[roenxi]

Switzerland, most democratic country in the world, reminding people that it isn't just the authoritarians who know how to keep organised.

It is very hard to understand how democracies work; it is important to keep an eye on how these things play out.

[philshem]

It's also a highly federal democracy, with Cantons being considered "sovereign"[0]. So it's not to be taken lightly that the federal government has taken such steps. Several questions in the press conference have been about the Cantons specifically[1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland#Constit...

[1] https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/en/home/krankheiten/ausbrueche-...

[CaptainZapp]

Well, as a Swiss I can only state for the record that the government is not the enemy.

Essentially: The government is us.

[short_sells_poo]

Swiss resident (but not Swiss citizen) here. I believe Switzerland is a very unique case in that the Swiss have a culture of local (ie. Canton and Commune) level decision making via direct democracy. You grow up wielding a certain power, and you know your decisions matter and will affect your everyday life. This ingrains a close relationship between the citizens and their representatives.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't think it is possible to just take the Swiss model and transplant it elsewhere. It requires a multi-generational cultural conditioning to develop the civic mind that the Swiss have nurtured. It is also not clear how scalable it is ultimately.

It requires a certain amount of enlightenment without which the system would not work.

[RajuVarghese]

It also requires a certain willingness to compromise. In Switzerland one sees is all the way from the local government (gemeinde) up to the top (the federal level). Compromise is not a dirty word here; when politicians do it they are not (usually) looked at as 'giving in to the enemy'.

[CaptainZapp]

That's an extremely insightful comment and very true.

Not that it's universally adhered to by all proponents, but generally that's very much the understanding how the system should work.

As a for example: Switzerland has a "president". But that doesn't really matter since that changes annually and another member of the federal council gets to be president.

Except representative the "president" is not more powerful than any other member of the council.

[PetitPrince]

To further clarify: The president have mostly a ceremonial and diplomatic role. What is considered the Head of the Executive Branch in other countries is collectively represented here by the Federal Council. The Council is made of 7 peoples elected proportionally from the various political party by the Federal Assembly (== parliement). The Council should also by picked so that all regions of Switzerland are represented.

[CaptainZapp]

I agree and you do raise a very important point.

One of the hall marks of the Swiss system is to push as much power as possible to as locally as possible.

Communities have a lot of power in their decision making as long as such decisions do not violate cantonal (state) or federal laws.

It demands, though, quite intense interaction with policies and referendums (there are usually about three referendums about various subjects on local, cantonal and federal level per year) and that said, I would wish that there would be more engagement and a higher ratio of voters actually going to the polls.

[GuB-42]

Also, Switzerland is a small and rich country.

The smaller the group, the less hierarchy you need. I think that Switzerland is at the size limit of what direct democracy can support. In fact, it is not fully direct.

Wealth also helps. The richer you are, the more you can focus on your role in running the county and make informed decisions. That's because you have all your basic needs covered and don't really need to think about about your survival, leaving you open to higher level activities.

The classical example is Athenian democracy (the original). It worked because it involved only about 30000 people of the highest social class. Women and slaves didn't count.

[dgellow]

Looking at the country's history, you will see that Switzerland isn't rich since a long time. The country is considered successful economically since around 1848[0]. But the confederation is known to have been formed around 1291 (that's the official date that is part of the national myth, the actual date could be slightly different).

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_history_of_Switzerland

[cjslep]

Swiss democracy and the Old Helvetic Confederacy precedes its modern wealth (early 20th century) by half a millennium (14th/15th centuries?).

The old leagues and communes of Graubünden, which had some semblance of communal voting based democracy, was happening in the 1200's or earlier, long before Swiss wealth.

What it takes is a way different culture than the modern American mindset.

[ht85]

> You grow up wielding a certain power, and you know your decisions matter and will affect your everyday life. This ingrains a close relationship between the citizens and their representatives.

As a Swiss citizen, I think the feeling of individual power plays a minimal role. Unless you're some kind of political advocate you don't really wield any power and you do know that your single vote will almost never matter.

I think the big difference (and the real strength of a direct democracy) is the feeling you have that if a given system is in place, it is because a majority of the people - without discrimination - wanted it. Or, from the other side, that if a majority of people disliked it, they do have the power to change it.

[jariel]

"It requires a multi-generational cultural conditioning to develop the civic mind that the Swiss have nurtured. It is also not clear how scalable it is ultimately."

It also requires ancient banking roots that enable it to sit on the largest 'pot of gold' in the world (1/3 of the entire world's foreign investment) and put the management surpluses into its treasury. And to add, much of that 'gold' was, and is, owned by some really, really bad people and stashed away in the mountains specifically because said keepers don't have qualms about the origins of said wealth.

Surplus money makes a lot of things a lot easier. (Much like the tone of a startup: flush with cash? It's all good times. Going out of business? Death marches!)

Switzerland for all its great things is a little like Lux, Norway, and Monaco, which is to say it's hard to separate their exceptionalism from their 'special status' of having huge piles of immense easy per capita wealth.

Also, to headline a post indicating 'national events shut down' which is an interesting but not particularly exceptional act, with the statement "We are the most X in the world, etc. etc." is slightly cringe-worthy. A lot of major events have been cancelled in a lot of places with similar risk exposures.

[Mvandenbergh]

You are probably being downvoted because the Swiss system of direct democracy:

-has existed for much longer than Swiss banking being particularly significant

-existed already when Switzerland was one of the poorest countries in Europe

Also, banking is only significant in a small part of Switzerland.

[jariel]

I fail to see any evidence for how 'direct democracy' is the primary, or even relevant social artifact which drove the special directive highlighted in the article (i.e. cancellation of public events), or even any evidence that such 'direct democracy' provides superior social organization.

It's really odd that someone would even bring that up.

Switzerland was the last country in the modern world to allow women to vote (1971) - and it was direct democracy that specifically blocked women from voting; a popular plebiscite in 1959 (obviously by men only) specifically prohibited women from enfranchisement. So much for popular progress? In Canada, women could vote in 1917. In Turkey, 1934. Finland, 1906. India, 1950.

The reason that Switzerland will be able to address the Coronavirus pandemic effectively will not be 'direct democracy', it will be wealth. Switzerland became wealthy largely due to a national economic strategy of banking secrecy, asset protection, and of course enabling evasion of taxation and other authorities. At almost 10% of the economy relative to assets under management, the banking sector in Switzerland is indeed substantially larger than other sectors relative to the sectors of other nations [1]. In the US it's 1%. Canada 2%.

Luxembourg, in the last 70-ish years, went from a backwater to even wealthier than Switzerland on a GDP/per-capita basis for similar reasons: it became a tax haven, a policy driven by no less than the outgoing EU Commission head JC Junker who was the PM of Lux. There is no real economy in Monaco, of course, but its high-income status is also derived from its special variation of tax haven. Even Irleand's massive economic renaissance in the last 20 years has largely been driven by asymmetrical tax benefits for large American tech corporations. And of course, Norway's sovereign wealth fund which owns 2% of all public stocks in the world is derived from another existential special economic bit: Oil.

When Corona hits, the 'rich' countries will be the safest (I think the US may possibly be an exception), and I think it will have little to do with their relative forms of government. Aside from their deep social ties to China, I think Singapore, for example, would be one of those ideal 'safe places'.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/267352/size-of-the-banki...

[cjslep]

> I fail to see any evidence for how 'direct democracy' is the primary, or even relevant social artifact which drove the special directive highlighted in the article (i.e. cancellation of public events), or even any evidence that such 'direct democracy' provides superior social organization.

The thread you're commenting on so far has gone like this:

OP: "See a democracy can institute sweeping authoritarian-like bans, but with the will and blessing of the people"

Next: "I'm Swiss and it's because the government isn't our enemy, it is an extension of us"

You: "Nope it's because y'all are wealthy, that's the only reason y'all will survive!"

Grandparent: "uh dude the government system has been around longer than the wealth"

You: "I don't see why the government system matters, it's the money!"

The reason you're being downvoted is because you came into a conversation specifically about how the democracy of Switzerland is able to act quicky with a decree that could be viewed as an authoritarian-like policy, but with the implied general will (to use Rousseau's term for Sovereignty in political philosophy) of the people, and said "I don't see the effectiveness of this quick decisive action of democratic government, instead it's about the money they have!"

[Mvandenbergh]

I don't necessarily disagree with you that wealth is an important tool but that might have been better as a response to the top level comment rather than that comment chain.

That comment chain went as follows (I am quoting only part of the comments):

1) "Switzerland, most democratic country in the world, reminding people that it isn't just the authoritarians who know how to keep organised."

2) "Well, as a Swiss I can only state for the record that the government is not the enemy. Essentially: The government is us. "

3) "It requires a multi-generational cultural conditioning to develop the civic mind that the Swiss have nurtured. It is also not clear how scalable it is ultimately."

4) your comment which was quoted the line above and discussed the role of Swiss wealth in being able to respond effective to a pandemic.

To me, your comment would have made more sense in reply to the first comment. The "It" from comment 3 that you responded to is the Swiss attitude towards the power of their government(s) and the placement of your comment might therefore lead people to think you meant that their wealth lead to that attitude rather than what you intended which was that their wealth would aid their ability to respond to an outbreak of disease.

On another note. While I do not think Swiss-style direct democracy gives a particular advantage in fighting pandemics (and has led to some not-great outcomes such as women in one canton not being able to vote until 1991), I do think that systems of government in which citizens have a high degree of trust are at an advantage. The Swiss do have a high regard for their system and they will do what they are told without resenting they system because they feel invested in it.

[lolc]

Having a lot of wealth certainly makes some things easier. So I agree with you there. It is however highly simplistic to say that the wealth is ill-gotten.

Swiss banks have indeed sat on funds where they could have been proactive in looking for heirs. They have traded and trade with companies and regimes that should be shunned. Switzerland is a tax haven and profits by taxing capital gains that could have been taxed where the work was done. Still there are many other factors that contribute to wealth. One thing is steady, low-corruption government and an investment mindset in public infrastructure. This coupled with a culture that fosters strong work ethics leads to accumulation of wealth. Another huge factor is no wars for centuries which is part luck, part ugly realpolitik.

So yes the Swiss system could not be implemented as-is by other countries. Yet looking at real-world implementations of certain policies can help illuminate how to get a wealthy population. And it doesn't have to be the tax thievery.

[deepaksurti]

Switzerland is a rare example of a country with instruments of direct democracy (at the levels of the municipalities, cantons, and federal state), excerpted from [1] which has more details of how Switzerland implements direct democracy in pure format and in combination with federal structures.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#Switzerland

[config_yml]

There's a law for that and it's democratically legitimized: https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20071012/...

[Angostura]

I've always found Switzerland pretty authoritarian. Try hang out your washing on the wrong day of the week/in the wrong place.

[fsloth]

That's not authoritarianism. "Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms. "

I'm sure you could create a political movement to make it by law easier to hang out your washing where you like.

[claudeganon]

Authoritarianism:

Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom.

...which is entirely compatible with enforcement of high-pressure, in-group norms. Shunning is an authoritarian practice, even if it’s done by a collective. See also the Cultural Revolution in China.

[halest]

So what would happen? You would get punished for causing inconvenience to a person who had a right to hang their washing on that day? Sounds very reasonable, how is that authoritarian?

[jotm]

That's what I mean by "free" as in freedom. It's a democratic country, not a very free one.

[rlpb]

I understand that this would also be a problem in certain types of US neighborhoods.

[chinathrow]

That anecdote has nothing in common how the swiss gov/democracy works though.

[vstm]

Exactly, there are no laws against being a Bünzli.

[_trampeltier]

Yes, but a the same time that is the reason, why we have no Elon Musk in switzerland.

[underlines]

That's fine. They have hundrets of Elon Musks who innovate. https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii-2019-report

[chinathrow]

Again, how are these two statements even remotely correlated? Asking for a Bünzli.

[auiya]

Is that a bad thing?

[teekert]

People are elected to make decisions for us. We hold them responsible at the next election. That is the currently what democracy is.

[mikl]

How’s that working for ya?

Democracies where the people only have a voice every few years are regularly seen doing things against the will of the people, because the politicians know they can get away with it, because it’ll be forgotten by the time the next election comes around.

[_xoo]

It's working great. In Switzerland we do not only have elections every few years but we can also (directly) vote on issues from all three legal jurisdictions (municipality, canton or federal level) multiple times a year. Thus, we not only have a democracy but a direct democracy.

[teekert]

What would be the alternative?

[jotm]

To be fair, it's very democratic (is it the most?), not very free. Living there you have to put up with all sorts of restrictions that may seem overzealous for someone from, say, Eastern Europe. And they have the same ridiculous bureaucracy (unlike the UK, for example).

[dntbnmpls]

> Switzerland, most democratic country in the world, reminding people that it isn't just the authoritarians who know how to keep organised.

So a democratic country is just as authoritarian as "authoritarians"?

> It is very hard to understand how democracies work

It really isn't. It's been around for many millenia ostensibly going all the way back to the slave owning ancient greeks. And historically, democracies have proven to veer toward totalitarianism. Something even Plato recognized thousands of years ago. It's funny how we conveniently forget that even nazi germany rose from a democracy.

There is nothing inherently good about democracies. After all, democracies have exterminated continents full of people, democracies have practiced race-based slavery and the only form of government to have nuked civilians is a democracy. Hell democracies have attacked and destroyed more democracies around the world than authoritarians have. Instead of focusing on silly labels, why not focus on deeds/actions/results/etc.

[lm28469]

> There is nothing inherently good about democracies.

Besides the fact that we naturally evolved toward them since everything else we tried so far was worse ? And the fact that people are fleeing authoritarian regimes risking their lives to get into democratic ones daily yet the opposite never happened ?

> After all, democracies have exterminated continents full of people, democracies have practiced race-based slavery and the only form of government to have nuked civilians is a democracy. Hell democracies have attacked and destroyed more democracies around the world than authoritarians have.

When you put lions in cages they're still lions.

> Instead of focusing on silly labels, why not focus on deeds/actions/results/etc.

Right, open an history book and it'll be painfully obvious that the vast majority of authoritarian regimes are worse than being "not inherently good".

> It's funny how we conveniently forget that even nazi germany rose from a democracy.

It's neither funny nor forgotten. It's also pretty clear germany and their neighbours weren't better off after being under dictatorship. It's almost as if desperate times lead to desperate measures... more than democracy leading to authoritarianism.

> the only form of government to have nuked civilians is a democracy.

The US is as far away as you can get from democracy and still call it a democracy.

[dntbnmpls]

> Besides the fact that we naturally evolved toward them since everything else we tried so far was worse ?

Oh god, the silly "documentary" trope. Let me guess you heard that from a silly documentary with churchill? The same applies to democracies as well. We had them and they failed and we "naturally evolved" from them. It's almost like all forms of government are bad and have a shelf life. You do realize that the ancient greek democracy failed miserably right?

> And the fact that people are fleeing authoritarian regimes risking their lives to get into democratic ones daily yet the opposite never happened ?

No. People are fleeing poorer regions to wealthier regions. Most of the migrants around the world are from democracies not authoritarian regimes. Did you know that 1.3 billion people are without electricity? Do you also know that almost all of them are living in democracies? Did you know that almost all of the world's poorest countries are democracies?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/world-without-...

> When you put lions in cages they're still lions.

That excuses everybody, not just democracies. What bizarre rationalizations.

> Right, open an history book and it'll be painfully obvious that the vast majority of authoritarian regimes are worse than being "not inherently good".

Yes, open a history book and it'll be just as painfully obvious the same applies to democracies. Most of the human suffering around the world today are in democracies. Most of the wars started around the world today are by democracies.

> It's almost as if desperate times lead to desperate measures... more than democracy leading to authoritarianism.

So it's the desperate times and nothing inherent with the form of government. Okay, now you are starting to make some sense.

> The US is as far away as you can get from democracy and still call it a democracy.

Pretty much the definition of modern democracy. But you are right, we are a republic and that also is inherently flawed.

I used to think like you because I consumed the same documentaries and propaganda as you did. I agree with you that people should "open a history book" and look at what really happened. Most of the world's suffering in the past 200 years was caused by democracies sadly. It still applies today sadly.

[roenxi]

> There is nothing inherently good about democracies. After all, democracies have exterminated continents full of people...

You might have missed the reason why democracies are so popular; they win wars and they are capable of managing the complexities of capitalist systems. If you expect anything inherently good in politics you are in for a lifetime of disappointments because the entire game (in any political system) is deciding which group of undeserving people get to be in charge.

[raxxorrax]

The level of support, organization and acceptance you get if it was "your decision" cannot be replicated by authoritarian governments at all.