TheSwissPoliticalSystem.com / ElSistemaPoliticoSuizo.com /DirectDemocrats.com

Today, the Swiss, again, demonstrated to the entire world how direct democracy works.

They also showed that direct democracy is real democracy. Compared to direct democracy, the representative democracy we have in other countries is not real democracy.

Representative democracy is a far more humane and overall a far better system to develop society than all other creepy regimes like totalitarian or authoritarian elites, one party, one person or one religion systems, but it is not real democracy.

Such regimes should not exist because their mere existence daily violates the human rights of all citizens, even of those who support such regimes, because they can not change their minds.

But let us go back to the Swiss because we can learn democracy from them.

Today the Swiss decided on many issues in their towns, cities, cantons (like states or provinces) and at the national level, but I will focus on what they decided on three national votes.

They voted on covering the face in public places (motivated by the burka and by security), on a commercial treaty with Indonesia, and also on digital ID.

On covering the face in public places, it looks like the initiative to ban covering the face has won. As of the early afternoon of March 7th, the initiative has the support of 53.49% of the voters. 50.92% of eligible voters are taking part.

You can follow it live with the phone app Voteinfo.

Many critics of direct democracy say that direct democracy does not work very well because in Switzerland, voter participation is not very high. Here 50.92%, so far, of eligible voters are voting, the rest decided they have better things to do.

In national elections, voter turnout can be even lower; for example, in 2019, 45% of eligible voters voted, the majority decided not to vote.

But to say direct democracy does not work because of low voter turn out is like saying that people not use the car to go to work because “cars do not work as transportation”. It is irrational to conclude that; people may not be using their cars to go to work for many reasons, even if they value their cars and will never consider not having a car.

The may not be using the car because they ride with friends or co-workers to save money or pollute less, or because parking at work is too expensive, or because by not driving to work they save on insurance, or many other reasons.

This means that to conclude voter turnout in Switzerland is low because they are disillusioned with direct democracy makes no sense either.

Swiss are happy with their system. Surveys show 85% of the people are happy with the system; go and check how many in your country are happy with the way your representative democracy is working…

Others suggest the “complicated” Swiss system causes low voter turnout. We know it is not so because when the issue interests them, up to 70% go and vote.

Low turn out can be explained by other causes.

For example, many Swiss voters may not care if people cover their faces in public or not, the issue does not interest them too much. It is logical many Swiss may not be interested in voting about face covering. In Switzerland, a country of 8.5 million people, only one hundred thousand signatures are necessary to put the issue of face covering to a national referendum. The issue may interest an important minority a lot, but it does not mean most people are interested.

It is also quite possible that voter turnout in referendums if relatively low because in the Swiss direct democracy, the people vote on many individual issues; it is unlikely one single issue will interest an overwhelming majority of citizens.

Another reason for low voter turnout in Swiss elections, not in referendums, is that Swiss politicians have much less political power than politicians in representative democracies. In Switzerland the decisive political power lies outside the executive and outside parliament, it lies with the people. This means it is not so important who gets elected.

In representative democracies it very different; the people do not decide issues and they have only one chance to decide, and only every several years; who will be the party and the politicians exercising all political power; they should turn out in huge numbers, but in many countries they do not because they no longer believe representative democracy is working.

In representative democracies all political power lies with the executive, and the legislative, which also includes the power of the opposition. In representative democracies, outside elections, the people have zero formal political power; they can not decide anything, certainly they can not decide the political agenda, the Swiss can and do.

On the other two issues Swiss voters decide today; digital ID and the treaty with Indonesia, it looks like the people will reject to be identified digitally but will support the treaty with Indonesia. I wonder if those who oppose the treaty with Indonesia because of non-sustainable oil plantations will also get the signatures to oppose trading with China and other places for far more serious reasons…

Anyway, it is time for direct democracy wherever you are.

In a direct democracy voters will decide and the politicians will obey the decisions of the people. In a representative democracy it is the other way around; the politicians decide and voters obey their decisions. Voters pay the salaries and sustain the whole country, voters should decide issues, not those voter pay to serve them.

The evolution towards direct democracy is the logical next step, but the politicians will resist it because they know they will lose much of their power. Swiss politicians resisted too, when Switzerland was still a representative democracy, they did not want direct democracy either; they only relented when the people pushed, and pushed, and pushed them into it.

Victor Lopez

Tomorrow, March the 7th, the Swiss people will decide many things that in other countries only politicians decide.

The Swiss will decide issues at the local, the cantonal (cantons are like states of provinces in federal countries), and also at the national level.

At the national level the Swiss tomorrow will decide if they accept the digital identity card, they will also decide if they approve a commercial treaty between Switzerland and Indonesia, and they will permit if burkas in public spaces.

The people will decide with a referendum; the three issues will be on the ballot.

For the past few months Swiss voters interested in those issues will read about the advantages and disadvantages of voting “yes” or “no”. They will read about the pros and cons of each issue. On many radio and TV programs they will also hear about the issues, they will listen and watch debates, they may even attend or take part in debates.

Many will also discuss the referendum with family, friends and co-workers.

By discussing which way to vote in the family, the children also learn of the great power and responsibility their parents have as voters, and they learn to use it themselves when they reach the age to vote; it is a level of voter power and responsibility unmatched in the World.

In quality of democracy, no other nation today comes close to the Swiss; never mind some ridiculous democracy rankings that place several representative democracies ahead of Switzerland in democratic quality.

Democracy means “rule by the people”; how can any other country be ahead in democratic quality of the only country on Earth where the people, besides having the power to elect their politicians, they also have the power to stop the politicians; yes, the Swiss people can stop the executive and parliament on any issue the people decide they should decide.

Swiss voters can kill a law approved by the Swiss parliament, they can also create laws and change the Constitution, and do not need the support or consent of the politicians.

Swiss politicians stop the Swiss people, but the Swiss people can stop the politicians. The politicians can not impose any law or policy on the people if most of the people decide to reject the law or policy.

Even if the executive and the legislative agree on an issue, their will can not prevail over the will of the Swiss people.

The people can also raise issues that must go a national referendum; the government can not stop a referendum. Much less can the Swiss government ignore the results of popular referendums; Swiss law states referendums are mandatory.

It is interesting also that the Swiss government can not call referendums or plebiscites. As you know, in some countries the government can decide to put an issue to a referendum, but does not mean the government has to obey the results.

This is the big difference between the Swiss system of direct democracy and representative “democracy” which in fact it is not democracy. Switzerland is a direct democracy because the people have more power than the elected politicians.

This is what all democracies should be, but representative democracies are not. In representative democracies it is the opposite; the politicians have much more power than the people.

So, tomorrow, the Swiss people will decide if there will be and electronic ID in Switzerland, if the Swiss will sign a trade treaty with Indonesia and if people can walk around in public with their faces covered.

That is the key reason why the Swiss are not tired of the politicians the way people in representative democracies are. They are not tired because Swiss politicians can not do things that the people do not support. If voters in representative democracies had more power than the politicians they elect, they would not be “tired” of them either; it is the power, stupid!

When we are tired of our politicians it is because the politicians do things we do not want them do, but they do them anyway.

For example, in representative democracies, politicians could sign a treaty with Indonesia, could decide that burkas are allowed in public, or could impose electronic ID, and the people have no power to stop them; other than disagree, get angry, demonstrate or become “tired of politicians”.

Ask yourself, and ask your politicians: “why can’t we, the voters, decide issues in our countries like the Swiss do? Are the Swiss special, or are we dumb?

While we stay fed up with our politicians, the Swiss people will continue to be the essential decision-makers on key issues.

The beauty of the Swiss system is that the people decide; nothing can be more democratic.

Because it is real democracy at work, the people who lose the referendums have no problem accepting the orderly, rational, decision of the majority. They do because they are democrats. For true democrats, there is no higher authority than the people. There can not be, because democracy “is rule by the people”.

Having issues decided by the people at the ballot box ensures that those who lose accept the results. It is obvious this is a much better system than politicians deciding in committees, and in secretive discussions with lobbies and pressure groups.

So, remember that the next time you get “tired” (frustrated) with your politicians; it is because they have more power than the people. It is because representative democracy is no democracy. I would not say is “fake democracy”, but I can understand it looks like that to more and more voters.

It is time to make the transition from representative “democracy” to democracy (direct democracy, the only democracy).

Victor Lopez

 

 

 

I reproduce a very interesting paper by Katlyn Mary Carter.

Reading the paper takes about 12 minutes. She uses a clear, easy to understand language.

She is a postdoctoral fellow at the Weiser Center for Emerging Democracies at the University of Michigan. She is currently working on a book about state secrecy and the birth of representative democracy in the Age of Revolutions. Her work has appeared in French History and The Washington Post.

The paper explains very well the origins of the term “representative democracy”.

It is obvious that representative democracy was a convenient term invented to fool people into believing representative democracy is democracy, it is not.

“Representative democracy” is a political marketing term, which precedes modern political marketing, to present as democracy what is not democracy.

We should have figured out long ago that representative democracy is not democracy; all we had to do is look at the inventor of the term, none other than Robespierre, yes, the fellow of the French Revolution under whose one year rule 90 political oponents were murdered every day, for 300 days, by the mobs he led; some democracy!

Robespierre reminds me of the People’s Democratic Republics of you know who, of Hitler’s mobs, of Stalin’s gulags, of Pol Pot, of totalitarian regimes “inspired” by God.

About political marketing you can say: “there are lies, big lies and political marketing”; there is no need to say more.

I believe the article will help strengthen the transition towards democracy, to direct democracy that is, before representative “democracies” self-destroy because of their inevitable tendencies to create an elected aristocracy supported by economic and cultural elites who do not believe the people are capable of themselves with a direct democracy.

Ancient Athens and current Switzerland prove that direct democracy is the more humane system of government ever developed.

Direct democracy raises the rights and dignity of citizens far above representative democracy.

Unfortunately, the elites who rule in representative democracies, or are close to those who rule, do not want you to know about Ancient Athens or Switzerland.

They try to fool you into believing direct democracy “is bad” by saying that women and slaves could not vote in Athens, or that women in Switzerland got the right to vote later than in other Western countries.

But they do not tell you something far more important that Ancient Greece citizens had more power, orderly power, not mob power, than the elites. Women in Athens could not vote but in other places were just property; in Athens there were women in the arts, in philosophy, no other ancient society even came close.

Just check out these women :

Aspasia oif Miletus, Agnodice of Athens, Hypatia of Alexandria, Hipparchia of Marneia, Arete of Cyrene, Hydna of Scione, Telesilla of Argos, Sappho of Lesbos, and just tell me what other ancient civilisation even comes close.

Keep in mind also this was between 2400 and 2800 years ago. Anyone can see that if ancient democracy had survived women would have been voting for centuries.

They do not tell you either that right now, Swiss citizens, including women, have power than the men and women of any other country; never mind the noise feminists and other movements make in the US, France, the UK, etc. Much of that noise arises from the frustration of not having more power than the politicians.

Swiss women voters, together with Swiss men voters, have more power than the Swiss politicians in the executive and the legislative.

They have it at the local, regional (state-province) and national level. No other people on Earth, including the “progressive” Scandinavian countries, Canada or New Zealand even come close; never mind the flawed rankings of The Economist about quality of democracy.

Direct democracy is the key reason making Switzerland the most stable, most prosperous democracy humanity has developed in modern times. The power Swiss citizens have removes from politicians the power “buy” votes at election time with all sort of promises and demagoguery.

Victor Lopez

www.DirectDemocrats.com
Here it is:

THE INVENTION OF REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

Posted on July 23, 2018by Age of Revolutions

Reading time 14 minutes

This post is a part of our “Challenging Democratic Revolutions” series, which explores the ways in which democratic ideologies challenged Old Regimes and how revolutionaries challenged notions of democratic liberty.

If you live in a representative democracy, you may be “fed up” with most politicians, I am.

The problem is not “the politicians”, the problem is us, the citizens, because representative democracy pushes politicians to behave the way they do. Most of us do not know there is a better democracy; direct democracy, it fixes representative democracy.

The root problem with representative democracy is that it gives politicians more power than the power they need to govern, we have to take their excess power away. Because representative democracies give politicians all that power, politicians also fight like hell to get it.

The fight starts as soon as one electoral campaign is over, the next one starts in the very first session of the new legislature, in the first interviews and statements.

The party who wins governs with both eyes focused in the next election, not the concerns of the people; “what can we do?, what can we get away with?, from now to the next election?”. For the parties in the opposition it is about “what do we do to win the next election?”; the mirror image of the party in power.

This antagonism among politicians filters down to their supporters and to the nation, through the media, who also become contaminated by the antagonism.

The problem affects all representative democracies; they split themselves into “progressives” or “conservatives”.

People on either side can not comprehend the other. They see each other as “fanatical”, “egotistic”, “foolish”, “naïve”, “not for the people”, even “evil”; not very good.

This division also fosters the growth of parties with extreme views on the Right and the Left. This weakens society even more.

Another harmful effect of the power representative democracy gives politicians is that politicians govern less and less for ordinary voters; they govern more for the lobbies who help them win elections, or get them juicy jobs in corporations and institutions once they leave politics, etc. The inevitable result of this situation is that voters, gradually, become more disenchanted with representative democracy. But that may be good if it helps them look at direct democracy as the practical alternative.

Direct democracy solves these problems because it turns power around; it gives the people direct power over the politicians. In a direct democracy the politicians have to do what the people want, they have no choice.

This forces politicians in government and the opposition to cooperate; unheard of, right? They know that otherwise the people will stop the law, the policy, the budget, anything the politicians want to do.

When they cooperate, politicians can no longer be at each other’s throats either, politics becomes civil again. This also decreases the political temperature among voters and in the media.

A new perspective also develops in society; issues, policies, laws, etc., are now seen as concrete problems to resolve, not as another opportunity to savage rivals, make grandiose statements about “dreams”, “happiness”, “mission”, “prosperity”, “the future of our children”, etc., that sound great, but are mostly hot air.

The US is the prime example of polarization in a representative democracy, but other representative democracies, such as France, the UK, Germany, Canada, etc., would greatly benefit from direct democracy too. Practically all representative democracies suffer from degrees of polarization that weaken those societies.

In a direct democracy people also trust their politicians more. It is because the politicians can not afford to “forget” the voters because the voters can step in at any time, they do not need to wait for the next election.

Conclusion: the antagonistic politicians and politics you have in your country are the product of representative democracy, the root problem is representative democracy, the politician’s never-ending fighting in parliament and the media  are just the symptoms.

Do not blame the politicians, or the voters “of the other party” for electing “their” politicians; it is us, all voters of all parties, that are to blame for not pushing for direct democracy.

How do we know direct democracy dials down the political temperature and fosters cooperation among rival parties?; because that is what happens, decade after decade, after decade in Switzerland, under direct democracy, at the local, regional and national levels.

Do not believe me? I understand; just go to internet and search “direct democracy” or “Swiss direct democracy”, that is what I did. Soon it became obvious to me direct democracy is the way forward for democracy. I believe you will reach the same conclusion, perhaps you already have. Let us spread awareness of direct democracy in our countries!.

Victor Lopez

Now, in representative democracies, we do not have control over our politicians; in-between elections, the people in power can do anything they want.

In a representative democracy, you do not really have control over the elected representatives; we give them absolutely all the executive and legislative power. Do you think that is right, fair or just?; it is absurd.

This also means representative democracy is not really democracy. It can not be; it is not “government by the people” if the people do not have control.

Direct democracy offers the mechanisms, and the proven track record to make sure elected politicians can not act without the support or consent of voters.

Direct democracy gives elected politicians the authority to propose policies, laws, and changes to the Constitution, but what they propose is subject to what voters decide about that specific issue.

The current situation is wrong; we elect people and then give them control over our working and personal lives. The people we elect become our masters, not our servants, never mind all the devalued, and often false, words many politicians spew out about being “the servants of the people”.

How can be the “servants of the people” tgose who pass all the laws and make all the executive decisions the people have to comply with? The current situation in representative democracies is a lie and is unjust.

Direct democracy is about many things, but it is also a formalized, systematic, deliberate, peaceful, orderly system for people to control the politicians.

We, the voters, pay. With our taxes we sustain the executive and the legislative; we pay their salaries, their pensions, their expenses, we sustain our towns, regions and countries, we should be the masters. We should not accept a system, where the people we elect become our masters.

If the people can not control what the politicians, do it is not democracy. It is not democracy just because the party in power changes. It is not democracy because those now in power continue to have authority over us. It is not a substantial difference just because “the Right”, “the Left”, “the Center”, or a coalition of parties, now governs, as long as they have power over us.

Don’t you think it is time that we turned “we pay, they decide” into “we pay, we decide”? If you believe it is, you will have to mobilize, peacefully, but insistently, forcefully, until the politicians agree to transfer their authority to us, the voters.

Formal, systematic, deliberate, orderly control of politicians by the voters is urgently necessary.

Direct democracy delivers the best government we know. How do we know? Because Switzerland has it and it is the best governed country in the World; it combines real democracy (government by the people), freedom and prosperity, and does so at the highest levels humans have reached.

For centuries, direct democracy has given unique power to the Swiss voters to, sometimes push the politicians if they do not do what the people want them to, other times the voters pull them back to stop them from doing things the people do not want.

Us, voters of current representative democracies should push to have at least such powers.

Collectively, we pay for everything, we should have authority over the politicians; turn them around into our servants.

 

Would you like your country to have a higher standard of living, lower unemployment, better and universal health care, better education, better roads, look cleaner, have sounder public and private finances, practically no youth unemployment, no friction among languages and territories, no separatists, no extreme politicians, etc.?, then you should push for direct democracy.

When the people in a direct democracy decide to reject a law, a treaty, change the constitution or propose a new law, build a new road, increase the size of the armed forces, change the constitution, approve or reject a budget, etc., what they do is place at the service of the whole country their collective knowledge.

They do it as family members, neighbours, professionals, taxpayers, lovers of the outdoors, consumers, etc. Naturally, such wider and deeper input makes for better decisions.

For example, when the Swiss (a direct democracy) decide, on the coming 7th of March referendum, to approve or reject the use of burkas in public places, a trade treaty with Indonesia, or the digital ID, they decide by bringing their massive collective knowledge and points of view to the issue. There is no way elected representatives alone, with their advisers, have the quantity and quality of the knowledge millions of voters have. Do not forget either thousands of those voters are authorities on many issues and participate in debates, write, etc.

At the local and regional level, similar things happen. For example, the voters of Geneva, Switzerland will also decide if illegal workers should receive up to 4 000.00 UDS per month because many lost their jobs because of the virus from China, or its British or other variants.

In other countries the politicians would decide, or would be to afraid to, in Switzerland a few citizens collected about 5000 signatures and the voters of Geneva will decide; “oui” or “non”; nothing can be more democratic.

Direct democracy is not mob rule, that is a silly accusation with no basis; decision-making by the people in a direct democracy is far more deliberate, restrained and organized than the debates in most parliaments. Perhaps that also contributes to better decision-making.

Before a referendum, eligible voters receive from government the information package presenting all sides of the issues (the government does that because it has to, by law), voters also watch debates, see what the media say, listen to experts for and against the issue, discuss the issues with friends and family, even at work. At the end of the process voters are well informed, they know what they want to decide.

If you live in Germany, Italy, France, the UK, Canada, the US, Japan, etc., and had direct democracy your country would be more democratic and you would make better decisions if it adopted direct democracy.

Although the primary goal of direct democracy is better democracy; giving the people the final say on issues that affect their lives creates a better functioning society.

Direct democracy works better because it profits from the voters collective knowledge and experience. It as if a direct democracy had thousands, millions of free consultants whose only interest is to make the country better.

Direct democracy has made Switzerland the country with the highest standard of living, the most stable politically, with the best universal system of health care, low youth unemployment, etc.

Other countries handicap themselves by not letting voters make decisions; as result they make poorer decisions on practically all issues; economy, industrial policies, health care, entrepreneurship, education, social issues, language and territorial issues, etc.

Conclusion: Besides wanting direct democracy, because it really is more democratic than representative democracy, there is another reason; direct democracy makes the country more productive, more prosperous, more stable, etc.

The same country will become a better country with direct democracy.

Victor Lopez

Direct democracy is more democratic because the people have the final say on everything of importance, not the elected politicians.

The Swiss, the only people practising direct democracy in all levels of government, make more democratic decisions every year, and have been doing it for more that 150 years, than all other nations on Earth together!

Direct democracy is the only democracy; “representative democracy” is not real democracy, it is an elegant, but false, political marketing term cooked up during the French Revolution by some of its leaders, unable or unwilling, to make direct democracy work. Representative democracy is more like an elected aristocracy.

The original intention of the French people was to have a direct democracy. It is about time the French adopt direct democracy; so should the people of all other representative democracies.

I do not speak of authoritarian regimes because they are still light-years away from even representative democracy.

The major reason direct democracy is not the norm is that the people have been persuaded to believe the only democracy is representative democracy, even if it is not real democracy.

You might have noticed the elites; political, academic, mediatic and economic, of your country talk little about direct democracy. For them, representative democracy and democracy are the same thing; many of them know better, but they keep quiet.

Politicians, and some political ideologues, in representative democracies have done an excellent job at persuading people that what is not democracy is democracy.

But reality has caught up with this false democracy because it is not working very well; even in the better known representative democracies, most people do not trust their elected representatives. Many citizens feel the politicians do not govern for ordinary people, perhaps they never did, that they govern for big business, the media, organized lobbies and political pressure groups.

One reaction to the discontent is right wing and left wing populisms, but neither believes in direct democracy either. We know that because they present to voters “great leaders” to “free us from this Valley of Tears and deliver us to the Promised Land”; there is no “Valley of Tears” and there is no “Promised Land”; there is only reason, common sense, and plenty of voters with plenty of both, to decide by themselves how to build and manage a prosperous and stable society.

We can keep the elected representatives, but as proponents of laws and policies, not as decision-makers, more or less like the Swiss have been doing for a long time.

Direct democracy is not about any “great leader” it is about “rule by the people”, This means the people decide issues by voting on the issues, not just electing politicians.

Politicians in representative democracies like representative democracy because it gives political parties, politicians, those close to them, and those appointed by the politicians, all the power. Together, they have all the executive power, all the legislative power and all the judiciary power.

Why should politicians in representative democracies speak well of direct democracy if it deprives them of most of their power to pass laws and put in place policies as they see fit? No elite ever gives up power easily.

Some of those elected representatives, and others in the social and economic elites, have the cheek to say ordinary people are not capable of making the right decisions.

Other politicians do not want the people to decide because it would not be good for the politicians and the elites close to them.

Do not expect elected politicians in a representative democracy to push for direct democracy; most will never do it.

Others will speak against direct democracy using false arguments such as “direct democracy can become the dictatorship of the majority”. If you hear that, just point out Switzerland; a direct democracy where its historical minorities get more respect than minorities anywhere else.

We know direct democracy is better because of the Swiss, the only established direct democracy in the World, prove it every day; the Swiss trust their governments more than their German, Austrian, French and Italian neighbours.

Switzerland is also the ancestral home of four peoples; German-speakers, French-Speakers, Italian-speakers and Romansh-speakers.

Yet, those four communities have been able to create a multicultural country surpassing, by any economic, political and social measure its four “unitary” neighbours. Switzerland it is more stable politically, socially and economically, fiscally more sound, more democratic, more prosperous, more developed, has a better health and educational system, etc., than France, Austria, Italy or Germany.

If you want direct democracy in your town, province, state or country you will have to push for it because most of your elected representatives and those close to them will not. Even if some representative support direct democracy, their party, or those who finance their campaigns, soon will discourage them.

When the Swiss people decided they wanted direct democracy, their elected politicians did not like it one bit either; the Swiss had to push, peacefully, but hard.

Now that you know why direct democracy is not the norm, it is up to you to do something about it; but do not blame the politicians for your country not being a direct democracy. Instead of blaming, act, push peacefully, but push, so that the people of your town, state, province and country become the key decision-makers, not just vote.

Victor Lopez

Next post in two days, as always.

Most of those people believe ordinary people are not very smart and, because of that, they need “leaders”; people with special vision, people who “know the way”.

It is a lot of baloney, but like baloney itself, and many other worthless things; some marketing tricks can fool most people most of the time.

All of them say they believe in democracy, but they do not; democracy is “rule by the people themselves”, not by elected representatives.

Most Elected politicians, prefer representative democracy, they do not like direct democracy. If you press them, they will perform many verbal pirouettes to convince you with arguments like “the population is too large to involve them in decisions”, “most issues are too complex, understanding them requires efforts most people do not have the time to make”, “there is a danger demagogues will fool the people”, etc., etc.

The reality is that democracy is “government by the people” and there are plenty of ways to have direct democracy, even in the largest countries.

Some will tell you representative democracy is democracy because the people decide which party is in power, but changing the party in power does not change the essence of the system; regardless of who governs, in a representative democray, those in power continue to make all the key decisions, the voters do not make the decisions, the voters do not govern, they just elect politicians.

For now, the population of representative democracies supports representative democracy, but the number is dropping, fast. Rapidly, the numbers of those who know about direct democracy is growing; the big switch to direct democracy will happen, it is inevitable.

Common sense also makes it obvious we are ready for direct democracy; if the voters are adult enough to hold a job, raise a family, save to buy a house, pay our loans and mortgages, elect politicians etc., we are also adult enough to decide by ourselves if taxes should be raised, if we need new roads, if we should have universal health coverage, if the  country should sign a treaty, belong to an international organisation, what the educational system we need, etc.

Humanity is fortunate to have two nations who have demonstrated direct democracy works better, that citizens, not only do not need to elect “leaders with vision” to have a successful nation, they build a better nation without such leaders.

The first of such people were the Ancient Greeks; they invented democracy, direct democracy. To them, representative democracy would not be democracy at all. Representative democracy is not democracy and should not be called democracy. “Representative democracy” is another verbal pirouette.

The other people who do not need “visionary leaders”, “prophets” and other “great men”, are the Swiss. The Swiss are here, with us and, in the modern World, “next door” to you and me.

Anyone can study the Swiss system, just click “direct democracy” or Swiss direct democracy”, in almost any language and examine what pops up in Internet.

The Swiss used to have representative democracy too, but one day, as a result of another pandemic, they decided they would govern Switzerland themselves, not the elected representatives.

Formally, the Swiss have not done away with representative democracy; they elect representatives, have a parliament and a government made up by politicians, but the Swiss have introduced a key difference; the people have the final say on everything the elected representatives and the executive want to do, and the people also propose and make changes to policies, laws and even the constitution.

For example, the coming March 7, 2021, the Swiss people will decide three issues that in other countries are decided by the elected representatives, not by the people; unless the people take to the streets and impresses-scare the elected representatives into listening.

On the 7th of March, Swiss voters decide if a commercial treaty with Indonesia goes forward, on the electronic ID, and also on the legality of covering the face in public places.

Swiss politicians can recommend to voters to accept or reject the proposals but that is all the power they have. Quite different from your country, right?

If the Ancient Greeks 2500 years ago, and the Swiss now, do not need “leaders” who decide and have more power than the voters, is it not time the rest of us have the same rights and power ? I believe it is time.

But to change things we will have to do more than complain about the politicians; we will have to pressure them until the politicians have no choice but to bring direct democracy to our countries; that is exactly like it happened in Switzerland.

The time has arrived to ignore what most elected politicians and elitists say about direct democracy.

Let us move forward!

Victor Lopez

Most politicians in representative democracies say things like; “the average voter is not qualified to vote on most political issues because the issues are to complex for them, this is why direct democracy will not work. Voters need “leadership”, this is what we provide”.

Balderdash!, all of it!

People may need a leaders in extreme situations, most of the running of a country is not as dramatic, as “black and white and urgent” as “representative” politicians want you to believe.

Most elected politicians are not qualified either in economics, psychology, engineering, roads, health, army, commerce, technologies, history, education, and on and on; but that does not stop them from passing laws and regulations on all those areas.

How is it possible for elected politicians to vote and decide issues on which they have no formal qualifications?

The explanation is evident; elected politicians have access to experts that explain the issues to them. In this manner, politicians become qualified to vote and decide on any issue.

In a direct democracy, the experts do the same, but to the people. They the issues so that voters become qualified to decide issues competently; exactly in the same way the politicians become competent to decide.

You may think, “if elected politicians are competent to decide, why do we need the voters to do that job?” This is why: a politician may understand the issue, but his or her priorities often do coincide with the priorities of voters, never mind the cliché about “serving the people”; only when the voters themselves decide can they be sure their interests are the decisive consideration.

That is precisely what they do in Switzerland’s direct democracy; the people have the final say on all issues of importance, but before voting , voters receive information packages explaining the advantages and disadvantages of voting “Yes” or “NO”.

Voters see what the government, the political parties, unions, and many experts on both sides of the issues, say.  They also watch debates, read articles, etc.

The results, the facts on the ground speak, even “scream”, by themselves; Switzerland, the only country practising direct democracy at all levels of government, is the best managed country of the World.

There is another factor that makes Swiss voters more competent to decide than voters in representative democracies; in a direct democracy “you vote, you are responsible for the effects”. Voters learn to vote responsibly in a direct democracy.

In representative democracies, even after the elected politician proves to be a disaster, a crook, etc., the voters blame the politician, not themselves. They do it because in a representative democracy, voters are not responsible for the decisions politicians make.

Next time someone tells you voters in your country are not qualified to vote on the issues, to have direct democracy, tell him or her:  “the practice of direct democracy qualifies voters to vote competently”. This is how humans learn; we learn by doing.

If you want your country to be better governed, push for direct democracy.

We need direct democracy because representative democracy is not democracy; democracy is “government by the people”, not “government by the elected representatives”.

Victor Lopez

Swiss direct democracy should not exist. Switzerland should not be a stable country either, but it is the most advanced democracy and the most stable country.

If we look at Switzerland past the cliches, the foolish comments about the “crazy system where the people are voting themselves to exhaustion”, we see the most politically advanced country in the World.

Let us look at the facts on the ground.

Switzerland has all the elements that in other countries create serious political problems; they have founding peoples who speak different languages, practice different religions and have different cultures. They even have different temperaments.

The Swiss have made their country the most democratic and stable country on Earth. It is also the most prosperous too, with the best universal health care, etc.

Switzerland is the most democratic because “democracy” means “government by the people”, not by the representatives of the people. No other people come close to the Swiss in actual people’s power.

To make matters even more difficult for the Swiss, the founding peoples of Switzerland had a history of being at war with each other.

As you probably know, the Swiss practice direct democracy; a huge advance over representative democracy. But the Swiss realized direct democracy would not be enough. They also had to accommodate the cultural and linguistic differences among the people living in different areas of Switzerland.

The Swiss saw that Swiss German-speakers made up almost two thirds of the population of the country, French-speakers one quarter, Italian-speakers 8% and Romansh-speakers a tiny 0.5%. They had to figure out a way to prevent Switzerland from becoming a country were the German-speaking majority became so dominant that the other groups would feel oppressed or discriminated; as you know it happens in other countries.

One smart thing the Swiss did is se up Switzerland as a federal nation; a union of free states.

Another good move was to separate cultural-language identity from territorial administration.

Most other countries, including federations, with several historical cultures, do the opposite; they organize the country around language and culture. In those countries each group has its own territorial administration; they never make the arrangement work very well. Friction, separatist movements, even terror, are never too far.

Had Switzerland done the same as most other countries, the country would have four cantons; a huge (compared to the others) German-Speaking canton of 5.5 million people, a mid-size French-Speaking Canton of 2.1 million, one small Italian-Speaking canton of 0.5 million people, and one tiny Romansh-speaking canton of 50 000 people.

It is easy to see how a huge German-speaking canton, dwarfing the rest, could find it hard to resist making its power prevail over the others. If that happened friction and resentment would quickly appear.

But the Swiss did not do that. What they did is divide Switzerland into 26 cantons; 17 German-speaking, 4 French-speaking, two Italian-speaking and a few bilingual and even trilingual cantons.

The Swiss also have a flexible system of Cantons; it has happened that a group has become a canton because they were not happy in their old canton

Another clever move by the Swiss was not to have one national language, official or otherwise. The Swiss made the languages of the four founding peoples official languages; German, French, Italian and Romansh are all official languages of the national federal government. Note than only 0.5% of the Swiss speak Romansh, yet their language is official language.

By doing all those things, the Swiss succeed at finding harmony among their founding cultures. Many other federal or unitary nations, such as Canada, the US, Germany, Australia, France, Spain, etc., have not.

Those are great nations in many other respects, but they have not been able to achieve the harmony the Swiss have achieved. The Swiss have done away with the “majority-minority” concept. They did it by dividing the territory occupied by German-speakers and French-speakers into many cantons. It is almost as if the Swiss system turns every group into a minority.

Swiss cantons are small, but each is very autonomous, almost another country within Switzerland. Each Swiss canton has far more autonomy than the often much larger states in the US or the Canadian provinces.

The Swiss have also succeeded at making their nation’s identity independent of language and culture. By doing this they keep at bay the “tribal impulse” humans have.

I believe it is essential to understand what the Swiss have done. All countries need direct democracy, but countries with more than one founding culture also need to look at other aspects of the Swiss system which complement direct democracy.