Wednesday, October 28, 2020

Switzerland Referendum: What is the State of Direct Democracy in Our Modern World?



Switzerland is a rare example of direct democracy within our modern world. Their citizens often vote on specific policy issues with referendums. Recently, the nation held a referendum to end an accord with the European Union that allows the free movement of people in and out of the country. Proponents of the bill argued that its passing would give Switzerland greater control over its border by allowing them to only select the immigrants they want. Opponents of this bill argued that its passing would bring uncertainty into a healthy economy during a pandemic, and prevent many Swiss workers from working elsewhere in Europe. The result of the vote was an overwhelming rejection of the new proposal as 62% voted against it and 38% voted for it.


The significance of this referendum is to show the existence of direct democracy in our modern world. Switzerland is considered a direct democracy because their citizens directly vote for many specific issues on the ballot. This is quite different than most western democracies, such as the United States and Great Britain. Both the United States and United Kingdom have instances of direct democracy, but not to the scale that occurs in Switzerland. As the world has recently seen, the United Kingdom left the European Union after a referendum known as Brexit. This was an example of direct democracy, but it does not define the political nature of the United Kingdom. In the UK, all bills must pass both Houses of Parliament, but are not subject to a direct vote from the citizens. However, in Switzerland, the citizens can reject any bill with their optional referendum.


In the modern world, there continues to be a debate regarding the legitimacy of democracy, as many push for the implementation of more direct democracy. While I agree that direct democracy works well in a small nation such as Switzerland, I do not believe that it is applicable to large and diverse nations such as the United Kingdom and the United States. These two sovereignties are defined by different states and nations within them, causing the existence of many factions. Both the states and individual nations within these commonwealths each have individual desires and needs. If direct democracy were to be implemented on a federal level in the U.S. and U.K., it could lead to the tyranny of the majority as policies could be implemented nation-wide that do not fit the needs of individual states.


Link: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54316316

By Calvin K.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

What an interesting article. The enduring debate on the legitimacy of democracy and what form of representation would work "better" for a given country is undeniably more prevalent than ever. I also agree that referendums would potentially better serve a small democracy like that of Switzerland compared to one of a greater magnitude like that of the United States. However, all options come with problems and deviations. For example, in the equally small democracy of Greece, a referendum was also held in 2015 and its results were disastrous (in short, the administration did the exact opposite of what the people voted on). One thing is for sure, however: Certainly, politics are not either 'black or white.' There is an array of potential outcomes in between that do not allow us to draw definite conclusions on any political aspects. We can merely guess, approach to the best of our judgment, and hope for the best outcome!

Featured Post

Turkey's Ban on Insults against Erdogan

 Since 2005 Turkey has had a law against insults against Erdogan known as Article 299. The article declares that citizens can be imprisoned ...