[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.