‘Switzerland is the gold standard for direct democracy’
Direct democracy in action: A committee hands in boxes with lists of signatures it gathered to force a nationwide vote on its initiative
Keystone
No country on earth is more democratic than Switzerland. So says the Uruguayan political scientist David Altman. As co-leader of a big international research project to measure and compare democracy in 200 countries, he should know. Is Altman a passionate advocate of direct democracy? Not exactly, as became clear in conversation.
This content was published on
7 minutes
Renat Künzi, swissinfo.ch
Deutsch
de
“Schweiz ist der Goldstandard der direkten Demokratie”
Original
Comparative politics is David Altman’s job. The professor at Pontificia Universidad Católica in Chile is co-leader of the research project V-Dem, in which a group of 3,000 researchers has established 400 indicators to monitor democracy in 200 countries (for details, see box below). In 2014 he published the book “Direct Democracy Worldwide.”
AltmanExternal link was recently invited by a colleague to speak to students at the University of Bern. swissinfo.ch met him beforehand.
swissinfo.ch: Wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, conflict in Ukraine, a refugee crisis in Europe, deterioration in Turkey: Given this gloomy outlook, is there any good news about democracy?
David Altman: In some places there is progress, in others, regression. Democracy is a very diffuse collection of instruments and mechanisms to reach decisions: Initiatives, referendums, plebiscites, the right to make counter-proposals, etc.
David Altman is a professor of political science at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. He also serves at associate researcher for Uruguay’s national research and innovation agency.
Altman is the author of Direct Democracy Worldwide and leads the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project.
wilsoncenter.org/David Owen Hawxhurst
There is no linear upward development towards progress. If we don’t nurture these institutions, one day they vanish.
swissinfo.ch: What impresses you about direct democracy in Switzerland? What troubles you?
D.A.: Switzerland is to a certain extent the gold standard of direct democracy. Here, each citizen can change each aspect of life. Of course not acting alone, but only if they belong to a group.
If we look at the scope of direct democracy on a national, cantonal and communal level, Switzerland is the most democratic country in the world.
People who do not understand the significance of the direct democracy institutions and federalism do not understand Switzerland. At stations and in trains, the announcements are multilingual, and everyone understands them. Switzerland is an example of how a multi-ethnic society can work.
The Swiss have always been sensible, sober and adult. They have long experience with these institutions. The way they combine and interlock representative and direct democracy is very clever.
But direct democracy isn’t without problems and tensions. The dark side is that some groups trying to advance their own agendas can abuse it.
swissinfo.ch: Is there any other country where the will of the people is given as high priority as it is in Switzerland?
D.A.: No. But there is very pronounced direct democracy in some US states. For example California, but above all in Washington and Oregon.
As with all institutions, direct democracy can be used correctly or it can be abused. It can lead to unintended consequences or negative external effects. A majority can reach a bad or even abhorrent decision. The process is one thing, the content of the decision another.
swissinfo.ch: How do you regard this prioritising the will of the people above all else? Does it need to be limited?
D.A.: Modern democracy is a combination of three great lines of thinking:
One of these is Athenian democracy with the principle of the absolute majority; one is the republicanism of ancient Rome, in which opposing forces control each other, the other is the British and French form of liberalism.
If there is no opposing force to the principle of majority, then it is easily possible for a tyranny of the majority to develop, which can tip over into a dictatorship. The principle of majority and the sovereignty of the people therefore needs to be controlled. This, too, is achieved by the people, in the form of laws.
The rule of law is decisive. It lays down rights, which can’t be limited or withdrawn. The Swiss can’t reintroduce slavery. Or the death penalty. No way.
A recent case involved the ban on minarets. It showed how the will of the majority can stand in opposition to individual rights. It is important to be extremely careful. Power to the people: That sounds very good! But only under certain conditions and within certain limits.
swissinfo.ch: Who should set these limits and when?
D.A.: There are several options. It is important that a body such as the constitutional court can examine decisions before they are reached or after.
The latter model is used in the United States, for example. A complaint can lead to the withdrawal of a referendum decision.
swissinfo.ch: You mentioned the initiative for a ban on minarets, which Swiss voters approved in 2009. What do you think of the Swiss People’s Party and its policy of setting the will of the people above all else? The conservative right party even explicitly sets it above international law?
D.A.: I don’t like it at all. Yet they have the right to do that. The instruments of direct democracy are available to all.
Whenever someone calls loudly for direct democracy, I always say the following:
‘Stop and close your eyes! If you like the idea of direct democracy, then imagine your biggest political enemies and how they would campaign for a proposal that you don’t like at all. Every now and then, a proposal like that makes it through the ballot box. Are you prepared to accept the decision of the people? If you answer yes, then you are ready for the democratic game. If you say no, then you are not.’
The People’s Party can follow its own political agenda. Other parties also use direct democracy to grab headlines and win voters. They play the direct-democracy card to improve their standing in the competition for representative democracy.
The People’s Party has been successful in pushing its demands to the vote. However, in most cases, Swiss citizens were wise enough to reject their initiatives at the ballot box.
swissinfo.ch: In Europe and the US, many citizens are losing their faith in establishment politics. Could direct democracy be a suitable cure to win back this trust?
D.A.: In part. With people’s initiatives and referendums I can register my opinion. It is very healthy if people are collecting signatures because they feel the government isn’t taking them sufficiently seriously, or because they want to change the constitution. It can strengthen the love between citizens and politicians.
If, however, a ruler is demanding me to re-elect him for the nth time via plebiscite, I have to say no to that very loudly. Plebiscites are the dark side of direct democracy.
The instruments shouldn’t all be judged in the same way. Some secure the power of the people. Others, however, are the instruments of the powerful, and can be very dangerous.
Direct democracy can have many colours and flavours, both positive and negative.
V-Dem
Name: Varieties of Democracy
One of the biggest international research projects of the last years.
Goal: Precise measurement of democracy in all its forms.
Team: 3,000 researchers, led by 20 professors.
Measuring instruments: 400 indicators (200 objective, 200 subjective. The latter are weighted fivefold.)
Measuring: The quality of democracy in 200 countries over 120 years.
Publication: December 31, 2015, in the form of a global database with 15 million pieces of data in the Internet. Access is free to all.
Target audience: Politicians, business, civil society and academic disciplines such as political studies, sociology and history etc.
Translated from German by Catherine Hickley
Popular Stories
More
Workplace Switzerland
Meet the foreigners who make up a quarter of the Swiss population
What can be done to protect biodiversity in your country?
Swiss voters are set to decide on a people’s initiative calling for better protection of ecosystems in the country. Have your say on the September 22 vote.
If you want to start a conversation about a topic raised in this article or want to report factual errors, email us at english@swissinfo.ch.
Read more
More
Democracy is the ‘best of all bad forms of government’
This content was published on
Can Swiss direct democracy handle the complexity of some of society's current problems? swissinfo.ch talks to political scientists Claude Longchamp and Martina Imfeld about the state of direct democracy in Switzerland.
This content was published on
German-speaking neighbours have been to Switzerland twice this year. Back in March a delegation from the German state of Baden-Württemberg came to follow the federal elections first-hand. Then in May the Austrian vice chancellor, Michael Spindelegger, travelled with Swiss Foreign Minister Didier Burkhalter to the Landsgemeinde, or citizens’ assembly, which meets once a year in…
Swiss democracy at risk from populism, media and globalisation
This content was published on
At stake are extended citizen participation in the management of public affairs and the autonomy of the local policy decision process, he says in an interview with swissinfo. The 51-year-old expert on Islam in Switzerland is a former member of the local parliament for the leftwing Social Democratic Party in the town of Romont in…
‘Initiatives must not be an excuse to play with fire‘
This content was published on
Idealising the sovereign rights of the people is taking its toll on Swiss democracy, says philosopher Katja Gentinetta. Many disgruntled voters are not aware of the political impact of controversial initiatives approved at the ballot box.
She argues that political and economic developments, notably a trend towards globalisation over the past 20 years, have changed Switzerland’s political culture.
swissinfo.ch: Swiss citizens can decide on political issues more than any other in the world. Are you proud of this?
Katja Gentinetta: It is not a question of pride because I had no role in it. The right to vote and elect is a gift of history. It is something singular that deserves being acknowledged and taken care of by active participation.
swissinfo.ch: There is a strong trend among younger people to take an interest in vintage things and old values. Is the system of direct democracy, which gives the people the final say, – and which the rightwing Swiss People’s Party virtually declares as absolute – the transformation of this phenomenon into politics?
K.G.: On the contrary. This party is including the communication tools of the modern media society very consistently in its political work. It is not resorting to the past but using new possibilities. Traditional Switzerland is at the centre of course but this is another story…
swissinfo.ch: You have described voters’ approval of immigration curbs on February 2014 as a ‘tyranny of the minority’. How can a direct democratic decision become a ‘tyranny of the minority’?
K.G.: I meant the Swiss People’s Party, which is supported by only about 30% of voters. But with such initiatives it succeeds in in winning a majority – albeit an extremely thin majority.
This is one of the key issues of the system. Direct democracy depends on no single political party having absolute power but the need to find compromises with other parties.
The People’s Party, which is very successful at the moment, systematically aims for the majority, using problematic people’s initiatives.
swissinfo.ch: Why is the party so successful with its political power play against the government, parliament and other political players, which used to be decisive?
K.G.: The world has changed a lot in the past two decades that’s for sure.
Voters in 1992 rejected a proposal for Switzerland to join the European Economic Area – a halfway house of European Union membership. We live in a globalised world where borders and markets have become more open.
It is also a world where it is no longer possible to a separate domestic and foreign policy according to strict rules.
For a long time foreign policy used to be in the hands of the Radical Party, while the People’s Party dominated the agricultural issues. This is no longer possible nowadays with the World Trade Organization being the key player.
The People’s Party was most successful in going back to its grassroots. It has continually recruited personnel over the past two decades and sent it out to talk to the people. What’s more it has had great financial means to this day.
These 20 years have changed Switzerland’s political culture.
swissinfo.ch: What about the other parties?
K.G.: It would not be fair to put the ‘blame’ on the People’s Party only. The others also pursued a policy in their own interest. The questions are: Why are they weaker? Did they have the wrong methods? Was their profile too low? Or did they not have enough money?
The growing complexity in a globalised world did certainly play a part. People tend to be intimidated by it and become unhappy.
It is easier to play on fears in politics than to point out possibilities and new options.
swissinfo.ch: Figures show that Switzerland has done better than its European neighbours in a globalised economy following the 2008/09 financial crisis.
K.G.: Until that point the reasoning was ‘If it’s good for the economy it’s good for Switzerland’.
But this no longer applies since the state had to save the bank UBS from collapse, and voters approved of caps on excessive manager salaries.
These two developments have marked a turning point in Swiss politics and we still have not learned to cope with.
swissinfo.ch: Switzerland as a multi-cultural country has a democracy with a carefully-balanced system which ensures compromise, common sense, security, cohesion, stability and prosperity. Is it necessary to fine-tune this system of checks and balances?
K.G.: It is a fundamental question. I do not want to limit the system of direct democracy and even less abolish it.
Still, in my opinion a proposal by the former Federal Chancellor Annemarie Huber-Hotz is highly commendable for Switzerland: to go back to the roots of the initiatives.
The right to call for a constitutional amendment was introduced in 1891 to give those parts of society, which are not sufficiently represented in parliament and administration a way to influence politics. It was not meant as a tool for political parties in power.
I’d like to add the idea of a constitutional court even though it is something unimaginable.
The French political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville’s work, Democracy in America, [published in 1835 and 1840] remains a brilliant analysis to this day. He concludes that democracy is a wonderful institution as long as it has brakes built in. The constitutional court is such a brake that can stop such things, which he described as ‘tyranny of the majority’.
swissinfo.ch: When exactly is this brake supposed to apply?
K.G.: Certain principles are non-negotiable according to the constitutional court.
The Swiss system suffers from an idealisation of the principle that the people are sovereign.
It is taken for granted that the people can and must have the final say on everything.
The discussion currently focuses on whether national or international law should be given priority.
This is ultimately the question. Can we and should we vote democratically on human rights and how can they be applied.
The limits have been reached in the debate. We need such limits to agree on the basics in our society.
swissinfo.ch: You are saying that consensus and compromise are no longer the cornerstones of Swiss politics. Instead it is a trend towards more radicalism and more populism. What can we do to strengthen compromise and consensus in the face of the successful People’s Party with its highly antagonising political proposals?
K.G.: All political actors, that is the governments and parliaments on national, cantonal and communal levels, as well as the parties, political associations and organisations and, not least of all, the citizens have to start thinking what type of Switzerland they want and what the preconditions are to achieve that goal.
One thing is clear. Initiatives with an impact on the constitution must not be an excuse to play with fire and or to teach somebody a lesson.
Angry Swiss voters who seek to vent their frustration, probably inspired by citizens in other countries, are unaware of the consequences. They don’t teach any lessons but they approve a constitutional amendment.
It is time to learn once again the difference and to better acknowledge the impact of such ballot box decisions.
swissinfo.ch: Is Switzerland’s democracy facing a turning point?
K.G.: I think so. By the very fact that the debate over initiatives has taken on a new quality. And this is a good thing.
Katja Gentinetta
Gentinatta has been working as an independent political consultant for companies, organisations and individuals together with her business partner Heike Scholten since 2011.
She has written several books about the welfare state and Switzerland’s policy on Europe and currently teaches as a lecturer at Swiss universities and colleges.
Geninetta has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Zurich University and has studied in Paris and Salzburg, Austria, and at Harvard.
She also presented an intellectual talk show on public television and was a leading member of the think-tank Avenir Suisse in Zurich.
ʻDirect democracy is sometimes like an internet forumʼ
This content was published on
The Swiss approach voting with a refreshing “studious enthusiasm”, jokes Swiss cartoonist Patrick Chappatte. However, over the past 15 years direct democracy has become a weapon used by manipulators and populists, he warns.
You can find an overview of ongoing debates with our journalists here . Please join us!
If you want to start a conversation about a topic raised in this article or want to report factual errors, email us at english@swissinfo.ch.