As the great French historian and philosopher, Hippolyte Taine, once said, the political form in which a people might live is not arbitrary, but is determined by its character and its past.

History made Switzerland a federal state in which direct democracy plays an important role.
After having listened to the views of the political scientists, you might be interested to hear the opinion of a politician who thinks that direct democracy necessarily is not a model for every country but cannot be disqualified as an element of folklore.

Article 60 of the Constitution of 1848 stated that “The supreme power of the Confederation shall be exercised by the Federal Assembly”. With the introduction of the legislative referendum in 1874, the Federal Assembly found itself in a situation that is unique in Europe. Other Parliaments have, as a rule, preserved their political sovereignty. If, for instance, the House of Commons in London enacts a law, there is no one else who could challenge it. If the German Bundestag adopts a law, there is a constitutional court that has the power to abrogate that law if it is deemed to be contrary to the Constitution. The people, however, have no say in the matter. The same applies for the French National Assembly. The laws it enacts are subject to the control of the Constitutional Council, but there is no control is exercised by the people.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the situation in Switzerland is reversed. Federal laws are not subject to any judicial control as to their constitutionality but they are all subject to the scrutiny exercised by the people.

As you know, all Swiss citizens over the age of 18 are entitled to vote in federal matters. It is well-known that it took Switzerland took a long time to give women their voting rights – they had to wait until 1971. Once that step had been taken, no-one quite understood why such a natural right had taken so much effort to introduce.
Voters’ rights in Switzerland are, indeed, more extensive than in many a country.
Firstly, as is usual, voters elect the members of the National Council. The members of the Council of States are elected according to cantonal law.

But voters also have direct rights with regard to the Constitution and federal legislation: 100,000 voters can request a total or partial amendment to the Constitution by means of a popular initiative. Signatures backing the initiative must be collected within a period of 18 months. And any such amendment is subject to a compulsory referendum; this means that a majority of the people and the cantons (12 out of 23) must vote in favour. Finally, federal laws and even certain international treaties, are subject to a popular vote, if 50,000 signatures are gathered within 100 days of their publication.

Swiss citizens have the right to vote on similar matters at cantonal and communal level.
Here is a little statistical information:
Since 1848, voters have taken part in 533 polls at federal level. In other words, they were able to say yes or no to various proposals on 533 occasions. In 221 cases, the vote was on an amendment to the Constitution and, in 154 cases, the adoption of a law or the approval of an international treaty. In votes on constitutional matters, the response has been positive in 158 cases and negative in 63 cases.

Votes on treaties and legislation have been positive in 81 cases and negative in 73 cases. Membership of the League of Nations was accepted in 1920 and membership of the United Nations was accepted in 2002. The vote to join the European Economic Area was rejected on 6 December 1992 by 50.3% of the electorate (only 7 of 23 cantons were in favour).
As far as popular initiatives are concerned, which can only be submitted to amend the Constitution, but not legislation, more that 200 have been submitted since the end of the last century. 160 have been taken to a referendum, 14 of which were accepted. 70 or so were withdrawn, mainly because the authorities had already more or less satisfied the wishes of the initiators, and around 17 are pending.

Has the Federal Assembly accomplished the task incumbent on any Parliament, namely that of ensuring its own bills prevail? On balance, the people have followed the recommendation of the government and parliament in roughly three-quarters of cases since the creation of the modern Swiss Confederation in 1848.

However, a word must be said about the problem of  low turnout.
Turnout seldom exceeds 40%, and sometimes even falls below 30%. This means that important projects are accepted or rejected on a mandate of less than 20% of the country’s citizens. Only the two referendums held on Switzerland’s foreign residents have generated significant interest, mainly due to the emotions involved (75% in 1970, 70% in 1974). The 1975 vote on economic policy drew only 30% to the ballot box and the vote on the rights of the workers in the to participate in the management of enterprises (participation, Mitbestimmung)  barely 40% (1976). Several votes on fundamental issues have managed to mobilise a large number of voters in the recent past: a turnout of 69% was registered for the vote on the abolition of the armed forces (1989) and 79% for the vote on membership of the European Economic Area (1992).

This general lack of participation is rather disheartening, but there is no real consensus about what can be to counter it. If the citizens abstain, it is possibly due to the fact that they are no longer in a position to truly understand the questions with which they find themselves presented. It has to be said that our constitutional amendments and legislation have become so detailed that they are often beyond the grasp of a large proportion of the electorate. As long as the legalistic style remains, or the texts submitted to the people are worded precisely as they are supposed to appear in the law itself, one should not expect the subject matter to be better understood or hope for greater voter participation.

There are other possible reasons for this apathy. Only constitutional amendments and law texts, in other words rather abstract notions, are submitted to the vote of the people. The people though are only interested when it comes down to implementation and concrete decisions. That has been particularly noticeable in the cases of the national road network and nuclear power stations. When the fundamental principles assigning competence for these matters to the federal government were inscribed in the Constitution, in 1957 and 1958, voters were totally unconcerned and said ‘yes’ without knowing exactly what that meant. When the bills of execution setting out the procedures for the construction of roads and nuclear power stations were passed in 1959 and 1960, a referendum was not even sought. However, as soon as it actually came to building the said roads and nuclear power stations, people were up in arms by that point it was too late for a vote. And so we really are faced with a cruel dilemma. Either we stick to the present system and have the citizens reproach us for not having consulted them on subjects close to their heart. Or, from now on, we submit all the decrees of application and run the risk of not being able to pursue a coherent policy. These problems have led to a number of popular initiatives. These related to road building in 1978 and to nuclear power in 1979 and 1984, but were rejected. In cantons that have introduced the postal vote, there has been a marked increase in the participation rate of some ten points. International comparisons should be relativised because all potential voters in Switzerland are automatically registered.

Since I’ve been an active citizen, I’ve been able to take part in 318 votes in 37 years, while the citizens of Germany have never had the opportunity to express themselves in this form. And my friends in the UK have only had one such opportunity in 1975 on membership of the EEC, while French people my age have had ten chances to vote in referendums (from the adoption of the Constitution of the Fifth Republic to the recent rejection of the European Constitution).
What we term as ‘popular votes’ do not have the character of a plebiscite. Our referendums do not mean allegiance to a person or to the  government. The acceptance or rejection of a proposal is certainly a means of expressing confidence or a lack thereof in the authorities, but the government remains in place in the event of a rejection.
Given the large number of votes that are held, the issue at stake is not used to express discontent with the government. We vote for or against the issue at hand and not on something else.

The experience in Switzerland has been that all matters relating to domestic policies are settled eventually, even if it takes several goes. It took two attempts to introduce the vote for women (at federal level) and four attempts to bring in VAT, even though the tax rate was already in the constitution!

On international matters, the results are more mixed. After rejecting membership of the UN in 1976 there then came a ‘yes’ in 2002. After a ‘yes’ to the free trade agreement with the EEC in 1972, there followed a ‘no’ to the European Economic Area twenty years later, which was partly made good by an overwhelming ‘yes’ to the first set of bilateral agreements with the EU in 2000.

However, Europe and the rest of the world don’t wait around for us and a number of parliamentarians ask themselves whether the cumbersome nature of these mechanisms of direct democracy are still suited to today’s needs in a context of increased globalisation and European enlargement, as much in terms of its geography as its scope of activity.
The Swiss people’s attachment to these popular rights explains its reticence with regard to European integration, even though various studies show that the vast majority of these votes would not have been affected by EU membership.

For our country, moving closer to Europe presents a considerable challenge. It is a matter of reconciling the requirements of European integration with the Swiss traditions of cantonal and communal autonomy and direct democracy.

In a sense, Switzerland is too European to be able to forego participating in the construction of our continent, but its inhabitants are too entrenched in a system of government tailored to individuals to throw overboard our federalism and our direct democracy. Are we faced with an insurmountable contradiction? We believe not, for once the ongoing task of deepening integration is complete, the values I mentioned earlier would seem to be just what is needed to make up for the EU’s current democratic deficit, as it is often known. We have a democratic surplus that we can share with Europe!

All of this may seem a little complicated to our foreign friends. But the most recent examples such as the French and Dutch referendums on the European Constitution show the dangers of isolated referendums spread out over long periods. The risk then exists that people don’t respond to the question at hand, but instead express their dissatisfaction at prevailing government policy.

Very recently, the well-known architect, Jean Nouvel, emphasised that “in Switzerland prerequisites for dialogue exist which simplify life. When the Swiss want or refuse a building, they do so clearly through their vote and if they accept it, there are no major obstacles in the way. The questions cover all of the essential details of the project, from its purpose to its cost, just not its colour.”
And he added, “the project chosen for the conference centre in Lucerne with its concert hall was naturally and progressively understood, and never considered a threat to the city.”
Creative federalism and direct democracy. What could be more modern than the permanent and largest possible participation of citizens in the crucial choices shaping their destiny!
Of course, I’m not drawing any conclusions as to the value of the different democratic systems that each of our countries exercises. The spirit of each nation is reflected in its institutions.

Un mot en français, pour affirmer qu’en cette année du 250e anniversaire de la mort de Montesquieu, il n’y a aucun système démocratique qui vaille – direct, semi-direct ou représentatif – sans séparation des pouvoirs. Et sur ce point, nous serons sans doute tous d’accord  car comme Lincoln l’a dit la démocratie est le gouvernement du peuple, par le peuple et pour le peuple !

I hope you have an excellent and successful conference. Je vous souhaite un excellent congrès et de fructueux travaux à Berne.