The words “Swiss model” have been brought into the discussion about how to form the new Tasmanian government.

This gives me the courage as a Swiss born Australian, to try and introduce into the debate some tools of direct democracy. Direct democracy with its binding popular votes is the core quality of the Swiss political systems on national, cantonal and communal level.

A preamble: I am not a specialist in the nitty-gritty of politics or political systems and will not argue on the micro level. What I am presenting here are principles that could – and in my opinion urgently should – be embraced to manoeuvre Tasmania out of the political quagmire it finds itself in.

Compared with the straight forward Swiss policy of high popular involvement in political decision making the Tasmanian system seems tortuous and inherently unsuitable to deliver satisfactory outcomes for the population as a whole.

The political discussions in Tasmania are essentially about the historic rigmaroles of totally outdated and irrelevant traditions, convoluted laws and election systems that divert the energies away from working out effective democratic decision making. I daresay that unless the cobwebs are removed from the stuffy boudoirs of the Tasmanian political behaviour there will not be a noticeable change in Tasmanian politics.

Nevertheless, let’s look at the situation with a freshly oxygenised brain, leaving the historic stuffiness behind for a moment.

What have we got? A small population of half a million people spread over a relatively large territory (by world standards). To start with, it would seem to me that such a small population can be administrated – note, I avoid the word governed – by an adequately sized single chamber parliament made up of voluntary representatives along with a highly skilled public service and many regular, binding popular votes on major pieces of proposed legislation.

Deep breath!

So, no Premier and other ministers, no parliamentary hierarchies, no professional politicians with career and cushy retirement ambitions. No continuous, highly inefficient and counterproductive dogfights between “government” and “opposition”. Instead: flat hierarchies and a co-operative way of hammering out solid political compromises translated into reality by a skilled public service, issue by issue. With changing majorities depending on the issues.

The role of ministers can be played in a roundabout way by a small number (say seven) “Heads of Departments” who are elected by the above parliament or directly by the people. These “Heads of Departments” have no ministerial discretion. They propose laws to the parliament and sell them as best as possible. That’s where their power ends. Depending on the weight of the bill at hand it receives final approval by parliament or gets submitted to the obligatory popular vote by what, in Switzerland, is called “the Sovereign”, that is the population.

The outcome of these votes is binding. If the Sovereign does not back a proposal, the “Head of Department” does not resign nor is he/she expected to do so. A new approach will be taken to try and find ways of solving the problem at hand. On a national level this scenario has been played out a number of times in Switzerland regarding Swiss membership to the EU. The Sovereign has rejected this proposal several times. As a result, other ways, such a bilateral agreements with the EU, were developed to keep the country afloat and the neighbours happy.

I am not reporting here on the full complexity of Swiss democratic systems. It would be too lengthy. Suffice it to say that direct democratic checks and balances systems are many, from bottom up “popular initiatives” and optional referenda, to obligatory referenda, personal initiatives in parliament, non binding petitions etc etc. In the end any excess in any direction gets corrected by one or the other mechanism over time. The result is virtually always an acceptable compromise.

What is relevant for Tasmania is that this baby state finds its own adequate systems of self-regulation, based on co-operative wrangling for the best solutions, case by case. The current Tasmanian system does simply not allow for co-operation. It is totally confrontational and geared to produce a few winners and a lot of losers. It is therefore more or less forced to become corrupt. It attracts tunnel-visioned fighters who may be good at outfoxing opponents but bad at helping to hammer out sustainable compromises that the population can support.

Should the existing system therefore be jettisoned? Not necessarily. At least not entirely. As a first step, a binding direct democracy component could simply be added to the existing parliament. Discretionary powers of ministers, however, would need to be eliminated and important matters would need to be regularly voted on by the population.

In Switzerland there are generally four voting weekends per year where the population is asked to cast their votes on national, cantonal and communal matters at the same location in different ballot boxes. A total of perhaps around 10 to 20 issues are presented each time. Voting is not obligatory.

How do people understand all the issues they can vote on? Before the vote the government publishes comprehensive, neutral information on the questions at hand. This information forms part of the voting material. How does one know it is neutral and factual? You soon realise it when you read the it. It generally highlights the various aspects of the subject and enable the voter to make a sound judgment. Of course there is also biased advertising by a variety of special interest groups. The Swiss system is not immune to all the trickery and manipulation known to human kind. But the bottom line is that the system allows for a genuine representation of the people’s will. And should an outcome not be satisfactory, correction mechanisms are available to the Sovereign, the people.

The large number of ballots also indirectly creates a high degree of general political awareness and education. It further causes those who develop public policies to work very seriously towards compromise from the outset.

By the time a bill or a business matter comes before the people the extremes have already been eliminated as best a possible and what is presented is then generally a mature proposal. The focus is on a good result and not on one party winning the day.

The German State of Bavaria adopted Swiss style democracy in the mid 1990s. Since then well over 1000 issues have been put before the people and you can now see a new buoyant Bavaria with its capital Munich flourishing. The old, catholic conservative power mongers have receded into the background. A breath of fresh air is palpable.

In a nutshell for Tasmania:
1.Political co-operation cannot really be expected without changing at least some key elements of the system.
2.Professional politicians should be replaced by volunteer representatives (who of course receive adequate sitting fees but not the trappings of parliamentary privileges, perks and the aura of aristocracy).
3.Parliamentary hierarchies should be reduced to a minimum. For example the president of the parliament can be elected on an annual rotational basis.
4.An enlarged single chamber parliament should be introduced.
5.Much emphasis should be placed on establishing high quality parliamentary committees that would become instrumental in creating law.
6.The public service would need to be widely reformed, uncluttered and stocked with the best available experts in a wide range of public administration jobs.
7.Direct democracy mechanisms should be gradually but at a pace introduced into the State government.
8.Direct democracy should also be introduced on communal level (possibly as a first step to gain experience).

What I am pointing to here are some ingredients necessary to arrive at sustainable, essentially co-operative politics. There are different ways of achieving that. This article is too short to cover the whole possible spectrum. A concise and easily readable, comprehensive overview of facts and arguments about direct democracy can be found in the attached 96-page book “Direct Democracy” by Jos Verhulst & Arjen Nijeboer in pdf format. A must read.

Also check out “The Swiss vote more than any other country.pdf” and
“popular votes.doc” for pertinent background info.

It is clearly very hard for Tasmanians and Australians in general to step outside of the vicious circle of the winners and losers tradition. Making the move towards conscious and well worked out compromise is at the heart of democratic public administration. That’s what we have to work at. The sooner the better. And do not be swayed by those very loud voices that dismiss direct democracy as unworkable mob-rule. Too many well working pockets of direct democracies prove the contrary.

Download:
Direct_democracy_book.pdf
The_Swiss_vote_more_26B0A0.pdf
Popular_votes.doc