Switzerlands political system

[Red_or_Dead]

Inspired by Spartan in the "Could have the Axis won WW2" thread, I looked up the Swiss political system. My source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland

Anyway, Switzerland has a very unique political system of direct democracy. It is often refered to as "half-direct democracy", apparently because of the limited influence that the citizens have over politics.

But even though its limited, it is still much bigger than the influence of citizens in parliamentary democracies in the rest of Europe.

For example, any citizen can challenge a law that has been passed by the parliament, if that person is able to get 50.000 signatures against the law within 100 days (it doesnt say when does the deadline start, but I imagine it means a 100 days since the law has been passed). If he/she succedes, there has to be a national vote, where voters decide the matter by a simple majority.

Any citizen may also seek a decision on an amendment to a law. Read from the link above for details, as I really cant be arsed to type them out here.

Moving on, Swiss cantons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland

Switzerland is pretty decentralized. It is internaly divided into 26 cantons, which are given a considerable amount of autonomy. Each has its own constitution, legislature, government and courts. They are responsible for their healthcare, public education, law enforcment and welfare. Seeing how their populations very from 15.000 to a little over 1,2 million, and with the Swiss model of direct democracy, that gives a lot of power to the citizens, since direct democracy applies both on the federal and the cantonal level. Cantons are sovereign to the extent that their sovereignty is not limited by federal law.




Taking all that into consideration, I would say that Switzerland has to be the most progressive country in Europe, maybe even in the world.

Basicly, the political system is great compared to the rest of Europe, and the citizens are actively participating in it.

Of course, there are some negative things about Switzerland, mostly its free market economy. But I would still say that all other countries could learn a great deal from Switzerland.

IMO its the closest thing there is right now, to a political system in a post-revolutionary society. There are things that would need improving, changing or abandoning alltogether, but it is a fine example nonetheless.

So, what do you guys think? Is it something that we should learn from, and try to adapt and improve? Do we have any Swiss members on here, or people who know Switzerland better than by Wikipedia, that could confirm or disprove my post?

[dez]

Switzerland is definetely not progressive or revolutionary.


Switzerland's foreign population currently stands at 1.5 million, around 20% of the total.

The figure is so high partly because gaining nationality is currently difficult. Candidates must typically wait 12 years before applying. Being born in Switzerland carries no right of citizenship.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3694076.stm

actually


Switzerland has one of the highest immigration rates on the continent. According to the 2000 census, 22.4 percent of the total population of 7.4 million is foreign born, and 20.5 percent, or nearly 1.5 million, are foreigners, defined as persons with a foreign nationality.

.
.
.
Since 1970, Switzerland has held eight popular initiatives (Volksinitiativen) concerning general immigration issues and two relating to asylum policy. While legal referendums concern bills or changes to the constitution voted on in parliament, the popular initiative gives citizens the chance to present new ideas and to put their concerns to other citizens. It is also used by parties outside the government, associations, and interest groups.

Of these eight initiatives, seven intended to curb the presence and rights of foreigners in Switzerland. Although none of these initiatives passed, they have influenced the Swiss migration policy agenda and public opinion on immigration issues. These are in addition to three referendums intended to facilitate naturalization of second- and third-generation migrants, which were rejected.

Over the last two years, anti-immigrant sentiment has increasingly influenced public debate, which has focused on costs of immigration, control, security, and restriction. This sentiment helped the nationalist Swiss Peoples Party (SVP), which depicts asylum seekers as "criminals and drug dealers," win the biggest share of the parliamentary votes in the 2003 general elections.

The SVP's victory upset the traditional system known as the "magic formula," which, since 1959, has distributed power among the four leading political parties. Following the elections, a prominent SVP leader became Minister of Justice and Police, in charge of migration and asylum.

Thus far, the government has approved several of the minister's proposals to deal with the problems of illegal migration, undocumented workers, asylum law abuses, and unsatisfactory international cooperation with regard to the readmission of rejected asylum seekers.

These measures, which parliament still must approve, include requiring valid travel documents from asylum seekers, taking away social security benefits from rejected asylum seekers, and obliging asylum seekers to pay fees if they wish to have their rejected claims reconsidered.

http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=284


About 70 percent of the prison population is non-Swiss. Think about that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/world/europe/08swiss.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Switzerland is now and has always been a role model for european right.
Earlier with determinist and racist ideologies, then providing safe haven for nazis and fascists in world war two, and now with islamophobia and blatant xenophobia (particularly against muslims and eastern europeans). They are the chip of the spear of the right, the trendsetter of european racism.
But their democracy, as the democracy of a list of other countries is indeed evolved. For the citizens, and in some cantons for everyone.

[Red_or_Dead]

Switzerland is definetely not progressive or revolutionary.
Well, I didnt claim that it was revolutionary. I did emhasise that if we are to look up to the Swiss model as a model of a post-revolutionary society, we will have to change many things.


About 70 percent of the prison population is non-Swiss. Think about that.

Switzerland is now and has always been a role model for european right.
Earlier with determinist and racist ideologies, then providing safe haven for nazis and fascists in world war two, and now with islamophobia and blatant xenophobia (particularly against muslims and eastern europeans). They are the chip of the spear of the right, the trendsetter of european racism.


This is far more disturbing though. So much for progresivness, I guess, except of course in the system of government anyway.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

The Swiss aren't that progressive. Switzerland didn't provide woman's suffrage for federal elections until 1971, and universal suffrage didn't occur until 1990.

[BIG BROTHER]

Well seen what hope has told us, then Switzerland is more like ancient Athens. Their democracy is pretty well set up, since is more participative but in a way is despotic since just like in Athens slaves and women didn't participate, in Switzerland immigrants are discriminated.

[Lamanov]

But even though its limited, it is still much bigger than the influence of citizens in parliamentary democracies in the rest of Europe.

So what?


For example, any citizen can challenge a law that has been passed by the parliament, if that person is able to get 50.000 signatures against the law within 100 days (it doesnt say when does the deadline start, but I imagine it means a 100 days since the law has been passed). If he/she succedes, there has to be a national vote, where voters decide the matter by a simple majority.

You can push for legislative change by petition in any democracy.

Participation is not direct democracy.

(Some American academics and "Parecon" reformists say it is but they're full of shit.)

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Participatory democracy is a broad term, but one that excludes "representative" electoralism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_democracy

In fact, direct democracy is the most extreme form of participatory democracy. :)

[spartan]

Switzerland is definetely not progressive or revolutionary.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3694076.stm

actually


http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=284


About 70 percent of the prison population is non-Swiss. Think about that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/world/europe/08swiss.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Switzerland is now and has always been a role model for european right.
Earlier with determinist and racist ideologies, then providing safe haven for nazis and fascists in world war two, and now with islamophobia and blatant xenophobia (particularly against muslims and eastern europeans). They are the chip of the spear of the right, the trendsetter of european racism.
But their democracy, as the democracy of a list of other countries is indeed evolved. For the citizens, and in some cantons for everyone.
But this isn't a fault, nor an integral aspect, of the Swiss political system!

Have you ever considered that things are the way they are in Switzerland because that is how the Swiss people themselves want it?

That is the whole point of the Swiss political system, if you get enough support you can force a referendum on issues like immigrant rights, citizenship, etc, and whatever the result of the referendum is the government must abide by the people's decision (even if it included forcing all non-white people out of the country or dismantling the army, the latter of which actually ended up as a referendum in which the majority of people decided to keep the army).

No one is denying that the situation in Switzerland for non-Swiss people is terrible, but the authorities in Switzerland have their hands tied behind their backs until the majority of Swiss people themselves decide to have things different (which looks unlikely with the success of the right-wing anti-immigration party who won the most seats in parliament in the last elections, though all governments in Switzerland are coalition governments).

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

So what?



You can push for legislative change by petition in any democracy.

Participation is not direct democracy.

(Some American academics and "Parecon" reformists say it is but they're full of shit.)

Let's not attack Parecon like that. It has plenty flaws, but it is pretty directly democratic.

[Red_or_Dead]

The Swiss aren't that progressive. Switzerland didn't provide woman's suffrage for federal elections until 1971, and universal suffrage didn't occur until 1990.

True. But they have it now.


Well seen what hope has told us, then Switzerland is more like ancient Athens. Their democracy is pretty well set up, since is more participative but in a way is despotic since just like in Athens slaves and women didn't participate, in Switzerland immigrants are discriminated.

To some extent despotic, yes, as all states are. The point I was trying to make is that, even for its flaws the Swiss political system is better and is more progressive than the system of any other country. At least to my knowing, anyway.


So what?

Yeah, so what? I mean its not like socialism is about democracy, and our influence on the how we do things. Oh, wait...


Participation is not direct democracy.


What is then?


In fact, direct democracy is the most extreme form of participatory democracy. :)

:thumbup1:

[Die Neue Zeit]

In fact, direct democracy is the most extreme form of participatory democracy. :)

:thumbup1:

^^^ Comrade: You've been absorbing my work, I see. ;)

[dez]

Exactly, swiss society is much like it was in athens, but with a modern face.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/l.htm


Slave Society

A society where the fundamental class conflict is based on the division of people into masters and slaves, with slaves being the dominant producing class, and ownership over this complete commodification of the human being controlled by masters.

Historical Development: Slavery has been practiced throughout the world at various times, but only in exceptional circumstances have there been attempts to create actual "slave societies"; notably in the Americas (1492 - 1865) or during the Roman Empire (150 BCE ˜ 350 CE).

The first known example of slavery comes from Athens in around 600 BCE, after Solon had abolished the holding of citizens in bondage (in 594 BCE). When fellow citizens could no longer be used for indebted labour, foreigners became a more "perfect" solution -- laws governing thier treatment were not applicable. Slaves were thus captured primarily through a slave trade that stole people from distant tribal societies, and also were aquired through prisoners of war. At the height of Athens slavery, around one third of the population were slaves.
.
.
.
Early Marxist Theory: According to Marx & Engels, Slave society was the earliest form of class society. As a result of basing their understanding on the only knowledge of ancient history that Europeans had at the time (on Rome, Greece, and Egypt), Marx and Engels thought that slave society came about when the tribal constitution was undermined by the presence of foreigners within the tribal community but outside the kinship system on which the tribal constitution rested, and further, when the productivity of labour was such that it was possible to put the foreigners to work as slaves:

“The increase of production in all branches – cattle-raising, agriculture, domestic handicrafts – gave human labour-power the capacity to produce a larger product than was necessary for its maintenance. ... prisoners of war were turned into slaves. With its increase of the productivity of labour, and therefore of wealth, and its extension of the field of production, the first great social division of labour was bound, in the general historical conditions prevailing, to bring slavery in its train. From the first great social division of labour arose the first great cleavage of society into two classes: masters and slaves, exploiters and exploited.”
[Engels, Origin of the Family, Chapter 9]



Now, chill, I'm not saying switzerland is a slavist society.

But I find it strange that they allow a lot of people in the country with the sole purpose of doing the jobs they do not want - and don't even allow them to participate in the political proccess.

It is not evolved nor progressive if it excludes. Regardless of to what extent the privileged people there participated on the process of defining legislation.

[dez]

But this isn't a fault, nor an integral aspect, of the Swiss political system!

Have you ever considered that things are the way they are in Switzerland because that is how the Swiss people themselves want it?

That is the whole point of the Swiss political system, if you get enough support you can force a referendum on issues like immigrant rights, citizenship, etc, and whatever the result of the referendum is the government must abide by the people's decision (even if it included forcing all non-white people out of the country or dismantling the army, the latter of which actually ended up as a referendum in which the majority of people decided to keep the army).

No one is denying that the situation in Switzerland for non-Swiss people is terrible, but the authorities in Switzerland have their hands tied behind their backs until the majority of Swiss people themselves decide to have things different (which looks unlikely with the success of the right-wing anti-immigration party who won the most seats in parliament in the last elections, though all governments in Switzerland are coalition governments).

And uh, bismarck counts as an imperialist warmonger on my book, quite authoritharian and undemocratic, the same way the spartan regime was.
So if you follow a "bismarckist" way of thought, why is the swiss' participation in the political process important to you?

[Red_or_Dead]

But I find it strange that they allow a lot of people in the country with the sole purpose of doing the jobs they do not want - and don't even allow them to participate in the political proccess.


That is true for many other countries as well. Of course, getting a citizenship varies in difficulty.


It is not evolved nor progressive if it excludes. Regardless of to what extent the privileged people there participated on the process of defining legislation.

We must keep in mind that in this context "privileged" refers to the wast majority of population. I do not support the Swiss treatment of immigrants, but I never said Switzerland is perfect.


And uh, bismarck counts as an imperialist warmonger on my book, quite authoritharian and undemocratic, the same way the spartan regime was.
So if you follow a "bismarckist" way of thought, why is the swiss' participation in the political process important to you?

I dont think he is entirely serious with the whole "Bismarckist" thing.

[dez]

That is true for many other countries as well. Of course, getting a citizenship varies in difficulty.



We must keep in mind that in this context "privileged" refers to the wast majority of population. I do not support the Swiss treatment of immigrants, but I never said Switzerland is perfect.



I dont think he is entirely serious with the whole "Bismarckist" thing.

I don't think you get it.
Most countries get illegal immigrants to do the dirty work.
Switzerland does that.
But they also hire legal immigrants that most likely won't ever be allowed to have the swiss nationality - and sometimes, even their children - to do the dirty work and the work they are not qualifyed/lack professionals.

And its not the vast majority.


The proportion of foreigners in the population has steadily risen since 1950, when 5.9 percent of the people did not have Swiss nationality. By 1970, that number was 15.9 percent, and by the end of 2002, this figure stood at 21.6 percent. Within Europe, only Luxembourg, at 37 percent, has a higher percentage of foreigners.

Switzerland clearly depends on its foreign labor. Immigrants compose 25 percent of the total workforce, 50 percent of hotel and restaurant industry workers, and 33 percent of those in construction.

What was the population of african americans in the united states when slavery was legal?

Because the vast majority had a certain degree of participation in the political process, higher than most of the western world at the time, could you call US a revolutionary or progressive society?


And those SVP campaigns are kinda scary for modern society and svp is the majoritary party in switzerland. Check the new york times link i posted earlier. They did many openly racist campaigns such as one depicting the flag of switzerland and 3 white sheep in it kicking a black sheep out, or the other one in it with the bunch of coloured people hungry for the swiss passports...



And what about the fact that the entire european right uses this kind of stuff as inspirational matherial and try to adequate the agendas to their countries... Is that progressive?
A progressive society does not live with that kind of prejudice.

[Red_or_Dead]

I don't think you get it.
Most countries get illegal immigrants to do the dirty work.
Switzerland does that.
But they also hire legal immigrants that most likely won't ever be allowed to have the swiss nationality - and sometimes, even their children - to do the dirty work and the work they are not qualifyed/lack professionals.

And its not the vast majority.



What was the population of african americans in the united states when slavery was legal?

Because the vast majority had a certain degree of participation in the political process, higher than most of the western world at the time, could you call US a revolutionary or progressive society?


And those SVP campaigns are kinda scary for modern society and svp is the majoritary party in switzerland. Check the new york times link i posted earlier. They did many openly racist campaigns such as one depicting the flag of switzerland and 3 white sheep in it kicking a black sheep out, or the other one in it with the bunch of coloured people hungry for the swiss passports...


Well those numbers are shocking, I admit.

I still argue that the system at least is progressive, but it obviously needs a safeguard against such laws.

[cyu]

Have you ever considered that things are the way they are in Switzerland because that is how the Swiss people themselves want it?

Depends what you consider "the Swiss people" - do you just mean propertied men over the age of 35 with a paternal grandfather who was born in Switzerland? Or do you mean everyone currently spending most of their year in Switzerland?

If the second group is what you mean when you say "the Swiss people" but only the first group has the power to make decisions, then things are not the way they are because the Swiss people want it.