undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjariel6y ago0 comments

I fail to see any evidence for how 'direct democracy' is the primary, or even relevant social artifact which drove the special directive highlighted in the article (i.e. cancellation of public events), or even any evidence that such 'direct democracy' provides superior social organization.

It's really odd that someone would even bring that up.

Switzerland was the last country in the modern world to allow women to vote (1971) - and it was direct democracy that specifically blocked women from voting; a popular plebiscite in 1959 (obviously by men only) specifically prohibited women from enfranchisement. So much for popular progress? In Canada, women could vote in 1917. In Turkey, 1934. Finland, 1906. India, 1950.

The reason that Switzerland will be able to address the Coronavirus pandemic effectively will not be 'direct democracy', it will be wealth. Switzerland became wealthy largely due to a national economic strategy of banking secrecy, asset protection, and of course enabling evasion of taxation and other authorities. At almost 10% of the economy relative to assets under management, the banking sector in Switzerland is indeed substantially larger than other sectors relative to the sectors of other nations [1]. In the US it's 1%. Canada 2%.

Luxembourg, in the last 70-ish years, went from a backwater to even wealthier than Switzerland on a GDP/per-capita basis for similar reasons: it became a tax haven, a policy driven by no less than the outgoing EU Commission head JC Junker who was the PM of Lux. There is no real economy in Monaco, of course, but its high-income status is also derived from its special variation of tax haven. Even Irleand's massive economic renaissance in the last 20 years has largely been driven by asymmetrical tax benefits for large American tech corporations. And of course, Norway's sovereign wealth fund which owns 2% of all public stocks in the world is derived from another existential special economic bit: Oil.

When Corona hits, the 'rich' countries will be the safest (I think the US may possibly be an exception), and I think it will have little to do with their relative forms of government. Aside from their deep social ties to China, I think Singapore, for example, would be one of those ideal 'safe places'.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/267352/size-of-the-banki...

0 comments

cjslep6y ago

> I fail to see any evidence for how 'direct democracy' is the primary, or even relevant social artifact which drove the special directive highlighted in the article (i.e. cancellation of public events), or even any evidence that such 'direct democracy' provides superior social organization.

The thread you're commenting on so far has gone like this:

OP: "See a democracy can institute sweeping authoritarian-like bans, but with the will and blessing of the people"

Next: "I'm Swiss and it's because the government isn't our enemy, it is an extension of us"

You: "Nope it's because y'all are wealthy, that's the only reason y'all will survive!"

Grandparent: "uh dude the government system has been around longer than the wealth"

You: "I don't see why the government system matters, it's the money!"

The reason you're being downvoted is because you came into a conversation specifically about how the democracy of Switzerland is able to act quicky with a decree that could be viewed as an authoritarian-like policy, but with the implied general will (to use Rousseau's term for Sovereignty in political philosophy) of the people, and said "I don't see the effectiveness of this quick decisive action of democratic government, instead it's about the money they have!"

Mvandenbergh6y ago

I don't necessarily disagree with you that wealth is an important tool but that might have been better as a response to the top level comment rather than that comment chain.

That comment chain went as follows (I am quoting only part of the comments):

1) "Switzerland, most democratic country in the world, reminding people that it isn't just the authoritarians who know how to keep organised."

2) "Well, as a Swiss I can only state for the record that the government is not the enemy. Essentially: The government is us. "

3) "It requires a multi-generational cultural conditioning to develop the civic mind that the Swiss have nurtured. It is also not clear how scalable it is ultimately."

4) your comment which was quoted the line above and discussed the role of Swiss wealth in being able to respond effective to a pandemic.

To me, your comment would have made more sense in reply to the first comment. The "It" from comment 3 that you responded to is the Swiss attitude towards the power of their government(s) and the placement of your comment might therefore lead people to think you meant that their wealth lead to that attitude rather than what you intended which was that their wealth would aid their ability to respond to an outbreak of disease.

On another note. While I do not think Swiss-style direct democracy gives a particular advantage in fighting pandemics (and has led to some not-great outcomes such as women in one canton not being able to vote until 1991), I do think that systems of government in which citizens have a high degree of trust are at an advantage. The Swiss do have a high regard for their system and they will do what they are told without resenting they system because they feel invested in it.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse