Author: Maarten Koning

One of the most striking features of Switzerland’s political system is the absence of a dominant political party. Few Swiss citizens are familiar with the name of their head of state, also known as the federal president.

That is not surprising. They are appointed for one year and always belong to the government of seven ministers. The head of state is the primus/prima inter pares. The Prime Minister does not exist. All members of the government are equal.

As laid down in the Constitution, a government of seven ministers is already unique and has remained unchanged since 1848.

The government’s composition is also exceptional. The four largest parties share the ministerial posts. New parties are not automatically granted a place in the government after one or two successful elections, but must prove themselves over a more extended period.

Direct democracy gives citizens the final say through the (mandatory or optional) referendum and popular initiative. Another aspect is the militia system (Milizsystem/Le système de milice) type of political commitment, whereby members of parliament are part-time politicians.  Although this system is under pressure, it shows the engagement of the citizens.

It is a system that guarantees a high degree of stability, legitimacy, continuity, and citizen involvement. Thus, the citizens are de facto politicians and always have the last say.

The most important features of this system are federalism, decentralised state organisation, direct democracy, a multicultural society, the electoral system, the formation of long-term coalitions, and citizen, organisational, and social partner participation.

Switzerland, as we know it today, was founded in 1848. The canton of Jura was established in 1979. The twenty-six cantons are sovereign republics unless they transfer powers to the Federal level. Political life in the cantons and around 2,200 municipalities is often much more relevant to daily life issues.

The importance of direct democracy goes beyond the day of voting. Direct democracy influences the whole political process, lengthy consultation procedures and compromises; it tamps down the madness of daily politics and the ambitions of individual politicians and their (patronage) networks. Above all, it provides legitimacy. The people are the sovereign rather than the political parties and politicians.

The cantons and their different languages, cultures, religions and economic models thrive under this system. Nevertheless, this system also has its weaknesses. It functions slowly and is complicated. It is difficult for other countries/organisations to imagine that citizens and their cantons can dispute European agreements and treaties.

The Swiss democratic model always offers an alternative. The doctrine of no alternative (Alternativlosigkeit) does not exist. The advantages of the Swiss democratic federal bottom-up system far outweigh the disadvantages.

In a referendum on the abolition of the referendum, a vast majority of citizens will vote in favour of the referendum. No politician, minister or political party is willing, able or constitutionally entitled to ignore a decision by referendum.

(Source and further information: W. Lindner, S. Mueller, Schweizerische Demokratie. Institutionen, Prozesse, Perspektieven, 4. Aulage, Bern 2017)

The Swiss model of direct democracy is often used as an example of how to involve citizens and organisations in decision-making procedures. However, the historical development of this system and its manner of functioning are often unknown.

Functioning

Every system has its advantages and disadvantages, although one thing is sure: the democratic system is the best, whether the presidential systems in France or America, the parliamentary systems with proportional representation (Denmark), a district system (United Kingdom), a federation (Germany), or a unitary state (The Netherlands).

Direct democracy

The system of the Swiss Confederation (Confoederatio Helvetica) does occupy a special place among such democracies. Only a good insight into the history and the emergence of direct democracy put its functioning into the right perspective.

A single or double veto by the People (Referendum) and/or the Council of States (Ständerat) means the end of a (constitutional) law or treaty, even if the government and the National Council have agreed to it.

The system of direct democracy derives from specific geographical locations and conditions, from powerful dynasties, seeking to control the trade routes and Alpine passes in medieval times, and from a good dose of pragmatism belonging to medieval communities in the mountain areas. The Dutch water and dam management communes know a similar historical development.

History until 1815

1 August 1291 still has a mythical sound and is even the country’s official date of birth. Three “Orte” – namely Schwytz, Uri and Unterwalden – allied and confirmed their alliance with an oath (Eid).  Hence the name “Eidgenossen.” The label canton dates from the sixteenth century. These alliances and oaths were common practice across Europe.

What makes this alliance so unique is the continuity and gradually further expansion with other “Orte” (Glarus and Appenzeller) and cities (Bern, Lucerne, Basel, Schaffhausen, Zurich, Freiburg, Solothurn, Zug) until 1513.

Whether the “Orte” joined the cities (allies from 1351 onward) or vice versa is irrelevant. The fact is that the “Eidgenossenschaft” of thirteen cantons existed in 1513 as a loose federation with often different (economic) interests and religions (from 1525).

In the “Orte” (farming communities without urban structures), decisions were made at general meetings of (male) citizens in the Landsgemeinde.

The lord (Habsburg, for example) had little to say. It was a communal system intended to represent local interests. For example, the “Landsgemeinde” in the canton of Grisons was an independent commune in the fourteenth century, probably under the influence of the Italian city-states.

Any ideological concept was lacking. The focus was mainly on (legal) conflict resolution and common interests (for example, maintaining roads and livestock safety). Large landowners were absent in these areas, and most farmers owned small businesses.

In urban communities, aristocratic oligarchies and administrative structures developed over the centuries. The elites of the guilds and wealthy citizens ruled by consensus and majorities. It was not a democracy in the modern sense and ordinary citizens had little direct influence.

The “Tagsatzung” (the meeting of representatives of the cantons) aimed at reaching a consensus between cantons and their interests, in particular, the administration of the occupied areas (Untertanengebiete).

That was the situation until the 18th century, the period of the Enlightenment, the American Constitution and independence, the establishment of salons and societies in the cities, and the French Revolution and subsequent occupation/interference (1798-1813).

After 1815

Direct democracy became a topical issue before and after the French era (1798-1813). The call for direct plebiscites was growing, intending to maintain internal peace during industrialization, fast-growing cities, and religious conflicts between cantons (Sonderbundskrieg 1847).

Geneva, September 2022, Direct Democracy at work

1848-1891

The Constitution of 12 September 1848, the constitutional fundament of present-day Switzerland, only included the obligatory referendum (obligatorisches Referendum). However, the optional referendum (Fakultatives Referendum) already existed in several cantons.

Because it worked well, more cantons followed this example (Aargau, Solothurn, Graubünden, Thurgau, Zurich and, in 1869, even Bern). The construction of railways, conflicting interests between railway barons and landowners, and unrest in cities accelerated this process.

There have always been opponents to the referendum with the same arguments as nowadays: the people have insufficient insight, it undermines representative parliamentary democracy, and the elite knows what is good for the country.

The Referendums

The referendums and their conditions were accepted in 1874 (Fakultatives Referendum) and 1891 (Volksinitiatieve)

After all these centuries of development and discussion, the country could and would not function without direct democracy. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Democracy can never be put into perspective at the local, regional, national, or European levels.

(Source: O. Meuwly, Une histoire de la démocratie directe en Suisse, Neuchâtel, 2018).