Lately I have become aware that there is a tendency to assume that there is just one form of Democracy. At least that is the conclusion drawn listening to Bush. I think this is a very important topic, to realize that Democracy can have many faces. I also believe this is important for Americans. They have a great constitution, but the implementation of it at present is mildly said – challenged. My guess is that over the next two decades Americans will have to make adjustments to their stile of Democracy.
However, reading comments on different websites and following discussions I have observed, again and again, the following questions coming up: “What can we do?” and “How can we do it?” Thus my thought is that maybe it would be helpful, for the International participants of this website, to share how Democracy is handled in their own countries. Sort of a brainstorming, helping the Americans to become more familiar with other democratic systems, as this information seems to be difficult to access through the MSM. I would be interested too, as I have become aware, after reading a diary on dKos that actually I do not know that much about the British Democracy. I also would be interested to learn how democratic systems function in other countries. Well, I start with my own country – Switzerland. Following is an excerpt from a paper I had to write a couple of years ago, just the basics how the Swiss political system is structured:
First I would like to give a short introduction to the Swiss Political System. Switzerland’s political life is based on direct democracy. The Government is build upon a Parliament, consisting of a Nationalrat (House of Representatives) with 200 members and a Ständerat (Senators) with 46 members. They are elected proportionally, according to the percentage of votes their parties received. A unique feature is our Bundesrat, a collective of seven counselors elected from the members of parliament. Each year one of these counselors is President of Switzerland. There is no single person with a lot of power; the power on all levels is shared. The highest level is the sovereign – that is the people. Basically the people vote on everything. Certain laws, changes of tax system etc. have to be put to vote automatically. For others there has to be a referendum, initiated by a group of people, like a political party, the labor union or even private persons. Then there is the initiative – a tool with which the people can introduce laws or changes of laws. A certain number of signatures are needed for the referendums or the initiatives to be voted on.
In a way the Swiss system could be considered a grass root system and it is also a federal system. Is it the best? Heavens forbid – no. For many years I considered it archaic and smiled about it. But since observing the US over the last 4 years, I am starting to appreciate it more.
At times it is frustratingly slow – but then again, by the time it starts finally moving often the problem has already been solved. There is lots of talk, as the rule has to be by consensus on every level. Also the seven counselors have to find a consensus, not an easy feat considering that they often come from opposing parties; the Bundesrat is also build proportionally. So imagine wingnuts having to work together with liberals. And it works as we have learned not to long ago. Something over a year ago we had this wingnut called Mr. Blocher elbowing himself in to the Bundesrat to become a counselor, while pushing out one of the women. I was furious, as were most Swiss women. But in the meantime I must say that this was probably the best thing to happen. The system clipped his wings. By himself he can do nothing; he depends on the other 6 counselors. His roaring has become a whisper, and even his followers have become more subdued. So I have learned that this system has safe guards, which I really appreciate.
Then there is one more aspect I would like to share, another one I did not like until I was able to observe the elections in the US. In Switzerland and I think in many European countries, we have what is called the citizen registry. That is everyone living here is registered. It used to have a whiff of police state to me. However, in the meantime I also have become aware that this is strengthening for Democracy. We do not have to register to vote or for elections. Everyone who is registered and Swiss citizen is eligible to vote and can not be purged from the list. So about six weeks before a vote or election the information and documents for voting are mailed to everyone. Then they can be filled out and send back or you can hand in at a polling station.This happened for the first time and automatically after my 18th birthday and has continued since then. The votes are hand counted and if needed recounted. One of the civil duties you can be called for here is to count votes, like in the US you can be called as a juror. We vote here between two to five times per year, depending and how many referendums and initiatives are waiting. Voting and elections in this system is simple and easy.
This is an overview of how Democracy and government works in my country. I hope others from around the world will share how their countries handle it, maybe with their own diary, and I hope this will be an inspiration to the American readers.
How quaint, our leaders would say. Thank you! This is a fabulous description, Fran. My mother’s people came from Switzerland in the early 20th century and my cousin, who once toured Switzerland, says she can’t imagine why they ever left.
Well, in the early 20th century it was a poor country. Your leaders might be right it is quaint and still worth a visit. However, there are challenges too. But over the years I came to appreciate it more. Must be age. It is amazing how easily we take everything for granted even democracy, and only when we are in danger of loosing it we start to see what we have and to value it.
My comment about “quaint” was a reference to our Attorney General’s thinking that the Geneva Conventions are “quaint.” And so too would Gonzales and Bush et al. think your democracy quaint.
I hope I can visit your country someday.
My little visit to your beautiful country was planned to be a couple of days on a two-week itinerary that would end in Amsterdam.
LOL! We scrapped the rest of the plans and spent the whole time in Switzerland. The beauty of the Alps was the obvious reason, but the friendliness and graciousness of the people we met still lingers in my mind.
Wherever I visit, I always remember the food. I’m short and had put on a lot of weight, and we stopped at a sidewalk cafe somewhere in Switzerland. I ordered a ham and cheese sandwich, and couldn’t believe what came out: Fresh bread piled about three inches high with lots of different cheeses and ham, served on a cutting board with a knife. I still have the picture I took of it!
Sorry for the little trip down memory lane. Your country has a special place in my heart, and I like the sound of your government — especially all the voting, and made easy at that!
Thanks for a great diary.
Thanks, Fran, for your informative piece, from which I learned a lot!
In case anyone is interested (in cyberspace, no one can hear you yawn) I’ll briefly outline the political system of the Scandinavian monarchies, recycling a dKos post of mine from a while ago:
Sweden, Denmark and Norway, like the UK, are constitutional monarchies wherein the heads of state have a ceremonial role; their influence is confined to the occasional, and politically uncontentious, address to the nation. Formally, however, the King or Queen is head of the Executive Branch, the government being his/her Council. Ministers are selected by the PM with a view to gender equity and geographical balance. Some are recruited from MPs, some not. All appear weekly in parliament to inform and not least, answer questions from inquiring minds.
Failure to do so satisfactorily might prove disastrous for the whole government. The Legislative branches are the real seats of power due to the principle known as ‘parliamentarism,’ according to which a government must be tolerated by a majority in the parliament. Unlike in the UK, a highly proportional electoral system ensures that this is no trivial requirement, and changes of gov’t can occur within a parliamentary term of office.
This electoral system produces a lot of minority and coalition governments – sometimes both at once, as we now have in Norway). In Denmark, though not in the other two, the PM can dissolve the parliament and call for new elections at a time of his/her choosing, which gives the Executive branch more clout.
The Judiciary is independent, but not as politically involved as in the US, though the Supreme Court may perform limited judicial review – especially on human rights issues. Judges are appointed by the Executive; no need of confirmation.
Summing up, and leaving aside the Judiciary for the moment, one might compare the whole system to the structure of a corporation. Voters are the equivalent of stockholders; elections are their stockholder’s meetings; political parties are their factions. The parliament corresponds to the Board, in more or less permament session and with sub-committees. It appoints and supervises the Executive branch. The PM is the CEO and answerable to the Board, which can fire her ass at will.
I think that’s a roughly correct sketch of the national political levels in all three countries. Democracy is also practised at local and regional levels, of course, but I don’t know enough about Sweden and Denmark to get into that.
Sirocco, what to you think about Ductape Fatwa’s comment about constitutional monarchies, as you are living in one. For me it sounds more like a luxury.
Well, constitutional monarchy does have the advantages DuctapeFatwa mentions. The head of state is above the political fray while being at the same time the supposed personification of the nation, hindering the chief elected executive from wrapping him/herself in the flag.
This need not be a personality cult. Over and above the dignity that follows the office, the monarch is respected to the extent s/he instantiates
the nation’s perceived common values, which in turn strengthens these and the national ethos built upon them. For example, the late King Olav V of Norway was an avid skier in the woods surrounding Oslo. Countless people experienced his exemplary løypekultur (‘ski trail courtesy’); he would resolutely use his pole to direct his dog behind him, making way for other skiers. And at the height of the 1972 Petroleum Crisis, when gas was scarce, he took the cable car to the woods like an ordinary citizen, confirming egalitarian values. Now, an elected titular president could also do such things, but it might not carry quite the same weight with the popular imagination as when done by a royal.
And most importantly, a hereditary monarch embodies a link to the past through the royal dynasty, which makes him or her a symbol of national sovereignty nonpareil. No elected official could provide the same historical continuity.
I suspect the reason why the most ‘successful’ nations tend to be monarchies is that these were the ones that happened to colonize others and remove their monarchs, instead of being colonized themselves. My own is an exception – here a national royal family was recreated through ‘import’ upon independence.
Personally I favor the Republic, for a simple reason: I believe it is abusive to force a child to grow up as a ‘royal.’ And the form of government should not be based on child abuse, in my view.
I’m not Sirocco, but would like to comment as follows:
There is a cost associated with the function of “Head of State” regardless of form of government. As mentioned below, the Presidencies in Germany and Austria do not wield real power. The Head of State is a symbol.
The Scandinavian royal houses are quite ‘poor’ when compared to the UK, both in wealth amassed and in terms of annual transfers from the state. One could say they are cheaply run.
They are surely an anachronism and I believe they will gradually disappear within the next 1 or 2 generations. The mystery of the royals is disappearing (re behavior and consequent press treatment in the UK). The Norwegian Crown Prince married a single mother with a ‘checkered’ past. The Prince of Wales is marrying a divorcee. Great reminders that they are human, and what will probably lead to their eventual demise.
Well, there you are. Posted while I was writing.
Thanks for your response anyway. I agree with you on the anachronism. However, the keep, what we call ‘rainbow press’ (gossip) going.
constitutional monarchies, which makes sense, when you think about it. You have the ceremonial figure of the monarch to absorb and serve as a receptacle for all the jingoism, but in a way that neatly avoids said jingoism impacting too hard on the quality of life of the citizens, since actual governance is handled by a parliament whose members are elected representatives.
I would like to have seen the US move toward becoming a multi-party democracy, I think it could have saved a lot of lives.
I do not quiet agree with you. Germany and Austria (I don’t know about other countries) have Presidents who have purely representative jobs. The political aspect is dealt by the Kanzler. I would think this is cheaper, but maybe Sirocco knows more about this. To me monarchies are purely people-cults. I don’t see any need for them, but this might be me coming from a country that never had any Kings or Queens.
of how monarchies can either help or hinder.
Greece’s King Constantine was widely vilified for not doing more to avert the dictatorship in sharp contrast to Spain’s Juan Carlos who did stop a putsch with a strong personal appeal to the armed forces.
There’s a wonderful SF short story about how, sometime in the future, a man discovers that he is the descendant of all the royal houses around the world. He digs into it and finds that in almost all cases they royals had not formally relinquished their authority and so becomes king of the world.
Margeret Thatcher, who IIRC managed to shore up her sagging political fortunes by kicking off a very jingoistic little war over the Malvinas.
So to that extent I have to disagree with you there.
This is a great diary, Fran, and a stellar example of why I’m so glad Booman encourages an international community here. I love learning about other places. Here in the US, the tendency is for people to be so insulated, and so unaware of the rest of the world, and I thank Booman for the opportunity he’s given me to learn about other people and places. Thank you for sharing a bit of your country with us.
I guess you could say we have something very similar to your national citizen registry: Social Security cards.
Mindmouth, I wanted to ask you earlier this week, but it turned out to be a unusually busy week. You write:
I am not sure if that is the same. I also have a Social Security card and number, however, that has nothing to do with my being registered to vote. I am fascinated that US citizens have to register and that, as it happened to a US friend of mine who registered and in 2000 when she wanted to vote she was not registered and could not vote. Somehow this whole US system for voters registration is a mystery to me. When I brought up this topic in an other site, it was explained to me that it is because US citizens are not registered, but now you tell me that apparently through Social Security you are registered. Why is this not used for legitimation for voters, why do they still have to register. I would appreciate if you have an explanation that is, if there is one.
Greece has a parliamentary system. Currently voting is by a system of ‘reinforced’ proportional representation. You need 3% of the vote to get into the 300 strong parliament and seats are awarded to the strongest party at the expense of the second, virtually ruling out coalitions.
Weak coalition governments in the 60s contributed to the putsch that led to a seven year dictatorship lasting from 1967 to 1974 which was severely damaging to Greece and to Cyprus and Greeks ever since have had an aversion to weak governments. This is not Italy.
What this means in practice is that a party able to come in first, with anything above 42% of the vote is completely dominant until the next general election. One thing to remember about Greece is that the unreconstructed Stalinist Communist party and the former Euro-communists get nearly 10% together.
General elections are held every four years as are elections for local office and the European Parliament. As these do not coincide we hold elections every two to three years, though only the general election gets people excited.
Registration is automatic and you are obligated to vote by law. Though sanctions against non-voters are no longer enforced, we still have one of the highest voting rates in the world. And, yeah, we vote with paper ballots.
Referendums are rare. We will not even hold one on the EU constitution. Last big one I remember was the abolition of the monarchy after the restoration of democracy in 1974 when the King was kicked out for, essentially, not doing more to defend parliament when the tanks rumbled through the streets.
I would be glad to answer any questions.
How do the Greece people feel about the current system. From a distance it looks as if the situation has become much more peaceful and quiet.
and that is certainly popular. There is little demand for a more proportional system. Greeks prefer strong, single party governments.
Corruption is endemic and the present government is trying to do something about it but is difficult because it is embedded deeply in society. This is probably a result of having been under Turkish occupation for four centuries during which a mistrust of authority became an intrinsic part of the Greek character.
One thing worth noting is that having been through a hard right dictatorship recently, Greeks are now much more careful with democracy, civil liberties and civil rights, at least as far as ethnic Greeks are concerned. The hard right is marginalized despite the fact that the population is quite conservative in some respects (also quite liberal in others.)
Immigrants often get the short end of the stick, though it is not as bad as it could be given how large a percentage of the population they are.
Athenian, I think that immigrants are a topic in most European countries. Here in Switzerland it flares up periodically. We also have a high percentage, as far as I know around 23%, still it is quiet peaceful. I like it, however, it can pose some challenges for schools and other places.
Great diary! I am really thankful for all the information people are sharing here.
I have been meaning to write such a diary for a long time, but never got round to write it in enough detail for countries other than France. So here’s the French bit, with thanks to Fran for having started this off:
France is a strange hybrid of a Presidential and a Parliamentary system. The President is elected directly by the population every 5 years (it used to be 7 years, but this was shortened in 2002) and has a lot of power – he chooses the prime minister, he can call for early parliamentary elections, and he has sole power to fill in a huge number of important positions in the administration, the judiciary and other. He is the Head of State and also, in normal times the head of the executive.
By normal times, I mean when he has a clear majority in Parliament: he chooses a prime minister from his side, who is formally the head of the government , but is often used as a lighting rod by the President, and he has a majority to vote his laws.
But the parlimament can have a different majority, as has happened with increasing frequency in recent years (in 1986-88 and again in 1993-95 under Mitterrand and in 1997-2002 under Chirac). It’s what’s been called “cohabitation”, as the two sides have to share power, but it’s not really gridlock. In that case, the Prime Minister is chosen from the other side, and governs with the support of its majority in Parliament. The policies are clearly set by the Prime Minister, but the President keeps specific powers with regards to diplomacy, military affairs, and lots of domestic nominations – which thus require compromise between the two sides.
You basically have one major party on each side, the UMP is right of center, while the Socialist Party is left-of-center (both would probably fit inside the Democratic Party in the US in terms of policies). Alongside the major party, you have smaller parties on each side – the pro-European UDF and the nationalist UPF on the right, the Greens and the Communist Party on the left. Some elections are base on proportional voting, and some are based on two-round majority vote (the top two candidates in the first round face off in the second round). The two-round voting system used in parlimanentart elections (held every 5 years) leads to fairly stable coalitions, as the losing candidates of the left in the first round call to vote for the leading one, which most of the time comes form the socialist party and the same on the right. In some cases, the parties on one side agree not to field candidates against one another in the first round to help the smaller parties get some seats.
Proportional voting, which is used for local elections, allows the smaller parties to get political appointees at the local level, and to measure their relative representativity (this will be used to negotiate a share of “safe” seats in the national elections as described above).
Of course, this stable arrangement has been disrupted by Jean-Marie Le Pen’s populist and racist National Front, which polls about 15% of the votes. It is formally on the right, but the mainstream right, to its credit, mostly refuses to ally with the NF candidates, and both the mainstream left and the mainstream right support the other side vs the NF if it ever gets to the second round – so the NF has almost never gotten seats in the Parliament. In 2002, Le Pen got to the second round of the Presidential election by coming a smidgen in front of the Socialist Party candidate (it was Chirac 20%, Le Pen 18%, Jospin 17%) who lost out votes to a number of smallish candidates on the left (one communist, one green, two trostskysts, and two others) – everybody thought that Jospin was a shoo in for the second round, and nobody bothered to vote for him in the first round…
Anyway, the system is fairly robust: allows for good representation of smaller parties at the local level but creates stable majorities to govern at the national level. There is an unresolved tension between the Presidential election and the parliamentary elections, as both provide political legitimacy and power.
Is the President constitutionally required to choose a prime minister from the opposite party when he does not have a majority? Or is it simply a situation where Parliament would be ungovernable if he did otherwise? And does the President really have the freedom to choose any MP to be Prime Minister? For instance, in a cohabitation situation, could the President (at least in theory) choose a backbencher from the other party as Prime Minister, so as to weaken the office?
Maybe these are strange questions, but I’ve never been quite able to get my head round the French system.
no the president isn’t required to choose a prime minister from the majority party, and it usually isn’t a MP, too.
But the National Assembly can censure the prime minister (who’s the one actually in charge of running the country: the President is chief of Executive, top of the french army, highest magistrate of France and a couple other mostly useless things, like co-prince of Andorre), and they have used/will use that power, so the President has to pick someone who won’t be shot down in the next two weeks.
He will sometimes (like now, with Raffarin) choose someone with little political background. On other occasions, he will choose a prominent opponent, hoping that he’ll gather dissatisfaction (see Jospin, from the PS (Parti socialiste, center left), Prime Minister under Chirac (RPR/UMP, center right), and his elective misfortune.
I have come late to this discussion but just want to say it is a super diary. Like all good diaries it has genrrated some excellent and thoughful responses. Thanks.
Thailand is a constitutional monarchy with a bicameral parliament consisting of a house of representatives and a senate. The current system is new being based on the 1997 constitution.
The main decision making body is the house of representatives which consists of 500 members. 400 of these are elected by constituency and 100 are added from a party list. This means that local voters get to select the person they want to represent their constituency but also get to have a say on which party they would like to run the country. The constituency vote is first past the post while the party list is proportional with a national 5% total minimum requirement. Parties usually place prospective ministers on the party list as when a government is formed the minsters cease to be members of parliament, so if on the party list the next member of the list just replaces the minister. If a minister was a constituency MP that would necessitate a costly and risky by-election. Ministers can also be unelected outsiders. All candidates for election to the house must be members of a registered party. The maximum term of the house is 4 years, but elections can be called early.
The upper house is the senate and has 200 members. This has a check and balance role and is supposed to be filled by great “mature thinkers”. All members are elected from a constituency. Interestingly candidates are not allowed to be members of parties and are not allowed to actively campaign as senators are supposed to be dignified people.
The local system is also interesting but this post is long enough. The problem in Thailand is not with the system, but with the lack of “political maturity” amongst most of the voting population which means rampant direct vote buying is still common.
Most of Europe actually uses coalition based parliamentary systems, including the Monarchies. Even Canada does. The US is a Republic more like Rome. The Swiss have a great system – but it’s a hard one in which to accomplish much (not that that’s bad, on the contrary). Democracy comes in many different forms, but a Republic is the least likely to represent it’s people – but it can accomplish the most (not that that’s good). Personally I favor a parliamentary system since it represents the people adequately and you don’t have the impossible task of rounding everybody up for a vote 4 times a year.
The republic was designed as a result of different historical imperatives, including: 1) The need to balance widely varying regional interests; 2) The vacuum at the level of head of state; and 3) The founders’ keen interest in providing checks and balances to power. Parliamentary traditions, it seems to me, tended to develop as a result of the traditional struggle between monarchs and the middle/upper classes. The blank slate of post-Revolution America had different requirements.
In a way, we suffer from early adapter syndrome. Having adopted cutting-edge political technology in the eighteenth century, we’ve lately been surpassed by more recent innovations. Though, too, there is still a complex balancing act to be managed in a country as big as our own.
Indeed, to be fair, there were times when I eulogized the American system over the European systems. I thought the American system defended local interests better. The republicans have recently circumvented this advantage of the American system, inflicting a potentially fatal blow, especially since the other side has not been able to follow suit.
However, I still think that the US system if among the best in the world, if only we can get fair elections, an impartial media and an end to gerrymandering.
Exactly because it is on the bleeding edge of political technology, the American Experiment is tremendously important. Yes, there is a backup, the European Unification Experiment but that too is in trouble.
If both manage to survive, we have a chance. Otherwise…
We are counting on you, America.
The biggest problems I have with the American system is that it is represented by just two parties, that it is constantly being bought by lobbyists for corporate interests and that the supreme court justices are nominated by the president.
As for European unification, though I never supported it, was a good idea in that it could potentially be independent and have a voice. However, they were in trouble when they had nothing better to do than regulate coffin sizes, road signs, oven types and generally cause offense to one country or another. Also the inclusion of the UK is a very tenuous one in that as a wealthy country it should not be getting back virtually all of its membership dues, and that it has no real desire to be there in the first place. I also think they need to take a break from admitting countries en mass – until they sort out many of the problems and become stable.
That the US will have to face up to electoral reform at some stage now seems fairly obvious whem looking in from outside.