Direct democracy – debates, discussion and trends

So after the analysis but before the summary, I wanted to show also some of the criticism and trends of the Swiss Direct Democracy system. Because, oh boy, it is not perfect. But as you will see, improving it is not a simple nut to crack.

Some of the more important debates:

• An interesting debated is the granularity of citizen input. An Optional Referendum is nothing more than a citizen veto with a yes/no option. It does not allow fine-tuning of the law in question, rather it creates a “back to the drawing board” scenario. (Some cantons do have a more granular, “constructive referendum”, allowing fine-tuning.)
• After acceptance of an initiative, a lot of wiggle room is left for both legislative and executive branch in how it gets implemented. The actual implementation sometimes contradicts the spirit of the initiative, or leave it in limbo for years.
• A very Swiss topi is also debated: money. Financing of referendum campaigns are uncontrolled and nontransparent, some calling it outright “scandalous”.
• Another Swiss topic is time. The system was not designed for speed.
• Due to its slows speed, it seems transformative innovation is very difficult in direct democracy. Citizens have said “no” to the European Economic Area, to reforms of the pension system, and reforms of the health system – some argue to the detriment of progress. Since as far back as the 70’s, but also in early 90s, late 90s and up to today, experts have argued that the political system needs to change in order to allow for more innovation.

And some further debates, as there seems to be no end to them:

• Some propose to limit the topics that can be launched as a change to the constitution. In our globalized world, more and more issues are handled in international treaties and laws, and a national-level view is starting to become limiting. Obviously the Swiss can’t change international laws, so citizens’ freedom is automatically being curtailed. The Swiss are not super thrilled about that.
• But as the exact opposite, some argue that the scope of direct democracy should be widened, and also allow a say in international laws and policies. How they imagine that working is somewhat of a mystery though.
• Another debate is regarding ‘civic education‘. Education is not handled on a federal level, and thus varies across cantons. So the information young people receive about direct democracy varies across the country.
• Another problem is the previously mentioned hijacking of the Popular Initiative tool by parliament parties – whereas this tools was created to give representation to under-represented groups. Turning this trend around is practically impossible: real forces behind a Committee could remain hidden even if party participation got limited.
• Number of required signatures to launch a referendum has been long debated. Some argue for an increase, and some for a decrease! Current thresholds (at 1% and 2% of population) were defined at the end of the 19^th century, when Switzerland’s population was less than half of the today’s.
• Some even argue that initiatives have detrimental effects through overloading the bureaucracy. Others don’t agree, saying that initiatives and referendums have little strain on system.
• Although the official communication efforts are already very inclusive, some argue that they are bureaucratic, limiting comprehension of topic and its consequences.

The last article in Swiss Direct Democracy analysis will summarize its key characteristics.