[ptero]

Because historically it has never been done. The closest we got is when a group (religious or political) finds something most people somewhat agree with, declares it a universal value and proceeds to suppress, drive away or eliminate those evil people who do not share it.

It is much better to define acceptable boundaries on actions and let people believe what they want if their actions do not violate those agreed on boundaries.

[Bengalilol]

Switzerland is the oldest democracy in the world. Your comment certainly doesn't fit the way this country handles its citizens. There is the Law, the "what is tolerated" and what isn't. That's the "boundaries on actions". But any malicious mind won't bow down to those intentional principles.

[ptero]

What is a "malicious mind"?

People absolutely heed laws that they find personally inconvenient but are afraid of the penalties (parking restrictions, paying taxes, loud music and that is not even stepping into hot button topics).

The reason Swiss stayed democratic is likely not because they share universal, similarly understood values, but because they feel that their system that only defines acceptable norms is working okay as is.

[fakeBeerDrinker]

I don’t believe that Switzerland is the oldest democracy in the world, but I could be mistaken. Iceland has had a democratic-ish parliament since the 900s[0].

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Althing

[Bengalilol]

You are right. And there is San Marino too. I had to write “the oldest direct democracy still alive”.