Direct Democracy as a opportunity for collective political learning The Swiss foreign policy as a ambivalent example An introduction to a debate at the Timaru Institute of International Affairs by Andreas Gross (Switzerland) Director of the Scientific Institute for Direct Democracy in St.Ursanne and Swiss MP & Leader of the Social-Democrats in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) Timaru (NZ), 19 th of June

An overview of my presentation: I.The banalization of today’s democracy/ies II.The (utopian) project of Democracy III.What more Direct Democracy would really mean IV.The paradoxes of Swiss Foreign Relations and Policy V.How foreign Foreign Policy is today in the age of globalization ? VI.We have to learn to transnationalize Democracy VII.Where is New Zeeland in all this ?

I. We should overcome the banalisation of the terms Freedom and Democracy Democracy is more then a choice; it enables us to be free. Freedom means, to act together on our common life (« Life is not a destiny ») Democracy constitutes the rules, rights and procedures in order to prevent conflicts to be solved violently

II. The (utopian) project of Democracy To be able to participate in all decisions which concerns you ! (procedural (design/institutional) challenge) Freedom is not a privilege ! Democracy has to deliver to - enable all to be capable to act and to be free

III. Representative democracy is an essential part of Democracy. But it should not have the monopole of Democracy ! Indirect Democracy (ID) enables you to vote your representatives; Direct Democracy (DD) enables you to vote on important issues you don’t want to leave to your Representatives; The citizens should be able to decide, when they want to decide themselves - this would also make representative Democracies more representative !

The democratization of Democracy is an ongoing, never ending process: Every democracy is unfinished, DD is a little bit less unfinished than ID !   Democracy was reduced to represent. Democracy in a time, where most people couldn’t read or write and were enable to make political judgments !   Today modern citizens know often as much about politics as MP’s: They feel frustrated that ID excludes them and reduces them to objects instead of the subjects of politics.   A society in which citizens feel excluded looses a enormous amount of creative potentials, misses collective learning options and undervalues itself !

A bit more Direct Democracy means that you share more power with the citizens, the only source of legitimate political power   Nobody should have so much power, that he or she has the “privilege” not to have to learn...   Sharing the political power, that means, giving 2 % of the citizens the power to ask for a Referendum on a law voted in the Parliament or a legisl.change they propose to the society, means: Everybody has to listen more - Everybody tries to convince and to discuss   Politics become softer, more inclusive and more communicative !

In order to avoid a alienation between the civil society and it’s political system, Direct Democracy has to be carefully designed !   No quick fix: Everybody (Citizens, MP’s, administ., society) needs and gets the time they need : A Referendum is a process over years: 1 year for the citizens, 1 year for Gov+Parl., 1/2 a year for the Public debate and campaign !   In order to share the power and not to be exclusive and make the system responsive you should ask more than 1% of the electorates signatures for a Referendum and not more than 2% for a popular proposition (“Initiative”)   No quorums: They kill communication !

In a carefully designed DD you have to understand real change as a collective learning process   Everybody has the right to propose where and how he or she thinks changes are needed (Open Agenda Setting and Attention providing)   More public debates and private discussions (the soul of DD) create a much better informed society   The invitation to decide, creates a sense of belonging (Integration)   The right to participate, reduces distances and increases identifications (“Democratic patriotism”)   After you participated in the decision making, you are best qualified to implement the decision

IV. The paradoxes of Swiss Foreign Relations and Policy   Switzerland belonged to the most progressive countries in Europe: The radical/liberal fathers of 1848 wanted to make a new beginning for whole Europe, not just a island in Europe   /45 The wars and the Swiss two main cultures made out of a economic open country a politically very closed one. They survived alone and thought they should stay alone after   Learning after a catastrophe is easier than to learn to reform and change a rather successful past and presence.   Switzerland was made with Europe - it can not stay in the future without Europe !

V. How foreign “Foreign Policy” is today in the age of globalization ? “ Today the nation-state is too big for the small things - to small for the big issues” - Democracy is today similar to the ruder of a boat, which lies in the water, but the ruder does not touch the water anymore! That’s why the big issues (Climate change, peace, migration, development, hunger, energy) are not “foreign policies” anymore, but issues of new global home or interior politics !

Democratization of the EU means: We have to contribute to overcome the input part of the EU legitimacy deficit, whose effects are dramatic: No citizen participation (Feelings of Powerlessnes) Elite domination (Social Distance(D)) Centralistic and bureaucratic (strc D) No common public sphere (comm D) No common identity (Cultural D) No feeling of togethernesness / common belonging (emotional D)

Let’s not forget: The quality of Direct Democracy (DD) depends of it’s design - a well designed DD contributes to: Communication and Deliberation Sharing of power Public and individual learning Citizens acting and more transparency Integration of diversity by civic participation Legitimacy by convincing More identification, less distances More openness for other policies and actors

VI. For building a global democracy we have to choose between, or combine different possibilities: Getting inspired by the European Human Rights Convention (EHRC) with it’s individual right to bring your state to a international Court, but globalize and enlarge it (Non-state- powers, more then the classical freedom rights...) Make a global constitution which gives to every person a status without founding a world-state and destroying the citizenship in and the nation-state itself. Build a second/third chamber of MP’s/NGOs in the UN- General Assembly, in order to give the “People of the world” really a representation...

VII.Where is NZ in all this ? How much Direct Democracy you got with the “Citizen Initiated Referendum” (CIR) - not bin- ding, agenda-setting only, no new legal norm ? How big is the distance between citizens and the MP’s - how representative is the NZ- representative democracy - does your political system realize the democratic potentials of your society ? How much motivation have the Nzders to act for a global democracy ? How much the Government would support them ?