[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.