So, Biden entered Switzerland but, will Switzerland’s direct democracy enter Biden’s mind?

Today, June 15, President Biden arrived in Switzerland to meet tomorrow with President Putin. Mr Biden will also meet with some Swiss officials, including Guy Parmelin, who holds Switzerland’s rotating presidency this year.

I do not expect Mr. Putin to learn much from Switzerland as the political mindset of Swiss politicians and the Swiss people is completely alien to the Russian people and Russian government officials.

Bu there are important common factors between Switzerland and the United States. If Mr. Biden is open-minded he will see the time has come for America to learn from the Swiss, just like the Swiss learned from the Americans earlier.

The Swiss had been practising important elements of direct democracy since the 12th century; but they relied on the American Constitution and also on important elements of the French Revolution, to modernise their democracy in the 1800s.

In that process, the Swiss pole-vaulted over the Americans and the French; they left both (and every other nation) far behind when, in 1867, after another pandemic, the Swiss people expanded direct democracy to all levels of government. The rest are still far behind, even newly created democracies such as Israel, Spain, all of Eastern Europe, etc., have been completely incapable of coming up to the Swiss who still are truly in a category of their own. By the way, ignore the wrong rankings of democracy published by The Economist; it places Switzerland as the 12th most democratic country when, in fact is number one, far and away.

The changes meant the Swiss people by themselves, without the permission or support of the elected politicians, earned the right to call for popular referendums on any law, regulation or decision the elected politicians made or wanted to make.

This meant that for the first time in human history, since Ancient Greece, the people themselves could make political decisions, not just elect politicians and let them make all the decisions.

But the Swiss went even further; the people also earned the right to propose and approve laws, including changes to the Swiss Constitution. Again, since the Ancient Greeks, no people on Earth has comparable power.

But they not just earn the right on paper; the system makes it easy for anyone to organise referendums; that is why they have so many. Any individual, minority or small party able to gather 50 000 or 200 000 signatures (depending on the issue) will be able to hold a national referendum on whatever they propose.

Switzerland is more democratic because everybody has the opportunity to put their ideas before the people, for the people to decide; the Swiss are heard, the Swiss decide the key issues that concern them, not the elected politicians.

Compared to Swiss democracy, democracy in the US, Canada, France, the UK and in all other representative “democracies”. are not really democracies, they are almost a joke. Of course, non-democracies are human tragedies played every day.

The Swiss did not do away with politicians, they still elect them. This is the one area in which they have not caught up to the Greeks yet; the Greek people also run the government; the Greeks had no professional politicians or political parties; ordinary people run the government, relying on various public employees to carry out decisions.

I hear some Swiss also explore that; that the people really govern. That is what democracy is really about, “government by the people”. When the people really call the shots, no beautifully sounding sentences such as “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” are necessary; if the people really govern, it is enough.

There is no such thing as “representative democracy”; it is either democracy, or it is not. If it is representative, it is not democracy.

The Swiss practice direct decision-making by the people many times each year; they decide at the national level, the canton (state) level and the local city, town and village level.

For example, just 2 days ago, on Sunday the 13th, the Swiss people made several very important decisions, decisions that the people of the most powerful country in the World, the country that in important ways set the pace in the 18 century, in 2021 still can not make.

This is what the Swiss people decided, not the Swiss politicians, on June 13th:

There was a referendum on a Popular Initiative to tighten the rules farmers must comply with to use pesticides. The goal of the initiative was to ensure better environmental protection and better drinking water protection.

Switzerland already has tight environmental standards, the third most strict in the World; the US ranks 24th. The Swiss people are very much for tight environmental standards, as the ranking of the country shows, but they are not foolish, they do not follow political demagogues who promise everything, as it happens in the US and many other representative democracies.

The Swiss decided the new tougher measures proposed were not reasonable and rejected them; 60.69% of the voters rejected the initiative; the Swiss people feel the current law is tough enough.

The Swiss, also on Sunday 13th, decided not to ban synthetic pesticides; 60.58% of the voters rejected the proposal. The Swiss people feel the current laws on the use of synthetic pesticides are reasonable.

Another referendum, on the same day, dealt with the emergency power law, the Swiss Parliament passed, giving the government emergency powers to deal with the current virus pandemic.

Many Swiss felt Parliament passed the law without proper consideration of all relevant factors. They also felt the law also has other negative elements, such as providing financial assistance to mass media. These people set up a committee who collected the number of necessary signatures to force a referendum on the matter.

The people voted; 60.21% of Swiss voters felt the law was appropriate.

No mob rule here either, just debate, information and decision by the people.

The Swiss government ha also proposed a law to tighten laws regarding CO2 emissions. Many Swiss felt the law was too strict, that it would cause irreparable damage to many people; they organised a referendum and recommended the people vote NO, and reject the law. 51.59% of the voters rejected the law, effectively killing it. They mostly rejected it because they would have to pay higher taxes. It makes sense; the people pay, the people should decide the level ot taxation.

Americans did not put up with the increate in taxes by the English King, and changed history; incomprehensibly, they now put up with much higher, often wasteful, levels of taxes set by their “representative” politicians; when will they again have enough?

The Swiss Government also proposed a law to deal with terrorism. Again, many Swiss felt the law was too drastic and damaged certain rights. They organised a referendum. The people voted; 56.58% of the voters felt the law was reasonable and thus will become law.

Joe Biden could do worse than look at how the Swiss run their country. Perhaps you can tell to download the app Voteinfo, available for Android and Apple, there he could start to understand how Swiss direct democracy work at the national level, and how it could work at the national level in the US too.

No mob rule in Switzerland, no “dictatorship of the majority” either, just debate, information and reasonable, really democratic, decisions by the people.

In Switzerland, the people are the final decision-makers; they don’t decide everything but they decide whatever they feel it is important enough for them want to decide. The Swiss Executive, the legislature, even the Swiss Supreme Court can not prevail over the will of the people.

The system has delivered; Switzerland, with no natural resources, except water, is a superior society to the US on anything you care to consider; standard of living, health care, social harmony, politics centered on cooperation, political stability, quality of education, quality of democracy, and on and on.

Joe Biden could push, for example, to adapt the Swiss model of universal health care, the best in the World; they have done it with a synergy of government action and private initiative. Thus overcoming the decades-old shenanigans of Republicans and Democrats on the issue. US reprerentative democracy has only succeeded at spending the most in health care while providing almost Third World health care to millions of Americans. Is it not time the American people directly propose and decide the health care system they want?

What stands in the way of Swiss-level universal health care for Americans is not the medical lobby, the insurance lobby, the drug companies lobby, it is the American politicians who are in the clutches of the lobbies at election and re-election time.

Mr. Biden could also bring direct democracy to America. He could but he won’t

I am sure Mr. Biden does not want the American people to have the power the Swiss people have. The rest of American politicians, progressives or conservatives, are not interested in direct democracy either, they are interested in preserving a system that gives them and those “close” to them, all the decision-making power.

I know Mr Biden, as well as most US politicians in Washington, do not want direct democracy because in 1867 the Swiss politicians did not want the people to have the power to decide issues either, they just wanted the people to vote them in, but the Swiss pushed and pushed until they got the right to hold binding popular referendums and initiatives.

Professional politicians love representative  democracy because it gives them all the decision-making power, while claiming the country is a democracy, but it is not; representative democracy is a system of elected aristocrats who govern for the non-elected minority of aristocrats running big business, big professional organisations, big unions and assorted very well organised pressure groups whose interests are not the interests of the majority, and they exist precisely because of that. The en result is  hijacking of democracy, of the will of the people, just like it used to happen in Switzerland.

Like the Swiss people, Americans, Canadians, French, Germans, Israelis, Japanese, British. Irish, Swedish, etc., will have to demand direct democracy, and not give up, until their politicians relent and accept that the people must have veto power over whatever law, regulation or policy they want to adopt. The politicians will also have to accept that the people can propose and approve laws, regulations and policies, including changes to the constitution.

Direct democracy is no mob rule, mob rule happens when representative democracy breaks down, as we see it happening in the US and other countries. Direct democracy brings orderly, rational debate among the people, not the demagogical debates we see in the US Congress and the parliaments of other representative democracies.

It is the politicians and the lobbies who want you to believe direct democracy is mob rule, or “dictatorship by the majority” because they much prefer lobby rule. Direct democracy is the only real democracy, do not be fooled one more day.

Are the Swiss smarter than Canadians, Americans, Swedish, Israelis, Germans, Japanese, British, French, Irish, Australians, etc.? So far, they are, but remember that almost 2 centuries ago, they were not; they made themselves smarter when they demanded direct democracy.

“We pay we must decide, elections are not enough”. Direct democracy is what the US and the rest of us need… NOW!

Victor Lopez


Direct democracy is better; why is it that “the norm” is representative democracy, not direct democracy?

First a reminder; this blog is not about bringing direct democracy to countries that are not even representative democracies; the countries totalitarian with regimes, where one person, one clique, one party, one religion holds political power will have to overthrow their regimes, or wait until such regimes collapse.

The blog deals with representative democracies because in most of them there is enough freedom for the people to demand, and get, direct democracy

But, why don’t the people of stable representative democracies demand direct democracy if direct democracy is a better system? Why direct democracy has not already replaced representative democracy?

There are many reasons; many voters in representative democracies do not know direct democracy exists, or they believe it is “mob rule”,  or that “representative democracy is real democracy”, that “direct democracy will not work in our country because it is too big”, “it does not fit with our culture”, “most voters are too ignorant to decide complex issues”, “so much voting will become too expensive”, “we can not be voting all the time”, “we pay politicians to decide”, etc.

I believe the major reason is that most people do not know about direct democracy, or have wrong information.

You might think; how come is it possible that with internet, with global media, not enough people do not have good information about direct democracy?

We could say it is lack of “advertising”. As with any product, ideas need promotion so that people know about them. You will agree that if the advertising budget for orange juices was comparable to the budget of Coke or Pepsi, millions would ditch Coke and Pepsi and drink orange juice, but they don’t.

I am not saying Coke or Pepsi are “bad” products because they are not “healthy”. I believe they are ok products, but effective, massive advertising keeps them in people’s minds and when they are thirsty, Coke or Pepsi pop into their heads, instead of “natural fruit juice”, or “water” and “they put their money where their mind is.”

Something similar happens with direct democracy; most of what we read see and hear about democracy tell us representative democracy is the “real thing”, but it is not.

Why does it happen?

Because most media are owned by people who feel comfortable with representative democracy, they know it is far better than non-democratic regimes. Representative democracy permits gradual change and adaptation to reality, to social and economic changes. By doing that it helps prevent violent uprisings who would threaten them.

The Achilles’ Heel of representative democracy is that the people who own the media and other elites have too much influence over the elected politicians.

This causes gradual, and very dangerous distancing, of the politicians, the laws, the regulations, the policies, from the concerns of most citizens. In representative democracy the people do not have the instruments of direct democracy, they can not do much about the distancing, except becoming angry or alienated, or both.

This goes on until things get bad enough and the unthinkable happens, as it did in Germany’s Weimar representative democracy when it ceased to be representative. The Trump phenomenon is not the problem, it is the Symptom US democracy is out of touch with about half of America. Getting rid of Trump without fixing the root problem,  will make it worse.

The people who own the media are content with representative democracy. To them direct democracy represents a threat because they will lose political influence; it is a lot easier to nudge a few politicians to vote this or that way than the voters.

While most media are free in representative democracies from political interference, it does not mean they are neutral.

We also have “publicly owned” media.

Private and public media in representative democracies will not make much effort to inform people about direct democracy; both feel comfortable dealing only with politicians. On the other hand, politicians depend on private and public media to win elections and reelections.

This situation ensures most of the public will hear, read or see little about direct democracy.

Most of academia also feels comfortable with representative democracy; it is a lot easier to deal just with politicians to get research money, with no challenges from organisers of a referendum. But even if most of academia published a lot about direct democracy, most people do not read academic papers. Without the support of mass media such papers never reach most citizens.

If most people have factual information about direct democracy, they will want direct democracy, no question about it.

How do I know? Because in the only country with a long track record of direct democracy, Switzerland, the vast majority of the Swiss support direct democracy decade after decade. They could do away with it if they wanted to; all they have to do is organise a referendum and the people would decide.

We also know direct democracy is better because the Swiss had representative democracy; they got rid of it almost 2 centuries ago and never looked back.

The US, and other countries would not be involved in so many crazy wars, where their vital interests were not really at stake, if the people doing the fighting and the dying, the voters, not the politicians, decided to go to war.

There are many reasons to push representative democracies to become direct democracies, but only you can do the pushing.

Victor Lopez



Direct democracy generates rational debate and cooperation, representative democracy generates irrational antagonism

No human organisation is 100% rational, all have elements of irrationality.

Many people consider rational and emotional opposites, they are not; the opposite of rational is irrational, the opposite of emotional is unemotional. There are emotions that generate rational thoughts and behaviours and emotions that generate irrational thoughts and behaviours.

The problem with politics in representative democracies today is that the political debate has too much emotion that generates irrational thoughts and behaviours. I do not speak of the situation in non-democracies because they are all dominated by irrational, even crazy, ideas and emotions.

In representative democracies, irrational emotions play a growing role in politics.

I believe this is intrinsically related to the nature of representative democracy.

This is how it happens; representative democracy gives too much power to the elected politicians. The politicians decide everything; what laws, what contents, what penalties, the level of taxes, what kind of health care system we have, how children and young adults will be educated, how much we have to pay for school or university, how many roads we have, how large is the army, when we go to war and against whom, etc., etc.

Business, rich people, unions and lobbies quickly realized that to advance their interests it is essential to have influence over the politicians on the issues, so that they decide in their favour.

The way they gain influence is by:

Donating to campaigns to such a degree that politicians depend on donors to have the money they need to run their campaigns,

Mobilizing members of unions and professional organisations,

Making sure politicians know that if they are friendly to business, they will have nice jobs once they retire, or if they lose an election,

They will also be invited to give extremely well paid speeches in business forums and other gatherings, etc.

Because politicians, in the executive and the legislative, in representative democracies enjoy such power, elections grow more vicious as time passes

Politicians in representative democracies are pushed to attack and disqualify rivals; they hope the public will also develop a hostile attitude to their rivals. Of course, they all do the same. The end result is highly polarized political debates, vicious attacks to rivals, etc.

They do that because they all believe that it is in their interests to polarize the messages, paint rivals as mad, corrupt devils, etc.

The vicious debate used to be restricted to debates among politicians themselves, but things are different now; the politicians have polarised voters too.

We have now a situation where the people on the right believe the people in the left are devils, they no longer look at them as reasonable people with different ideas.

The charged message has turned political parties into almost radically different religions, each with its own faith, “holy” leaders, etc. The parties look at each other as the devil too.

The system of representative democracy is not interested in debating issues on the facts surrounding the issues, they prefer to have faith-like position on the issues. They expect their followers will vote for them because they “share” a faith.

The United States is perhaps the most polarized representative democracy now. You can see that for yourself if you follow the situation in the US, but other countries are also polarized; Sweden, Canada, the UK, Germany, are more polarized than ever.

No longer the people in the Left consider the people in the Right have rational views; each side believes the other

The way to eliminate such polarization is to turn to direct democracy.

Direct democracy empowers people to vote, like in representative democracies, but the people can also decide issues; they can not do that in representative democracies

When the people decide issues, not just vote, they are interested in the practical aspect of the issue; what benefits will ordinary people will have if the politicians pass a new law or regulation, etc?

As the debate focuses more on the facts, emotions, grandiose plans, lose importance because they are less important.

How do we know direct democracy pushes the country to a more rational debate? Because we have Switzerland. Swiss political campaigns are far less polarized.

It is not by chance that so many international political meetings happen in Switzerland; it is because the World knows Switzerland is the more stable, less polarized country in the World.

If you want to have a better democracy in your country, turn to direct democracy…, but you have to push.

Victor Lopez

Democracy is like pregnancy; you can not be half pregnant…

Just like you can not be half-pregnant, there is only one way to have democracy; democracy means “government by the people”. Representative democracy is “government by the representatives of the people”, that is not “government by the people”. It is obvious, buy most people believe representative democracy is democracy, it is not.

Representative democracy made sense as an advance regarding systems where the people do not elect those who govern. Representative democracy is an extraordinary advance over political systems where a dictator rules, a dictatorial party rules or a dictatorial religion rules, but representative democracy is not democracy.

Election of those who govern means they govern, the people do not govern, the people just vote.

It is a system that no longer makes sense; how can it make sense that we elect those who force upon us many behaviours with the laws, regulation and policies they make, but the people who elect them, to whom the politicians “serve”, can not stop or reverse any of the laws, regulations and policies the politicians force upon them?

It is ridiculous!; the people pay the salaries of the politicians, pay for all the public services, pay for everything, but all they can do is wait till the next election and vote for another group of politicians who will continue to do exactly, the same, force and control our behaviours, only in different political direction.

One group of politicians may decide to reduce taxes and reduce public services, another one may do the opposite, but in each case the people have no way to stop, reverse or come up with other alternatives; perhaps most voters want to reduce some taxes and increase other taxes, perhaps they want to reduce some public services but increase others.

Representative democracy is not democracy because the people do not govern at all, all they can do is vote to elect politicians. Government by the people means the people must be able to vote also on government actions; laws, regulations, policies, taxation, health care, etc.

But it gets worse, representative democracy is not even government by the elected officials; the reason?; in representative democracies the politicians have so much power that private organisations, like big business and business lobbies, big unions, big professional organisations and people with money soon figure out ways to influence, a lot, the politicians so that they will do what they want the politicians to do.

One obvious way is by donating lots of money to the politicians’ campaigns. This money causes “campaign budget inflation”; electoral campaigns become so expensive that no politician can refuse donations from this or that group. He or she can not because without a lot of money the campaign will not reach people to compete with other politicians.

Another way is by the big donor offering “friendly” politicians, who retire or lose elections, nice, important, prestigious and very well-paid jobs in private foundations, private universities (who also depend on rich donors), as lobbyist, etc.

This means that representative democracy is government by those elected and by those with enough money and resources that make politicians dependent on them. Sure, the politician has the formal power to pass laws, decide policies, etc., but the same politician also knows that it is important for him or her to cooperate with the powerful interests if he or she want to have other opportunities when he or she retires or loses an election.

This means that in representative democracy, the people vote but do not govern; it is false to say such a system is a democracy.

It is time the people decide representative democracy is obsolete because it is not democracy; this is why representative democracy does not work well. In reality, representative democracy is working so poorly in very important democracies, that some people are openly talking about authoritarian regimes as an alternative; sus is the discredit of representative democracy.

To ensure democracy’s survival, prosperity, civil peace, etc., we need direct democracy, now.

We know direct democracy works because the Swiss people govern themselves by direct democracy practices, and have been doing it for almost 200 years!.

While Switzerland is not a full direct democracy, it has the essential criteria of direct democracy because the people have the power, and they use it, several times each year, to stop laws, regulations and policies the politicians want to apply. They also overturn what the politicians have done, and propose and pass alternatives, even if the politicians oppose them.

Some people say: “But Switzerland is a small country, direct democracy may work in Switzerland but it can not work in a large country like Canada, the US, the UK, France, Germany, Japan, or even Russia, China, etc”.  This argument makes as much sense as saying: “representative democracy may work in Wester countries because of the Ancient Greeks, the mother culture of Europe, but in other cultures”; how about Japan, India, South Korea, etc.?

Representative democracy is present in large and small countries all over the World, so are authoritarian regimes. Direct democracy is the next step for representative democracy. But do not fool yourself, you will have to press for it because neither the politicians you elect, nor the various groups with direct influence over the politicians want direct democracy. The reason is clear, both will lose power or money, or both.

The Swiss had to press for the switch from representative democracy to direct democracy, the rest of have to do it too. Tired of the politicians? Do something to bring direct democracy. “You pay, your decide, not just vote”.

Remember; saying: “we have representative democracy” is like saying: “I am half pregnant”-

Victor Lopez

Give me a break!; silly criticisms of Ancient GreeK (direct) democracy

You might have heard the criticism: “Greek democracy was not so hot because women and slaves could not vote,”

This is a ridiculous argument, this is why:

Greek democracy started 2700 years ago, when all other nations, close and far, from Ancient Greece where in the dark ages; from Israel to India, from Egypt to China, from Northern Europe to the tip of Africa from North to South America, all had no clue about democracy, even representative democracy, let alone direct democracy.

In none of those places could the people, men and women, slaves or not, vote. Also, all of them practised slavery.

The list or barbarian practices of other peoples, right up to the Renaissance which was when the Europeans started to, (we are not fully awake yet), wake up to Ancient Greece from the Christian slumber, is long.

In Ancient Greece there was freedom of thought; as proven by the many philosophical schools they had, religion and divine kings and prophets dominated other lands.

The nonsensical idea of “absolute truth” also dominated them (still dominates many), as “told” to humans by the gods and their priests. Anybody who believed differently deserved punishment, including death. The Greeks did nothing of that.

The Greeks not only allowed freedom of thought in Greece, they did not convert any of the peoples they conquered. They allowed them to continue practicing their religions. They did that with Jews, Indians, Egyptians, Persians, etc.

“But slaves and women could not vote!” Come on!, nobody could not vote in the World right up to the American revolution. There are some very localized exceptions; the Swiss accepted that common people (men) vote in the local assemblies even in the 12th century. The English, some Norther Europeans and a few others had forms of government that recognized some people, outside king and Church have a say in government.

As for slavery; practically all nations practiced it until recently. Major nations did not abolish slavery until the twentieth century, quite a few other abolished it in the twenty-first century!.

The critics of Greek slavery try to discredit Greek democracy because they practiced slavery 2700 years ago. Let us be serious; the French maintained slavery even after the French Revolution! As for the US, it abolished slavery in the 19th century, and they had a civil war over it because half the country wanted to keep it.

Many slave owners were very religious people; Catholics, Anglican, Presbyterians, Jews, etc.

Critics of Greek democracy believe Greek democracy had deep flaws because it allowed slavery 2700 years ago. These same people do not feel that US democracy, or French democracy, or all all other representative democracies are delegitimized because they practiced slavery until yesterday.

But it gets worse. The French, the Americans and the rest enslaved blacks because they felt blacks, somehow, should be slaves. Sadly, other blacks were not too perturbed by black slavery; many of them practiced it in Africa and sold fellow blacks to the Europeans and the Arabs.

Ancient Greek slaves were people of the same race as the Greeks, people captured in war and turned into slaves because of that.

But women could not vote in Ancient Greece! This is a joke! The first country who allowed women to vote was New Zealand, in 1893!

Had Greek democracy survived, it is obvious they would have outlawed slavery and allowed women to vote, many, many centuries ago. I say this because already 2600 years ago several Cynic philosophers opposed slavery.

We also know slaves and women in Greece had much more freedom than in the US and other “modern” countries. How we know that? Because we know Plato, in his famous Academy, admitted slaves and women too. For example, Hypatia, a woman, directed the Platonic Academy of Alexandria. Fat chance a woman would direct a university in the Modern World until recently!

There are other facts that show Ancient Greece was far more developed than us politically and socially. Two other examples; Greeks tolerated homosexuality and did not practice polygamy.

Ancient Greece is still a light to the World; they had more tolerance for diversity of ideas. Even today, dogma enslaves the modern world;  religious dogma and by Atheist dogma do it. Modern atheists, including Communists, often despise or hate God and organized religion, but feel comfortable being as dogmatic in their beliefs, and against God and organized religion, as organized religion was, and often id, against Atheists until recently.

Conclusion; do all you can to bring a modern version of Greek direct direct democracy back. Direct democracy, besides returning the power of the people to the people, is more tolerant of freedom and diversity.

The only country that comes close, but does not yet match Greek democracy, is Switzerland. For now, Switzerland should be our reference, but can be improved. Interestingly, the Swiss are starting to talks about bringing direct democracy fully to their society.

Full direct democracy means no politicians, no political parties, as a result, no lobbyists either; the people a selected by lot, and further selection by special panels appointed by the people, to serve in government; once their time is up they go home, no hanging around as lobbyists, appointed to other government institutions, etc. Government by the people, literally.

Victor Lopez

Why can’t you do this? Because your country has no direct democracy, but you should de able to

On June the 13 the citizens of the one country on Earth with proven, stable direct democracy in all levels of government will vote to decide issues, not to elect politicians.

They elect politicians too, but the election of politicians is not as important as in your country. The reason is obvious; the people have the power to decide any issue and prevail over what the politicians want to do, and even over the highest court of the land, you do not have that power in your country.

When the people have the power to prevail over the politicians, it does not matter much who governs or what party is in power, elections are less important, as it should be.

The people of that “promised land” of real democracy, on June 13th will DECIDE issues; it is not a consultative referendum the politicians can ignore, nor is it a plebiscite started by government, it is a referendum started by the people and the results are mandatory for government.

Even if the executive and the legislative unanimously voted against what the people decide, they still have to do it.

Voters will decide five issues:

The people who organized the first referendum propose that voters decide if the farmers, who receive government subsidies will only get money if they stop using synthetic pesticides and preventive antibiotics in animal feed.

To me, it is a common sense initiative;  I mean, what would you think if your doctor told you: “you and your family should take antibiotics as part of your diet to grow healthy”? You would think the doctor is nuts; suffice is to read in internet about the side effects of antibiotics.

But my opinion is just my opinion, let us see what the voters of that country decide. If they decide against what I think, I will not like it, but will accept it because it is a democratic decision.

Another issue voters decide is if synthetic chemical pesticides will be banned.

I do not about this one; I will have to read more about it; after all, synthetic insulin is the standard way to keep diabetics alive… Something just as useful may require synthetic pesticides. I suppose it is not the same to synthesize natural pesticides as creating totally new pesticides in the lab…

in this referendum the voters will also decide if products grown in other countries using synthetic pesticides could be imported.

But the people have to make more decisions; they will also vote to decide if the emergency law the government passed to deal with the Chinese variant of COVID should be cancelled.

The referendum on the Covid emergency law was launched by group organized to make the referendum happen; Friends of the Constitution.

So that you will know how normal referendums are, below I list the key people who organized the referendum on the Covid law. Their faces look as normal as their jobs; you can see them in

Direct democracy also has another huge advantage; it prevents riots and civil disorder because anybody, any group, can make a referendum happen and dial back any decision by politicians, etc.

But, please, do not go to the site until I tell you in which country all this happens, but perhaps by the names you have guessed what country I am talking about.

Marion Russek, Company manager, Co-president, Friends of the Constitution

Werner Boxler, Adult trainer, Co-president, Friends of the Constitution

Sandro Meier, Economist

Markus Häni, School teacher

Alec Gagneux, Sustainable Development Mediator

Dr. Christina Rüdiger, Secondary school teacher

Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger, Health expert

Dr. Klaus Rüdiger, Historian and teacher

Dr. Björn Riggenbach, Family doctor

Dr. Gerald Breim, Lawyer

Philipp Kruse, Lawyer

Dr. Marco Caimi, Medical Doctor

Dominik Graf, Businessman

Dr. Bruno H. Dalle Carbonare, Cell and molecular biologist

There are many other volunteers dealing with the campaign materials, the campaign shop selling materials related to the campaign, etc.

Another decision the people will make is regarding a law the government proposed to deal with CO2 emissions. The people who organized the referendum argue the law is too costly and will not help the climate. They also say, if hurts most the pockets of people of limited means.

The People’s Party sponsors this referendum.

The voters will also decide the future of a law enacted to fight terrorism.

The people who started the process for this referendum argue the law will be ineffective, that it does not define “terrorism”, goes against the rights of children and adults, violates the separation of powers, hurts the safety and security of people and is a menace to innocent citizens.

The Young LIberals, the Socialist Youth, the Greens and human rights groups sponsored this referendum.

Before voting, each Swiss household will receive from the government a package explaining the position of the government, which can be for or against the proposal, and the position of the proponents of the proposal in their own words.

The government often presents an alternative answer to what the initiators of the referendum propose.

There will also be public debates, real debates, not politicized media pushing their position. Because most citizens are interested in the issues, they also discuss the upcoming referendums at home, at work and in Internet. Many also listen to independent experts.

Debates are lively because most issues concern most people.

In case you have not guessed, the country is Switzerland.

You can find more details about the upcoming June 13 votes by downloading the phone app VoteInfo and on the website of

VoteInfo has a lot more information, but it is not in English; you need to speak one of the four official languages of Switzerland. You can also use one of the many free Internet translation services.

Why can’t you decide like the Swiss can? Because the Swiss got fed up with  leaving all the decision-making power to the politicians, and you and your country folk, haven’t.

Representative democracies we are politically behind the Swiss almost two centuries, in dictatorships they are, politically, light-years behind.

Direct democracy is urgent to prevent the death of representative democracy, our freedoms and many other extraordinary things. Representative democracy can degenerate, and has done that, into dictatorships of the Right the Left. It happened in Germany. and other countries.

Do not complain about the politicians, act to bring direct democracy.

Victor Lopez


To have responsible and intelligent voters, there is only one way; voters must have the power to decide issues; that is direct democracy

Ordinary voters in representative democracies do not feel responsible for what happens in the country, and to the country, because the politicians decide the issues, pass the laws, etc., not the voters. Therefore, many voters feel very comfortable saying when something goes wrong in the country: “It is the politicians, it is the corporations, it is the rich, it is the unions…, it is this or it is that”.

They feel that way they are not responsible for what happens in the country because they do not “vote them in”, or they just “vote and hope”. Well, that is a copout; if voters concerned with the country disengage from the process, they just make it easier for the politicians and the lobbies to run everything the way they want.

But the involvement we need now goes beyond voting. It is a peaceful but revolutionary involvement; we have to demand and not let up until the politicians agree to renew representative democracy by bringing in direct democracy.

In a direct democracy, the people have the  power and the responsibility to revise, review and even discard policies and laws made by the politicians. The people may also propose laws.

This means that the voters decide by referendum, any action or decision made by the politicians, if approximately 1% of voters agree the issue has to go to referendum.

The system of direct democracy makes voters responsible for what happens to the country because now they have the power to act, not just complain.

In a direct democracy, voters change their voting behaviour right away; no more they fall for grandiose promises, for those demagogical promises by politicians about “making the country great”,  “more just”, “with nobody left behind”, “with a strong army”,  “high-speed trains to all cities”,  “bringing the Olympics will do wonders for our country”, and other vague or ruinous promises.

In a direct democracy the voters will decide also if the issue merits sending themselves or others to die in war.

In a direct democracy voters develop very thoughtful behaviour because they decide actual issues, they don’t just “go vote and hope”.

In a direct democracy the people no longer need “leaders” in the way the people in representative democracies do. They don’t because they decide the important issues themselves, they lead themselves.

How do we know? Because those voters already behave responsibly in raising their children, feeding them, educating them, providing for their families, being good neighbours, etc.

We also know those same voters are also responsible workers; they carry out their jobs with diligence.

So, if they do not vote responsibly, it is because they can not, because the system of representative democracy makes it impossible for them to feel responsible for what happens to the country, because they have no power to decide issues like, taxation levels, education, health care, etc.

What proof do we have direct democracy develops voters into very responsible, no nonsense, voters?, Switzerland is the proof for almost two centuries, not bad, eh?.

Representative democracy aslo makes the horizon for decision making the next election, because the next elections is what concerns politicians. In a direct democracy, the voters do not think of the next election; they think of their future, the future of their children, the long-term future of the country.

In a direct democracy, voters do not support ruinous policies because they know they will be the ones paying for them.

There is no magic to human behaviour; when humans have the power to decide on specific issues that affect their lives, they behave responsibly.

But there is another immense advantage to direct democracy; it forces voters to understand the issues because their vote decides the issues.

Among the voters there are also many experts on any issue.  Those voters enrich the debate and explain in common language even the most complex issues.

The process of direct democracy makes better decisions than representative democracies because there are more inputs by experts, particularly by independent ones, and the decision reflects the common sense most voters have.

More ideas discussed in an orderly manner, and evaluated by more people, produce better decisions

To have a country responsibly managed, there is one better way; transfer the key decision-making power from the politicians to the voters. But it will not happen if all you do is complain about “the  politicians”; you will have to forcefully demand that politicians bring direct democracy to your country; that is what the Swiss did. The Swiss had the same problems we now have in representative democracies; “we pay, we vote, they decide”. It is time to stop the nonsense of representative “democracy”.

By the way, ignore the “argument” that “Swiss voters show low voting turn outs”. It is not true, Swiss voters vote to decide issues several times each year, they vote a lot. On some specific issues voter turnout can be as low as 30%, but that happens when the issue does not concern most voters, although it concerns enough of them to trigger the referendum. When the issue concerns most voters, turnout can reach 70%.

But there is something even more important that shoots down the “low voter turnout in Switzerland” argument; over the period of 12 months, 90% of Swiss voters vote in referendums. This means that 90% of Swiss voters take part in their democratic decision-making.

Victor Lopez


Why direct democracy produces more political and economic stability than representative democracy

No need to engage in argument; let us look at the facts.

The only country in the World who practices direct democracy is Switzerland.

It is the only one because it is the only one who practices direct democracy in all levels of government; the local level, the regional (canton) level (Swiss cantons are like the states in the US or Australia, the Canadian Provinces, the German Landers or the Spanish Autonomous Regions, but with more power than any of them), the Swiss also practice direct democracy at the national level.

You can only say a country practices direct democracy if it does so in all levels of government.

In some countries they have direct democracy at the local and regional level, for example, the US, but in the US they do not have direct democracy at the national level. Given that the national federal government of the US is, by far, the most powerful government, it is obvious the US has no direct democracy.

Direct democracy is expanding slowly only because the politicians of representative democracies, and the elites dislike losing power, even if their loss of power would make the country more stable, more prosperous. They resist because if they lose power now, they will lose money, profits, privileges; for most humans, immediate benefits are more important than long-term benefits.

For whatever reason the Swiss people insisted, because of another pandemic, that they wanted direct democracy to decide themselves any issue or law they want to decide.

At first the Swiss elites resisted also; they did not want to give the final decision-making power to ordinary people, but the people insisted. The result is that, for almost two centuries, the Swiss have direct democracy. Today, even the Swiss politicians and the economic elite are very proud of the Swiss system.

Swiss politicians also enjoy more credibility with voters than the politicians of any representative democracy.

The Swiss elites with money also love the Swiss system now; they are safer than any other elite. Rich people have discovered that the people, when they have power to decide issues, they use their power judiciously. In a direct democracy, voters do not go for demagogues of the Right, the Left, or in-between. Swiss voters know they bear responsibility for what happens in the country and to the country. In Switzerland, voters know they can not play the “blame the politicians” game, voters play in representative democracies.

Direct democracy has turned Switzerland into the most stable, most democratic country in the World, ignore the “rankings” that circulate in the Web placing Switzerland behind a few representative democracies.

How do I know Switzerland is the most stable country in the World?, easy, where do wealthy people from all over the World keep their “emergency money”, “their just in case money”?, in Switzerland.

You hear about some crooked dictators hiding their money in Swiss bank accounts, that is true, some do. But you do not hear that many more wealthy people from many representative democracies, even the most prosperous ones, also have a substantial amount of money in Switzerland. Most of them do not hide it, they keep their hard-earned money, most of it earned legally, in Switzerland because in Switzerland their money is safer than anywhere else!

Interesting, eh?, that many members of the same elites who do not seem too eager to have direct democracy in your country, certainly do not push for direct democracy, like to keep their most important money in Switzerland.

Direct democracy is better democracy, is more democracy and also makes voters more responsible. Therefore Swiss voters support lower taxes than representative democracies. They have created one of the friendliest environments for entrepreneurs. But, at the same time, it is a socially responsible direct democracy. For example, the Swiss enjoy the best UNIVERSAL health care system in the World.

Judging by the performance of the country, the swiss must also have the best education system; never mind the PISA results about student accomplishments in the theoretical world of the classroom.

It is also because of political stability (perhaps Swiss chocolate is a factor also!) that many of the major World institutions have their headquarters in Switzerland.

The Swiss do not send their soldiers to die in many crazy wars either. Swiss voters are much more careful than the politicians in representative democracies before deciding this or that issue is worth dying for.

If Germany had learned direct democracy from its smaller, but wiser, neighbour to the South, they would not have engaged in the mess of the First World War, nor Hitler would have come to power, nor the rest of the madness would have happened; they still can, they still haven’t.

Conclusion: If the wealthy of your country are smart, they will push for direct democracy, they will prefer to live in a country where they do not need elaborate security, where they do not have to live in “rich people reserves” (that is what the “gated” neighborhoods are in many ways), where they do not have to worry about political turmoil.

It is interesting isn’t it?, that the country on Earth with the least political conflict is the country where the people have the most power.

Wise rich people, not politically stupid rich people, know that if the will of most ordinary voters prevails, because they have the final say on any key issue, such voters do not do foolish things or elect foolish, or worse, politicians.

So, rich, middle class, working class, or poor, you have a lot of good to gain, and a lot of bad to shed, if your country adopts Swiss-style direct democracy.

Victor Lopez

Proportional representation is a marginal improvement over first past the post; the system for the modern World is direct democracy

You know there is a debate in many democracies that use the system of First Past The Post FPTP) to switch to Proportional Representation (PR), or introduce some of it.

There are plenty of sites in Internet where you can look into the details of how the FPTP and PR systems work.

The major criticisms of the FPTP system are:

Excludes people who did not vote for the winning party in the district from having representation. Millions might have voted across the nation for parties who did not get enough votes to win the election. If those parties won one or more districts, they have voice in parliament, but if the parties did not win any district, they have no voice in parliament, even if millions across the nation voted for them.

Another criticism of the FPTP system is that minorities, who never govern, do not have a proper voice in government.

If the country using the FPTP system has enough political and social common sense, like the UK, Canada and a few others, the people in power know they can not ignore the wishes of those who did not vote for them; they understand that to do so would create too much alienation and would make it difficult to have public peace.

Critics of PR systems say such systems are less likely to produce stable majority governments with the mandate to do what most voters, or at least most districts want. Those who defend PR systems can turn this criticism around; because PR is less likely to produce single-party majority governments, it forces politicians to work together to satisfy most voters, because minority governments incorporate minority parties.

Others say PR systems produce “too many parties”. PR defenders argue it is good that as many people as possible are represented, at least in parliament, so they have a voice.

Some also say in PR systems, small parties have too much power in coalition governments, when one of the major parties seeks the support of one or more minority parties to form a majority government, in this way, a major party and the minority parties in government with it, can ignore the voters of other major parties. That is not good for democracy either.

If there is enough common political common sense among politicians, and among voters, the FPTP and the PR system can work, more or less, but as time passes, both systems deteriorate because both have the same “Achilles Heel”; in both systems the elected politicians have much more executive power than the voters; they have all the executive power.

The real problem then is not FPTP of PR, the real problem is Representative Democracy (RD) because it is the DR system that gives too much power to the politicians. It does not really matter if we have FPTP or PR. The people who argue FPTP vs PR are barking at the wrong trees.

Democracy means “government by the people”, not “government by those elected by the people”, never mind if we elect them in a FPTP or a PR system.

There is only one way to have “government by the people”, that the people govern. For the people to govern, the people must be the final decision-makers on laws, policies and issues, whenever they so decide.

This means that, for example, if 1% of registered voters decide a law, a regulation, a modification of the constitution, etc., has to go to a national referendum, it goes to a national referendum.

This also means the people start the referendums, not the politicians. It also means that the results of the referendums are final, they have to be applied by the politicians; neither the executive nor the legislative can ignore the decision of the people.

It also means that the people are the ones, the only ones, who can change the constitution. The executive, the legislative or the Supreme or Constitutional Court can not ignore or overturn the decision by the people, even if the executive and the legislature and the highest courts of the land wanted to do that, they can not do it, how about that for real people power? Forget all the easy seductive talk about empowering this or that group! Let us empower all voters where it counts, with direct democracy!.

Which country has such a system? Switzerland, it is the big secret; the mass media tell you a lot of stuff about Swiss banks, Swiss watches, Swiss mountains, even Swiss cows and Swiss cheese and Swiss chocolate, but not much about swiss direct democracy, or the Swiss universal health care system, both best in the World.

But others are finding out about Swiss direct democracy and, like myself, the more they learn, the more they like it. Direct democracy is spreading because it makes sense; “the people pay, the people decide”.

The Swiss have elected representatives like in representative democracies; but their job is different. They propose laws and policies, but they know that if most voters oppose what they propose, the law, the policy, the treaty, etc., are dead.

The Swiss have proportional representation, but the power of the Swiss people has produced an interesting twist to PR; in Switzerland they have no coalitions of a major party with a minority party to form the government, ignoring the second largest party and other parties. In Switzerland, the 4 or 5 major parties always govern together in stable coalition. This means the Swiss executive and the Swiss legislative pass laws, and make decisions that represent most Swiss voters, as it should in democracy, don’t you think?

Because of PR, there are many small parties in Switzerland with representation in parliament. Those tiny parties have voice, which gives them the opportunity to grow, but they have no vote in government until they grow. This is how it should be in a democracy; the majority has to prevail, otherwise it is not a democracy, never mind all the false seductive with words about what democracy is.

Sometimes, the coalition-based Swiss governments miscalculate. When that happens, the people tell the politicians: “we do not care that you, most our elected representatives, believe Switzerland should raise taxes, or lower taxes, of privatize the highways, or reduce immigration or increase immigration… or whatever, we will hold a national referendum on that because we want to decide the issue ourselves because Switzerland is a democracy.”

Conclusion: Do not get distracted by “FPTP vs PR”, the genuine issue is RD, Representative Democracy, a system in which politicians have so much power that they decide anything, and the voters can do nothing about it until the next election. But in the next election the voters can not do much either; the next election does not change the root problem; that a new batch of politicians will continue to have too much executive and legislative power, and voters, again, will not have not enough of both.

Representative democracy; (FPDP or PR version), is the issue, the answer is direct democracy. The Swiss and the Ancient Greeks show that.

With the information voters have today about issues that concern them, direct democracy is the way; let the people of your country vote to decide any law, policy, change of the constitution, or any other issue, not just elections, if 1% of them agree all voters should decide.

The Swiss have been doing it for decades; it has turned Switzerland into the most democratic, most stable, most prosperous, best organized and also the most respectful of minorities, as the French, Italian and even the 40 000 Romansh people show; forget the balderdash that “direct democracy is the dictatorship of the majority”.

But one of the many trick the clever Swiss have introduced to their direct democracy is to shift most of the power to the regional (“states”) and local goverments, this empowers local minorities and makes it impossible for national majorities to oppress the minorities.

There are many other clever “wheels and levers” the Swiss have in their democracy to have it running almost as smoothly as a Swiss watch. But other countries; the Japanese, the Americans, the Germans and the English have strong clock traditions too; if they apply themselves they could also have smooth running democracies. Even the Scandinavians could learn a trick or two political tricks from the Swiss.

But direct democracy did not “rain on Switzerland from Heaven”; the German-speakers, the French-speakers, the Italian-speakers and the Romansh-speakers of Switzerland, all of them, pushed and pushed the politicians, peacefully but forcefully, until the representative politicians relented and relented…

Victor Lopez




Direct democracy is the shot in the arm and the vaccine representative democracies urgently need

The concept of democracy is so powerful that even dictatorships say they are “democracies”. Other dictatorships use “cute” expression like “people’s republic”.

All these shenanigans show the rulers of such societies consider “people power” (democracy) the right thing to do, that is why they use the word to deceive people. Sadly, such leaders lack the maturity and the confidence in their own peoples to practice democracy.

The Ancient Greeks developed democracy to its highest form; direct democracy. Even today we have not caught up with the Greeks. The only nation that comes close is Switzerland.

The reason?, simple; in a direct democracy the people decide the laws and policies of the land, and they also elect other ordinary citizens to run government. In a direct democracy, those citizens also go home to their regular jobs after they serve in government for one or two years only.

In a direct democracy there is nothing like the professional politicians who spend years, decades even, in politics and around government. In a direct democracy there is nothing like former politicians appointed to other public jobs, or working as very well-paid lobbyists for private interests in order to influence other politicians.

In a direct democracy, there are no political parties because they center politics on concrete issues, not in political philosophy and vague generalisations. Political parties are political religions; like religions, they have dogmas, they have “prophets”, they claim to have the answers to deliver voters to the “promised land”. It is all a fantasy, but it seduces many voters, for a while. Eventually, voters realize the elected representatives are all talk for the people and all action for themselves and their friends. This is happening in representative democracies now.

Switzerland is the only modern country who comes close to practising direct democracy. While the Swiss still have professional politicians and political parties, in the 1800s they introduced an innovation that brings them fairly close to direct democracy.

What they did is quite clever; they removed from politicians the power to pass laws and make policies unilaterally; from then on the Swiss people have the power to stop any law or policy approved by the politicians.

The Swiss people also gave themselves the power to change the constitution and made sure the Swiss Supreme Court can not overturn the decisions of voters.

By removing the power of the politicians to decide laws, regulations and policies, the Swiss people achieved something unheard of in representative democracies; that politicians govern according to the wishes of the voters after they are elected, all the way till the next election; no fake political promises in Switzerland.

Another positive effect is that the major parties, the parties voted by about 75% of the population, govern together in coalition. The coalition decides by consensus, this almost always ensures politicians govern as the majority wishes them to govern.

The fear Swiss politicians have of of popular referendums that the people, not the government, call, has had the effect of creating a system of government in which the people rarely have to stop the decisions of government, although they still do sometimes.

Direct democracy freed Swiss democracy from the wear and tear of representative democracy. This wear and tear happens in all representative democracies because the politicians have practically all the decision-making power; they can not resist deciding some important issues ignoring the will and the values of most voters.

We all know in most representative democracies millions of citizens are tired of politicians who do not govern for the people. To fix that we, the citizens, have the answer; demand direct democracy now.

We must not wait until our “representatives” create a big economic mess, like they did in Germany in the 30s, and everything goes to Hell. The Germans were, and are, a hard-working, disciplined, intelligent, civic-minded people, but it was not enough to protect them from their elected representatives, they messed the country so badly that, in desperation, Germans made the mistake of falling for Hitler.

What happened in Germany can happen anywhere. In a serious crisis, nations can turn to the “magic promises” of Fascism or Communism. We know from history that crazy ideas can be seductive if cleverly said, just like millions of consumers buy cleverly promoted inferior products.

Direct democracy is the shot in the arm to re-energize democracy. It is also the vaccine to avoid fascism or Communism.

Victor Lopez