Why the Swiss may have a cure for flawed democracies
Leonello Zaquini (first from left) says citizens' involvement in politics helps ensure parliamentary democracy. The author of a book on Switzerland's system of direct democracy was taking part in a panel discussion in Le Locle
Ricardo Volpe
Democracy Swiss-style could serve as model for other countries and for the European Union, according to Leonello Zaquini, author of a recent book on direct democracy. The strength of the Swiss system is its ability to break the monopoly of power by parliaments.
Italian-born Zaquini is a member of the local parliament in the town of Le Locle in northwestern Switzerland. The trained engineer emigrated from his native town of Iseo in northern Italy to Switzerland in the late 1990s where he was teaching at a technical college.
Zaquini says his ambition was not to write a scientific analysis but to tell the story of how he got first-hand experience in Swiss-style direct democracy.
He has no Swiss passport but the laws in canton Neuchâtel where he’s been living allow foreign residents to take part in local votes and be elected to local authorities. Only a limited number of the country’s 26 cantons grant foreign residents these democratic rights.
swissinfo: What made you write a book which explains Switzerland’s direct democratic system to primarily an Italian readership?
Leonello Zaquini: I hope the Swiss system will be copied by my fellow Italians, adapting it because nothing can be applied one to one. It could be used to reform Italy’s political system which has been suffering.
Switzerland has a huge asset: Over the decades, layers of the direct democratic system have formed and settled. I want Italians to know this and to acknowledge it is happening in a neighbouring country.
Unlike Switzerland where voters have the final say on electoral laws, in Italy the matter is in the hands of parliament. This just one of the many dirty tricks played on citizens.
Comparing the two countries I came to realise that direct democracy, beside elements of representative democracy, are the cure for many political woes.
swissinfo: Switzerland is a small state with a federalist structure. How can you sure that a system can work in a big centralised state?
L.Z.: These democratic instruments have already been taken over successfully by states that are much bigger than Switzerland and also have another political system. Take the example of California with a population of about 40 million where direct democracy was introduced more than a century ago.
The European Union a few years ago launched the European Citizens’ InitiativeExternal link. It is not very powerful at all, I agree. But it is a first step and a most interesting sign. And what’s more, signatures for the European Initiative can be gathered online. This could also be the way forward for Switzerland because it makes collecting and campaigning much easier.
Then there is the question: Why should citizens capable of electing representatives to a political position not also be capable of deciding on concrete issues?
It is much more demanding for voters to choose people than to give your opinion on a matter at stake. Because who are the elected representatives really and what will they do in their positions?
swissinfo: What about those initiatives which raise complex issues and are difficult for some citizens to decide?
L.Z.: A very valid point. This is where the common sense of citizens comes in. Those who don’t know, abstain rather than risk taking a wrong decision. This is quite frequent in Switzerland and, I my view, it is a sensible attitude.
So voters, even if they are a minority of citizens, make up a sample of people outnumbering any parliament.
Initiative and referendum
A people’s initiative is aimed at amending the constitution. Voters will have the final say on the proposal provided the campaigners successfully gather at least 100,000 signatures within 18 months.
A referendum challenges a decision by parliament. Some matters need voters’ approval, including membership in international organisations and security alliances as well as urgent legislation introduced at short notice.
Other parliamentary decisions, including major international treaties, only go to a public vote if they are challenged by at least 50,000 signatures collected within 100 days.
Direct democracy uses the wisdom spread over millions of citizens for the benefit of all.
Which means that the result of a decision by the people is more broadly founded than that of whatever legislative body.
No doubt, citizens do commit errors. But it is less likely for a majority of millions of citizens to go wrong than for a much smaller number of parliamentarians.
swissinfo: You seem to be exceedingly fond of the Swiss system of direct democracy. Is it not possible that you might have a distorted picture, overdoing its virtues while downplaying its flaws?
L.Z.: I often wondered myself, but I’m sure it is not the case. An entire chapter of my book is dedicated to restrictions and shortcomings of Switzerland’s direct democracy.
Bear in mind that all decision-making system have flaws. The Swiss model is no exception. Therefore it is crucial to continue improving it. Having said that, Europe could learn a lot from the Swiss example.
swissinfo: Which of the flaws in Switzerland’s direct democracy must be remedied most urgently in your opinion?
L.Z.: It’s primarily the lack of transparency over the financing of people’s initiatives. Binding rules should be imposed to make clear who is behind a proposal.
Another quite serious issue is the increasing use of direct democratic instruments for political parties to promote their agenda and win additional support in elections. It is imperative to stop this trend in my opinion.
But I think it is very difficult to set rules which effectively ban parties from launching initiatives or force referendums. These are instruments to be used only by citizens and interest groups exclusively.
swissinfo: What are the main merits of democracy Swiss-style?
L.Z.: The foremost advantage is certainly that it breaks the monopoly of power of a parliament. In a direct democracy, parliaments and citizens both have their own spheres of powers; they are not opponents but rather complement each other.
Direct democracy ensures the representative democracy. Parliamentarians are aware that their decisions can be challenged or overturned by voters. Obviously this has an impact on the way they decide. In the true sense of the word it forces them to be representatives and speak for the citizens.
In a representative democracy, however, there is a monopoly on power. The parties hold on to it through the elected representatives. But in reality they turn into party delegates.
Direct democracy, in addition to the representative democracy with a parliament, is an antidote to prevent any form of power abuse.
Adapted from Italian by Urs Geiser
Popular Stories
More
Culture
Wealth is not all: how gentrification in Zurich has led to housing shortage
If you want to start a conversation about a topic raised in this article or want to report factual errors, email us at english@swissinfo.ch.
Read more
More
Direct democracy virus spreads across Italian border
This content was published on
“Unfulfilled” or “incomplete” – this is how democracy in Italy is described by activists currently fighting for a system with more citizen participation. Their main inspiration is Switzerland, with its institutions of direct democracy parallel to those of parliament. It is perhaps not surprising that a current hotbed of activism for “more democracy” in Italy…
Commission wants a more efficient transnational democracy
This content was published on
The European Commission is a model student when it comes to following the rules, and so- just in time and as required by law – it has presented a reportExternal link on the first three years of the European Citizens’ initiative. This historic first tool of direct citizen participation at the transnational level was introduced…
This content was published on
To stop the most important instrument in Switzerland’s direct democracy turning into a farce, reforms are urgently needed to improve the effectiveness of initiatives while preventing their abuse. The initiative, that keystone of Swiss direct democracy, has become distanced from its true function as a tool for expressing popular opposition. Its purpose today has turned…
How direct democracy helps US become a better place
This content was published on
Poor America! At first sight the recent US midterm elections offer little relief. America’s traumatised society seems unable to find common ground on anything. But there is a way forward and it comes via direct democracy, reports Bruno Kaufmann, editor-in-chief of people2power.info.
‘Initiatives must not be an excuse to play with fire‘
This content was published on
Idealising the sovereign rights of the people is taking its toll on Swiss democracy, says philosopher Katja Gentinetta. Many disgruntled voters are not aware of the political impact of controversial initiatives approved at the ballot box.
She argues that political and economic developments, notably a trend towards globalisation over the past 20 years, have changed Switzerland’s political culture.
swissinfo.ch: Swiss citizens can decide on political issues more than any other in the world. Are you proud of this?
Katja Gentinetta: It is not a question of pride because I had no role in it. The right to vote and elect is a gift of history. It is something singular that deserves being acknowledged and taken care of by active participation.
swissinfo.ch: There is a strong trend among younger people to take an interest in vintage things and old values. Is the system of direct democracy, which gives the people the final say, – and which the rightwing Swiss People’s Party virtually declares as absolute – the transformation of this phenomenon into politics?
K.G.: On the contrary. This party is including the communication tools of the modern media society very consistently in its political work. It is not resorting to the past but using new possibilities. Traditional Switzerland is at the centre of course but this is another story…
swissinfo.ch: You have described voters’ approval of immigration curbs on February 2014 as a ‘tyranny of the minority’. How can a direct democratic decision become a ‘tyranny of the minority’?
K.G.: I meant the Swiss People’s Party, which is supported by only about 30% of voters. But with such initiatives it succeeds in in winning a majority – albeit an extremely thin majority.
This is one of the key issues of the system. Direct democracy depends on no single political party having absolute power but the need to find compromises with other parties.
The People’s Party, which is very successful at the moment, systematically aims for the majority, using problematic people’s initiatives.
swissinfo.ch: Why is the party so successful with its political power play against the government, parliament and other political players, which used to be decisive?
K.G.: The world has changed a lot in the past two decades that’s for sure.
Voters in 1992 rejected a proposal for Switzerland to join the European Economic Area – a halfway house of European Union membership. We live in a globalised world where borders and markets have become more open.
It is also a world where it is no longer possible to a separate domestic and foreign policy according to strict rules.
For a long time foreign policy used to be in the hands of the Radical Party, while the People’s Party dominated the agricultural issues. This is no longer possible nowadays with the World Trade Organization being the key player.
The People’s Party was most successful in going back to its grassroots. It has continually recruited personnel over the past two decades and sent it out to talk to the people. What’s more it has had great financial means to this day.
These 20 years have changed Switzerland’s political culture.
swissinfo.ch: What about the other parties?
K.G.: It would not be fair to put the ‘blame’ on the People’s Party only. The others also pursued a policy in their own interest. The questions are: Why are they weaker? Did they have the wrong methods? Was their profile too low? Or did they not have enough money?
The growing complexity in a globalised world did certainly play a part. People tend to be intimidated by it and become unhappy.
It is easier to play on fears in politics than to point out possibilities and new options.
swissinfo.ch: Figures show that Switzerland has done better than its European neighbours in a globalised economy following the 2008/09 financial crisis.
K.G.: Until that point the reasoning was ‘If it’s good for the economy it’s good for Switzerland’.
But this no longer applies since the state had to save the bank UBS from collapse, and voters approved of caps on excessive manager salaries.
These two developments have marked a turning point in Swiss politics and we still have not learned to cope with.
swissinfo.ch: Switzerland as a multi-cultural country has a democracy with a carefully-balanced system which ensures compromise, common sense, security, cohesion, stability and prosperity. Is it necessary to fine-tune this system of checks and balances?
K.G.: It is a fundamental question. I do not want to limit the system of direct democracy and even less abolish it.
Still, in my opinion a proposal by the former Federal Chancellor Annemarie Huber-Hotz is highly commendable for Switzerland: to go back to the roots of the initiatives.
The right to call for a constitutional amendment was introduced in 1891 to give those parts of society, which are not sufficiently represented in parliament and administration a way to influence politics. It was not meant as a tool for political parties in power.
I’d like to add the idea of a constitutional court even though it is something unimaginable.
The French political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville’s work, Democracy in America, [published in 1835 and 1840] remains a brilliant analysis to this day. He concludes that democracy is a wonderful institution as long as it has brakes built in. The constitutional court is such a brake that can stop such things, which he described as ‘tyranny of the majority’.
swissinfo.ch: When exactly is this brake supposed to apply?
K.G.: Certain principles are non-negotiable according to the constitutional court.
The Swiss system suffers from an idealisation of the principle that the people are sovereign.
It is taken for granted that the people can and must have the final say on everything.
The discussion currently focuses on whether national or international law should be given priority.
This is ultimately the question. Can we and should we vote democratically on human rights and how can they be applied.
The limits have been reached in the debate. We need such limits to agree on the basics in our society.
swissinfo.ch: You are saying that consensus and compromise are no longer the cornerstones of Swiss politics. Instead it is a trend towards more radicalism and more populism. What can we do to strengthen compromise and consensus in the face of the successful People’s Party with its highly antagonising political proposals?
K.G.: All political actors, that is the governments and parliaments on national, cantonal and communal levels, as well as the parties, political associations and organisations and, not least of all, the citizens have to start thinking what type of Switzerland they want and what the preconditions are to achieve that goal.
One thing is clear. Initiatives with an impact on the constitution must not be an excuse to play with fire and or to teach somebody a lesson.
Angry Swiss voters who seek to vent their frustration, probably inspired by citizens in other countries, are unaware of the consequences. They don’t teach any lessons but they approve a constitutional amendment.
It is time to learn once again the difference and to better acknowledge the impact of such ballot box decisions.
swissinfo.ch: Is Switzerland’s democracy facing a turning point?
K.G.: I think so. By the very fact that the debate over initiatives has taken on a new quality. And this is a good thing.
Katja Gentinetta
Gentinatta has been working as an independent political consultant for companies, organisations and individuals together with her business partner Heike Scholten since 2011.
She has written several books about the welfare state and Switzerland’s policy on Europe and currently teaches as a lecturer at Swiss universities and colleges.
Geninetta has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Zurich University and has studied in Paris and Salzburg, Austria, and at Harvard.
She also presented an intellectual talk show on public television and was a leading member of the think-tank Avenir Suisse in Zurich.
This content was published on
The debate over ideas and the direct participation of citizens in political decisions at the ballot box – including elections and votes – must not be given up, she says. Piffaretti, a former editor-in-chief, lives in the Italian-speaking part of Switzerland. swissinfo.ch: President Simonetta Sommaruga says direct democracy depends on the political culture. In what…
ʻDirect democracy is sometimes like an internet forumʼ
This content was published on
The Swiss approach voting with a refreshing “studious enthusiasm”, jokes Swiss cartoonist Patrick Chappatte. However, over the past 15 years direct democracy has become a weapon used by manipulators and populists, he warns.
Democracy is the ‘best of all bad forms of government’
This content was published on
Can Swiss direct democracy handle the complexity of some of society's current problems? swissinfo.ch talks to political scientists Claude Longchamp and Martina Imfeld about the state of direct democracy in Switzerland.
You can find an overview of ongoing debates with our journalists here . Please join us!
If you want to start a conversation about a topic raised in this article or want to report factual errors, email us at english@swissinfo.ch.