TheSwissPoliticalSystem.com / ElSistemaPoliticoSuizo.com /DirectDemocrats.com

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

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

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!

 

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!

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!

 

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!

 

First I have to remind everyone; there isn’t a real direct democracy now. Nothing we have can compare to ancient Greece direct democracy.

But direct democracy is advancing around the World. I have no doubt it will become the norm for all humans. Some will need more time than others.

We have excellent examples of partial direct democracy.

Direct democracy is not the only Greek idea that took time to gain acceptance. It also took time the application of reason to understand the Universe., instead of relying of the word of a god. It took 2200 years, until Galileo. And we all know how far we have come in space exploration and astronomy since.

Direct democracy is a little harder; so far, 2800 years have passed.

I will start with a direct democracy example in Canada. It is in a small town that has introduced essential elements of direct democracy.

This case is recent, from 1980, and it does not come from a long tradition of direct citizen power. Canada comes from the British tradition. In the British system there is not a tradition of direct rule by the people. The people elect the representatives, and the representatives rule. The people have no direct power between elections.

Fortunately, in the British tradition we have the most stable representative democracy. This provides freedom to promote change.

This small town in British Columbia put into practice two elements of direct democracy; the referendum and the initiative.

Both are under the control of the people; the town council has no choice but to respect the results.

The town is Rossland. Rossland has a population of about 3500 people. It has more people in winter because it is a popular location for skiing and snowboarding.

Rossland had one important advantage because Canada, as a solid representative democracy, provides an environment of tolerance.

I like the example of Rossland also because it is easier to start small. Before an entire country makes the transition to direct democracy, it is important to have successful “pilot projects”.

In 1980, they had problems in Rossland. The elected city council had been losing credibility because many decisions did not please voters.

Some citizens got fed up and presented a document; “A Constitution for Local Government”.

But they had to take into account that the laws of British Columbia do not help direct democracy.

The people understood that they could propose nothing that would require changing British Columbia laws. They knew a town of 3000 people had a zero chance of convincing BC legislators to change the province’s laws.

So they had to introduce a measure of direct democracy within a representative democracy tradition.

They produced a municipal “constitution”. This document had two important provisions of direct democracy; referendum and initiative.

The referendum gives give the people the final say on whatever the elected representatives decide.

The initiative gives the people the power to propose change and to force the elected representatives to act on what they propose.

With the referendum, the residents of Rossland can stop any by-law before it becomes the law of the town.

To do that, any citizen that collects the signature of 20% of registered voter will force the town to hold a referendum on the by-law. If the proposal to stop the by-law wins, then the by-law is dead in the way it is written.

This forces council members to consult and negotiate until they believe the revised version will be accepted.

The second way in which the voters of Rossland can take matters into their own hands is by a petition. Citizens can propose a by-law to city council. If 20% of registered voters sign it, then council has to hold a referendum on the draft of the by-law.

Of course, this by-law, like any other by-law, can be challenged by citizens.

The process makes voters responsible for the running of their community. If a voter, for example, push for a by-law to double the number of traffic lights in the town, they quickly learn the cost of the project and how much their taxes will go up to pay for it.

Direct democracy will not work if the majority of voters do not have enough common sense. But nothing works if that happens.

Rossland’s direct democracy measures were not proposed by any party or any group with an ideology. The only ideology was “we want to decide”. If ideology gets into the picture, the whole thing is likely to go nowhere.

I hope you like this little example of how a small town in Canada introduced two key aspects of direct democracy.

Perhaps the wise people of Rossland in the mountains of British Columbia, Canada, will inspire you. Go and visit them!

In the next blog I will give more examples.

Cheers!

 

The democracy the Greeks invented differed greatly from current democracies.

The Greeks practiced direct democracy. This means the people decided, not the elected representatives of political parties, because there were none. Not needed.

In fact, political parties are a leap backwards, they are a bit like political religions. They have “principles” (dogmas and faith that you are not allowed to question). They also turn every issue into a good vs. bad, “us” the good, “them” the bad. It is not reasonable.

Every issue has many sides. To have a preconceived idea of how to deal with it is not the best approach.

Better to first know the facts and informed opinions. Let us listen to all reasonable sides of the issue and then let us decide. No “progressive” or “conservative” ways, but solutions made by the people on the issue. Sometimes the people will be “progressive”, sometimes “conservative”. Nothing wrong with that, ideas change.

Sometimes, progressive can bad. Same goes for conservative.

In ancient Greece the people also made the laws and applied the laws.

The people also decided who would run the government, the “bureaucracy”. It would be run by ordinary citizens. When special skill or knowledge was required, the people also decided who would do the job.

There were no permanent positions in government. This meant no entrenched political elites, no professional politicians, no politicians who serve for decades, no lobbyists that often distort the flow of democracy.

When the people decide, lobbies make no sense. Business, or anyone else who wants to argue that taxes are too high, etc., will have to make the case to the voters. It is easy to see how this will eliminate a huge corruption motivator.

In ancient Greece citizens also proposed changes to laws, proposed new laws or do away with existing ones. But they had to argue their case before their fellow citizens.

I would like to listen to citizens who believe climate change is caused by human activity. I would also like to listen to the experts whose evidence backs up that position. But I also would like to listen to those who oppose them.

Once I hear their arguments, I would like to make my decision and cast my vote. I do not want others to “vote” for me. Politicians are not experts; nobody can be an expert in more than one field. I prefer to listen to the experts myself and decide by myself. I know, the majority may vote the opposite of what I vote, but that is democracy.

Would not all that be a great step forward?

Citizens also decided in Greece when to declare war, when to stop the war, who was guilty, etc., I would love to do that now too.

It makes sound sense that decisions that result in the death of thousands of fellow citizens are far more important that electing a politician. Therefore the citizens should be responsible for such decisions.

Greek direct democracy can be applied to any issue.

For example, if someone, or a group, believes that health services should be universal and paid for by taxpayer, he could propose and defend that before the people.

The people would then vote for, against, or perhaps a third alternative.

Likewise, if we have universal health service but some think that it is not good, a person or group could argue the issue before his fellow citizens.

Another health example is the case of the corona virus lockdown. Citizens in favour or against, and experts, would argue the issue before the citizens. We would would then vote.

With direct democracy there is no need to have those endless arguments among politicians. Direct decisions by the people would speed things up. There is no need for time consuming negotiations among parties, with lobbies, etc.

Direct decisions by the voters also remove from the process political electoral considerations. As we know, such considerations often have little to do with the common good.

The ancient Greeks had the key insight; better we decide for ourselves. They trusted that the majority of fellow citizens had common sense. I also have that trust.

It is possible that the majority of citizens do not have political common sense and direct democracy can collapse, that would be a problem. It did collapse in Greece. But representative democracy, which also requires a lot of common sense. Sadly, we know that sometimes it collapses too.

The majority of countries in the World are not ready for representative democracy. But that does not stop us believing representative democracy is the more civilized form of government.

In representative democracy we trust the people to select the right people to make the decisions. In direct democracy we make the decisions ourselves. It makes sense.

People sometimes say some issues are too complex to be decided by ordinary people. Well, complex technical issues can be explained by experts in ways the vast majority of citizens can understand. Is it not what they are doing with the corona virus or climate change?

I am more comfortable voting on any concrete issue, than voting to select the right leader who would decide for me. That is one of the reasons why I prefer direct democracy. Don´t you?

Direct democracy also by overcomes the problem of how the parties select the candidates, or the political marketing and packaging of candidates.

Some people say dictatorships can be more efficient than representative democracy, I disagree. Dictatorships hide the real problems; they all blow up. They are more ruthless, not more efficient.

Direct democracy, because it is direct, is even more efficient than representative democracy, IF people have the skills to make it work.

I am convinced. I have no doubt at all, that the people in stable democracies are ready to evolve towards direct democracy.

With the new technologies direct democracy can be more practical than even in ancient Greece.

What we have to work on is prepare ourselves in our schools, boroughs, villages, towns, cities, regions and countries to be capable of direct democracy, at least to the level of the ancient Greeks.

In the next blog I will give examples of direct democracy in practice right now, perhaps they are closer to you than you think.

Help spread direct democracy to make life better.

See you tomorrow.

Cheers!

 

Direct democracy means direct control by the people. The people run the show, not the elected representatives. There are no politicians or political parties either. No need for the constant fights among rival parties. There are issues, not ideological positions. Parties are permitted but are not necessary

You know that direct democracy was developed by the Ancient Greeks. Nobody else has practiced direct democracy since, nobody. The Swiss are the closest, but their democracy is semi-direct, not direct.

We like to think we are more advanced than the Ancient Greeks. Yes we are, but only in science and technology. That is important, but the way we run society is even more important.

The Greeks, somehow, overcame rule by kings and gods and decided they could rule themselves. The kings, the gods or their priests would not rule them. The gods were still there but the Greeks decided they themselves, the ordinary people, would make the laws, not the gods. No God-inspired books either to tell the Greeks how to behave.

The direct democracy of Ancient Greece is important because many among us have lost confidence in representative democracy. For a number of reasons, elected representatives have distanced themselves from those they should represent.

For me, perhaps for you too, the key factor is if direct democracy is better in practice than representative democracy.

I think it can be, if we can make it work.  Direct democracy is better because it works more in tune with the priorities of the citizens.

The key fact is not if in theory direct democracy is better; it has to be better in daily life. But direct democracy is difficult because it needs the majority of citizens with the right values and behaviours. When people are not ready, it will be foolish to expect direct democracy to work.

Representative democracy is difficult too. Representative democracy works only if the people posses the skills for it. When they don’t the country becomes corrupt and unstable. The outcome is dictatorship or anarchy. Direct democracy is more difficult because it needs even better prepared citizens.

Representative democratic societies that are not stable are not ready for direct democracy. Stable representative democracies are.

If your country is a stable representative democracy then you can already help push for switch. If your country is not a stable democracy, or is not a democracy at all, you can work to help it become ready.

Sometimes countries surprise us; perhaps they surprise themselves too, and accomplish amazing changes. For example, Taiwan, not long ago a dictatorship, is now a semi-direct democracy. Amazing!

So, if you country is ready, push! If it is not ready, to push make it ready! The people now running the country will not push for change. They are happy with the current system. Who can blame them?

OK, direct democracy sounds good, but we need more information; how did the Greeks manage to take such huge leap forward? How did they make it work for several centuries 2800 years ago? What mechanisms and institutions did they set up? How did they make the laws? Who made the laws? How were they applied? How did they prevent corruption? How did they decide who run the government? etc.

In the next blog we will look at all those things. The idea is to help make direct democracy a credible alternative for all countries.

As always, your insights and action will help reach the goal.

Cheers!

Note: Under normal circumstances I will publish a new blog every 2 days.

I read that totalitarian governments are dealing with the coronavirus crisis better than democracies.

This is wrong. It is not possible to know the facts in such countries.

I can’t believe totalitarian regimes on hardly anything. Particularly on anything that has to do with the power and prestige of the regime.

You can believe a totalitarian regime only if whatever they say can be verified by others.

Some say that such regimes can be more effective because when the top guy says; “do this!” everybody complies. It does not work that way. This is how it works;

Before the top guy issues the order someone has to give him the information. In a totalitarian system, those who have the information have to be careful. The boss may not like the bad news. This fear makes people hesitate and wait. “Maybe someone else will give him the bad news…”

Anyone can understand this sort of thinking goes against effectiveness. Effectiveness requires facts, open information up front. The totalitarian frame of mind is in fact a mental handicap, no matter how many share it.

We saw what happened in China to the doctor who first spoke up about the coronavirus. His local “top guy“  told him something like this: “That can not be true, that can not happen here, we control everything. You have to retract what you said”.

The local official thought that way because his own superiors may not like such bad news either. He felt compelled to do the irrational thing. He forced the doctor to say he had made a mistake. He forced the doctor to deny reality, but this seemed logical and rational to him.

This is like what the Church did to Galileo. On February 26, 1616, the “Holy” Inquisition (what a name!), forced Galileo to retract the facts he had found. One would expect that in 2020 this sort of madness could not happen, but it is happening.

I do not know what sort of threats the doctor received, but they had to be scary to force such courageous man to retract.

When the regime finally admitted to the problem, it had lost valuable time. Many people died and are dying around the World because of this huge management mistake.

In a democracy things are very different. The doctor would have attracted media attention. The government would have to act right away. If it did not, the consequences for those in power would be very serious.

Imagine what would happen to officials in a democracy if they forced a doctor to do the same.

It is possible that Trump and other leaders did not react as fast as they should, although it is easy to second guess. Because of the lies and misleading information from China even medical experts in the West were slow to react.

In the US, just for believing he acted too slowly, many people are jumping all over Trump. It may cost him the reelection. Nothing of that is possible in a totalitarian regime.

Even now we do not know what has happened in China, or what is happening. There could be thousands more dead, tens of thousands, we do not know. As consensus emerges in key democracies that the Chinese have been lying and continue to lie, it seems they are “admitting” to more coronavirus cases. Such “admissions” are worthless because nothing they say has credibility.

If things get uncomfortable, the Chinese regime may even execute a few officials in Wuhan. They could be same officials who pressured the doctor; such are the crazy ways of totalitarian regimes.

I read the doctor has already been “rehabilitated”. Those who forced the doctor to recant may be the ones getting nervous now. Unfortunately, the doctor has passed away. They say he became infected with the virus. I do not know if that is true either.

No matter what it does, the regime will not change its ways. It can not. It is not in its nature. Next time the same thing will happen.

Conclusion: totalitarian regimes are far worse than democracies to deal with crisis because they do not face the facts.

In democracies, the people, the elected representatives and the judiciary can punish officials. They will also be criticized by independent media. It is suicidal for a politician in a democracy to do what the Chinese leaders do.

Some people point out that the Chinese regime acted swiftly. It is obvious that it did not. It acted swiftly AFTER wasting valuable time. The delay costed thousands of lives in China and around the World, some swiftness!

But since this is a blog about direct democracy, I want to add a few comments.

In a direct democracy the people have more power to know the truth. The government has fewer “political” calculations than in representative democracy. Such calculations can slow down decision making and lose sight of the common good.

In direct democracy there are no political parties. Elections are to elect ordinary citizens who serve for a time and then go back to their regular jobs. No political organizations behind them. This means there is far less political calculation.

In direct democracy the people could remove anyone from power at any time.

In direct democracy the people are more involved in the running of society. They have more rights and also more responsibilities. If a lockdown is ordered they are more likely to obey, because the institutions have more credibility.

Even to decide if the lockdown is necessary the people directly can decide in a matter of days.

Panels of experts can discuss it on national television, internet video and other media. The people will reflect on what they learned and then vote electronically. In a matter of minutes the results can be known.

If credit cards are secure to buy online, voter ID can also be secure online.

My conclusion is that representative democracy is far better than totalitarian regimes. Direct democracy is better than representative democracy.

Democracy is better than a totalitarian regimen in any country, IF it knows how to make it work. Sadly, the majority of humanity is not prepared for democracy. As a result they “govern themselves” with all sorts of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.

But even most of those who have democracy are unstable and corrupt. In spite of that, at least the people have the power and the freedom to change who rules.

For representative democracy to work, people need the education, the values and behaviours that it requires. Direct democracy requires that citizens be even better prepared.

In my opinion, all the stable representative democracies are ready for the transition to semi direct democracy.

It is amazing and surprising that 2800 years later, no country in the World has been able to replicate Ancient Greek direct democracy. But I believe we are ready to catch up with and surpass the Greeks. This modest blog tries to contribute to that goal. I hope you do too, anywhere you are and also here with your input.

See you soon.

Cheers!

Note: Under normal circumstances I will publish a new blog every 2 days.