Lesson From 2010: more direct democracy, not more representative democracy

By contrast, the Swiss, thanks to their politicians’ fear of the people have not been to war for centuries and their system of government is the only system of government to be successfully exported, including to Australia (through s128 of the Constitution - we have the second largest amount of referenda in the world on a Federal level), Canada (British Columbia), America (24 states, often all the richest states), New Zealand (about five referendums have been held), Sweden, although Norway has also used the device.

Moreover, its binding, federalist-based referenda approach has never ended in coups or dictatorship. Even in Venezuela the people rejected Chavez’s plan to install himself as an absolute dictator.

Westminster governance, by contrast, creates either extreme apathy (most of the Western world) or spawns bloody division (Pakistan, Fiji, Grenada, PNG).

In Switzerland, however, the Germans, French and Italians remain united despite their ethnic and religious differences. I encourage everyone to read Direct Democracy in Switzerland - which shows how CIR has generated lower crime rates, strengthens freedom of the press, encourages a better education system (Le Rosey and the International Baccalaureate being first class Swiss educational inventions) and the best transport systems (in Zurich and Geneva). CIR ensures we all have a voice, not just at election time.

Detractors of the Swiss system and CIR, often point to its alleged ability to crush “human rights” as evidence of its “right-wingness”. Gay rights (Prop 8 which limited marriage to between a man and a woman) and religious minorities (Minarets) are classic examples.

But on the whole CIR has advanced gay rights and religious minorities.

In Switzerland, gay couples received the same economic rights as heterosexual couples back in 1992. Australia did this only in 2008. In Switzerland, civil unions were legalised via CIR in 2004. We have yet to do this - and probably won’t for the next 10 years. Meantime, Switzerland is keeping an eye out to see what happens in jurisdictions with gay marriage.

Thus, CIR does allow for measured and reasoned reform on one hand, but also allows for a "wait-and-see" strategy on the other hand. Was it really too much to ask to not allow gay marriage while we wait for the datasets in other countries before we overturned an institution that is old as several millennia? A more sensible option was to take step 1 and implement civil unions.

Immigration is another area where CIR has fallaciously had some bad press. In 1847 Jews - via CIR - were allowed in for the purposes of a massive immigration intake. The Swiss also instigated CIR mandated foreign aid funds during the 1990s for refugees. Some Swiss cantons, due to CIR programs, even allow voting to aliens who have lived in the canton for several years. This is hardly evidence of its “right-wingness”.