( 2o12 )
The Swiss seem to be perceived as a tolerant, peaceful and successful nation and I think that's more than less the truth today. Below the surface, we are of course just a bunch of armed-to-the-teeth tribes, who decided at some point to bundle their will, throw the foreign rulers out of the country and turn the former King's courts into political arenas where the people is the judges themselves.
Like many others, we are just a small nation fighting since roughly 1291 for self-determination.
A small civilization, a place I shall call unique, because i insist it's better to be decently poor than to be ruled by a ludicrously glory promising King.
And with the Helvetic constitution close to the American one, stays the little difference on its executive top: While we have our central administration managed by seven Federal Councilors, the USA is guided by only one President.
An antagony since the Helvetic directorial executive style is the secret that has allowed the Swiss to exclude the country's divisions from every day politics and business and succeed in the midst of imperial power struggles.
.
But let's not continue my collection of essays about the brilliance of a council, but let's look at direct democratic rights; let's differentiate the strong opinion about the fact, that direct democracy has made Switzerland a stable country. It's not a fact. It surely brought freedom, but with it also instability.
While indeed initiatives and referendums are crucial democratic tools, that any modern society should be able to use, the first ones - giving legislative powers to the people - don't guarantee stability, in contrary sometimes.
A "good" example being the vote on the construction-ban of minarets. It wasn't deemed a human right by the majority of Swiss to construct a minaret using foreign architecture - which could have been seen as a refusal to integrate. It was feared the minaret would only be the expression of the muslim community of a cultural superiority complex, what couldn't be accepted. The discussion was of course heavily influenced by islamophobia as promoted by our ally America at war against the muslim world.
I know other civil ways would have existed to appease the fear caused by the symbolism of religious towers. The architecture of minarets varies widely around the world and therefore I'm sure, with less timedelusional and more down-to-earth communication amongst the religious communities a compromise could have been found; an alpine style of minarets could have been invented.
Could.
The now introduced article in the constitution feels like a drop of blood on a flower.
Tolerance looks different to me.
Sure some would say that by banning the construction of minarets, the discussion is over and calm is in the country again, stability. They say the advance of muslim Arabs has been stopped. But it takes a lot of humour to appreciate this view and forget the lack of religious and cultural tolerance we introduced into the constitution.
Sure some would say that by banning the construction of minarets, the discussion is over and calm is in the country again, stability. They say the advance of muslim Arabs has been stopped. But it takes a lot of humour to appreciate this view and forget the lack of religious and cultural tolerance we introduced into the constitution.
Switzerland a republic democracy being, initiatives should be a tool for the population to unfreeze political inertia, a means of last resort to balance the relation between the establishment and the people, in favor of the latter.
They shouldn't be a constitutional additive for the majority of the population to control the minority. Initiatives shouldn't be a tool for the populist politician to circumvent the republican constitution.
I prefer referendums (time and place dependent statement ) like stopping the accession to the current European Union. They're a useful way for the population to send feedback on specific policies and not party-politics. It makes parliamentarians ask the right questions and keeps lobbyists' feet on the ground.
Indeed, the menace of a referendum fills the legislative chambers with a continuous and constructive pressure. Referendums are a civilized way for the political establishment to say the people are in power.
The popular right to veto legislation should be on the agenda of any democratic party in this world.
And yet, what's the vigor of the popular checks and balances in a state of emergency? Would we stay a true democracy if the economy declines tomorrow? Would the establishment still listen to popular votes? What's the power of the citizens' legislative rights against the will of a determined executive?
I feel tempted to pretend that a stable democracy and with it long term stability and economic growth are (only) promoted with the old principle of divide and rule. The institution that might have mostly prevented the Swiss executive from acting against its own or other populations, might just be that same executive. Not parliament, not a judge, nor the people, but the federal councilors by themselves. It seems to me there are some specific dilemmas and opportunities as they shape themselves with the division at the inside of the executive, but as well coerced unity towards the outside which is - I think - in clear differentiation to presidential-prime-ministerial forms of divisions of power.
Yes, I think what could be more important than direct democracy, might just often be such a presidency comprised of seven members deciding democratically on the use of presidential force. A small constitutional trick enabling continuous moderate rule by the means of feeding itself on diverse political opinions ignored or squeezed out in monopolar political arenas.
In exaggeration one can say hence :
The Helvètes have a long tradition in direct democracy,
Napoleon tuned it with the best executive style that a modern constitution can offer,
then we had the luck to have about 15o years to learn about how it works...
( index )