Oliver Wiedmann and Anne Dänner in the Berlin office of More Democracy
swissinfo.ch
This content was published on
9 minutes
Alexander Thoele began working for SWI swissinfo.ch in 2002. He is of German and Brazilian origin. He was born in Rio de Janeiro and completed studies in journalism and computer science in Brasilia and Stuttgart.
Germany’s More Democracy group is an example of worldwide attempts to boost citizens’ participation in politics. Two representatives of the NGO told swissinfo.ch about the potential risks of direct democracy.
The building in the heart of Berlin that houses More Democracy External link(Mehr Demokratie) is somewhat pompously called House of Democracy and Human Rights.
Close to the legendary Alexanderplatz it was this house that members of civil society met after the fall of Berlin Wall in 1989.
Today, several non-governmental groups share the postal address “Greifswalder Strasse 4” including human rights NGO Amnesty International, a feminist party and an anarchist library.
Anne Dänner is a spokeswoman of More Democracy and Oliver Weidmann is a senior member of the Berlin chapter of the group.
swissinfo.ch: What is the origin of your organisation?
Anne Dänner: It was founded in 1988 by people close to the Green Party and the Social Democrats. From the very beginning the aim was to fight for ballots at a nationwide level in Germany. We have still not reached this goal.
But we have been quite successful in promoting direct democratic elements at a regional or local level in the German Länder (states). There are currently several states and communes where we can launch ballots.
swissinfo.ch: What kind of nationwide vote do have in mind?
A.D.: Our idea is a three-phased approach. In a first step, at least 100,000 signatures have to be collected to validate an initiative. It is then submitted to parliament for discussion. If the proposal is thrown out the initiative goes back to the promoters who have to gather at least one million signatures before voters have the final say in at the ballot box.
swissinfo.ch: One of the traditional arguments against direct democracy in Germany has been that Hitler was voted in by citizens.
Oliver Wiedmann: Even the Christian Democratic Union CDU [The centre-right party of Chancellor Angela Merkel] which is no friend of direct democracy has rejected this assumption.
Historians do not believe that Hitler came to power as a result of a public vote. The truth is that the parliamentary system allowed him to rise to the top.
More Democracy
The non-profit organisation was set up in 1988. Its aim is to boost direct democracy in Germany.
It claims about 7,000 members and is funded by their voluntary contributions. More Democracy (Mehr Demokratie) is the world’s biggest promoter of citizen participation according to its organisers.
Anne Dänner studied cultural science and history of journalism at Leipzig University. She has been a spokeswoman for More Democracy since 2008.
Oliver Wiedmann studied social sciences at the Carl von Ossietzky University in Oldenburg. He joined the anti-globalisation movement Attac when he was still a student. In 2006 he became a member of More Democracy and is a representative of the Berlin chapter of the group.
The term referendum is mentioned in Germany’s post-war constitution which shows that there is no fundamental objection to direct democracy. The reason why nationwide votes are not possible is a result of the Cold War and fears that the Communists might use the method to seize power.
But 70 years after the end of the Second World War it is time to have another look to see if things have changed and if the Germans are finally ripe for democracy (laughs).
swissinfo.ch: Some recent initiatives in Switzerland – a ban on the construction of minarets (2009), the automatic deportation of convicted foreigners (2010) or the immigration curbs (2014) – have been criticised as excesses of direct democracy.
O.W.: There is indeed a risk and we’ve often questioned our own position on this issue. But the reality in Germany shows that the rightwing extremists have never used direct democratic methods where they exist at a local level or in the Länder.
Both in Berlin and in North-Rhine Westphalia have there been attempts to launch initiatives to ban the construction of minarets. But they failed to overcome legal obstacles or were declared invalid.
swissinfo.ch: Are you saying that Germany has a better system than Switzerland when it comes to direct democracy?
O.W.: There is certainly a fundamental difference between the two countries.
In Germany initiatives are vetted by an official institution before being put to a vote. This is to ensure that they are in line with international law and the country’s constitution.
In other words, a proposal outlawing the construction of minarets violates the freedom of religion enshrined in the constitution.
swissinfo.ch: If nationwide votes were introduced in Germany, who would decide whether an initiative is valid or not?
O.W.: Primarily it would be the task of the interior ministry. The constitutional court would consider cases where an initiative was found invalid.
swissinfo.ch: One of the former leaders of the anti-Islamic PEGIDA movement recently founded the association Direct Democracy in Europe. Its aim is to force a ballot on immigration. Do you think it is lawful to call a vote on such an issue?
O.W.: Immigration should not be treated as a national problem in Germany. This is a Europe-wide issue. What we need is a vote at a European level.
Even if I’m personally against it, I think it is a legitimate move.
A.D.: The issue could be put to a vote if it wasn’t blocked by legal wrangling. But it is not all black and white.
Being philosophical you could argue that it is part of direct democracy to be aware that it can be taken away from you. In parliament too decisions are taken based on majorities and minorities.
It is one of the big advantages of a direct democratic system that even the most disturbing demands are not decided arbitrarily. Because first a lot of citizens have to be asked whether they want a public vote.
I think PEGIDA might have failed to bring the issue to public attention. Just look what has happened in the meantime: the movement has split into small groups.
Had the movement been successful with its initiative it would have shown that immigration is a real concern for the population.
swissinfo.ch: The authorities in Stuttgart were forced to organise a referendum following massive protests by citizens in 2010 against a major project by the railways. Some politicians warned the successful ballot would set a precedent and block all major building projects in Germany. Is this criticism of direct democracy justified?
O.W.: It is a matter of perception. At the time all eyes were on the scene of the big protests. It gave the impression there would be huge demonstrations everywhere and no major projects could be realised.
But the truth is that all these big projects were completed without consultation of citizens.
swissinfo.ch: Is it a specific problem of Germany’s political system to delegate these decisions to elected parliamentarians?
O.W.: Decisions by parliament on financial matters and on certain public projects above a certain financial limit are automatically put to a nationwide vote in Switzerland. This is different in Germany where citizens have no say in such matters.
For me this is a major problem but there is another issue: Urban planning and master plans in several Länder are not subject to public votes.
The situation is quite different in states where this is possible. In Bavaria, for instance, there have been plenty of votes on such issues.
swissinfo.ch: The implementation of a rightwing initiative to curb immigration in Switzerland undermines the bilateral accords with the European Union. Doesn’t this example show that direct democracy can paralyse a whole country?
O.W.: Sure there is a risk. But why should parties not be allowed to use this political instrument? They are part of civil society and have a right to use initiatives, particularly opposition parties.
The system is being abused if initiatives are launched by the government or a majority group in parliament, I’d argue.
One should always be suspicious because the risk of abuses is quite considerable. Governments are keen to have their projects confirmed in a public vote.
swissinfo.ch: Isn’t the double referendum in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty amending the EU constitution not a case in point? The accord was rejected in a first vote in 2008 before it was accepted by voters a year later…
A.D.: We were among the critics of the votes because it looked like the referendums were launched solely to have the public rubberstamp the government’s decision.
The problem arose because it was a top-down approach. It would not have happened when you first have to collect enough signatures to force a vote.
The examples of recent public votes in Germany show that the initiatives at a level of the Länder or in communes were launched by different social groups but also by a political party. It is not usual for a party to go it alone with a referendum.
If it nevertheless tries to do so, chances of succeeding are slim compared with cases where several groups of civil society joined forces.
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
Democratic system ‘needs debate more than reform’
This content was published on
Moritz Leuenberger and Pascal Couchepin were both dominant figures in the government from the mid-1990s for more than a decade. They served as interior, economic and transport ministers in the seven-member cabinet. They retired more than five years ago but regularly comment on politics, also adding their voice to ongoing discussions about direct democracy and…
This content was published on
“We want to turn Baden-Württemberg into a model of democratic participation.” This ambitious pledge by the Green Party was made in a coalition agreement with the Social Democrats in 2011. Germany’s third-largest state shares its southern border with Switzerland and its western border with France. It was shaken by a political earthquake four years ago.…
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…
This content was published on
About 40 kilometres over the Swiss border near Basel, some 20 people are gathered in the old mayor’s offices in Dannemarie, a town in the Sundgau region of France’s Haut-Rhin department. Draping the front of the building are the red and white flag of Alsace and the black and white flag of Brittany, which go…
‘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.
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.