While many public votes are held in Switzerland, it is not the only country with instruments like popular initiatives and referendums.
Many states – some democratic, others not – hold referendums at the local or national levels. Have you ever experienced one? Let us know in the debate below.
When lies took the vote: ____Lessons from the peace referendum in Colombia (2016)____On 2 October 2016, Colombia experienced one of the most paradoxical moments in its recent history: a country yearning for an end to more than 50 years of armed conflict voted overwhelmingly against the peace agreement with the FARC. The result was close (50.2 per cent ‘No’ versus 49.8 per cent ‘Yes’), but the consequences were profound. What happened? The answer lies not only at the ballot box, but also on screens and in the manipulation machinery of much of the mainstream press, which in Colombia is owned by economic groups aligned with the traditional right.____The disinformation machine____Subsequent investigations identified disinformation as the “main culprit” behind the unexpected result. During the campaign, false claims circulated widely on social media and managed to take hold among the electorate:____ The myth was spread that the agreement imposed a ‘gender ideology’ in schools; according to this fake news, this would lead to the destruction of the family and induce children to become homosexual!! Evangelical churches and the right wing manipulated the text to instil panic amongst conservative families.__ __False rumours circulated about lifetime pensions for guerrilla commanders and the surrender of national sovereignty to international organisations.__ __High-profile political leaders, including former President Álvaro Uribe, used their platforms to amplify these unverified messages, deliberately and in bad faith sowing doubt and fear through their lies.____The digital ecosystem as a battlefield____Unlike traditional campaigns, this battle was fought on WhatsApp, Facebook and Twitter. Chains of private messages allowed fake news to spread without the filters of journalistic verification, creating parallel realities in which the peace agreement was portrayed as a betrayal of justice and sovereignty.____Studies on the Colombian case warn that this phenomenon was no accident, but a deliberate strategy in which political actors exploited the architecture of social media to polarise society. Emotion trumped evidence, and fear proved more viral than hope.____Lessons for democracy____The case of Colombia has become a global warning about how disinformation can erode democratic processes. The Colombian experience demonstrates that, in the digital age, the truth is at a disadvantage when competing against emotional narratives designed to go viral.____Today, as other countries face similar challenges, the lesson is clear: defending democracy requires not only informed citizens, but also responsible platforms and robust fact-checking mechanisms. The peace agreement was finally ratified by Congress in November 2016, but the wounds inflicted by digital manipulation took longer to heal.____Today, the right has regained power in Colombia, and society seems to have once again forgotten the lies and fallen prey to disinformation. Let us not forget that in the very same year as the referendum in Colombia, Brexit took place and Trump won his first term – all with the help of algorithms and social media!____Are we learning from these lessons, or are we continuing to allow lies to vote for us?
Cuando las mentiras votaron: ____Lecciones del referendo de paz en Colombia (2016)____El 2 de octubre de 2016, Colombia vivió uno de los momentos más paradójicos de su historia reciente: un país que anhelaba el fin de más de 50 años de conflicto armado votó mayoritariamente en contra del acuerdo de paz con las FARC. El resultado fue ajustado (50,2% "No" frente a 49,8% "Sí"), pero las consecuencias fueron profundas. ¿Qué pasó La respuesta no está solo en las urnas, sino en las pantallas y en la maquinaria de manipulación de buena parte de la prensa ofical que en Colombia pertenece a grupos economicos de la derecha tradicional.____La maquinaria de la desinformación____Investigaciones posteriores identificaron a la desinformación como el "principal culpable" del resultado inesperado. Durante la campaña, circularon masivamente en redes sociales afirmaciones falsas que lograron calar en el electorado:____ Se difundió el mito de que el acuerdo imponía una "ideología de género" en las escuelas, segun estas noticias falsas se delararia la destrucción de la familia y se induciria a los niños a volverse hmosexuales!! Las iglesias evangelicas y la derecha manipulaeon el texto para generar pánico en familias conservadoras.__ __Circularon rumores falsos sobre pensiones vitalicias para comandantes guerrilleros y la entrega de soberanía nacional a organismos internacionales.__ __Líderes políticos de alto perfil, incluyendo al expresidente Álvaro Uribe, utilizaron sus plataformas para amplificar estos mensajes sin verificación, generando de muy mala fé y conscientes de sus mentiras la duda y el miedo.____El ecosistema digital como campo de batalla____A diferencia de campañas tradicionales, esta batalla se libró en WhatsApp, Facebook y Twitter. Las cadenas de mensajes privados permitieron que las noticias falsas se propagaran sin filtros de verificación periodística, creando realidades paralelas donde el acuerdo de paz se pintaba como una traición a la justicia y la soberanía.____Estudios sobre el caso colombiano advierten que este fenómeno no fue un accidente, sino una estrategia deliberada donde actores políticos aprovecharon la arquitectura de las redes sociales para polarizar a la sociedad. La emoción superó a la evidencia, y el miedo resultó más viral que la esperanza.____Lecciones para la democracia____El caso de Colombia se ha convertido en una advertencia global sobre cómo la desinformación puede erosionar procesos democráticos. La experiencia colombiana demuestra que, en la era digital, la verdad compite en desventaja contra narrativas emocionales diseñadas para viralizarse.____Hoy, mientras otros países enfrentan desafíos similares, la lección es clara: la defensa de la democracia requiere no solo ciudadanos informados, sino también plataformas responsables y mecanismos robustos de verificación de hechos. La paz se firmó finalmente en noviembre de 2016 mediante el Congreso, pero las heridas abiertas por la manipulación digital tardaron más en sanar.____Hoy la derecha gano de nuevo el poder en Colombia y la sociedad al parecer olvido de nuevo las mentiras y cayo en la desinformación. No olvidemos que el mismo año del plebiscito en Colombia ocurrio el Brexit y Trump gano su primer mandato. y todo con ayuda de los algoritmos y las redes sociales!____¿Estamos aprendiendo de estas lecciones o seguimos permitiendo que las mentiras voten por nosotros
Good afternoon, Mr Munoz, Thank you very much for your passionate account! If you are asking how we can learn from this, I would also be curious to know what lessons you hope to draw from it? After all, the presence of biased and, in some cases, misleading information cannot be prevented. Do you therefore also hope to see greater media literacy?
Guten Tag Herr Munoz, Vielen Dank für Ihre engagierte Schilderung! Wenn Sie fragen, wie wir daraus lernen, nähme mich aber auch wunder, auf welche Lehren sie hoffen? Die Präsenz von parteilicher und teils irreführender Information kann ja nicht unterbunden werden. Hoffen Sie entsprechend auch auf mehr Medienkompetenz
It is very hard to see your country move towards authocracy. But this is what is happening in Lithuania in real time. And the situation with referendums is the best barrometer. ____I was a part of a group that was trying to initiate referendums in Lithuania for over a year. We’ve tried to start collecting signatures for 13 initiatives as of right now. Only one was registered by the central electoral commission (in Lithuania it is needed a decision of the central electoral commission (CEC) to register a referendum initiative in order to start collecting 300000 signatures (~13% of voters)). And courts support these decisions of CEC not to register because in 2022 new constitutional referendum law was passed which now requires referendum proposals to be “clear” and “comply with the Constitution” and CEC decided on this. Thus CEC, which is made from representatives of state authority (parties in parliament, president, etc), now finds every proposal to be not “clear” or not “in compliance with the Constitution”. Even proposed changes to the Constitution that for over 30 years were registered and were clear like reducing the number of required signatures to start a referendum. ____The one referendum that was registered is a separate case. It was inspired by the Swiss referendum initiative on cash. The referendum initiative was registered in October, but signatures we started collecting only in February, even though by the law it should have started in a week. After registration of the initiative we learned that CEC printed signature collection sheets that broke EU General Data Protection Regulation and made us “controller” of these paper (not electronic) sheets. Thus making us responsible for GDPR breach and open to fines of up to 20 million euros. __After it was fixed and new signature collection sheets were printed we learned that we won't be allowed to see who signed electronically, even though the law says so. Thus the court which had to say just that law says what it says and ordered CEC to give us access. Access was still not given thus had to ask of a court order. After which CEC decided to give access to electronic signatures, but not to a whole group as law requires, but just to two group representatives. Again the court had to say that group means group. So full access was given just on March 10th.__Then there was an issue of group bank account - CEC said to open a personal account and use it as a group (by law it should be a group). __Then many CEC answers that (we suppose deliberately) given by breaking procedures that are in law. Thus simple answer that by law should take 20 days extends to 4-5 months. And there is only 6 months to collect signatures.__And on top of that CEC decided that information about referendum initiative like where to sign or giving bank account number for donations is political agitation/advertising. Even though the law explicitly says that it is not. Thus the media is afraid to mention about initiative as they dont want to get fines. The court refused to take this case as … someone needs to get fined first. So the result of this limbo is that information about initiative can not be spread by media and there are no donations using which political advertising can be ordered. __… and on top of all this, this month we’ve got a new law under which election and referendum observers were stripped of their rights and CEC were given the ability to fine observers for “misleading information”. These changes were initiated because during last parliament and president elections observers, using information given by electoral commissions themselves found many breaches in election vote count. Like there were printed an extra 30 percent of voting ballots which were without numbers, some ballots disappeared from accounting and so on.
That’s a striking account – and, put like that, it really does sound as though obstacles are being placed in the way of referendums...
Das ist eine eindrückliche Schilderung - und tönt in der Form wirklich, als würden Volksabstimmungen einige Steine in den Weg gelegt werden...
In Uruguay in 1917, our Constitution established a collegiate executive branch comprising 11 members from the two main political parties, as well as the institution of the referendum for amending laws and the plebiscite for amending the Constitution. The collegiate executive branch was reformed in the middle of the century and is currently composed of the President of the Republic and ministers. The plebiscite is used whenever there is an attempt to amend the Constitution. It was also used by the military during the last de facto government, but they lost and handed over power. The referendum has been used on several occasions. The right has always respected the results, whereas the left has not. We, the citizens of Uruguay, resolved an issue by voting twice in the same way, amidst a massive propaganda campaign by the left. As they did not like the result, the left-wing government passed a law that provided for the opposite of what the citizens had decided on two occasions. This unconstitutional law is being enforced by the Judiciary.
En Uruguay en 1917, nuestra Constitución establecía un Poder Ejecutivo colegiado integrado por 11 miembros de los dos partidos mayoritarios, además del instituto del referéndum para modificar leyes y plebiscito para modificar la Constitución. El Poder Ejecutivo colegiado modificado a mitad de siglo estando actualmente integrado por el Presidente de la República y Ministros. El instrumento del plebiscito se utiliza cada vez que se pretende modificar la Constitución. Lo utilizaron también los militares en el último gobierno de facto pero lo perdieron y entregaron el poder. El referéndum ha sido utilizado varias veces. La derecha siempre respetó los resultados en cambio la izquierda no. Los ciudadanos uruguayos resolvimos un tema votando dos veces en el mismo sentido, bajo una enorme propaganda de la izquierda. Cómo no les gustó el resultado, el gobierno de izquierda votó una ley que dispuso lo contrario a lo resuelto por los ciudadanos dos veces. Está ley inconstitucional está siendo aplicada por el Poder Judicial.
Thank you very much for sharing your perspective! I assume you yourself voted in those recent referendums? As I understand it, the high turnout threshold of 50% in Uruguay also plays a role – was it partly due to this hurdle that the referendums you described failed?
Vielen Dank für die Schilderung Ihrer Perspektive! Ich nehme an, Sie selbst haben bei den letzteren Abstimmungen mitgestimmt? So wie ich es verstehe, spielt das hohe Beteiligungsquorum von 50% in Uruguay auch eine Rolle - lag es auch an dieser Hürde, dass die von Ihnen geschilderten Abstimmungen gescheitert sind
Public opinion, and the vote, are becoming increasingly susceptible to manipulation. Referendums demand a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ – it’s black or white; they divide opinion into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ and vice versa – a simplification that aids manipulation. It is easy to stir up emotions in one direction or another, especially in this age of algorithms and slogans. __In a small country like Switzerland, this might be useful.__In other countries, I have my doubts.
La opinión pública, el voto, es cada vez más manipulable. Los referéndums piden un sí o un no, es blanco o negro, dividen la opinión entre buenos y malos y viceversa, una simplificación que ayuda a la manipulació, es fácil generar emociones en uno u otro sentido sobre todo en los tiempos de los algoritmos y los slogans. __En un país pequeño como Suiza, puede ser útil.__En otros países, tengo muchas dudas..
Thank you very much for sharing your perspective. You are, of course, right that in referendums one must always clearly take one side or the other – but citizens always have the opportunity to express their views. What, then, do you see as a better alternative to ensure that citizens feel their voices are being heard?
Vielen Dank für die Schilderung Ihrer Perspektive. Sie haben natürlich recht, dass man bei Volksabstimmungen immer klar die eine oder andere Position vertreten muss - aber immer gibt es den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern die Möglichkeit, ihre Position zu vertreten. Was sehen Sie denn als bessere Alternative dafür, dass sich die Bürgerinnen und Bürger gehört fühlen
Personally, I like Mr Orban. Obviously, not on every point. But given that the EU and NATO never honour the agreements and proposals between Russia and Ukraine, it will never work. Too much money is at stake, too much is being invested in weapons, instead of boosting investment in developing countries. These large-scale migrations are dangerous, both for the countries of origin and for those receiving people with such different lifestyles, political views and religions.
Pour ma part, M, Orban, me plait. Évidemment , par sur tous les points. Mais le fait que l'UE et l'OTAN, ne respecte jamais les accords et propositions entre la Russie et l'Ukraine, cela ne fonctionnera jamais. Trop d'argent en jeu , trop d'investissement dans les armes, au lieu de renforcer les investissements dans les pays en développement . Ces fortes migrations sont dangereuses , autant pour les pays d'origine que pour ceux qui accueillent des modes de vie , de politiques et religions tellement différentes.
Hello, ____This is about your experiences with referendums. Would you like to share them?
Guten Tag, ____Hier geht es um Ihre Erfahrungen mit Referenden. Wollen Sie diese teilen
I believe that holding a referendum is a valid form of democracy, which allows questions to be put to the people in order to make or ratify a decision on a particular issue.__However, such referendums must meet certain conditions to be valid and taken into account; a fundamental element is the turnout rate. In a referendum where the turnout does not reach even 1% of the electoral roll, it CANNOT BE VALIDATED AS GENUINE, ____In my country, cases such as this have occurred, and governments, in their complete disregard and ignorance of these principles, have declared referendums valid in order to scupper projects involving huge investments (such as the Mexico City port), supposedly to manage and develop projects more effectively.____Personally, I find it hard to comprehend the damage caused to the country, its people, the public purse and progress, due to a resentful and ill-intentioned leader; unfortunately, that is the price we must pay for having politicians who are not true stewards of a country’s growth structure.____How wonderful it would be to have referendums with genuine citizen participation, rather than just ‘sham’ referendums,
Considero que el hacer un referendum, es un forma valida de la democracia, que permite hacer preguntas al pueblo para tomar o validar una decisón en un determinado tema.__Sin emgargo esos referendums deben tener ciertas condiciones para ser validos y ser tomados en cuenta, un elemento fundamental es el porcentaje de participacion, en un refrendum en donde el porcentaje participante no llega ni al 1% delpadron electoral, NO PUEDE SER VALIDADO COMO REAL, ____En mi pais casos como ese, se han llevado a cabo y los gobiernos en un total, desapego e ignorancia de esos valores, han marcado como validos referendums para hechar por tierra proyectos con inmensas inversiones, (caso earpuerto de la cuidad de méxico ), para segun ellos gestionar una mejor forma de contar y desarrollar proyectos.____En lo personal, me cuesta trabajo entender el daño al pais, a sus habitantes, al erario y al progreso, por causa de un gobernante resentido y mal intencionado, desgraciadamente ese es el precio que hay que pagar por contar con politicos que no son verdaderos gestionadores de la estructura de crecimiento de un pais.____Que bueno seria tener referendums, con verdaderas participacionesde los ciudadanos y no solo "simulaciones" de referendums,
Dear Roberto Fdz ____Thank you very much for your account from Mexico! Indeed, there are many countries that use referendums in such a dubious manner. ____My colleague Domhnall O'Sullivan has just been looking at the example of Hungary: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/global-elections/how-direct-democracy-became-part-of-orbáns-illiberal-toolkit-in-hungary/91149629____Leider has not (yet?) been published in Spanish. There are also many other examples of how referendums are used for specific purposes in states that are not fully democratic. You can find out more in this article: __https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/elecciones-globales/claves-para-que-un-referéndum-sea-justo/90972843____Was What do you think: can the instruments currently in place in Mexico still bring about change?
Lieber Roberto Fdz ____Vielen Dank für Ihre Schilderung aus Mexiko! Tatsächlich gibt es viele Länder, die Referenden eben auf eine solche zweifelhafte Art einsetzen. ____Mein Kollege Domhnall O'Sullivan hat sich gerade mit dem Beispiel Ungarn befasst: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/global-elections/how-direct-democracy-became-part-of-orbáns-illiberal-toolkit-in-hungary/91149629____Leider ist der (noch?) nicht auf Spanisch erschienen. Auch sonst gibt es viele Beispiele, wie Referenden in nicht komplett demokratischen Staaten für einen bestimmten Zweck eingesetzt werden. Mehr darüber erfahren Sie in diesem Artikel: __https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/elecciones-globales/claves-para-que-un-referéndum-sea-justo/90972843____Was denken Sie: Können die Instrumente, wie sie gegenwärtig in Mexiko existieren, trotzdem eine Veränderung bewirken
In Australia voting for referenda is compulsory for all citizens unlike Switzerland where it is optional. At the referendum last year a Swiss academic wrote in Swiss Info wrote that the result was not democratic when it was in fact more democratic than any question put in Switzerland. The referendum was about giving aborigines a privilege in deciding all government legislation and putting that into the constitution.. Over 60% of all citizens voted NO and all states by majority voted NO. How can dividing a country in ethic groups and give one group privilege be democratic. The NO vote should have been higher if it had been explained properly. The Yes vote was backed by the Socialist Labor party (ALP), by academics at University (who tend in majority to be socialists), the trade unions (who are socialist in majority) and some elite business people. It is thought by NO voters that socialists would be able to manipulate the small ethnic groups of less than 1% of the population for political purposes. __In Australia voting for elections to parliament is compulsory, and uses the preferential counting so voters can choose who they do not want to represent them. The problem with the Australian system is there is not enough referenda to settle important constitutional issues such as on energy exploitation
Dear Peter 1, ____Thank you very much for sharing your perspective. You seem to be referring to this article from 2023: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/a-defeat-not-only-for-aboriginal-people-but-also-for-australian-democracy/48895044 __Is that correct? Just so that everyone reading this has the context. ____I would like to ask you why you see this decision as more democratic “than any other issue put to a vote in Switzerland”? This is not yet entirely clear to me from your description.
Lieber Peter 1, ____Vielen Dank für das Schildern Ihrer Perspektive. Sie scheinen sich auf diesen Artikel von 2023 zu beziehen: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/a-defeat-not-only-for-aboriginal-people-but-also-for-australian-democracy/48895044 __Ist das korrekt? Einfach damit alle, die mitlesen, den Kontext auch haben. ____Gerne wollte ich Sie fragen, warum Sie den Entscheid als demokratischer sehen "als jede andere in der Schweiz zur Abstimmung gestellte Frage"? Dies wird mir aus Ihrer Schilderung noch nicht ganz klar.
Yes that was the article and I wrote to one of your journalists about it. The Swiss person was an academic at one of the Australian universities. He did not understand the Australian constitution or the the Australian psyche of fairness. There is no racism in Australia any more than criminal activity in comparison to Europe or USA. __My comment about more democratic should have been clear. In Australia voting is compulsory and secret for all citizens (they are fined for not attending a voting place or not putting in an official postal vote if they can not attend eg out of the country or in hospital) Citizens do not have to mark a voting paper -statistics over years of elections and referenda show that spoilt voting papers are in the range of 2 to 5%. Switzerland gets turn outs about 60% for their referenda. The voting can be swayed by active political groups of as little as 30% of the population. That is not democracy. Do you really think Herr Hitler was democratically elected? The problem with Australia is that all political parties do not want to ask the public of their views. If there was a referendum on immigration 80% of the public would vote for it to be restricted to small numbers less than 100,000 per year (0.5% of population). On so-called climate change at least 70% would say nothing should be done and get rid of net zero CO2. Note I am a professional engineer that knows about thermodynamics and I was an immigrant in 1952.
Thank you very much for your comments. The key factor in determining whether referendums – or elections – are democratic is whether they are free and fair. Indeed, low voter turnout is a problem in Swiss democracy; it is actually just under 60%. As you may know, the canton of Schaffhausen is the only canton that also has compulsory voting, and of course the political scientist could have highlighted the high turnout in that article. ____The fact is, however, that different referendum issues in Switzerland mobilise different people. The crucial thing is that they know they can go to the polls if they wish to. We recently took an in-depth look at the factors for fair referendums here: https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/globale-wahlen/das-braucht-es-damit-ein-referendum-fair-ist/90932690____Zu In their concluding remarks: Switzerland has a referendum on immigration in June; the outcome is uncertain, but it is unlikely to secure 80% approval: https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/schweizer-politik/no-10-million-switzerland-should-switzerland-limit-its-population/91165182____Similarly, the Swiss population regularly votes on climate and environmental protection measures – for example, in 2023, when it approved the net-zero target by 2050 with just under 60% of the vote: swissinfo.ch/ger/economy/climate-neutral-by-2050-switzerland-expected-to-approve-climate-protection-law/48592404____As you are no doubt aware, climate change is not disputed by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.
Vielen Dank für Ihre Ausführungen. Entscheidend für die Beurteilung, ob Referenden - oder Wahlen - demokratisch sind, ist die Frage, ob sie frei und fair sind. Tatsächlich ist die tiefe Stimmbeteiligung ein Problempunkt in der Schweizer Demokratie, Sie ist sogar etwas tiefer als 60%. Wie Sie vielleicht wissen, kennt der Kanton Schaffhausen als einziger Kanton ebenfalls eine Stimmpflicht und natürlich hätte der Politikwissenschaftler in jenem Artikel die hohe Stimmbeteiligung thematisieren können. ____Tatsache ist aber, dass unterschiedliche Abstimmungsthemen in der Schweiz unterschiedliche Leute mobilisieren. Das entscheidende ist ja, dass sie wissen, dass sie an die Urne gehen können, wenn sie es wollen. Hier haben wir uns kürzlich vertieft mit den Faktoren für faire Volksabstimmungen auseinandergesetzt: https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/globale-wahlen/das-braucht-es-damit-ein-referendum-fair-ist/90932690____Zu ihren Schlussbemerkungen: Die Schweiz hat im Juni ein Referendum zur Einwanderung, der Ausgang ist offen, aber eine Zustimmung von 80% wird es wohl kaum geben: https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/schweizer-politik/keine-10-millionen-schweiz-soll-die-schweiz-ihre-bevölkerungszahl-begrenzen/91165182____Ebenso stimmt die Schweizer Bevölkerung regelmässig zu Klima- und Umweltschutzmassnahmen ab - zum Beispiel 2023, als sie das Nettonull-Ziel bis 2050 mit knapp 60% angenommen hat: swissinfo.ch/ger/wirtschaft/klimaneutral-bis-2050-die-schweiz-nimmt-klimaschutzgesetz-voraussichtlich-an/48592404____Wie Sie ja sicher wissen, ist der Klimawandel von der überwältigenden Mehrheit der Wissenschaft nicht bestritten.
In Uruguay, in 1980, the dictatorship organised a referendum that would have allowed it to remain in power indefinitely. They lost! They were so confident that they didn’t even try to rig the vote. It marked the beginning of the end of the military dictatorship, and democracy was soon restored.
En Uruguay, en 1980, la dictadura organizó un referéndum que le permitiría perpetuarse en el poder. Lo perdieron! Estaban tan confiados que ni siquiera intentaron hacer trampas. Fue el principio del fin de la dictadura militar y la democracia no tardó en llegar.
That’s very impressive. Were you able to witness this yourself back then?
Das ist sehr eindrücklich. Haben Sie dies damals selbst miterleben dürfen
Were you eligible to vote in 1980? We’d love to hear more from you about your memories of that time.
Haben Sie 1980 selbst mitabstimmen dürfen? Gerne würden wir mehr von Ihnen darüber erfahren, wie Sie sich daran erinnern.
there are no referendums in this country...
Hello Klausius,____It’s good that you got in touch anyway. Which country are you referring to? And do you think that holding referendums there would be good for democracy in your country?
Guten Tag Klausius,____Schön, dass Sie sich trotzdem gemeldet haben. Von welchem Land sprechen Sie denn? Und denken Sie, dass es der Demokratie in Ihrem Land guttun würde, wenn es dort Volksabstimmungen gäbe
In Sweden, referendums are held at local and national level. However, they are mostly only advisory. In most cases at national level, politicians follow the will of the people. The exception is the vote on the transition to driving on the right, which took place 12 years later despite a "no" vote. In my opinion, national referendums are partly an outlet for giving the people a voice in a lively debate – as was the case in 1980 with regard to nuclear power, in 1994 with regard to EU membership, and in 2003 with regard to the euro. Opinions change over time: the government now wants to expand nuclear power, and a majority would probably vote in favour of the euro today. At the same time, however, major decisions are made without a vote, such as the last major pension reform or NATO membership.
In Schweden gibt es Volksabstimmungen auf lokaler und nationaler Ebene. Sie sind jedoch meist nur beratend. In den meisten Fällen auf nationaler Ebene folgt die Politik dem Volkswillen. Die Ausnahme bildet die Abstimmung zum Übergang zum Rechtsverkehr, der trotz einem „Nein“ 12 Jahre später erfolgte.____Die nationalen Volksabstimmungen sind m. E. zum Teil ein Ventil, um dem Volk in einer lebhaften Debatte eine Stimme zu geben – so geschehen 1980 bezüglich der Atomkraft, 1994 zur EU-Mitgliedschaft oder 2003 zum Euro. Mit der Zeit ändern sich die Ansichten: So will die Regierung jetzt die Atomkraft ausbauen, und eine Mehrheit würde heute wohl für den Euro stimmen.____Gleichzeitig werden aber große Entschlüsse ohne Abstimmung getroffen, wie etwa die letzte große Rentenreform oder der NATO-Beitritt.
Thank you very much for your account! How do you, as a citizen, view this? Do you see the existence of referendums as a positive thing, or does it bother you that there is no consistent approach to ‘major decisions’?
Vielen Dank für Ihre Schilderung! Wie nehmen Sie diese denn als Bürger wahr? Sehen Sie es positiv, dass es Abstimmungen gibt oder stört es sie, dass es keinen einheitlichen Umgang mit "grossen Entschlüssen" gibt
The failure to consult the public on joining NATO, thereby breaching a century of neutrality, is the clearest sign of the decline of Sweden’s once-admired democracy.
No haber consultado la entrada en la OTAN violando un siglo de neutralidad es la más clara señal de la decadencia de la tan admirada antes democracia sueca.
Select topics that interest you.
Something went wrong. Please try again.
Join the conversation!