 |
Maybe the institution of the Swiss Federal Council was just an accident in the history of power trading. Rarely a society had imposed on itself a directorial government after all. There was the Roman Republic and their two consuls. And there were the French directorates, of which Switzerland one was. Other societies had tried the lore of shared rule as well, but other than in Switzerland, no modern government on a modern map, except in some way the tripartite Bosnia, is using the directorial executive style today with seven equal councilors. It seems a Helvetic specialty and counter-intuitive to most.
A population “accepts” a temporary loss of certain rights and freedoms, in return for the use of state powers by a shared executive, knowing from Helvetic history, that the divisions inside the council anyway slowly but steadily grow those stolen economic and political freedoms again. And this while keeping the stability of the leadership, protecting it from foreign influence and keeping it in power as long as re-elected, which is rather longer in the regime of a council thanks to the dilution of power. The freedom of the people is as well increased all while guaranteeing the by the people demanded smooth (fair) power transition is completed peacefully instead of a destructive, senseless and bloody revolution (civil war) everybody fears most and which most likely would anyway only lead to the pre-revolutionary injustice again (false positive).
Modern Switzerland was actually ruled its first fifty years by only one party. Fifty years later, the same party was still holding an executive majority. Hundred years that have helped us to care for our geographical conflicts (city-countryside), as well as religious (protestant-catholic), cultural (languages) or economic ones (communist-capitalist) by blocking extremes and forcing the stakeholders to work out hurtful compromises, from the introduction of direct democratic rights such as initiatives and referendums up to the abolishment of the majorz election system ( majority vote, winner takes all ) to the proportional representation election system.
Then our executive did barely change. The country's four biggest parties formed for fifty years the Helvetic "presidential gang". We used to call it the magic formula according to which the three biggest parties in parliament receive each two seats and the fourth party receives one seat.
.
I think the predominant intellectual discourse in the western mainstream media for democratisation processes in China or Russia is these days, simply put, only the reflection of a western superiority complex. Wanting to increase the freedom of Russian or Chinese citizens all while preventing such democratization process (assumed to be condition sine qua non for freedom) follows the logic of implosion-explosion, I would, if, rather than ask for superficial cosmetic aim for a Russian Presidential Council or Chinese Directorial Executive since an executive composed of seven equal ministers could indeed be a compromise between the part of the population who wants a strong (efficient) monopoly of force able to keep in check organized crime and absolutist fanaticism, and the part of the population for whom the strong monopoly of force is and always was the reason and source of that instability.
Based on the present balance of power, the current establishment could probably receive four if not all seven councilor seats in the directorial power trading. The control over the key departments the Russian President needs these days in order to protect the social peace would stay in his or her hands through the majority of councilor-chairs in the executive. The underlying rationale being that an opposition party controlling forty-nine percent of the parliament has less transformative (evolutionary) power than a governing party who holds only fifteen percent of parliament, but is represented in the executive with one chair.
I think the predominant intellectual discourse in the western mainstream media for democratisation processes in China or Russia is these days, simply put, only the reflection of a western superiority complex. Wanting to increase the freedom of Russian or Chinese citizens all while preventing such democratization process (assumed to be condition sine qua non for freedom) follows the logic of implosion-explosion, I would, if, rather than ask for superficial cosmetic aim for a Russian Presidential Council or Chinese Directorial Executive since an executive composed of seven equal ministers could indeed be a compromise between the part of the population who wants a strong (efficient) monopoly of force able to keep in check organized crime and absolutist fanaticism, and the part of the population for whom the strong monopoly of force is and always was the reason and source of that instability.
Based on the present balance of power, the current establishment could probably receive four if not all seven councilor seats in the directorial power trading. The control over the key departments the Russian President needs these days in order to protect the social peace would stay in his or her hands through the majority of councilor-chairs in the executive. The underlying rationale being that an opposition party controlling forty-nine percent of the parliament has less transformative (evolutionary) power than a governing party who holds only fifteen percent of parliament, but is represented in the executive with one chair.
The Russian President could unilaterally amend the constitution and transfer the presidential and prime-ministerial powers to a directorial executive. The constitutional reform of the highest central authority would probably take time and not change anything in the streets at first - which is preferred for stability - but subsequently a conscience would grow inside the Russian society, that the direction of the Russian nation would have shifted inextricably to something rather Helvetic than Stalinistic, unleashing thereby hopefully the pragmatic Russian perspective, that had been building itself in a millenarian old civilization, but, in my opinion, had never been properly freed.
Having the opposition grow in the executive ensures a decade(s) long power transition is smooth and without power vacuum that could threaten social stability. A council could be the best tool, that the current leaderships of China and Russia have, in order to share with the whole population the control of their not-to-be-underestimated legacy : relative stability and economic growth in the worlds largest and most populous nations in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Empire.
.
The western example to follow has in my opinion shown itself surprisingly more rapidly unsustainable than expected. From my perspective it's impossible to tell objectively whether western leaders are malicious or well-disposed. With seventy years of peace, I tend to the latter, but I can't get rid of the thought that the peace is only paid for with the proceeds of future generations or the resources of the South and East. One-eyed leadership promotes an opportunistic democracy, something the old non-western civilizations have experienced from the other side of the coin.
The western example to follow has in my opinion shown itself surprisingly more rapidly unsustainable than expected. From my perspective it's impossible to tell objectively whether western leaders are malicious or well-disposed. With seventy years of peace, I tend to the latter, but I can't get rid of the thought that the peace is only paid for with the proceeds of future generations or the resources of the South and East. One-eyed leadership promotes an opportunistic democracy, something the old non-western civilizations have experienced from the other side of the coin.
Yet despite all dark humour out there, what makes me still and nevertheless and anyway most hopeful about the 21st century is that the highest democratic executive in this world is directorial as well, that is the UN Security Council. It's still a young political body that is still building the foundations of its use of power and fine-tuning procedures and common values. Unfortunately hence there will still be people in this world that will have to suffer from the absence of the council's power... just because it still takes too long to find and form an enactable compromise. But (let's not dupe ourselves it is not to make up for the cheats and tricks of local governments that the UN Security Council had been established for) gladly the people of the world will also rarely have to be frustrated at the miss-use of the council's power, as no country, no civilization, no empire can take full leadership. And it's with that absence of official malicious empires' collusion and the protection of all-out wars, that the respect of the UN Security Council - and with it the freedoms of the people - will grow slowly and steadily ... but surely ...