150 years of experiences with Direct Democracy Insights and lessons which might be learned from the...
-
Upload
phillip-tyler -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of 150 years of experiences with Direct Democracy Insights and lessons which might be learned from the...
150 years of experiences with Direct Democracy
Insights and lessons which might be learned from the national, regional and local level in Switzerland
Workshop at the Conference on Direct Participative Democracy in Sent Sadurni
11th of November 2006
by Andreas Gross (Switzerland)by Andreas Gross (Switzerland)Atelier pour la Atelier pour la Démocratie Directe à St-UrsanneDémocratie Directe à St-Ursanne (JU/CH) (JU/CH)
and Swiss MP/PACEand Swiss MP/PACE
www.andigross.chwww.andigross.ch [email protected] [email protected]
Switzerland has the richest national experiences with Direct
Democracy – but it has not invented it
New England States in the US had the first constitutional referenda (18th)
JM Condorcet , 1791/1793, Constitutional drafts during the French Revolution
French “utopian socialists”, early 19th,and German 1848ers from the Rhineland
Switzerland was a fruitful (pre-modern) ground for the ideas of
modern Direct Democracy
Pre-modern municipal Referendum traditions in GR Pre-modern traditions of assembly decision making
Tradition of decentralised power structures(Federalism as sister of DD - Autonomy is a asymmetrical
form of federalism) No feudal power - politics issue of citizens
Social, cultural and economic variety Multi-polar and competitive (big) power-structures
Weak central power on national level - regions are like political laboratories
The Swiss DD is a product of the opposition - a democratic peoples movement between 186o and 1890
The majority of the founding fathers of modern Switzerland were 1848 “elitist”
(“The belongings of the people are so important that they can not belong to the people”)
Oldest real representative Democracy in Europe (1848) The Parliament did not really represent the people; only a
representation of the privileged (OREG: ”Plutocracy”) It’s key to success: The oblig. constitut. Referendum existed
already since 1848, partially since 1833/1803
The closer you come to the citizens the more Direct
Democracy you have
National: CR CI LR (TrR)
Regional: CR CI LR LI ConR FincR SingI
Municipal: CR CI LR LI ConR FincR SingI
Direct Democracy became the key element of the political system and
the Swiss political culture
3 or 4 times a year the citizens participate in issue voting They are used to vote on issues on all 3 levels, 2 to 5 issues
per level (Total: 7 - 15 issues per time) This changes the publics sphere (s): More open, more
pluralistic, more controversial It creates a “sense of belonging” of the citizens
Switzerland integrates a multivariable society by open participation rights for all (exception: The non-Swiss)
The best lessons to be taken from the Swiss DD experience (I)
Citizen friendly design is possible and works (Low signature % requirement, free gathering, cooperative
structure with the Parliament, no majority quorums, no issue restrictions, no financial limits)
Don’t exclude anybody or anything from DD process Decentralised power (The country who gives most powers to the regions and communes, even taxes)
Citizens are able to decide, you should not underestimate them
The best lessons to be taken from the Swiss DD experience (II)
Do not rush: Participating, deliberations, negotiations, interactions need time: The faster you go, the less you get out of it
A NO is more than a NO: It is often partially also a yes, or sometimes a “not yet”
The Swiss learnt to loose, because they may always try again The problem of the level of participation is not quantitative but
qualitative: The less participate, the less those who do are representative for all (the better they are off, the more they do)
The best lessons to be taken from the Swiss DD experience (III)
In a DD every issue has to find it’s own majority That’s why DD influences also the ID system, the
way the government functions and is composed Because of DD, the Parliament is more open and
less organised Many In and Ref are also born in the Parliament by
it’s minorities DD also democratises the electoral system for the
Parliament (Panasch/Kumulation)
The more citizens may participate - the more carefully public money
is spent
An argument which may help to create political coalitions for the introduction of DD
Politicians know, they can not spend money without the consent of the majority of the citizens
This has an effect on all political matters: You can not be generous to culture or foreigners if the citizens
feel badly treated socially or economically Politicians have to care about the people and all
interests and items
DD creates more conflicts and a certain conflict culture
Conflicts are natural children of freedom and have nothing to do with violence (The worse Democracy is
the more they are solved violently) This is a paradox in Switzerland, because with it’s
small and agrarian society it is afraid to have conflicts and prefers to avoid them
The binary structure of DD (only Yes or No)
-the primitive side of Democracy- can be opened and improved
DD is an ongoing and never ending process In a cooperative design of DD the Parliament has the option
of Counterproposals which offers a 3 options vote People may vote 3/4 times a year on 5/6 issues and may
come back on similar questions within 2/3 years: This allows permanent adjustments of once taken decisions
If you really want to learn lessons about DD in CH, you also have to
learn, what you can not learn in CH
The social and political “infrastructure” of DD in CH is very weak (No public funding for parties, no support for active citizens, weak
parliaments, weak citizen political education efforts) Lack of sensitivity for the need of a fair process of DD
(Transparency of the money involved, no efforts to balance the chances in the public decision making process)
Too many people are excluded (21% “foreigners”, too many obstacles to become Swiss citizen)
Analytical errors or misunderstandings about DD in Switzerland
The Swiss women did not get their participate rights because of DD (in Oregon it was the newly introduced
DD which led by a initiative 1914 to the women’s democratic rights
It’s not because of DD that Switzerland is not (yet) member of the European Union (N has no DD)
Democracy is a human right, not a national privilege