Politics A Level

Read the following Source (Stimulus information that provides you with the main arguments for and against a question to be answered):

Modern representative democracy has, in most countries across the globe, become an

essential part of political life. Only a few places, such as Britain, the United States and New

Zealand have enjoyed an unbroken parliamentary system of government for more than a

century. However, there is one country that does more than any other to embody popular

sovereignty: Switzerland. In this alpine republic with just seven million people, citizens’ law-making

is exercised on all political levels.

While it embraces direct democracy, Switzerland is nevertheless still a representative democracy.

Most laws are made and decided by parliament. The important difference,

however, between the Swiss system and the “indirect” democracy of Britain is that citizens

are entitled to put almost every law decided by their representatives to a general vote – if

they want.

For this to happen, members of the public need to gather 50,000 signatures (approximately

one per cent of the electorate) within 100 days of the publication of a new law. In 96 out of

100 cases, no such referendum is triggered, because the parliamentary process enjoys a

very high level of legitimacy. That is because the elected lawmakers know that their work

will be seriously checked by the public, so do a very good job indeed.

The comprehensive system of checks and balances in Switzerland also gives the citizens

the right to propose almost any constitutional amendment they wish. Such an amendment

cannot, of course, violate international law or human rights. To put forward such an initiative,

citizens need to gather a minimum of 100,000 signatures within 18 months. Last but not

least, the basic rules of the game of Swiss democracy are controlled by the citizens of the

country, who have the last word on all constitutional changes – even those proposed by the

government and parliament – as well as most international treaties.

Interestingly, the strong elements of direct democracy in Swiss politics have not weakened

representative democracy or parliament. On the contrary: when established as a modern

republic back in 1848, Switzerland was – as Britain is still today – a purely indirect democracy

with a one-party government. It took many years, and many democratic movements, to get

a more fine-tuned division of power, which now offers all forces and groups in the country a

fair opportunity to take an active part in setting the political agenda, and in determining the

final decision. And this is not simply oppositional: while most popular initiatives proposed

by minority groups fail at the ballot box, most governmental proposals get support.

Government in Switzerland is not delivering for people, but with them.

Those parts of the country where the people are most involved in politics also have

better public services and stronger economies. From the Swiss experience we can

all learn that representative democracy can do much better, if it includes

comprehensive and citizen friendly methods of participation. In Switzerland,

the most important – but a relatively few – issues are decided by the people,

important and more numerous matters by parliament, and the least important

but very numerous issues by the government. That’s what they mean by democracy.