With direct democracy; no fear of populism or elitism

Populism of the “right” or “left” is not the disease, it is the symptom. I write “left” and “right” in quotation marks because they are misleading simplifications of reality,

Why does the US have Trump? Why Brexit? because representative democracy failed. The failings of representative democracy cause populism.

You can call Trump any names you want. You can insult those who voted for him. But if you do that, you cannot find out why Trump became President.

The rational way to deal with Trump’s election is to understand the voters who elected him.

In the US, and in the UK and other democracies, the elected representatives have distanced themselves from the citizens. The distancing has been gradual but deepens as time goes by.

I do not know why this happened. Perhaps it is because the lobbies have too much influence on lawmakers. But it could also be because elected representatives should serve only one term. Many other factors can play a role. Who knows to what extent political polarization has made it more difficult to look at the issues objectively, with less ideological “load”?

If the US had direct democracy, the distancing between the voters and the elected politicians would not be so wide.

Why direct democracy would prevent such polarization?

One possibility is that direct democracy gives the voters the power they need. This enables the people to stop politicians from passing laws they do not support. This means direct democracy keeps the politicians closer to the people.

Politicians also know it is foolish to pass laws the people will reject. Politicians are not stupid; they do not want to work for nothing.

The influence of the people is more effective if they also have the power to make laws and change the constitution.

The lobbies know this too. Therefore, it makes no sense for them to lobby the politicians to pass what the people will not support.

In direct democracy the people decide. People hear the arguments from all sides; they make up their minds and vote.

Swiss local, cantonal and national politics work the same way.

Sometimes Swiss voters go “right” sometimes go “left”. I use these words because they are familiar to most people. I already said I consider them simplistic.

For example, Swiss women could not vote in federal elections until 1972.

Most readers consider this decision by the Swiss unjust and a mistake, but that is how democracy works. The good side to this story is that Switzerland changed peacefully.

On other issues, the Swiss vote in a very different direction. For example, they were the first nation to approve of gay marriage by a national referendum.

“Right” or “Left”, when something has been decided by the people it is very hard for politicians to undo the decision. It would be political suicide.

No politician in Switzerland will try to undo gay marriage. It would be suicidal, unless the thinking of voters changes. One option is for politicians to persuade the public to change its mind. Of course, those opposing those politicians will campaign to the contrary.

It is clear cut; the people have decided, end of argument.

In representative democracy it is the politician who decides. The people may not like the decision. The only options they have are agitating the street or wait for the next election. This creates more division, the arguments go on forever. One way to put a stop to the madness is to let the people decide.

If the American people approve gay marriage, abortion on demand, etc., by referendum those who disagree can not say such laws are contrary to American values. How could they if the American people spoke?

Generally, direct democracy reduces political polarization also. It is also necessary to be in tune with the majority; in direct democracy politicians work to pass laws supported by the majority. In representative democracy often that is not so.

Remember, if you do not like Trump, that in a direct democracy Trump would not have happened. If you like Trump, think direct democracy also, because he would have not been necessary.

Inform yourself, research direct democracy. I believe you will conclude direct democracy will deliver. Switzerland is the best “school” we have for direct democracy.

But the people have to ready for direct democracy. Your country is probably not ready for direct democracy if it is not a stable representative democracy.

If that is the case, the first job is to spread the word about the benefits of direct democracy. The second job is to align individual and social values and behaviours with those that make direct democracy possible and sustainable.

All stable representative democracies are ready to introduce direct democracy. They can start at the local level.

If you support direct democracy, do something every day to spread the word. If you do not, I suggest you learn more for and against it.

As always, your comments will enrich the site, even if you are critical.

Cheers!

Victor

 

Final arguments against direct democracy that also fall flat

Arguments against democracy mentioned by Democracy International eV

There is another organization called Democracy International. It is not related to Democracy International eV. Democracy international is based in the US. Democracy International eV is based in Germany.

Democracy International eV promotes direct democracy and Democracy International promotes democracy in general.

With today’s post we finish with the most common arguments against direct democracy.

Here you have the objections to direct democracy that Democracy International eV mentions. I do not know what Democracy International (without the “eV”) thinks of direct democracy.

Democracy International eV refutes the arguments against direct democracy. You can check them out in their webpage. Here I will give my own common sense answers to the same criticisms. I am sure you can add to them.

The arguments:

“Voter incompetence. In modern society, problems are too complex for the man in the street”.

This “argument” can be used against representative democracy too. How can “ignorant” voters choose the right representative if voters do not understand the problems?

Fortunately, modern information technologies allow voters to be better informed than ever before. In the Web they can find plenty of experts who explain any issue in plain language.

A bigger problem might be that too many voters use the Web to reaffirm their beliefs, not to seek unbiased information. But voters already did that before the Web.

Whatever the capacity of voters is on complex issues, most politicians are not experts on such issues either; they need experts to assist them.

Experts can also help ordinary voters make sense out of the most complex issues. They do that already on health, nuclear energy, pollution, taxes, new technology and on and on.

The facts show Swiss voters are not overwhelmed by the “complex issues” of modern society. They decide, they vote, and the country seems to run better than the rest.

 

“Lack of a sense of responsibility”

This is silly; direct democracy does the opposite.

In direct democracy, voters have an acute sense of responsibility because they decide, they can not easily shift blame.

They avoid voting irresponsibly because they are aware there is no one to blame but themselves. Unlike voters in representative democracies, they can not blame the politicians.

Let us not forget also that if it is the government who calls for referendum, that is not direct democracy. Direct democracy is when the people or the law decide to call the referendum.

 

“In direct democracy demagogues have the freedom to launch crudely populist proposals”.

Not so. In direct democracy, informed and competent voters know they are responsible for what happens to the country. Because of that they avoid following demagogues.

It is in representative democracy where voters are be more likely to fall for demagogues. This is how representative democracies are often destroyed or weakened. Voters without direct power have no direct responsibility. It is easier for such voters to fall for the grandiose promises of demagogues.

Another of the problems of representative democracy is that boosts too much the importance of elected politicians. It puts excessive emphasis on their “leadership qualities”, their “vision”, etc. From here, the “jump” to demagoguery is fairly easy. Better let the people lead themselves, let the people have the vision; they need no leaders with “special qualities”.

Perhaps because of direct democracy, in Switzerland, politics is very low key. Demagogues have no place there. Most voters have their feet firmly planted on the ground; they have to, because they are responsible for the running of their towns, regions and nation.

 

“Lack of possibilities for refining and qualifying the issues: voters can only say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a proposal in a referendum; there is no opportunity for greater discrimination and subtlety”.

Not correct; there can be plenty of “discrimination and subtlety” before voting in referendums. It is a matter of putting in place the procedures for that to happen.

In Switzerland, voters know far in advance of voting day when the vote will take place. This gives people opportunity to learn more about the issue. The issues are debated from many angles.

 

“Manipulation of the way the question is presented: the question can be suggestively phrased so that voters are misled into voting against their real convictions”

This does not happen in direct democracy because it is the people or the law who frame the question, not the government.

The criticism is perhaps addressed to when the politicians decide to call a referendum, but that is not direct democracy.

 

“Enthusiastic activists can take over democracy via the referendum, because the silent majority doesn’t take part in referendums”

There is no silent majority in direct democracy.

In a typical year 80% of the Swiss vote in referendums, not  a bad turn out. But on a single referendum, participation often is lower. Common figures are 40-50%. This happens because one single issue may not interest many voters.

For example, many voters do not care if speed limits in highways are lowered or raised. Other voters may not care about setting a minimum wage, etc.

But there are also individual referendums where voter turn out can be very high, as high as 70%. This happened in a recent referendum on immigration.

Besides, nothing wrong if “enthusiastic activists” promote effectively a point of view, as long as they are peaceful and fair.

 

“Referendums are unnecessary because there are better ways of allowing the people to discuss political issues”

It is possible but I do not know of a better method. The  elites do not know aby better, we see it over and over. Who decides which “other way is better”? Only the people can decide that and… it will have to be by referendum!

 

“Referendums threaten the unity of the country”.

This argument makes no sense.

If a referendum threatens the unity of the country it is because the country was not united before the referendum.

Referendums by informed and competent voters probably strengthen the unity of the country. This is so because referendums help run the country in tune with the wishes of voters.

 

I hope this little blog helps people feel more comfortable with direct democracy. Help spread the word!

I thank you for your comments and suggestions to improve the blog.

Cheers!

Victor

 

Last batch of arguments cited by International IDEA against Direct Democracy

“Direct democracy has conservative bias”.

Direct democracy is not about being progressive or conservative. Direct democracy is direct power by the people.

The labels conservative-progressive are outdated. Enough of such labeling and self-labeling!; let us focus on solving concrete problems.

Thinking in terms of “Conservative-progressive” limits our freedom to think of ourselves and of others. Voters should apply reason to every issue. Many voters some times vote “conservative” and sometimes “progressive”.

For example, a voter can vote for tax payer funded health care for all. The same person can also vote against gay marriage.

Another voter may vote for business to have total freedom to fire workers. But that person can also vote for excellent social benefits for workers.

A voter can vote to reduce taxes for business and also vote to give jail time to the executives of companies who cheat consumers.

Direct democracy is people deciding; if they “go right”, fine. It is also fine if the “go left”

“Non-elite citizens are less educated and less cosmopolitan than elites, and may maintain more traditional or even reactionary values: transferring decision making from (relatively elite) politicians to ordinary citizens can therefore hinder progressive reforms”.

I am not sure where to start!. The person who came up with that comment is not a democrat. Instead of rule by the people, he or she promotes rule by the elites. Elitist thinking has nothing to do with direct democracy, or with representative democracy.

Direct democracy is based on information and common sense. Common sense is the most important human intelligence, and much harder to master than academic knowledge.

“Authoritarian and populist abuse. Historically, authoritarian rulers such as Napoleon in France, Franco in Spain, Pinochet in Chile, Marcos in the Philippines and Park Chung Hee in South Korea have used uncompetitive referendums to create a false veneer of democratic legitimacy”.

What examples! I do not know if Hitler or Stalin also held referendums…

Such regimes have nothing to do with direct democracy. A referendum, by itself is not direct democracy.

“Referendums are expensive”

The Swiss have referendums more often than anyone else.

With no natural resources, Switzerland is one of the top countries in standard of living.

The cost of referendums does not seem to hurt Switzerland much. If it did, they could change the Constitution and ban referendums. But perhaps referendums, far from being “expensive” are good economic investments.

“Direct democracy may create social conflict and affect minority rights”.

With well informed and competent voters, that will not happen. Smart voters want to avoid conflict. They avoid approving laws that create conflict.

If voters are not informed and are not competent, anything can happen in direct or in representative democracy. In fact, uninformed and incompetent voters weaken and even destroy democracy.

Switzerland has four autochthonous cultures, two major religions and many others, four official languages and countless others are spoken, 25% of the inhabitants of Switzerland are immigrants from all over the World.

Switzerland is 62.6% German, 22.9% French, 8.2% Italian and 0.5% Romansh 0.5%. I never heard the German majority passes laws that mistreat the Romansch, Italian or French.

“Direct democracy can polarize debate, exacerbate political divisions and increase the potential for destabilizing reactions such as boycotts or violence”.

This argument is just speculation.

The only direct democracy (well, semi-direct) we have in the World, Switzerland is an example of the opposite. Switzerland practices cooperative decision making. They do that in politics and also in business.

In Switzerland the major parties govern in coalition. There is no “opposition” party. That is possible because there is much less of the adversarial politics we see in representative democracies. Perhaps direct democracy contributes to that. But in coming blogs we will write plenty about the advantages of direct democracy. After all, that is why the blog exists.

In short; far from creating political division, it seems direct democracy does the opposite.

“The mechanisms of direct democracy have many problems”.

Come on! You can say that about the mechanisms of representative democracy too.

“Legal drafting of laws is extremely complex”.

The legal details are complex but voters are competent to say: “we want to lower the speed limits”, “we do not want to join the European Union”, etc.

The laws are drafted by legal experts. Voters tell the experts what law they want.

“Hate crimes in the UK surged because of the Brexit vote”

This is not an argument against direct democracy.

In the first place, The UK is not a direct democracy. The Brexit referendum does not make the UK a direct democracy.

But even if hate crimes rose because of the Brexit referendum, the common sense answer is prosecution of the guilty, not to stop referendums.

International IDEA also mentions that in a Hungarian referendum “the people had voted in favour of closing doors to refugees, but less that half of the eligible voters voted”.

This does not invalidate the vote.

In Switzerland it is not uncommon less than half of the voters vote in some referendums. The Swiss people do not consider the results illegitimate because of that.

Voters could fix that too. All they have to do is hold a referendum making invalid any referendum in which less than half of the people vote, or two thirds, etc.

International IDEA also mentions referendums in Egypt as indication direct democracy can be problematic.

Egypt is not a direct democracy by any stretch. Egypt is not even a stable representative democracy. Makes no sense to criticize direct democracy because of what happens in Egypt.

“It can be all too easy for direct democracy initiatives to bypass, rather than complement, the work of the legislature”.

Direct democracy is the opposite. In direct democracy the people do not “by-pass” the legislators because the people are the supreme legislators.

What direct democracy does is prevent politicians from bypassing voters, which is one of the problems of representative democracy.

In the next blog:

Other, and final, arguments against direct democracy cited by another important organization.

Your comments are welcomed.

Cheers!

Victor

More arguments against direct democracy that “promote” direct democracy

We take a look at other arguments against direct democracy that International IDEA mentions.

But first I want to say a few words about direct democracy.

Most people around the World do not know much about direct democracy.

Totalitarian or authoritarian regimes are not interested in democracy, direct or otherwise, for obvious reasons. Representative democracies are not too keen on discussing direct democracy either.

A country is a direct or semi direct democracy if people have direct control overt all levels of government.

It is not a direct democracy if, for example, voters decide issues at the local level but not at the national level, or vice versa.

In direct democracy, voters decide on concrete issues and laws at the local, regional and national level.

A country is not a direct democracy because the government holds a referendum on this or that issue.

For example, Switzerland is a direct democracy because voters decide at all levels. They do so with mandatory referendums, discretionary referendums and citizen initiatives.

But Switzerland is not a full direct democracy because still has politicians and political parties.

Mandatory referendums. These are called because, by law, some decisions of the national, cantonal (a canton is like a state in a federal state) and local parliaments must be approved by the people.

Such parliaments must hold referendums if their decisions affect the Constitution. They must also hold referendums on important financial decisions and decisions to join international organizations.

There are also discretionary referendums in Switzerland. The voters trigger them. Voters can call such referendums on laws voted by any level of government. In this way, Swiss voters have more power than their elected representatives. Surprising and neat, is it not?

Swiss voters can also use another instrument to exercise their power, the popular initiatives.

Popular initiatives give Swiss voters the power to change the Swiss national constitution. Often, the changes deal with healthcare, taxes, welfare, drugs, transport, immigration, asylum, and education.

Let us continue with the criticisms of direct democracy that International IDEA mentions.

“Voter irrationality”.

In a direct democracy voters are not likely to vote irrationally. This is because voters know they have to put up with the consequences of their decisions.

In representative democracy they can always “blame the politicians” because voters do not decide on issues.

In a stable direct democracy most voters are rational voters. In stable representative democracy most voters are rational also. Rational voters are what makes such democracies stable.

Voter rationality is essential to any democracy. Swiss voters probably have the most rational voting track record of any nation.

Besides, I am not sure elected politicians are more rational than the average voter. History has many examples of the opposite.

Another criticism is: “Direct democracy lets people speak, but it is not always clear what they are trying to say”.

In representative democracies it is much less clear what people try to say. All they say with their vote is: “I vote for this person because I believe he or she will do a good job”.

“In direct democracy the people do not always vote with the specific issue put to referendum in mind”.

In representative democracy people also vote with many things in mind. The advantage of direct democracy is that, even if the voters have many things in mind, they must decide one concrete thing.

“Voter fatigue”.

This is not a serious argument. Some say that if people have to vote “too often” many will not participate and only a minority will vote.

As example, they give Switzerland because Swiss voters often turn out to vote in low numbers. But this also happens in representative democracies. Some representative democracies make voting mandatory. I suppose if they do so it is because they do not have much confidence that voters will turn up to vote in large numbers on their own.

But one could also argue that many Swiss voters, and other voters, may not turn up to vote because they trust the process, or because the issue is of no concern to them. Why should they vote if the issue is not important to those voters?

“Those without strong views on the issue may not vote”.

If they abstain it is reasonable to think they do it because the issue is not so important to them, nothing wrong with that.

“Politicians may use referendums to avoid making decisions, especially on issues in which the governing party or coalition is internally divided”.

I see nothing wrong with that either.

The politicians may believe the country is as divided as they are. In such cases it is prudent to let the people decide.

But let us remember that this is not direct democracy. In direct democracy it is the people who decide if they want to be consulted, or the law forces the politicians to consult the people. The politicians do not decide when the people should be consulted.

“In a referendum people express their opinion on an issue at a particular time; they are not required to consider the issue as part of a whole. They will not consider the long term”.

When voters cast their ballots in a referendum they always have in mind many considerations. This is so because they know the result of a referendum has many consequences.

As for long term considerations, I believe Informed and competent voters keep in mind their long term interests. They think of the country, their children, their business, their jobs, etc.

That is often not the case with elected representatives. We know politicians are driven by their desire to win the next election. Not much long term thinking there… We all know of situations where politicians practically buy votes with all sorts of promises right before voting day.

The authors mention California as a place where voters chose to spend, spend, increasing public debt and not thinking long term.

First of all, California is not a direct democracy. Californian voters do not have anywhere near the power AND responsibility of Swiss voters at the national, cantonal (state) or local level.

California has some of the elements of direct democracy but it is not a direct democracy. This means that California voters are not “trained” in direct democracy.

It is also possible that Californian voters are not as well informed as Swiss voters, or are not as competent as Swiss voters for other reasons.

I do not think direct democracy is at the root of California’s key problems. Many voters in California say one key problem is not enough direct democracy.

There could be other reasons for California’s voter behaviour regarding spending. Perhaps the way issues are discussed does not inform well. For example if the media are partisan and highly polarized.

It is also possible the California educational system does not prepare voters as well as the Swiss system.

“Referendums and citizen’s initiatives may sometimes be proposed by the rich and powerful to promote their interests at the expense of the common good”.

I believe the rich and powerful have far less influence in direct democracy than in representative democracy. This is because they know the people can stop a law if they feel it goes against their interests. This means lobbies in direct democracy are less likely to push for laws that annoy the people. For the same reason, politicians are less likely to pass such laws.

I see nothing wrong if large companies or unions persuade the elected politicians to pass this or that law, as long as there is open and fair debate, and as long the citizens have the power stop such laws.

We are not done yet. In the next blog we will continue and finish with the criticisms of direct democracy.

I see that the criticisms are easily turned into arguments for direct democracy. I love such criticisms!

Please feel free to comment.

Cheers!

Victor Lopez

 

The arguments AGAINST direct democracy

I will look first at the criticisms put forward by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA). They are reasonable arguments but they can be dealt with. I am certain many people agree with them. I have also heard them often.

I do not know if IDEA shares these criticisms of direct democracy. But that is not the important issue. What is important is to deal with the objections. I hope to do so.

If are successful, more people will be receptive to direct democracy.

Let us start.

IDEA states as a disadvantage that direct democracy requires “citizen information and competence”.

If ill informed and incompetent voters are a problem, the answer is not to throw away direct democracy but to inform and educate voters.

Besides, better informed and more competent voters will produce a better society, not just make direct democracy possible.

IDEA states that direct democracy demands understanding complex issues. I agree, but most voters can grasp grasp complex issues.

To grasp complex issues it is not necessary to be an expert. Most politicians are not experts in many of the issues they face.

To solve this problem, experts explain the issues to the politicians. We can also bring experts to explain the issues to voters.

Experts can do that in TV, radio, articles, debates, question-and-answer sessions, etc.

Experts also often disagree with each other. This is normal and good. The public, like the politicians, needs to know what different experts think.

For example, experts disagree on what is the best approach to “The Virus” pandemic. After listening to the experts, most voters will understand the issue and vote competently.

But neither the politicians nor the voters must delegate decision making to the experts, except in some narrow technical issues. This is important because experts have a narrower expert vision. That is why they are experts; they know a lot about a narrow field.

We should not underestimate ability of voters to make very tough decisions and the right decisions on complex issues.

For example, let us look at trial by jury. A jury of lay persons can understand the legal issues and the evidence provided by various experts. They are then capable of deciding if the accused are guilty or not guilty.

Most of us accept ordinary citizens can decide if a person is guilty or not. Likewise, we can be confident ordinary citizens are able to make competent decisions on issues such as virus lockdown, increasing or reducing taxes, institute free (taxpayer paid) university education, universal health care, etc.

In the next blog I will continue dealing with other interesting arguments against direct democracy.

Cheers!

Víctor López

Direct democracy: the issues in the front seat and politics in the back seat.

I am convinced direct democracy is the next step in human social development.

It is too bad that if we establish direct democracy, all we will do is catch up with the ancient Greeks. Even Switzerland, the only country we can say practices direct democracy, has not caught up with the Greeks.

But it is a good we are advancing and direct democracy is gaining supporters. Perhaps you will be one of them.

Many countries have now organizations to promote direct democracy.  Your country might have one or  ore. Some countries already have political parties to do just that.

But for direct democracy to happen it is essential that reasonable people persuade themselves direct democracy provides all the benefits of solid representative democracy. I have no doubt that in solid democracies most voters are reasonable people.

But reasonable people would not change just for what they already have. Fortunately, direct democracy addresses some key issues  of representative democracy that we know concern most voters.

I have glanced at what others write about the advantages and disadvantages of direct democracy. Two writings are good summaries. The first is published by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA), the second one by Democracy International.

It is worthwhile to see what t they say, and also who they are. By looking at their nature we might be able to understand better their criticism of direct democracy.

International IDEA is an official organization based in Sweden. Its member states are: Australia, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Finland, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Luxemburg, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Namibia, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and Tunisia.

International IDEA in 2019 ranked Spain the 13th best democracy in the World. IDEA gives Spain a score on par with the United Kingdom, Germany and Belgium, and higher than Canada, France and Austria.

Looking at some of IDEA’s member states, and at this ranking of Spain, I have doubts about IDEA’s ranking system. I say this because I know Spain and Canada well. Spain is a democracy, but there is no way Spain can rank higher than Canada in quality of democracy.

On paper, Spain may very well be more democratic than Canada. For example, in Spain, the head of state is not the head of the Church, in Canada it is, but no one notices it in their lives because of the pragmatic political culture of “Anglo-Saxon” countries. Other facts show Canada is a more solid democracy than Spain.

Canada has more judicial independence, more trust between citizens and government, more renovation of political parties, far less corruption, etc.

I am also a bit concerned about the evaluation of direct democracy by an organization with only one member, Switzerland, who practices direct democracy. But perhaps that is good. I like it because their representatives will argue against direct democracy. They will also do it well because they are competent people.

On the other hand, the Swiss representative in IDEA is unlikely to argue against direct democracy, but perhaps I am wrong. He might have played devil’s advocate. That would be good; it is essential that direct democracy attract people, in spite of the arguments against it.

The other organization, Democracy International, is a private US-based organization promoting democracy around the World. Democracy international does not seem to be for or against direct democracy.

There is another organization with a very similar name to Democracy International, Democracy International eV. This organization is a promoter of direct democracy. I only mention it to prevent confusing the two.

I do not know if Democracy International eV promotes direct democracy because it believes it is the best system for democracy, or the best system to advance its political agenda.

There are other organizations who promote democracy, direct and otherwise. Unfortunately, most of them have a political agenda. They seem to look at democracy as the tool to promote their grand “solutions to everything”.

Some of them push to the “left”, some to the “right”. I am not interested in that. I am interested in direct decision making by the people regardless of the direction in which they decide.

For example, if the people vote to nationalize everything, or privatize everything, it is fine with direct democracy. It is also OK if the people decide that everyone will have an income paid with taxes. Years later they may decide to reverse the decision. That is OK too with direct democracy.

Direct democracy is that the people have the power, not the elected representatives. The elected politicians could be the ones to carry out the decision.

However, in Ancient Greek democracy, there were no elected politicians and no political parties; the citizens run the whole show. No need for parties or politicians. In Switzerland they still have parties and politicians.

In Ancient Greece, citizens were selected by lot, or were elected to represent their fellow citizens, and also to run the government. They served for one or for a few years. Once their time was up they went back to their regular jobs. They were barred from serving again. Sometimes they could serve again but only after many years had passed.

One appealing idea of direct democracy is that the issue is the focus, not how the left, right or center will deal with it.

Direct democracy is not about how a political party, representing an ideology, will deal with the issue as per their electoral program. Direct democracy is not about a political belief, religion or whatever, either. It is a tool, a way to run society. In direct democracy when people vote, their beliefs play a role, but we also know people can vote in one way on one issue and in the opposite way on another one.

I think it is good if most voters do not define themselves as “progressives”, “liberals”, “conservatives”, “leftists” or “rightists”. I prefer we look at the issues and feel free of “being” on the left, the right or the center.

To some extent political beliefs limit our ability to deal with the issues, diminishes our capacity to reach consensus, create too much of an “us” vs. “them” frame of mind, etc. I believe it is better to focus on the issue without “filtering” it through our ideology.

Tomorrow I will look at the arguments for and against direct democracy.

Víctor López

Direct democracy to unlock the virus lock down

In countries that are not democracies, they do not consult the people. The blog is not about them. Unstable “representative” democracies are not ready for direct democracy either. This blog is not about them either.

In solid representative democracies it is realistic to discuss direct democracy.

In representative democracies, the government decides without consulting the people. The people elect the government and the government decides what to do to control the virus. We see that now.

In representative democracies, between elections, there is no mechanism for the majority to exercise its will.

In most societies everybody agrees on the general ideas; “the virus is bad”, “we must protect people”, etc.

The problem is: What decisions to make? What rules to apply? To whom? etc.

We all know that people hold different opinions on many things. Because of that, when the government decides, many disagree.

Government tries to make a decision that most citizens will find reasonable. The motivations of governments are fairness and the next election too. Both criteria are very dependent on what the particular government considers fair and right and its electoral interests.

The way we do things, governments also lack a reliable way of knowing what the majority wants. Polls can indicate, but polls can be unreliable. Sometimes they have serious bias and become propaganda.

Most governments do not use polls to decide either, particularly if the decision has to me made in a hurry. In such cases the only polls are those after the decision.

In a direct democracy, the government could propose and ask people to vote on the proposals. Government could also make the initial decision, and ask the people to vote on it, or an alternative.

Some people will say that asking the people to decide is wrong because “the people are not well informed”.

I disagree. With today’s technology, people can be very well informed. It is possible to set up debates and presentations with different experts.

To educate voters on the virus, we can bring experts in medicine, economics, finance, business, labour, etc.

In a matter of days, even hours, the debates and presentations can take place. We would hold them in internet, radio, TV and newspapers.

Voters will also research the issue on internet by themselves.

As a result, the people will be ready to vote on the measures they want.

There is another critical difference between direct and representative democracy; if we the people decide, it becomes “our” decision. It removes a lot of the political fireworks.

With the debates and presentations on the virus, the people will be far better informed than they are now when they vote for a politician.

This is because political debates are hypothetical and general. The debates and presentations about the virus are very specific; what to do here and now about this? This pushes forward facts and data, not a hypothesis.

The debates can take place in one day or in a few days. People could then vote the next day or a few days afterwards.

As for security, we have the answer. If we can securely buy online with our credit card, we should be able to vote online with a “voting card”.

The decision by the people would be known right away. This is another plus.

People could vote by town, city, region, state, province or the whole nation.

Once we know the results of voting the government knows what it must do and we all can focus on the task. This is much better than arguing about the government’s decision.

Switzerland, again! One of the effects of direct democracy is very interesting. In Switzerland they have political parties but they have no opposition party. They fight it out at election time. Afterwards, the major parties govern together in coalition.

Swiss politicians have learned to legislate and execute by consensus. This way they avoid that people stop what the politicians want to do.

Besides removing the political fireworks,direct democracy also makes lobbies less important. This is important.

But let us not be foolish. Solid representative democracies are not ready to switch overnight wholesale to direct democracy. But they are ready to start the change.

We could start with referendums to decide if we want direct democracy in our town, city, school, country, etc.

Getting back to the virus. Most voters have learned a lot about the lock down. They are ready to decide on how to phase out the lock down and other measures. The decision by the people will prevent much of the divisiveness we see in various places about the lockdown.

Direct democracy is not easy. But most important things are not easy. It requires a clear majority of us with the maturity and common sense necessary. In solid representative democracies we have that. That is why they are solid.

I hope you will help give direct democracy a chance; “rule by the people”, nothing can be better.

Your comments are welcomed.

Cheers!

 

In Direct Democracy the people are the authority

On May 18, 2019 The Japan Times published an interesting story. The story makes very clear what direct democracy should be, and sometimes is not.

The story also illustrates how, even in Switzerland, sometimes the system can not resist the pull to give authorities power over the people.

Here we can see how an educated person could not accept people power when it went against her. I suspect she would have been happy if people power supported her.

It happened in Gipf-Oferbrick, a small town of 3,500 people in the Canton of Aargau in North-Central Switzerland.

Nancy Holden is a Dutch-born woman in her 40s. She has lived in Switzerland since age 8. She has Swiss children, and she feels she is Swiss.

She likes Switzerland so much she decided to become a Swiss citizen. “Switzerland is my home” she says.

The common language in the town is Swiss-German and Ms. Holden speaks it fluently.

In 2015 she tried to become a Swiss national.

In Switzerland, the municipality often has the authority to decide if a foreign resident is fit to be a citizen. Besides, the officials or politicians do not decide, the people decide.

The people of Gipf-Ofebrik voted. She lost; the town assembly decided to reject her application.

Why did they do that?

Ms. Holden is an animal rights activist. She had been campaigning against some of the town’s more established traditions. Three of them are: putting bells on cows, piglet racing and church bells ringing at night giving the hour.

Her campaigning annoyed the town’s folk. To them, she did not respect their traditions. She was also very strident. The locals believe cow bells and piglet racing do no harm to the animals. They also like the sound of their church bells.

She was rejected again in 2017.

Some say that allowing the town’s people to decide if someone can become a citizen is not right.

They say things like “it allows for more emotionally charged and more discriminatory decisions”. To me it is like saying: “we do not trust the judgment of the people”, “we do not trust democracy”.

Nobody is more qualified than other neighbours to say if someone is a good neighbour. We all know that if on a street most people say: “the people in house number 27 are a nuisance”. There is no doubt they are nuisance, at least to the majority.

If the people of the town believed she was not fit to become a citizen, in a democracy, they are right. That is what democracy is about, the will of the majority of the people.

As long as they vote freely and are of sound mind, nobody should be able to override their decision, except a bigger majority.

Democracy is majority rule. Democracy is based on the idea that the majority of people are of sound mind. The alternative is rule by absolute kings, political parties, religious authorities, oligarchs, etc. Representative democracy is also rule by the majority, except that in between elections representative democracy only allows people the right to complain.

The lady appealed to the Cantonal authorities. They asked the town to vote again. The second time, even more people voted against her.

Unfortunately, even Switzerland is far from a perfect direct democracy; Ms. Holden took her case again to the authorities of the Canton of Aargau. This time the authorities sided with her and she is a Swiss citizen now.

To me, the position of those who opposed her application is reasonable.

Ms. Holden could have expressed her opinions about cow bells, piglet racing and church bells at the town’s assembly in a manner that did annoy people so much.

She could also have formed a party and persuade the villagers to change their ways.

In representative democracy people can not do much between elections, other than complain or become aggressive “activists” with demonstrations, etc.  I do not go for the “activist stuff”; people must have the right to change laws and introduce new laws. Activism is a way of forcing changes without the explicit support of the majority. Such changes should not happen. It is bad for democracy.

It is possible that a community may reject someone’s application for citizenship for what others consider unjust motives.

Let us say they rejected Ms Holden for being a woman, or for being Dutch. If the majority of the citizens of the Canton, or of Switzerland, believe the law is wrong, they can change it by referendum. They could even vote on the decision, to resolve the case and establish the rule.

What we can not have is the “authorities” overrule the will of the people and expect democracy to survive. The people must be the ultimate authority.

This is why in Switzerland, while not perfect direct democracy, the people make the key decisions. The highest courts or the national government do not.

Ms. Holden said she cried when she felt so rejected by her neighbours. Unfortunately, she was unable to understand their emotions.

Was she also unable to understand their emotions after having their decision overruled by the “authorities”?

A democratic resolution might have been if the Cantonal authorities told Ms. Holden:

“You have to work with your neighbours and gain their acceptance”.

Direct democracy is not about the political or judicial authorities letting the people decide, as long as the people decide the “right way”. Direct democracy is about the people deciding because they are the authority.

For or against, your comments are appreciated.

In the next blog more interesting stuff to advance direct democracy.

Cheers!

Direct democracy in Swiss municipalities; Zurich

When I tell people how direct democracy will give them direct authority on how their city is administered, they like the idea.

They like to have the power to stop politicians if they spend the money of their taxes in ways they dislike.

The problem arises in the details; when we try to expand representative democracy to direct democracy.

Sometimes the problem is the people themselves. They have not known direct democracy and this scares many.

We are referring to people in stable representative democracies. I am thinking of places such as the English-speaking World, Northern Europe, Japan and a few others. When things are going well, why change?

When a representative democracy is not stable, direct democracy is unlikely to work. In non-democracies the possibility is even more remote.

Polls show that people in stable representative democracies often do not feel represented; this is a problem that endangers democracy.

If you would like to be in control, even with the same elected representatives, direct democracy is the best way to achieve that.

One could say direct democracy is: “control of politicians by the people, for the people”.

Representative politicians sometimes sense voters feel alienated. When this happens they do things to get citizens more involved. For example, they give citizens the opportunity to provide input to the budget, etc. This is not direct democracy.

Direct democracy is not about consulting or listening to the people, it is about the people becoming the direct bosses of the politicians.

Why many representative politicians are not eager for direct democracy?

They have a lot more power than direct democracy politicians; therefore it is logical they will think representative democracy is best.

Representative politicians are not devious people; most of them honestly believe representative democracy is the best democracy.

But ordinary people, politicians and academics, may also say: “I fear direct democracy because I fear the tyranny of the majority”. People who say this do not believe in democracy, or can not appreciate the true meaning of democracy. In democracy we trust the people, there is no other way.

Anyhow, if the majority decides to become a tyranny they can do so in representative democracy too; all they have to do is elect a dictator; remember Hitler, Chaves in Venezuela, etc.

If we trust that citizens are democrats we should have no issue with direct democracy. I agree that in many countries, sadly, the people can not be trusted to make any form of democracy to work, but that is not the case in stable democracies.

In stable democracies, unless a catastrophic crisis drives the majority to desperation, and even then, the majority will choose the middle way. They do so decade after decade, sometimes century after century! How can we think such people will become a tyranny! it makes no sense. The majority in those countries have proven their intelligence, their common sense, decade after decade.

Words are useful but the best way to prove direct democracy works is to know direct democracies that are working.

I will now tell you about Zurich, the largest city in Switzerland. Zurich has a population of 400 000.

Zurich has a representative local parliament of 125 seats and a local executive with 9 seats.

Zurich has four direct democracy tools; mandatory referendum, optional referendum, popular initiative and personal initiative.

The mandatory referendum is for changes to Zurich laws or for any large government expense.

Because the Swiss pay a lot of their taxes locally, they are quite interested in having a say, and a veto. They use referendums to control  significant expenses.

In Zurich any one time expense of more than 10 million Swiss Francs, about 10 million USD, has to be approved by citizens in a referendum.

Citizens also have to approve any established yearly expense of over 600 000 Swiss Francs.

Zurich’s budget is 8,753 billion Swiss francs. As you can see; the citizens of Zurich keep a very close eye on their money. They watch the “pennies”.

The other referendum, the optional referendum, can be called by the city, or as a result of a petition by citizens.

To force the “optional” referendum, 4000 Zurich citizens need to demand it.

The government can also put to a referendum any issue that feels should be approved by the people.

The popular initiative. This is another way to force the government to put to a citizen vote many issues.

Finally, they also have the personal initiative.

Using the personal initiative any citizen, individually, can write a request to Zurich’s parliament. If 42 of the 125 members of the parliament support the request, then the personal initiative has to be considered by the executive. Afterwards, the executive has to come back with a proposal to execute the personal initiative.

The executive’s response is then debated again in parliament. If at least 42 members still support the private initiative, then it is also put to a direct vote by the people.

What a simple and beautiful way to give power to the citizens!

As we can see, Zurich’s citizens have quite a bit of control over what the local parliament and government can do.

There is no reason why any city of any size in any stable democracy can not do the same, or better.

Of course, to get citizen’s attention we may need to change laws. For example, the citizen should pay more of their taxes at the local level. Once that happens, soon they link taxes to expenses and become very interested in how their city spends their money.

Tomorrow I will provide another example.

Your critical feedback and contributions are appreciated.

In two days I will publish the next blog.

Cheers!

 

Local Direct Democracy in Switzerland

From Rossland in British Columbia, Canada, we go now to Switzerland.

I continue with local direct democracy because I believe that it will be easier to start at the local level to prove direct democracy works. People have to see direct democracy working effectively. The local level is more manageable, for obvious reasons.

Switzerland is the closest any country has come to full direct democracy in 2800 years. I will deal in other blogs with Swiss direct democracy at the canton and national level.

Switzerland is part direct democracy, part representative democracy. The important thing is: the people have the final voice on laws at all levels of government.

Direct democracy and representative democracy side by side, make representative democracy more responsive.

Each Swiss municipality is unique it manages its affairs. Their size, the laws of the Canton, location, local traditions, etc., determine how they work.

About half of Swiss towns are small; less than 1000 inhabitants. The largest is Zurich with 400 000 inhabitants. The smallest is Corippo in the Canton of Ticino.

Corippo has just 12 inhabitants. It has an official website (www.corippo.ch), its own coat of arms, a church and a restaurant.

This tiny village also has a mayor and a town council. In the town council three citizens serve. It exists as municipality since 1822.

All municipalities practice forms of direct democracy.

There are other interesting curiosities to show how diverse is Switzerland.

The municipal diversity shows not only in size. For example, in the municipality of Bern there is a parliament for children between 8 and 14 years old. It also has a youth parliament for youths aged 14 to 21. These meet at least twice a year and vote to refer their decisions to the Bern municipal council.

This is not unique. Scotland, Liverpool, and probably in other places have parliaments for young people.

Each Swiss municipality also can organize itself politically and administratively. The level of freedom to do that is set by the cantonal laws. Cantonal laws also reflect culture. German-speaking cantons give more freedom to municipalities to organize. Switzerland has four cultures and four official languages; German, French, Italian and Romansch.

Most municipalities over a certain size collect enough taxes to run many services. Tiny municipalities receive money from the Cantonal government. As a result, they are less independent.

In all municipalities there is a town council presided by the mayor. Most municipalities work that way.

Larger municipalities also have a local parliament.

Voters elect the town council and also vote to pass or reject laws passed by the council.

Local parliaments passes laws. It also supervises the municipal administration, approves the executive’s management report, the budget and major expenses. But the voters always have the final say.

Local parliaments also decide town planning and building regulations. Often, also posses executive powers. For example, the power to appoint officials.

Parliaments are representative democracy, not direct democracy. If we also have direct democracy, citizens have authority over parliament, here and now. No need to wait till the next election. This does not happen in representative democracy. Naturally, this makes democracy work differently.

For example, lobbying by business or unions has much less influence on legislators. Lobbyists do not try too hard to persuade politicians to pass or change a law.

Lobbyists are less important at the Canton and Federal level also.

In all Swiss municipalities citizens can order local government to hold a referendum. Citizens can also use initiatives to force the local government to adopt a new law.

In many municipalities, some as large as 10,000 citizens, the citizen assemblies also play a key role. In the assembly, citizens directly decide to adopt or reject local laws. In this case they do not need to organize a referendum.

The citizen assemblies meet several times a year. Some take place in the town square.

Swiss municipalities are responsible for:

Education, (from kindergarten to secondary schools),

Health,

Urban planning,

Building laws,

Social assistance,

Home care,

Care for the elderly,

Water supply,

Electricity,

Waste water treatment,

Garbage disposal,

Public transport,

Roads,

Museums,

Police,

Fire department,

Regulation of local commerce and trade.

Of course, the tiny ones are not responsible for all that.

To do their job municipalities need lots of money. They have the power to set business and income taxes. Approximately 70% of the municipal budget is financed with local taxes.

Swiss citizens pay 30% of their total taxes directly to the municipality. In Canada they pay 12%. In the US varies from state to state but is never higher that 13%. Perhaps you can find out about your country.

Citizens get involved in local decision making because they know they pay for the budget. They “own” it.

A very interesting aspect of Swiss direct democracy is that citizenship has three levels in Switzerland. A Swiss national is citizen of the municipality (commune), of the canton and of Switzerland.

To become a Swiss citizen you have to satisfy the municipal requirements. This shows how important local government is in Switzerland.

Swiss local democracy is not designed to know what people think or about how to get them more involved. It is designed so that the citizens have the final say on every law and important decision. No need to write to the elected representative about something of general interest.

As you see, municipalities in Switzerland have more direct democracy than Rossland. This is because Swiss laws favour direct democracy.

It is almost like in Ancient Greece. Except that in the Ancient Greece system the people are the authority always. No need for politicians or parties.

In the next blog I will continue with Swiss local direct democracy.

Your input is critical. Do not hesitate to comment.

Cheers!

 

CLICK: to switch to other languages/cambiar a español u otros
error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)