How can a country like Switzerland make democracy more inclusive?
US President Joe Biden has invited 112 countries to share the commitments and proposals for supporting democracy at the first “World Democracy Summit”.
This has been harshly criticised by non-invited governments in countries like Russia and China, who has launched its very own “International Democracy Forum“.
Switzerland does have a constitutional provision to support democracy worldwide and has for the very first time formulated what this means (read more in the article below). Could the country be more outspoken?
What is your take? Welcome to the conversation.
From the article What Switzerland can offer the Summit for Democracy
From the article ‘Let’s not fool ourselves: democracy is not doing well’
Democracy is fundamentally a question of education from the earliest age: training, order, respect, obedience and tolerance, empathy... At present, it is almost impossible to make the rulers aware of these foundations and pillars of democratic life. Let's not forget that the great monotheistic religions put man as the dominator of all species. From this criterion, it is the law of the strongest.
The generalized corruption which reigns on the 5 continents, the systematic plundering of all natural resources, the galloping demography, are the ingredients of the perfect cocktail of self-destruction.
Our democracy, with its ups and downs, is truly unstoppable. It is enough to look at the dislocation of Western societies in Europe in the face of the influx of men and women bearing rules stemming from doctrines that are centuries apart from our criteria. It is totally impossible to make such disparate communities live together, hence the permanent friction between ethnic and religious groups.
It is necessary to realize that we are an exception, in spite of the current drifts, and that our model is not reproducible if the parameters are not similar. To note with infinite regret the slow but sure decadence of Europe.
La démocratie est fondamentalement une question d'éducation dès le plus jeune âge : formation, ordre, respect, obéissance et tolérance, empathie... A l'heure actuelle il est quasiment impossible de sensibiliser les gouvernants à ces fondements et piliers de la vie démocratique. N'oublions pas que les grandes religions monothéistes mettent l'homme comme dominateur de toutes les espèces. A partir de ce critère, c'est la loi du plus fort.
La corruption généralisée qui règne sur les 5 continents, le pillage systématique de toutes les ressources naturelles, la démographie galopante, sont les ingrédients du parfait cocktail d'auto destruction.
Notre démocratie, avec les hauts et les bas qu'elle connait, est proprement inexportable. Il suffit de regarder en Europe la dislocation des sociétés occidentales face à l'afflux d'hommes et de femmes portant des règles issues de doctrines qui ont un écart de siècles par rapport à nos critères. Totalement impossible de faire co habiter de communautés aussi disparates, d'oû les frictions permanentes entre groupes ethniques et religieux.
Il faut prendre conscience que nous sommes une exception, malgré les dérives actuelles, et que notre modèle n'est pas reproductible si les paramètres ne sont pas similaires. A constater avec infini regret la lente mais sûre décadence de l'Europe.
No taxation without representation.
1.Democracy is not only those aspect related to political activity in parliament.
It is also about how matters are run in the rest of the country. There is a great divide between politicians and the public at large.
2.When a citizen writes to a minister, that citizen should receive at least an acknowledgement of receit but better still an indication of what action the minister intends to do or has done with respect to the problem discussed.
3.There is no mechanism by which a citizen can be informed as to how legislation is transformed into Policy and how policy in transformed into Management Practice in Cooperative Housing.
This information should be in the public domain.
In a Democracy there is no space for corporate autocracy.
One word: Landsgemeinde.
It should be used whenever the number of inhabitants permits. In all cantons. It is the best way to involve the population in the management of public affairs.
Una sola parola: Landsgemeinde.
Si dovrebbe usare ogni qual volta il numero degli abitanti lo consenta. In tutti i Cantoni. E' il modo migliore per convolgere la popolazione nella gestione della cosa pubblica.
I want to comment but maybe off topic?
Switzerland is very democratic but not enough.
There is not enough involvement at local levels with Citizens.
I as a 6 year resident working towards citizenship cannot vote for anything.
Why can't I vote for local things in my local community? Need more trees in the street, let's vote for it... either out in the public or electronically. More local involvement rather than handing all the decisions over to Parties and Individual politicians - old way of governing I'm afraid...
And the thing is.. you cannot have a World Democracy Summit and not invite every country!! For one thing, it is just damned rude not to invite every country. It produces a us and them culture....
Switzerland should put its own house in order 100% rather than doing the American thing of going into other countries to change them. Lead by example.
There is no where I can voice my opinion to Politicians in this country, if I am wrong, then let me know.
I live in Switzerland, I pay taxes in Switzerland, I contribute to Switzerland, I care about Switzerland, I am actively participating in my Gemeinde. Yet I am not allowed to vote. So, in terms of inclusive democracy Switzerland can actually learn a lesson or two from its neighboring countries.
"Democracy" = the will of the people. In too many countries this 'will of the people' has been usurped by the powerful.
Hi Bruno, I did my part by submitting a specific question with which I suggest to involve the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs in the implementation of a resolution of the M5S approved by the Dreier Landtag (joint session of the diets of Innsbruck, Bolzano and Trento) in October 2021.
Here is the text of Question No. 3339/XVI for written answer "Involvement of organizations working in the field of political rights in the preparation of the periodic report provided for in Resolution No. 12/2021 adopted by the Dreier Landtag"
https://www.consiglio.provincia.tn.it/_layouts/15/dispatcher/doc_dispatcher.aspx?app=idap&at_id=1668591
Ciao Bruno, ho fatto la mia parte presentando un'interrogazione specifica con la quale suggerisco di coinvolgere il Dipartimento federale degli affari esteri elvetico nell'attuazione di una risoluzione del M5S approvata dal Dreier Landtag (seduta congiunta delle diete di Innsbruck, Bolzano e Trento) nell'ottobre 2021.
Qui trovi il testo dell'interrogazione n. 3339/XVI a risposta scritta "Coinvolgimento delle organizzazioni che operano nel campo dei diritti politici nella predisposizione della relazione periodica prevista dalla deliberazione n. 12/2021 adottata dal Dreier Landtag"
https://www.consiglio.provincia.tn.it/_layouts/15/dispatcher/doc_dispatcher.aspx?app=idap&at_id=1668591
How??
A smaller government in all levels equal greater freedom and democracy. Less regulations, less intrusion mean growth and prosperity.
You should let people decide what's good for their lives.
I think this means they want non-citizens to vote, you know, in the name of being more inclusive.
That Switzerland is a general democratic country that means that its balance of justice covers all peoples. It wants all pain to adhere to democracy, but it does not have to imitate countries such as America that call for private democracy only for them and only want what serves their interests when they have an interest in a country that does not want this country. The dictatorial man does not care about anything, as well as China and Russia. This work to consolidate the mental level and equality in my country so that it can be a center of democracy in the world. Hence, Switzerland is the source of peace and equality without subordination to countries that advocate democracy without implementing any of these interests. It has become killing even human rights and this is what leads humanity to the orangutan era...
أن سويسرا بلد ديمقراطي عام يعني أن ميزان العدالة فيها يغطي جميع الشعوب هي تريد لجميع الألم أن يلتزم بالدمقراطية ولكن ليس عليها تقليد الدول مثل أمريكا التي تنادي بالدمقراطية الخاصة فقط لها ولا تريد الا ما يخدم مصالحها عندما تكون لها مصلحة في بلد ما لا تريد لهذا البلد سوى الرجل الدكتاتوري لا يهمها أي شئ وكذلك الصين وروسيا لذلك العمل على ترسيخ المستوى الذهني والمساواة في بلدي لكي يكون مركز للدمقراطية في العالم ومن هنا تكون سويسرا كما هبة منبع السلام والمساواة بدون التبعية للدول التي تنادي لاالطمقراطية بدون تنفيذ أي بند من بنود ها المصالح أصبحت تقتل حتى حقوق الإنسان وهذا ما يقود البشرية إلى عصر انسان الغاب....
I very much agree with the statement I read in the introductory text:
"Switzerland. It is, yes, a small country, but - with its participatory and co-decisional formulas at the federal, cantonal and municipal levels - it is a kind of 'heavyweight' of democracy."
The problem to overcome, I believe, lies in the fact that the Swiss political system is little known in the world.
Even in neighboring countries ( for example Italy, or even France, ... and others) they know little about this country's political system and its potential.
I think that we who know it must make the effort to make it known.
I recommend the commitment of all in this direction.
Congratulations also for the nice discussion.
Condivido molto l’affermazione che leggo nel testo introduttivo:
«la Svizzera. È sì un piccolo Paese, ma - con le sue formule partecipative e co-decisionali a livello federale, cantonale e comunale – è una sorta di "peso massimo" della democrazia.»
Il problema da superare credo risieda nel fatto che il sistema politico svizzero è poco conosciuto nel mondo.
Anche nei paesi confinanti ( per esempio l’Italia, o anche la Francia, … ed altri ancora) conoscono poco il sistema politico di questo paese e le sue potenzialità.
Credo che noi che lo cosciamo dobbiamo fare lo sforzo di farlo conoscere.
Raccomando l’impegno di tutti in questa direzione.
Complimenti anche per la bella discussione.
Democracy is listening
民主就是倾听
Democracy is the ability of the people to hold their nominated representatives to account and at least in Switzerland there is still a strong element of the people being able to hold others to account. But democracy in many western countries is a shadow of what democracy should actually mean. Look at where the controls/power are in most democratic countries - the finiancial markets (Wall Street), the military industrial complexes joined by the tech companies, the Ultra Wealthy, the near monopolistic control of the main stream media etc etc. These groups hold the politicians to do their bidding which they do and are often rewarded for their actions . An example being the merry go round of being a politician or regulator and when you retire/lose office you are employed by the industry that you were regulating
How can we be living in true democracies if the ultra rich are increasingly taking greater and greater shares of the value and middle classes and below are gradually being squeezed and more people fall into poverty across the world, including Western democratic countries
We are increasingly living in monopolistic democracies where the powerful dictate to the majority. As George Carlin said '... and you and I are not part of that club'. If the link between Government and the powerful interest groups is not broken or restrained then democracy will continue to be on life support in most countries
True, true. I share your view that democracy requires efficient principles, procedures and practices of the separation of powers. The difference between the so called elite and non-elite is often unclear as individuals and groups are getting in charge or are loosing influence though. This is an eternal challenge for the idea of democracy, which in reality always lags behind. The key is to have an idea how to democratize democracy further - and here the separation of powers are fundamental. Forms of modern direct democracy can contribute to a more efficient separation of powers, but they can also contribute to undermine it if eg plebiscites are initiated by presidents or governments. So it's all about the small print in the end, the design of democracy, which makes the difference.
Please do not suggest socialism again, we have seen that fail over and over again. I have no problem with ultra rich, most of them created wealth using their intelligens, and the best thing is if they can continue to manage the wealth themselves. You do not want to send money to the governments, they do not have the competence, and already have to much. Switzerland is a fantastic success as is.
Do you want another EU fiasko?
Dear Snowman, many thanks for your response.
If I gave the mistaken impression that I was advocating socialism then my fault. What I was trying to show that democracies are undermined by the power that is held by certain groups, companies, individuals when that power is used to distort the actions of Governments and politicians. President Eisenhower in 1961 spoke about the threat to democracy of the military-industrial complex. Between then and now we have seen the financial markets, the tech companies, ultra high worth individuals etc join the military-industrial complex in having significant power in Government decision making across many democracies.
This power is further enhanced by the monopolisation of the mainstream media globally by few companies/individuals means that the news is very filtered and focused on the particular points of view.
So my point is that for democracies to really work you need to either limit or break these power groups from Government decision making so that Governments govern to represent the views of the majority and not minorities
May be my comment about wealth allocation and poverty gave you the impression that I was advocating socialism. However, my point was to make the case that poverty is a great threat to democracies as people with no hope, see no value in democracy and its ability to change their lives. Trump's MAGA campaign appealed directly to this group of people and finally on January 2021 we nearly saw democracy overthrown in the USA
As an Englishman better the EU, than the fiasco of taking back control Brexit Britain
Dear Bruno, many thanks and fully agree with your comments.
As a non Swiss I see one of the relative strengths of the Swiss democracy comes from the ability of individuals/groups to bring issues to a vote through referendums (the other being the representation at the Federal - Cantonal - Commune levels). This capacity to hold referendums I see as a safeguard from politicians to only represent certain groups usually that have a vested interest.
The issue for democracy is how do you get the silent majority to engage in the discussion about what type of democracy do we want and how do we want it to operate. It was easier during the Cold War era in which Democracy had the challenger of the Communist system. The advantages of a democracy could be shown (even if it was biased). But when the Berlin Wall collapsed so did the Communist system as a replacement for democracies. Is the Chinese system sufficient competitive alternative, for people to take the time to think about what democracy is actually giving us today and how we could engage in making democracy more relevant for the 21st Century?
When you see what is happening in the USA with Republican led efforts to restrict the voting rights of certain groups (which is a fundamental right of a citizen in democracies) the need to have an open debate on the future of democracy is so important.
I applaud your efforts on this issue
Can you explain what voting rights are being restricted? Or name someone that has had their voting rights restricted?
Are you suggesting that Trump supporters are poor, have no hope and looking for a socialist answer?
@FLAT FOUR many thanks for your response. To clarify, I am not suggesting that all Trump supporters are poor. Trump obtained more than 47% of the votes cast in 2020/2021 Presidential campaign. However, Trump was very good at targeting his MAGA message to a % of that voting population that has clearly been left behind economically in part caused by removal of tariffs and Globalisation of supply chains.
If you are economically disadvantaged and that disadvantage grows whatever political party/ies are in power, then these people will look to and be open to other options outside of democracy. The unequal distribution of wealth which has only been magnified since the start of QE by Central banks in 2008 is a threat to democracy. Democracy per se is not the problem, but it is the hijacking of the political decision making by the lobbying groups that ultimately weakens the basis of democracy.
Is Socialism the answer to the issue? Not sure I can answer that. But I would suggest that democracy would be strengthened if democratic societies were to be more compassionate and find ways to transfer SOME of the monies from the rich (whether people or companies) to the disadvantaged
@FLAT FOUR Many thanks. I was referring to the US, where laws are being enacted at the State level that could impact the voting rights of some people. In particular, several acts reduce the number and ease of Mail in Voting options
In democracies I do not believe that your right to vote should be dependent upon your ability to stand in a line and vote in person
I'm sorry, but socialism is never the answer. Have you noticed that it is always the wealthy liberals that call to be taxed more? I ask them, why don't they just donate all of this extra money they have to actual charities? Or even the IRS. In the US, they typically donate money to political organizations to support bigger government. The bigger the government gets, the more money they wastefully spend. Actual charities have much less overhead and can therefore use their money in more impactful ways.
I don't think that these Trump supporters are looking for the government for support. They want big government out of their way to make a living, not to be dependent on the government.
Voting in person, and having to show an ID is the most secure way to hold an election. There is election fraud, not widespread, but it does happen. And most of it occurs with mail in ballots. In some areas of the US, the democrat politicians don't think the voter rolls need to be checked, i.e remove people from the rolls that have died. Then a mail in ballot gets shipped to their last address, and anybody can fill it out and return it. Sometimes they get flagged for the signature not matching, but that is dependent on the person counting the ballots.
We have already learned a lot from you and are happy about every vote. You were involved in the drafting of the bill for the introduction of the nationwide referendum in Germany.
Switzerland is the only country where a referendum has been held on the Corona measures.
The referendum book is an important part of the preparation and basis for balanced information.
We in Germany have also included this in our draft legislation.
In Germany, many doubt that the media will report properly before the referendum. They fear an unobjective referendum campaign, manipulation, the division of society. Criticism is also growing in Switzerland. Switzerland has the most experience with the practice and I would like to see an international congress, led by Switzerland, on the question of the media and how good factual free information before the referendum can be further strengthened. How should broadcasting councils be staffed, how should factual information be promoted in the media.
The referendum booklet can certainly be improved as well.
I would like the people's initiative to be able to write authentically about their initiative.
Corona has also shaken confidence in the public media here in Germany.
From the OMNIBUS for Direct Democracy in 2022, we want to focus more on the issue of proper free information before the referendum.
The question also arises as to whether citizens' councils drawn by lots can make an important contribution to this before the vote.
Many thanks
Brigitte Krenkers, founder and shareholder of OMNIBUS
http://www.omnibus.org
wir haben schon sehr viel von Euch gelernt und freuen uns über jede Abstimmung. Ihr ward mit beteiligt an der Erarbeitung des Gesetzentwurf für die Einführung der bundesweiten Volksabstimmung in Deutschland.
Die Schweiz ist der einzige Land, in dem über die Corona-Maßnahmen eine Volksabstimmung stattgefunden hat.
Das Abstimmungsbuch ist zur Vorbereitung und Grundlage einer ausgewogenen Information ein wichtiger Bestandteil.
Auch wir in Deutschland haben dies in unserem Gesetzentwurf aufgenommen.
In Deutschland zweifeln viele an einer sachgerechten Berichterstattung in den Medien vor der Volksabstimmung. Sie fürchten einen unsachlichen Abstimmungswahlkampf, Manipulation, die Spaltung der Gesellschaft. Auch in der Schweiz wächst die Kritik. Die Schweiz hat die größte Erfahrung mit der Praxis und ich wünsche mir unter der Leitung der Schweiz einen internationalen Kongress zu der Frage der Medien und wie eine gute sachgerechte freie Information vor der Volksabstimmung weiter gestärkt werden kann. Wie sollten Rundfunkräte besetzt werden, wie eine sachliche Information in den Medien befördert werden.
Auch das Abstimmungsbüchlein kann sicher verbessert werden.
Ich würde mir wünschen, dass die Volksinitiative authentisch über ihre Initiative schreiben kann.
Corona hat auch hier in Deutschland das Vertrauen in die öffentlich rechtlichen Medien erschüttert.
Wir wollen vom OMNIBUS für Direkte Demokratie aus im Jahr 2022 die Frage einer sachgerechten freien Information vor der Volksabstimmung mehr in den Mittelpunkt stellen.
Es stellt sich auch die Frage, ob geloste Bürgerräte vor der Abstimmung dazu einen wichtigen Beitrag leisten können.
Herzlichen Dank
Brigitte Krenkers, Gründerin und Gesellschafterin des OMNIBUS
www.omnibus.org
Dear Brigitte, exciting interjections. In Switzerland, the referendum on the new media law has just begun and will continue until February 13. And this issue is precisely about the media infrastructure in a modern democracy. This includes not only public service media such as SRG - including SWI Swissinfo.ch - but also private print and online media. They all play an important role in shaping opinion on referendum issues and other topics under discussion. On page 49 of the current "Abstimmungsbüchlein" there is a very informative map and overview of the local radio stations that are to receive support from the so-called fee pot in the future. [https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/abstimmungen/20220213.html]. I find your suggestion of a deeper cross-border exchange on these topics very good and will be taken up in our discussions within the democracy editorial team of SWI.
Liebe Brigitte, spannende Einwürfe. In der Schweiz hat ja soeben die Volksabstimmung über das neue Mediengesetz begonnen, die noch bis zum 13. Februar dauert. Und in dieser Frage geht es gerade um die mediale Infrastruktur in einer modernen Demokratie. Dazu gehören neben öffentlich-rechtlichen Medien wie die SRG - inkl. SWI Swissinfo.ch - auch private Print- und Online Medien. Sie alle spielen eine wichtige Rolle in der Meinungsbildung zu Volksabstimmungsfragen und anderen diskutierten Themen. Auf der Seite 49 des aktuellen "Abstimmungsbüchleins" gibt es eine sehr informative Karte und Übersicht zu den Lokalradios, die künftig aus dem sogenannten Gebührentopf eine Unterstützung erhalten sollen. [https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/abstimmungen/20220213.html]. Euer Vorschlag eines vertieften grenzüberschreitenden Austausches zu diesen Themen finde ich sehr gut und wird in unseren Diskussionen innerhalb der Demokratie-Redaktion von SWI aufgenommen.
The very idea of Democracy as we know it today was a world changing notion brought to us by the Enlightened thinkers.
It is not a natural or universal state but one that must be nurtured and sustained by the citizens' sense of civic duty and their participation. It is a privilege offering the same rights to all citizens but also requires those civic responsibilities for democracies to survive.
What I appreciate the most about Swiss direct democracy is that each citizen receives detailed, both sided, explanations of what the vote is about. Then those citizens who have done their civic duty to educate themselves on the issues will vote or choose to not vote on a particular issue if they do not feel knowledgeable enough. Once the people decide, all accept the outcome peacefully.
Voting without taking those civic responsibilities seriously undermines the very definition of democracy for & by the people as can be seen in many countries that are true democracies in name only.
Thanks a lot for this comments, which in my view adress an issue rightly discussed in this forum and on these pages very often. The question on information ahead of decisions. They can not be seen in a independent manner but must be weighted and valued during the dialogues ahead of decisions. It is good to see that the Swiss practices are sometimes an inspiration for others sin the case of Italy, where the Swiss voter pamphlets has been named as a way of preparing the public information to all citizens ahead of popular votes. [https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/schweizer-abstimmungsbuechlein-macht-karriere-in-europa/46049482?utm_campaign=teaser-in-channel&utm_source=swissinfoch&utm_medium=display&utm_content=o]
So if someone has not educated themself on an issue, should they be allowed to vote?
Or is a societal norm that if you have not educated yourself that you refrain from voting?
Nothing about the right for citizens to vote should ever be "allowed" or not allowed! Who would have the right to decide such in any democracy?
My comment was about something that will ultimately cause the self destruction of any democracy : citizens who do not take their civic responsibilities seriously, do not inform themselves and who vote blindly from emotion, self interests, popularity or "politically correct thinking" (whatever purely partisan side = all are bad) without considering and supporting the foundations their democracy was built upon - laws and separation of powers that can be improved and/or changed through the work of citizens by consensus.
A democracy is only as strong as its citizens are prepared to make it and KEEP it through their participation.
Comparing "democracies" that have survived for centuries or failed in decades around the world proves this.
I don't disagree. That's why freedom of speech is so important. Having the opportunity to find the information from as many sources as possible. Because everyone has a bias, you have to be able to recognize that bias. I think we would agree that too many people rely on getting their information from a single source, and don't realize that information is coming from a bias point of view.
Hi Bruno, it could envisage the possibility of signing bilateral cooperation agreements to strengthen democratic institutions not only at state level but also with regard to regions, provinces and municipalities.
Ciao Bruno, potrebbe prevedere la possibilità di sottoscrivere accordi bilaterali di collaborazione per il rafforzamento delle istituzioni democratiche non solo a livello statale ma anche per quanto riguarda regioni, province e comuni.
1. it could aggressively promote the extension of democracies to include direct democracy in the form of referendums with the right of initiative, so that every human being has the opportunity to take direct responsibility for the entire ecology, the coexistence of human beings and nature.
2. it could set up an official advisory body to which people could turn to request "ambassadors" to share the Swiss experience of democracy, particularly with civil society organisations throughout the world.
1. Sie könnte offensiv dafür werben, Demokratien um die Direkte Demokratie in Form von Volksabstimmungen mit Initiativrecht zu erweitern, damit jeder Mensch die Möglichkeit erhält, direkt Verantwortung für die gesamte Ökologie, das Zusammenleben von Mensch und Natur, übernehmen zu können.
2. Sie könnte ein offizielles Beratungsorgan einrichten, an das man sich wenden kann, um „Botschafter“ anzufordern, die insbesondere Organisationen der Zivilbevölkerung in der Welt an den Schweizer Demokratie-Erfahrungen teilhaben lassen.
@MvdL, what does the Swiss experience teach when ....
1. popular initiatives are deemed inadmissible and do not even come to a vote?
2. popular initiatives are hushed up in the media and public?
3. the return of signatures for popular initiatives is delayed by the authorities or the post office so that the submission deadline cannot be met?
4. popular initiatives are accepted but not implemented?
@MvdL, was lehrt die Erfahrung der Schweiz wenn ...
1. Volksinitiativen als unzulässig erachtet werden und gar nicht erst zur Abstimmung kommen?
2. Volksinitiativen in den Medien und Öffentlichkeit totgeschwiegen werden?
3. der Rückversand von Unterschriften für Volksinitiativen von den Behörden oder Post verzögert werden so dass die Eingabefrist nicht eingehalten werden kann?
4. Volksinitiativen zwar angenommen aber nicht umgesetzt wurden?
That's a bit of an insinuation, dear Frodo. Can you back it up?
Das sind etwas gar viele Unterstellungen, werter Frodo. Können Sie da auch etwas belegen?
@Giannis Mavris, these are not insinuations, just questions. Do we live today in a time where even asking questions is considered something reprehensible?
To your question.
To 1.
https://www.bk.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/vi/vis_2_2_5_6.html
Re 2.
https://www.bk.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/vi/vis_2_2_5_2.html
Re 3.
see the corresponding radio report on SRF about 1.5 years ago where someone accused the authorities of obstruction.
Re 4.
see corresponding podcast contribution from "einfach Politik".
The right of initiative and referendum makes sense, I agree with MvdL, just don't gloss over it. Even these can improve nothing and even bring disadvantages, depending on the prevailing culture.
@Giannis Mavris, das sind keine Unterstellungen, sondern nur Fragen. Leben wir heute in einer Zeit wo selbst Fragenstellen als etwas Verwerfliches gilt?
Zu ihrer Frage.
Zu 1.
https://www.bk.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/vi/vis_2_2_5_6.html
Zu 2.
https://www.bk.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/vi/vis_2_2_5_2.html
Zu 3.
siehe entsprechender Radio-Beitrag auf SRF vor rund 1.5 Jahren wo jemand den Behörden Behinderung vorwarf.
Zu 4.
siehe entsprechender Podcast-Beitrag von "einfach Politik"
Das Initiativ- und Referendumsrecht hat Sinn, da stimmen ich MvdL zu, nur sollte man es nicht beschönigen. Auch diese können je nach vorherrschender Kultur nichts verbessern und gar Nachteile mit sich bringen.
You are always allowed to ask questions, but suggestive questions without evidence are not a basis for discussion. Now to your points:
1) Initiatives must always pass a formal review by the Federal Chancellery. Out of 489 initiatives launched so far, just 4 have been declared invalid. That's less than 1%.
2) This is an old argument that doesn't get any truer with age. The fact that some initiatives do not collect enough signatures is not the responsibility of the media - nor is it their job. It is the responsibility of the initiative committees.
3) Frustration may well give rise to an accusation, but that is not proof. I have never heard or read anything to that effect.
4) Don't know the podcast, but it is always up to parliament to implement an initiative. And it has leeway in doing so, as initiative texts are virtually never available ready for implementation.
Best regards
Fragen darf man immer stellen, aber Suggestivfragen ohne Belege sind keine Diskussionsbasis. Nun zu Ihren Punkten:
1) Initiativen müssen immer eine formelle Prüfung durch die Bundeskanzlei bestehen. Von bisher 489 gestarteten Initiativen wurden gerade mal 4 für ungültig erklärt. Das sind weniger als 1%.
2) Das ist ein altes Argument, das mit dem Alter nicht wahrer wird. Dass manche Initiativen nicht genügend Unterschriften sammeln liegt nicht in der Verantwortung der Medien - und es ist auch nicht deren Aufgabe. Sondern diejenige der Initiativkomitees.
3) Aus Frust kann durchaus mal ein Vorwurf entstehen, das ist aber noch kein Beleg. Ich habe noch nie etwas entsprechendes gehört oder gelesen.
4) Kenne den Podcast nicht, aber es liegt immer am Parlament, eine Initiative umzusetzen. Und dabei hat es einen Spielraum, da Initiativtexte praktisch nie umsetzungsbereit zur Verfügung stehen.
Beste Grüsse
Switzerland must commit itself to the promotion of democracy in the world because it is one of the best placed to do so. Representatives of various countries, such as Biden, preach well but do not do well. This phenomenon should be limited in order to avoid events such as the Summit for Democracy being perceived as propaganda for its own sake.
La Svizzera deve impegnarsi a promuovere la democrazia nel mondo perché è uno dei soggetti più titolati a farlo. Rappresentanti di diversi Paesi, come Biden, predicano bene ma razzolano male. Questo fenomeno dovrebbe essere limitato per evitare che eventi come il Summit for Democracy siano percepiti come atti propagandistici fine a se stessi
To understand and respond to the original question.
Democracy can be shared as an ideology by setting a GOOD example of leadership and fellowship. If a particular country claims to be champion of democracy but they have internal civil unrest and constant incountry fighting and bloodshed, then they no longer should represent their "brand of democracy" to the rest of the world whom they want to "include".
Democracy cannot be made more inclusive. It is not a inclusive notion of society. Democracy is basically an ideology where each person has the right to participate and choose their own leaders, make their own rules and laws and live their kind of life they prefer.
The world is way too diverse to allow democracy to be "inclusive".
Guten Tag, nur ganz kurz: Da bin ich völlig anderer Meinung. Demokratie ist nie vollendet. Aber sie muss den Anspruch haben, immer demokratischer zu werden. Also auch inklusiver. Demokratie ist nicht die Wahl eines Führers durch das Volk. So gesehen wäre Nordkorea auch eine Demokratie.
I think certain decisions are not suitable for public voting, for example forced medical treatments. Certain things can be voted and if majority agrees then the rest can just follow, but anything that directly violates bodily autonomy is nobody else’s business. We are no longer in Middle Ages, we have the science and technology to create diverse solutions to complex problems for a biodiverse society. If we can manipulate mRNAs then we definitely can have more advanced strategy than the small pox era. And whoever denies this potential either lacks understanding of the topic or has conflict of interest making better alternatives inconvenient. Everyone who is obstructing further research and investigation that may lead to save lives must be brought to justice and made responsible for all the lives that this could have saved.
Wer sollte dabei nach welchen Kriterien entscheiden wer die Entscheidungen treffen darf?
Entweder irgend welche PolitikerInnen; PolitikerInnen sollten eigentlich ihre Stimmbürger vertreten. Die Stimmbürger können dabei jeder Zeit die Rechte und Macht, welche den Politiker übergeben wurde jeder Zeit zurück fordern und eine Abstimmung einfordern. Zumal es die Pflicht der Politiker und Medien wäre den Stimmbürgern die komplexe Materie einfach zu vermitteln. Zumal angeblich Einstein mal sagte; ein Experte ist unter anderem nur jemand der es versteht komplexe Zusammenhänge einfach verständlich für jedenman zu vermitteln.
Oder irgend welche Experten; Experten werden in der Regeln von Unis ernennt oder zu solchen gemacht. Die Uni-Leitung hingegen wird von der Politik ernannt, womit man wieder bei der Demokratie ist. Oder es handelt sich dabei um eine private Uni. Wenn dann letztendlich Private bestimmen was getan wird, dann muss man doch fairer Weise die Demokratie beerdigen und sich auf eine Resignation der bereiten Masse einstellen.
@ANONA...You wrote: "I think certain decisions are not suitable for public voting, for example forced medical treatments." I agree...!!!
It's much like "two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner." So-called democracy is not applicable when it comes to the sovereignty of the individual. There are inalienable rights that people are "born with." People can be informed and make their own decisions about what to do with their body. However, with the happenings taking place lately...democracy is all but dead....also in Switzerland. IMHO...I don't see where Switzerland can help to make democracy more inclusive anywhere. The country has its own work to do.
Wie gedenken Sie die Situation in ihrem Beispiel zu lösen wenn zum Beispiel die Wölfe als Ernährungsexperten oder als Tierrechtsexperten auftreten die bestimmen was zum unveräusserlichen Tierrecht gehört und was nicht?
@propd you wrote: ".I don't see where Switzerland can help to make democracy more inclusive anywhere". So maybe it is the time to open your eyes a little more: in fact, it is simply the Swiss practices of modern participatory and direct democracy which can be used as a reference for interested people worldwide, when it comes to make representative democracy more representative. More than 100 countries worldwide do today apply forms of initiative and referendum in their constitutions, but only in 28 countries the citizens have a right to set the political agenda by gathering signatures and to vote on their proposals. Switzerland is the most experienced such country and do offer many practical experiences in everything from postal voting to collaborative forms of dialogue between government and citizens (eg counter proposal and double yes procedures) or a huge diversity of local practices. Having said that, Switzerland can learn a lot from others in respect to suffrage-issues, youth participation or digital deliberations.
Join the conversation!