[alexasmyths]

"Even members of federal parliament only meet four times a year, and go back to their normal jobs in-between"

Ok, so then it's worse but in the opposite direction.

How on earth does anything get down when the Federal Elected Officials have 'day jobs' and 'only meet a few times a year'?

When do the make legislation?

How do they study initiatives, have working groups?

A mid sized company takes a lot of effort to lead ... how is the country led? Basically in the hands of the professional bureaucracy?

[AstralStorm]

It works and provides less way for corruption and lobbying?

Remember it is a public service. It demands sacrifices of personal and professional time. Much like jury duty in USA but more.

[walshemj]

On off if not the primary duties of MP's in a parliamentary system is to hold the executive to account - this means proper scrutiny of all bills.

[alexasmyths]

"Remember it is a public service. It demands sacrifices of personal and professional time."

That isn't the issue - the issue is one of the practical amount of time and energy required to actually be a politician.

Full time or not full time - it's still 'public service'.

We don't have many 'part time brain surgeons' or 'part time police chiefs' ...

Politics is a profession like most others.

How on earth does the 'Minister of Finance' manage a national budget part time?

I can see a lot of fluffy ministers who don't do a lot - but most cabinet level positions (Parliamentary) and other senior legislators - there's no reason they can't or should not be full time.

"It works and provides less way for corruption and lobbying?"

+ You haven't said 'how it works' - how does a national minster of finance prepare and manage a national level budget on a 'few meetings a year'.

+ Less corruption? How? Given that 'everyone in politics also has a day job' - the lines of politics/business are considerably more blurry!

   - Is the 'Minister of Finance' allowed to work in banking?
   - How do politicians create taxation legislation when that could create significant conflicts of interest?
   - Canadian Minister of Finance - and others - have to put their assets in 'blind trust' to avoid corruption. Can't do that if everyone has a normal day job. It has to be considerably more difficult to manage issues of conflict of interest, surely.

There might possibly be an advantage to having part-time politicians - in the sense that full time one's often don't earn a lot of income, they have to be re-elected etc. so perhaps they are more vulnerable than those with normal jobs.

[ainiriand]

Don't feed the troll.

[barry-cotter]

By any metric you care to look at Switzerland is a pretty great country. Life expectancy, crime, education, people wanting to immigrate, indices of economic freedom and ease of business, you name it Switzerland looks good. And it is by far the most democratic country on Earth, the closest to a direct democracy. The EU talks a good game on subsidiarity, delegating decisions and authority to the lowest sensible level, but Switzerland actually does it.

[alexasmyths]

The EU is a national federation of 500M people from vastly different cultures - all of which already have their own governments.

Switzerland is barely bigger than Toronto - so they hard hardly comparable.

Switzerland is almost a 'city state' and at that level, direct democracy is much more achievable. Many municipalities in the west also have more direct ballots - that said - they don't cover the heavy-duty things like human rights.

It's also worth noting that more than 1/3 of the world's offshore wealth sits in Switzerland, largely due to privacy and detachment from regimes that can (could) not access information - and of course stability.

This is an incredibly historical advantage that yields enormous wealth for the nation as they manage incredible amounts of passive income. Buying and trading low risk assets.

It's a lot easier when you're rich, money papers over a lot of problems.

I am not a banker but I was almost recruited by a family office in Geneva a while back.

[igravious]

Considering that it is well known that Switzerland has one of the better democracies in the world you're frankly talking out of your ass to put it politely :)

See here https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index (number 8 in the world in 2016) for instance or do your own research.

[alexasmyths]

" you're frankly talking out of your ass to put it politely "

Well I'm from Canada, and we rank HIGHER than Switzerland with 'full time politicians' - as do 100% of the nations that rank higher than Switzerland - as 'proven' by the very data you provided!

So to 'be polite' - maybe you're 'talking out your ass' x2 by providing research that repudiates your own logic, and while taking smack to others on a thread?

Consider 'reading your own research' and 'not calling others names'?

[igravious]

The research I provided invalidates your claim, not mine. You asserted that Switzerland has a crappy democracy, I pointed out that independent analysis shows that it has one of the best democracies in the world. Therefore your assertion that they need to have full time politicians is bogus. And you know it is given your defensive tone. That there are a small number of marginally better democracies according to the source I gave is _irrelevant_ as is the composition of those democracies with respect to Switzerland. It's your logic that's faulty, not mine.

I _did_ read that research, and I read others. It is _well known_ that Switzerland has one of the world's best and robust democracies. Given how other countries regularly copy[0] what Switzerland does should be a bit of a clue. Look, I have no idea why you would make such a bogus claim, but it is just that, bogus.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Citizens%27_Initiativ... “The initiative was inspired by Switzerland, which is not a member of the EU. The country has several tools of direct democracy such as the federal popular initiative (since 1848) and the optional referendum (since 1874).