left” is a way of thinking about reality that direct democracy makes less important, even unnecessary.

Another problem is that, often the division between “right” and “left” is used to keep ordinary people divided and distracted from the real goals of the elites of the “right” and the “left”. Those goals are power and money, in one way or another. This is not a small problem in representative democracy.

The current riots would not happen in the US because direct democracy provides powerful ways for governments and legislators to have to listen to citizens. Representative democracy does not do that as effectively.

For example, with direct democracy at the local, state and national level, police officer selection and training in the US would be far better attuned to the community.

You would not have in police forces people like the obviously incompetent, possibly perturbed, white officer who killed the black man by pressing the man’s neck with the knee.

With direct democracy police unions and management would also work more cooperatively. If they did not, voters would change the laws and force them to.

Voters would also force politicians and police bosses to incorporate the union in the management team. This would also make unions more responsible and accountable, not just focused on “protecting their members”.

In the news they reported the white officer who killed the black man had complains because of his previous behaviour. I would like to know if the union contract made it impossible to fire or mandate deep retraining for such obviously unfit officer.

The more you know about direct democracy, the more sense it makes.

“FOR the people”. This is the third part of Lincoln’s famous words at Gettysburg.

Remember: “government of the people, by the people, for the people”.

In the last two blogs we showed that representative democracy is not “government OF the people” and “government BY the people”.

Just in case this is the first time you visit: I do not question representative democracy.

Representative democracy is light-years ahead in human capital of any authoritarian or totalitarian regime.

All those regimes belong to a more primitive social state. Even if they are technologically advanced, they are humanely primitive.

The blog is about promoting direct democracy. Direct democracy is the next logical stage for established and stable representative democracies.

We do not have many such democracies.

This small group includes only the Northern European countries, Canada, the US (even with its never ending state of tension), Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and perhaps China (Taipei), South Korea and India. I might have left one or two out.

So, if representative democracy is not “OF the people” and “BY the people”, there is no way it can be FOR the people.

Credible opinion surveys show many people do not feel represented in representative democracies. Representative democracy is not FOR them. More than a few feel representative democracy is for the representatives themselves and the lobbies.

But you do not need the surveys to know that representative democracy is not for us. We know it from our personal experience, from others in our family, from our friends and from colleagues at work.

People to not have a high opinion of their elected representatives because of the behaviour of the representatives. That is the reason.

We all know how what people associate to the word “politician”, it is not pretty.

How can people hold politicians in high esteem?; they make promises they can’t or won’t keep, they lie, they manipulate, once elected they pass laws and make decisions, or look the other way, even when they know most people are against.

They do it because they make the rules and play the game. It is time citizens do that.

Politicians also lead far more privilege lives than most voters

As a result, their personal and collective priorities are very different from those of ordinary voters.

Too often they only put themselves in our places to fool us.

This is why so many people do not feel represented in “representative” democracy, and never will.

Elected politicians also often have to listen to the rich and the lobbies. Sometimes they have to because they need their money to run election and reelection campaigns. They also listen to  because those with the money can offer politicians very well paid jobs after they leave politics, if they are nice to those with the money while they “serve”.

In short, if the people do not govern it is logical that representative democracy not be FOR the people.

There are many other signs that representative democracy is in trouble because it has lost its way.

For example, many ordinary people look at those they elect as people with superior status. This makes no sense.

Makes no sense that we treat the people, who have the job of representing us because we gave it to them, and whose salary we pay, end up being treated as if they have superior status to us.

We refer to permanent government employees “civil servants”. Politicians should be called “elected civil servants”, it is good enough.

One first good step, only a first one, is to do what the Swiss do.

The Swiss, have and use, the power to approve or stop the laws the elected representatives make. At least we have to have that in all established and stable representative democracies.

A better step is that the people, directly govern.

Until we do that, “government of the people, by the people, for the people” are nice words, not facts.

To make then facts we have to DO things.

Thanks for your comments.

 

Victor Lopez

OK, representative democracy is light years ahead of any dictatorship or authoritarian regime, of one person, one party or one religion.

Representative democracy satisfies a basic human desire; ordinary people should be the ones deciding who rules. Not the “divine” king, the prophet, the priest, a self-appointed leader, a religion or a political party.

But representative democracy has some shortcomings. The mayor one is that it is not representative enough. We know this from multiple surveys.

Abraham Lincoln at the Gettysburg address summarized well what democracy should be about:

“government of the people, by the people, for the people”.

Ancient Greek democracy was that:

“government of the people, by the people, for the people”.

Unfortunately, the concept of “people” for the Greeks left out women and slaves. But I am sure that if Greek democracy had survived, Greeks would have figured out centuries ago that slavery was wrong and that women must vote.

The Greek Stoics, a very important school of thought, were the first humans anywhere to condemn slavery. Stoicism started 2400 years ago within Greek democracy.

As for women, even earlier, Plato states they are equal to men.

Slavery survived all over the World for many centuries in many human societies. Even in modern democracies until very recently. So it seems the shortcomings of Greek democracy were not unique.

All major religions accepted slavery and the back seat role for women, for more the 2200 years after the collapse of Greek democracy. Some current religions still look the other way on slavery and are explicitly against women’s equality.

Women started to have the right to vote late in the 19th century. In some surprising places, like France, women could not vote until 1944, 1944, that’s right. In Switzerland, the most democratic modern country, women had to wait till 1971!

Now that we have left behind the shortcomings on slavery and women of ancient Greek democracy, and of modern democracies too. it is time to catch with  Ancient Greek democracy in other areas.

Yes, we have to catch up. The Ancient Greeks were closer to fulfill Abraham Lincoln’s words about democracy.

Let us look at the first part: “government of the people.. “.

Representative democracy, even Swiss semi-direct democracy is behind the Greeks in this regard.

Let ur look at how that happens.

Representative democracy is “government of the people” to the extent that the a number of elected representatives are common people. Unfortunately in many representative democracies, many those elected are not common people.

For the most part, elected politicians come from above average socio economic levels. Furthermore, once they are elected, most of them become even better off and in so doing they dis distance themselves even more.

In part this happens because elected politicians are often very well paid, and have all sorts of costly benefits payed by ordinary taxpayers.

Also interesting is that most taxpayer make a lot less money and have a lot less benefits than the politicians they elect.

Difficult to see how this is “government of the people”.

We also know political campaigns in most representative democracies require a lot of money.  Often that money comes from rich individuals, corporation and various lobbies. Logically, those elected, even if they are common people, end up representing non-common people and their interests. This means elected representatives are nos as representative as they should.

Those are not the only problems.

To be a candidate it is almost essential to belong to a political party. This means that those who become candidates are people promoted and controlled by the professionals who run the parties. Only those who belong to political parties can get elected.

So, the “government of the people” affirmation is not happening and has to be corrected.

To correct it ordinary people like you will have to actively fight for it. It is not going to be corrected by current politicians, their parties and the lobbies because they are the establishment. Establishments to not like change.

In the next post I will look at the second part of what Lincoln said: “government by the people”.

Your comments, for or against 2 I see are welcomed.

I do think it is the result of direct democracy.

In direct democracy the citizens control the executive branch and also the parliament.

In effect, the Swiss citizen is the boss; government and parliament has to listen to the people because if they do not the people will stop dead the laws and policies they propose, right then and there, no need to wait till next election.

The logical result of the power citizens have is that they trust government and parliament. They do because the citizens know government and parliament do not stray far from the will of the people.

In fact, direct democracy reduces the role of politicians to that of managers of the will of the people. In Switzerland they do not have or need “visionary” or “charismatic” leaders; what two irrational concepts!

The Swiss have reduced the role of political positions so much that even the role of President of the country rotates yearly among the four major political parties. The President is one of the seven people who run the Swiss federal government.

The President of Switzerland is first among equals. It is a collective consensus-based leadership.

It is also interesting to note that Swiss voters do not elect the President, or any of the seven Councilors. The Federal Council members are elected by the Swiss Parliament.

Many would think that to place such power in the hands of parliament would be a sure way for all sorts of horse trading and deals in backrooms, and ignoring the people.  Direct democracy keeps that in check.

No wonder more than 80% of the Swiss trust their government.

Compare that with the next best countries, Norway and Canada. They are in the 60% level.

I want to mention Denmark too, because I compared Denmark and Switzerland in a previous post. Trust in government in Denmark is about half of what it is in Switzerland.

Although Denmark is a fairly well run country and government seems to listen to the people, there is something there that undermines trust in government. Perhaps it is the sensation of being listened to but not having the power to control that the Swiss do have.

Also very interesting is that the trust of the Swiss in their governments has been increasing year after year. No other country has done that.

Because at the regional (canton) and local level, Swiss citizens have as much or more control than at the national level over government and politicians, it is reasonable to assume the level of trust is high also at the local and regional levels.

Because in Switzerland the will of the citizens controls governments and politicians, the Swiss have no need to march on the streets against or for this or that decision or policy. The Swiss get signatures and everybody decides in a local, regional or national referendum.

No need in Switzerland for politicians promising grandiose this and that. No point doing that because the people decide, not the politician.

If the United States had direct democracy the polarization between Republicans, Democrats, etc., would not exist because the power of referendums would have forced them to negotiate.

Perhaps proportional representation would also produce more major parties who would govern together by consensus.

The current riots in the would not be taking place because the politicians would have listened and forced to listen.

For example, the people would have imposed much better selection and training of the people who run police forces and police officers. No crazy policemen of any colour, like the nut who killed George Floyd would have made it to policeman or training would have “civilized” him.

Another effect of direct democracy is that the “superhuman” image of the President, even Senators, governors and other positions would be cut down to human size.

If you do not hear your politicians promote direct democracy it is easy to guess why. If you want orderly citizen power you have to help spread the idea and the superior facts of direct democracy.

Your comments are appreciated.

Victor López