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 11 th of November 2006 by Andreas Gross (Switzerland) Atelier pour la Démocratie Directe à St-Ursanne (JU/CH) and Swiss MP/PACE

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 (18 th ) JM Condorcet, 1791/1793, Constitutional drafts during the French Revolution French “utopian socialists”, early 19 th,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 LIConR 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: 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