Power-sharing, Federalism and Direct Democracy:
Swiss Inspirations for New Democracies
1) Introduction: Learning from the Best
Often, democracy is viewed as a simple concept, yet there are no two democracies alike. How a political system and the exact form of democracy is fashioned can have profound effects on the future of a nation. Many developing nations have adapted a political system that is similar to the one of the UK or the USA. Unfortunately, satisfaction with democracy has shockingly fallen below 50 percent in the USA and the UK within the past 15 years.
When a nation seeks to establish democracy it would therefore make sense, to take a closer look at the democratic systems that work best. Empirical evidence shows that the level of satisfaction with democracy is highest in Switzerland and even has been growing over the past years. Interestingly enough, the political system of Switzerland is probably the most unique in the world with many aspects that are unknown to other democracies.
In this article I aim to give a brief overview of the uniqueness of Swiss democracy and why these special traits could explain the extraordinary high satisfaction with democracy in Switzerland. Of course a political system cannot simply be copy-pasted onto another country and a thorough in-depth analysis is warranted. However, I strongly believe that many democracies could profit from taking a closer look at the workings of democracy in Switzerland and be inspired by its special features.
2) The Evolution of Democracy
“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
- Winston Churchill, British Prime Minister, on November 11th 1947, during a speech in the House of Commons
Our word “democracy” comes from the Greek language and means “power or rule by the common people”. In the Western world there is a widespread general agreement that democracy is the best form of government, although we are all aware that it is far from perfect. Many democratic systems known today have evolved over a long period of time that spans many centuries. First hints at democratic processes in history can be found in the Bible (Deut. 1,13) and some Greek city-states. The Reformation in Europe that had a breakthrough with Martin Luther, was essential to lay the theological groundwork for ideas that later led to the dissolution of empires and the formation of sovereign nation states that slowly began to rule themselves through a democratic system. However, only with the fall of the Soviet Union at the end of the 20th century can it be said that the idea of democracy has achieved a widespread breakthrough.
These events prompted Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama to boldly state in his 1989 essay that humanity was reaching not just “the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government”.
The risk of this viewpoint could be that once something is regarded as final, opportunities will be missed to still improve and innovate further. In fact, democracy has seized to evolve and improve in most democratic countries and is even declining in others. In 2014 a Princeton University study claimed that US democracy was dominated by a rich and powerful elite to such a degree that it can no longer be called a proper democracy but rather an “oligarchy”, a form of government in which power rests with a small number of people. In view of this claim it does not surprise to find US congress approval ratings at an abysmal 9 to 24 percent in the past few years.
Should not something that is valuable and precious be refined and improved further to make it even more valuable? I do believe that the political system of Switzerland shows us an example of a democracy that continued to improve over time, so much that Switzerland now shows the highest satisfaction with democracy worldwide. In this article I would like to offer several arguments on why many nations could greatly profit from taking a closer look at the political system of Switzerland.
3) A Brief History of Swiss Democracy
“When, among the happiest people in the world, bands of peasants are seen regulating affairs of State under an oak, and always acting wisely, can we help scorning the ingenious methods of other nations, which make themselves illustrious and wretched with so much art and mystery?”
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, Chapter 41 (1762)
It is important to realize that the political system of Switzerland was not born in one day but evolved from the foundation of the Swiss Confederacy in 1291 until today and it is still a work in progress. However, I strongly believe that countries do not need to “invent the wheel twice” and could profit a lot if they allowed themselves to be inspired by the unique innovations of Swiss democracy. Of course even the Swiss form of democracy is not perfect (for example women’s suffrage was only introduced in 1971) and it should probably not be copy-pasted to another country without thoroughly evaluating essential aspects beforehand.
It is fascinating to see how independent regions came together on a voluntary basis to join the Swiss Confederation. While there have been only few wars in the history of Switzerland, there was enough conflict potential for serious trouble. The reformation in the 16th century, which partly originated in Switzerland (Zurich and Geneva), and the resulting Catholic-Protestant-divide threatened to tear apart the Confederation up until the 19th century. However, through the course of many centuries the Swiss people have found a way to live together peacefully (with few and minor exceptions), in spite of different languages, cultures, ethnicities, religious and political views. The different cantons (regions) found a way of living diversity in unity and of unifying without imposing unity.
Different forms of direct and representative democracy were already practiced in Swiss cantons (regions) during the Medieval Ages. After a minor civil war in 1847, the last armed conflict in Switzerland until today, Switzerland adopted a federal constitution in 1848 and founded the modern state of Switzerland with Berne as its federal city (de-facto capital). From 1848 until 1892 Switzerland had a one-party-government in which all seven ministers were members of the Free Democratic Party (FDP). From 1848 until 1919 the FDP commanded the absolute majority in the National Council, the larger chamber of the Swiss parliament.
In 1874 an amendment to the Swiss Constitution gave citizens the right to challenge any law passed by parliament through a referendum vote. This was the first stepping-stone of direct democracy that was introduced on the national level in Switzerland. Direct democratic rights have been practiced in many cantons before 1874 and thus citizens were very familiar with the concept.
Direct democracy was further strengthened in 1891 when the constitution was amended to give citizens the right to amend the constitution through the popular initiative. The introduction of these direct democratic rights dramatically altered the further evolution of Swiss democracy. Using their direct democratic rights, Swiss citizens forced a change from a majoritarian to a proportional electoral system in 1919 against the will of the parliament and government majority. Immediately, the FDP lost their absolute majority in parliament and 25 years later their majority in government. Direct democratic instruments and proportional representation thus were essential in shaping the Swiss democracy of today.
I am convinced that this century-long process helped to shape the political system of Switzerland and its democracy that we know today and which many people admire. In the following chapters I will elaborate on some of these unique features and explain how they help to prevent conflicts and corruption.
4) More than Chocolate and Cheese: the Unique Features of Democracy in Switzerland
“These statutes, decreed for the common welfare and benefit, shall endure forever, God willing.”
- Federal Charter of the Swiss Confederacy (1291)
When most people discuss democracy they might not be aware that there are dozens of ways how to fashion a democratic political system. In a democracy public officials can be elected through at least 20 different electoral systems. The choice of electoral system commands a major impact on the way a democratic system functions and defines whether there are only two parties in parliament (USA) or perhaps thirty (Brazil).
Another important distinction can be found between presidential democracies (e.g. USA, Brazil, Nigeria) and parliamentary democracies (e.g. Canada, Israel, Germany). In a presidential system the (head of) government is elected directly by the people, in a parliamentary system the government is dependent on a supportive majority in the parliament, often through a coalition of several parties. A presidential system tends to produce politically stronger heads of government while a parliamentary system can lead to deadlocks when parties cannot agree on forming or sustaining a government. Between 2010 and 2011 Belgium was without an elected government for 589 days until 6 parties were finally able to agree on a coalition agreement. In a presidential system the government does not fall just because it looses its majority in parliament, for example US president Trump continued to be president after loosing the House to the Democrats in the 2018 mid-term elections.
A third major difference between democracies is the level of centralization of power. In a federal system power is divided between a central governing authority and states or provinces that possess certain powers. In a unitary system of government constitutional authority lies in the hands of a single central government. Administrative divisions (subnational units) created by the central government are responsible for the everyday administration of government, but exercise only powers the central government chooses to delegate.
Now Swiss democracy is not only unique in one aspect, but in many ways and it features an interesting combination of different approaches of democratic governance:
Unique Feature no. 1: Regular Direct Democracy
Although many democracies hold occasional referendums to consult their citizens on matters of special importance, no other country has ever involved its citizens in political matters as often as Switzerland. In fact, between 1848 and 2019 Swiss citizens have decided 628 policy questions in nation-wide votes, thus making more decisions at the polls than the citizens of the rest of the world together. Swiss referendums cover all imaginable policy issues from subsidizing cows with horns, the purchase of military fighter jets, GMO farming to asking citizens whether the government should retain the authority to tax them.
The main direct democratic instruments in Switzerland are the referendum and the popular initiative. Any law passed by the parliament can be challenged with a referendum. Citizens are called to the polls if critics of a new law manage to collect 50,000 valid signatures from Swiss citizens within 100 days after a new law was officially enacted by parliament. While the referendum can be likened to the brake pedal in a car, the popular initiative would be the gas pedal: with 100,000 valid signatures within 18 months any group of citizens can propose an amendment to the Swiss Constitution that all citizens are called to decide at the polls whether they approve of the amendment put forward.
Especially the referendum right turned out to be a powerful political tool in the hand of the opposition. For a parliament it is one thing to find a majority for a new law, “selling” it to the public on the other hand is a whole different matter. Empirical evidence indicates that on average a bill requires a solid 60% majority in parliament to be successful when challenged by a referendum. Thus the referendum greatly enhanced the power of the opposition and forced parliament and government to broaden their political support if they wanted to propose a new law that should be referendum-proof. Through the course of several decades these dynamics produced another extremely unique feature of the Swiss democracy that has stood the test of time:
Unique Feature no. 2: Power-Sharing and the “Magic Formula”
Switzerland is the only country in the world that maintains a directorial system of government: the country is governed by a college of seven individuals who jointly exercise the executive powers of a head of state and/or head of government. Since 1848, the government of Switzerland always consisted of a college of seven ministers called the Federal Council that shares power equally. Federal Councillors are (re-)elected by the parliament after every national election or when there is a vacancy, however, they cannot be voted out of office as is the case in a parliamentary democracy. The ministers rotate annually in being the official President of Switzerland.
Because the powers of the presidency are shared equally and are not concentrated on one individual, it was not considered necessary to limit the number of terms a Federal Councillor can serve. In practice, the average tenure of office is eleven years and most Federal Councillors serve as President of the Swiss Confederation once or twice during their time in office.
Every Federal Councillor heads one of the seven ministries of the Swiss government. Meetings of the Federal Council are not public and decisions are reached by majority voting. Since the Council consists of seven members a majority is guaranteed. Once a decision is reached, the principle of collegiality applies and every member is obliged to represent the majority decision towards the parliament and the public if necessary (e.g. in a TV debate).
While power sharing between individuals in the Federal Council was an integral part of modern Swiss democracy since 1848, there was at first no power sharing between political parties. In fact, up until 1892 all members of the Federal Council were members of one political party, which totally dominated the executive, the legislative and the judiciary branch.
However, the introduction of direct democratic rights and proportional representation slowly forced the all-dominating FDP to share executive power with its political opponents and include their members in the Federal Council. The Catholic Conservative Party got its first seat in the Federal Council in 1892 and its second seat in 1920. The Party of Farmers, Traders and Independents got a piece of the power cake in 1930. Finally, the turmoil of World War II forced the parties to work even closer together. Therefore the Social Democrats were also included in the government on the condition that they abandon their pacifist position.
So after commanding the absolute majority in the Federal Council for nearly 100 years, the FDP had to concede its majority position in 1944 never to regain it again. By 1959 the so-called “magic formula” was formulated according to which the three largest parties were awarded two seats each in the Federal Council and the fourth largest party one seat. Although never enshrined as official law, the Swiss government continues to be formed according to the magic formula up until today, having fostered decades of extraordinary political stability.
Unique Feature no. 3: Federalism, Decentralization and Vertical Power Sharing
Similar to the United States, the Swiss Confederacy was formed through an alliance of previous autonomous regions or cantons. It is therefore not surprising that the cantons have retained a lot of political power and autonomy. The principle of subsidiarity is essential in understanding federalism: subsidiarity is a principle of social organization that holds that social and political issues should be dealt with at the most immediate (or local) level that is consistent with their resolution.
In order to work properly, the principle of subsidiarity needs strong political bodies on different political levels with clear responsibilities and rights. Through the course of almost 700 years, 26 cantons formed the Swiss Confederacy. Within the 26 cantons there are 2,212 municipalities with a population from 14 to 400,000. Each state level has certain powers and privileges. The most important state privilege is to collect taxes, thus the degree of fiscal decentralization is a suitable measurement of power sharing between different state levels. Let us look at the budget and population of three different state levels (as an example I took the data that applied to my residency in 2019):
The interesting thing about these figures is that most taxpayer money is spent on the cantonal level and only a third on the national level. Even the municipalities get a decent share of tax income they can spend on the local level. Compared to all other countries, only Canada has a slightly higher degree of fiscal decentralization. Having three state levels each with their own judiciary, parliament, and executive councils means that political power is distributed to many more people than would be the case with only two state levels.
Only 21% of all municipalities (461) have a local parliament, in the others legislative matters are decided by the municipal assembly, in which every citizen is allowed to partake in the decision making process. Even two cantons still summon their citizens to the Landsgemeinde, the cantonal assembly, to vote and decide on specific issues in the open air. In total, political power in Switzerland is thus divided upon more than 33,000 political offices and never lies with a single person. It is noteworthy, that the executive branch of all municipalities and cantons also functions according to the directorial system with colleges of five, seven, nine or eleven members.
Further unique features of Swiss democracy
Clearly, its direct democratic instruments, the directorial system of government and a high degree of fiscal decentralization and federalism make Switzerland a unique democracy in the world, especially in the combination of all these features. While I believe that these are the major innovations, I would like to conclude this sub chapter by mentioning some other curious aspects.
Being a member of parliament is a part-time job in Switzerland. Of course there is a major difference between being an MP on the national level than on the local level with regard to the workload. Nevertheless, MPs go about their regular business as lawyers, entrepreneurs, farmers, doctors, artisans, teachers or housewives while parliament is not in session.
Also, there are almost no politicians in Switzerland that run for political office motivated by money because the salaries of the best paid political offices are only moderately higher than the average salary in Switzerland. Of course it is still important that politicians do get some salary, otherwise it could be difficult for poorer citizens to hold a political office.
A final aspect worth mentioning is that Switzerland’s proportional representation system is very sophisticated. Voters have as many votes as there are seats in an electoral district, for the canton of Berne that makes 24 votes in the national elections. These votes can be distributed to individual candidates even from different political parties. This mechanism enables voters to choose the candidates they prefer from their party, but they can also choose to vote for individuals from many different parties if they are not strongly affiliated to any political party.
After looking at the most striking unique features of the Swiss political system I am going to elaborate on the effects Swiss democracy had on the country.
5) Practical Implications of Swiss Democracy
“Politics is a strong and slow drilling of hard boards requiring both passion and a sense of proportion.”
- Max Weber (German sociologist and political economist) in Politics as a Vocation (1919)
It is important to be aware that even small changes in the political system can thoroughly impact the whole political culture and even influence the trajectory of a nation. Let us look for example at the electoral system, the process of how votes are converted into seats. Does it really matter whether a country employs a majoritarian or proportional system of allocating parliamentary seats? Most assuredly!
The electoral system is one of the most important rules of the political game and it defines how the “game” is being played. The majoritarian electoral system (also known as first-past-the-post or winner-takes-it-all) produced a two party system in the USA in which it is close to impossible for new parties to evolve. The ensuing political divide seems to reinforce divisive tendencies in American society today. Voters that are discontent with either Republicans or Democrats have no realistic alternative and are constantly forced to choose “the lesser evil” while both parties seem to be controlled more and more by big-money interest groups (which can be called an institutionalized form of corruption).
In Switzerland and many other countries, proportional representation has led to the establishment of many different political parties with clear political profiles. 12 different parties represent smaller and larger voter groups in the National Council of Switzerland. This helps to diffuse political tensions since parties form alternating alliances in parliament depending on the issue at stake. After briefly discussing the electoral system let us move on to the unique features of Swiss democracy and learn how these have shaped the country.
The impact of direct democracy
The principle behind a democratic government is to empower the people by giving them the right to elect their representatives in parliament and/or government. Direct democracy takes the concept of empowering people to a whole new level as it gives citizens the right to make the final decisions on the most important matters of state. The referendum right ensures that every single law that was passed by parliament has either the explicit or implicit support of a majority of the population. The support for a new law becomes explicit when it is challenged in a referendum and citizens uphold the new law in a nation-wide vote or it is implicit when citizens refrain from starting the referendum process (or fail therein) and thus silently approve it. Through the popular initiative citizens additionally are empowered to force the government and parliament to put a certain problem on the political agenda that would otherwise be ignored. Even if the government and parliament rejects the citizen’s proposal they can still be overruled by a majority of voters.
Critics may argue that direct democracy can be destructive, as ordinary citizens could not possibly make wise decisions on complex political matters. Yet while this argument seems reasonable at first, the example of Switzerland shows otherwise. Interestingly enough, Swiss citizens do support the position of the parliament in two thirds of referendum votes and even reject 90% of all popular initiatives, which are often considered to be too radical. It is generally accepted that Swiss citizens do make responsible choices when exercising their direct democratic rights. An explanation could be that direct democracy draws on a phenomenon called collective intelligence whereby the aggregated views of a big crowd reach a more accurate conclusion that the single expert does.
Regular direct democracy also fosters political stability. While many democratic countries experience periods of political deadlocks, a citizen’s vote can help to resolve matters by making the final decision on a very contested issue. The decision of the people can be compared to the referee’s decision in a very emotional and contested soccer match in which there is a confusing situation in the penalty area. When the referee calls it a penalty one team might not be happy at all, yet everyone knows that the referee is the ultimate authority on the soccer field and his decision must be accepted no matter what. Likewise, the final decision of the people in a direct-democratic vote can bring peace and clarity to a political situation that would otherwise continue to destabilize a government. However, for direct democracy to work properly, it seems essential to me that it is practiced regularly on all state levels so that citizens are accustomed to wielding the kind of power that was invested in them.
The impact of power sharing
The directorial system of forming a government is probably the most fascinating one that holds the biggest potential to bring political stability to countries that have previously been plagued by political turmoil. The Swiss government is composed of seven ministers from the four largest political parties that share the presidency of Switzerland and executive powers equally:
Having social democrats, liberals, Christian democrats and national conservatives in one and the same government is probably unthinkable in every other democracy. However, what seems impossible has been good political practice in Switzerland since World War II and is generally accepted and even appreciated. Of course it does help that the government parties usually only nominate consensus-oriented politicians that are known for being able to work together with others. Being a part of the government does not mean that every political party involved has to agree with a majority decision of the government and while the individual Federal Councillors are required to be loyal to the joint decision, their parties are free to reject a bill in parliament or even call for a referendum vote.
Besides being able to include a wide range of political ideologies, a directorial government is highly suitable to include different ethnic groups, languages, religions, tribes, gender, etc. Switzerland has four official languages (German majority, French, Italian and Romansh), three official religions and 26 cantons. Currently, the seven members of the Federal Council come from a different canton each, four are native German speakers, two French-speaking and one Italian-speaking, four are Catholics, two are Protestants and one is unaffiliated with any religion.
Proportional representation ensures that 98 percent of voters have a representation and thus a voice in the Swiss parliament. The directorial power-sharing government system ensures that seven out of ten voters are represented in the government and presidency of Switzerland. In many other democracies this figure lies only slightly above 50 percent and in Westminster democracies often much lower: former UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s coalition ruled with a backing of only 43 percent of voters. In 2005 Tony Blair even commanded a clear Labour majority in parliament with only 35 percent of the vote share. Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016 with 46 percent of the popular vote (2.1 percent less than contender Hillary Clinton).
Majoritarian systems that produce winner-takes-it-all outcomes thus seem to be more prone to produce political instability since a tiny swing in the percentage of votes can lead to major shifts in power. When politicians and parties have so much power to loose they have stronger incentives to turn to desperate measures to avoid the loss of power at all costs. Many newer democracies in Africa and some in the Middle East also function in a winner-takes-it-all way, producing dictator-presidents, since the electoral system and tribal mentality tend to reinforce each other.
In Switzerland, on the other hand, politicians do not even try to strive for absolute power. I recently talked to a candidate of Switzerland’s largest political party. Opinion polls showed that his party would loose 2–3 percent in the 2019 elections. Surprisingly enough, the candidate was very relaxed about it and even said it is better for his party not to grow beyond 30 percent since that would not be healthy in the Swiss context.
The impact of decentralization and federalism
While proportional representation and the Swiss government system are very suitable to promote power sharing on a horizontal level (between political parties), decentralization and federalism are good tools to promote power sharing between state levels. In order to empower citizens and combat corruption it is important to keep politics as close to citizens as possible and feasible. This can only happen, when municipalities and regions have tax income, a budget and responsibilities on their own.
Of course there are certain policy issues that must be dealt with on the national level and that cannot be delegated to sub-national levels. However, aspects like education, health care or even police authority might be better regulated on a regional level that is closer to citizens. One MP in the National Council of Switzerland represents 43,750 people; an MP in the cantonal Parliament of Berne represents about 6,550 inhabitants. For an ordinary citizen it is therefore much more likely to personally know an MP on the cantonal level and these politicians are more familiar with the concrete everyday problems citizens struggle with. It is also easier for a citizen to vote in an election in which he or she personally knows a number of the candidates.
It is probably due to these aspects that satisfaction with democracy and trust in political institutions is much higher in Switzerland than in its neighboring countries. After all, citizens have the final say on the nation’s most important political issues so they cannot just blame the politicians if they are unhappy with political results.
To conclude this part it is necessary to mention that these unique features of Swiss democracy have evolved over a time-span of many centuries within a particular European and Swiss (political) culture. Every country has a different history and a different culture and it would not be wise, to copy-paste Swiss democracy onto other nations without a prior in-depth analysis. However, I do strongly believe that there are many aspects that can be a real inspiration to other nations, especially those with a young and troubled history of democracy. In the next chapter I will therefore share some thoughts on what features of Swiss democracy might be most suitable for developing democracies.
6) Exporting Swiss Democracy?
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?”
- James Madison in The Federalist Papers No. 51 (1788)
One of the main goals a mature democracy should feature is political stability, which is a key to the economic development and prosperity of a country. Switzerland is ready to share its own special form of democracy with anyone who is interested to take a closer look.
In many developing nations a certain military or political leader is elected democratically to be president, but once in office, he usurps more and more power while assigning the most important political offices to close friends, relatives and people of his own tribe. The more political power is concentrated with a small faction of the population, the more discontent and angry the rest of the population becomes. Often the newly elected president, who might have started with really good intentions, starts to rely more on more on corruption and force to stay in power. The ensuing vicious cycle seems to produce not good state leaders but dictators. Once term limits are supposed to kick in and limit the power of one person it is often too late since power was consolidated to such a degree that constitutional provisions can be ignored or simply amended to suit the powers to be.
Is this path inevitable? Perhaps, and maybe a change in the mindset of a nation’s culture is necessary first to avoid these pitfalls. But what if a different political system could be of great help? It would definitely be worth a try. This is where the political system of Switzerland could serve as an inspirational role model.
Clearly, the greatest strength of Swiss democracy seems to be its ability to foster power sharing between different political ideologies, regions, language groups, religions or whatever minority or tribe one would like to include in the government. That this was not always the case in Switzerland should give hope that such a change is possible in other nations too. The directorial system of government should also be very adaptable to the special circumstances and cultures of different nations. While the tribal mindset is of almost no importance in Switzerland (except perhaps during soccer matches), it still is of high importance in many nation states and a crucial aspect of the political game. So while the Swiss system gives a voice and power to the main political ideologies, it is just as able to give a voice and a share of power to different tribes, ethnic groups or religious factions. Including these major societal factions in the formation of a government could help to bring lasting peace and stability to countries that have known much conflict due to power distribution issues in the past. At the same time, other aspects like gender and age can be considered as well so that a government could be more representative of society as a whole.
The question of federalism and decentralization requires much debate with regard to details. Depending on the size, the history and the structure of a country it could prove to be an important aspect to improve good governance.
Furthermore, the electoral system in a democracy should not just be taken as a given. A regular evaluation is needed to assess whether the electoral system empowers people, strengthens the democratic process, produces fair results and suits the specific situation of a country. Majoritarian systems often lead to two-party-systems that in turn create a very hierarchical power structure, which blocks new and innovative political ideas. I would thus argue that proportional representation generally produces better results for a country, especially if one wants to give a voice to many different parts of society. Swiss Professor Adrian Vatter’s research paper “Can’t get no satisfaction with the Westminster model?” concludes that citizens are more satisfied in democracies with consensual cabinet types, of which the Swiss model is a prime example.
Although the Swiss proportional electoral system does have many options and benefits, it is probably too sophisticated and complex to work properly in an emerging democracy. A better and also quite unique PR system is the one employed in Finland in which citizens can give their vote to an individual candidate. Since this vote also counts as a vote for that candidate’s party, the proportional allocation of seats according to the vote share of the parties is guaranteed while voters still have a say as to which candidate they prefer.
As this article draws to a close, I would like to ask a final question: can direct democracy work in new democracies and should it be introduced? Interestingly enough, there have been almost no countries that have introduced direct democratic rights in the past decades and it is still a big exception in the world today. Since almost all Western political elites are deeply skeptical of direct democracy, perhaps the question is warranted whether it is something that works only in Switzerland. However, in 2017 Taiwan has made a sudden huge step toward direct democracy and seems to have had good experiences with it so far.
With regard to new democracies I would advise to experiment with direct democracy on the local and regional level and to train citizens in exercising this right for some years before introducing it on the national level. Swiss citizens also exercised their direct democratic rights in the municipalities and cantons long before these rights were established on the national level. Besides regular practice widespread literacy and independent media seem to be a logical prerequisite for direct democracy to work properly. However, based on the experiences in Switzerland I would very much encourage people to aim for the introduction of direct democracy at some point.
7) Concluding remarks
I have written the groundwork for this article around the end of September 2019, three weeks before our national elections in which I was running as a candidate for the National Council myself. Although I had to set aside time to write this article and have been able to focus less on my personal election campaign, I was very motivated to do so. As I was writing these pages I realized once more what a privilege it is do be a citizen and a politician in a well-functioning democracy. Of course Switzerland’s democracy is far from being perfect and human nature adds its own problems, but I am glad to see how far we have come in the past centuries and the resulting blessings we have been able to enjoy in Switzerland.
May these pages inspire politicians and citizens around the world to strive for better democracies, political stability and lasting peace.
Sources:
Foa, R.S., Klassen, A., Slade, M., Rand, A. and R. Collins. 2020. “The Global Satisfaction with Democracy Report 2020.” Cambridge, United Kingdom: Centre for the Future of Democracy.
Fukuyama, Francis (1989). “The End of History?”. The National Interest (16): 3–18. ISSN 0884–9382. JSTOR 24027184
Gilens, M., & Page, B. (2014). Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564–581. doi:10.1017/S1537592714001595
Vater, Adrian and J. Bernauer. 2011. “Can’t Get No Satisfaction with the Westminster Model? Winners, Loser, and the Effects of Consensual and Direct Democratic Institutions on Satisfaction with Democracy.” European Journal of Political Research 51(4): 435–468.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantonsparlament
https://www.defacto.expert/2018/05/28/vertrauen-regierung-parlament/
https://www.defacto.expert/2019/05/10/gemeindeparlamente-in-der-schweiz-verbreitung-herausforderungen-und-reformansaetze/
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/-ddworldtour-notebook-from-taichung_how-taiwan-got-one-of-world-s-best-direct-democracy-laws/43958776
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/11/referendums-who-holds-them-why-and-are-they-always-a-dogs-brexit
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Landsgemeinde_Glarus_2006.jpg
