Switzerland’s Political System Is Unlike Any Other | Patricia Schafer (#22)
Episode Summary:
What makes Switzerland’s political system so unique? In this episode, we break down how direct democracy shapes the country’s decision-making process and political culture. We explore the mechanics behind public votes, how new laws are introduced, and the balance of power between elected officials and the people. We also look at the structure of the Swiss Federal Council, the influence of lobbying, and how representation is managed across language, region, and gender.
Later in the episode, we talk about the militia system—where part-time politicians juggle public office with full-time jobs—and whether this approach can remain sustainable in a modern political environment. We finish with a discussion on suffrage, civic participation, and how Swiss voting rights have changed over time.
Meet Patricia Schafer
Patricia is a political scientist and member of the municipal council in a small Swiss municipality. She works at Avenir Suisse, a Swiss think tank, and previously supported parliamentary commissions at the national level. Her academic research focuses on Swiss political institutions, with particular interest in electoral systems, suffrage, and direct democracy.
Full Transcript
Mike: [00:00:00] My guest today is Patricia Schafer, a Swiss political scientist, civic educator, and militia politician who has built her career around understanding and participating in Switzerland’s political system. She currently works at Avenir Swiss, serves on a municipal council and previously supported parliamentary commissions at the federal level.
Switzerland is famous for its direct democracy, but what does that actually mean in practice, given that there are no systems quite like it. What makes political life in Switzerland so different? In this episode, Patricia helps unpack the inner workings of Swiss democracy from how new laws are introduced to the somewhat unique concept of the malicious system where many politicians hold public office whilst continuing their day jobs.
We also explore the structure of the federal council. Whilst it’s widely known that its seven members reflect diversity in party region, and even gender, fewer people may realize that this balance is based on no more than a gentleman’s agreement [00:01:00] that’s held for almost 70 years. We discussed why Switzerland was so late in granting women the right to vote and what this means for civic participation today.
This conversation really is a crash course in how Swiss democracy functions and why it might be one of the most unusual and effective systems in the world. Now, here is my conversation with Patricia Schäfer,
Patricia, welcome to How it Ticks. How are you doing
Patricia: Hi, Mike. I’m doing good. I hope you too.
Mike: So tell me what is a direct democracy? Can you define it for me?
Patricia: What is a direct democracy? So I think it’s the, opposite of representative democracy, I would say. So it’s not the, it’s not actually, it’s just the people that should have, the say, make the laws decide on, on different issues and not the politicians that you elect for that
Mike: mm-hmm. Okay. So most [00:02:00] other Western countries have what you call a representative democracy. I.
Patricia: Yeah, there are some countries that also have some sort of direct democratic instruments. I mean, we also have a representative, democracy. But I mean, there’s not the perfect direct democratic, democracy, but it’s just a representative democracy with direct democratic elements, I would say.
I mean, Switzerland has the, the largest extent of direct democratic instruments compared, yeah. In the world. I mean, most of the votes that take place, they take place in Switzerland. Even though it’s such a small country, we make up for the most of the direct democratic votes, that actually happen in the world. So
Mike: I did a. Quick check before this call. Which other countries in the world, considered a direct democracy at the federal level. And it seems like, the only other country is Uruguay. There are a few
Patricia: you’re a guy?
Mike: There’s a few others in Europe, which are at a state and, and Cantonal level such [00:03:00] as Germany and even Italy I think was there.
But Europe was the only other
Patricia: Or the us.
Mike: The US as well. Exactly.
Patricia: Mm-hmm.
Mike: Why do you think that Switzerland’s special.
Patricia: I mean, yeah. Probably has to do a lot with history. How, how, how it, how it evolved over time. Earlier on it was just many different contents and then they, they came together and it was always a bit, this bottom up principle, it was not the top down.
I think if you organize something from top down, then it’s probably much less likely that something like that would evolve. But when it’s more that it comes bottom up it’s quite natural that people should also have a say. So I think it has a lot to do with that. How it got organized and yeah. It also has a lot to do. Yeah. It’s the bottom up thing. It has a lot to do, probably federalism, decentralization that you’re really [00:04:00] from, from very, you came from very small jurisdictions that you organized yourself. And there the most natural way was just to meet and to discuss on the issues that you have to discuss on.
So that’s what’s still happening today. Quite often in the municipalities are these town meetings, which is actually like the most natural form of direct democracy. So they’re actually people meet, they discuss on different issues and they decide on different issues. That’s also how it’s made in the municipality where I’m in the municipal council.
So they’re, actually like the legislative power is just in the town meetings and, so I think it’s a very natural way when, when, when you come from this small jurisdictions to decide, just in this direct way, because you’re small, you don’t really have, yeah, you maybe don’t even have enough people to form a parliament.
So, I think it’s a very natural way[00:05:00]
Mike: How does a direct or a form of a direct democracy impact the culture of politics?
Patricia: how direct democracy impacts the culture of politics. I mean, that’s a very huge question. I think it changed quite everything, because, first of all, it gives, make sure that politicians somehow need to follow what the people want. And so it’s like a control, instrument. On the other hand, it also has some sort of innovation character, I would say, because, there may be things that come into politics which would otherwise not, enter the, the political agenda.
And what I think is very interesting and important is that it’s somehow, I think it brings down politics to a less [00:06:00] emotional thing. So because you have to decide on really some. Topics. So it’s a clear issue that you decide on so you can really have pro and contra, arguments.
And that means you cannot just decide on, I want this party . But really you have to make up your mind about certain issues. And I think that really helps to, yeah, to bring down the discussion to, less emotional things. I mean, there might be that some, some, some ballots that you wrote on are quite emotional, but I think in total the political cul culture then, get less emotional, which might also help to, help that we don’t have.
Too much polarization. I mean, there are some extent of polarization in Switzerland as well, of course, but that people can really talk to each other. It’s not just the [00:07:00] two party system where you have the right against the left, but you can really find maybe people from the right who are on in one topic, they have the same opinion as you have, and then you can see that you can also find each other like that.
And I think that’s an important, thing as well.
Mike: Hmm. What types of decisions are typically made through a public vote and which are handled by elected officials?
Patricia: Yeah, there are, there are different ways, that can, that can lead to a public vote. So we have, on the one hand we have this, these initiatives, which are the popular initiatives, which means, , people can collect, signatures, a hundred thousand. And then, this initiative in the end goes through parliament, and then in the end people vote on that.
But that’s only these initiatives there are only for changes in the constitution and not, . [00:08:00] Laws. But on the other hand, most of the laws they pass, , through the parliament and most of the time it’s the, , federal council that makes some proposition of how to change laws.
Then that goes to the parliament. So to the two chambers they discuss on that. And then in the end, , there can be a referenda, , and you can vote on that. So, and then it also goes to a popular vote. But those are like different, , ways. And I mean, most of the time it’s like, initiatives, they’re mostly, it’s just one small, , smaller topic that, that gets brought to, to the political agenda, , via this instrument.
And, , from the propositions that come from the federal council and the parliaments, those are mostly like the larger packages where you really make a huge change of law so those are mostly the more complicated vote. Then in [00:09:00] the end, I guess be because they’re super packed and, yeah, just like the big changes to the laws.
Mike: So I, I guess these initiatives where people get the, information packet in their mail, they have to be simple enough or di or digestible to the average person to be able to follow and understand and clearly make a decision.
Patricia: Yes. I mean, that’s the idea, but quite often not like that. That’s also one of the criticism. Probably, I mean that sometimes it’s formulated, not very clear. I mean, which is quite clear because it’s, it’s for the constitution, so it’s for constitutional changes.
And when, when it’s formulated too clearly, then one would say it’s, it has more the type of a law why it would not need to be written in a constitution. And that’s why it’s quite often also formulated very broadly so that it’s not that clear how it, like what it [00:10:00] would, what the impact would be in the end.
So, that’s also why quite often there comes to criticism that, that we have this problem, that we write things into the constitution via the initiatives, which would actually not. They don’t really have the type of, a constitutional character. And that’s why we also already suggested that, one should also have the, law initiatives, so where you can really propose concrete laws, , and not just constitutional changes.
So also changes in laws.
Mike: Can you explain to me the difference between a change to the Constitution and introducing a new law?
Patricia: yeah, I mean the Constitution, there should really be just the basic things. How, how the state is organized and how, how, how the governance is organized and really just the basic things. But, and the [00:11:00] laws, they are very concrete to special topics. And, for instance, we had the question on, this horned cow initiative.
Mike: Hmm. I.
Patricia: So this initiative wanted to, to ask that farmers, should get financial initiatives that they keep the natural horns of the cows or the goats. And I mean, if something like that then would be written constitution, I mean, you can do that.
I mean, it’s no problem.
Mike: But just on that, I’m just curious then, so if it does get added to the Constitution that farmers do get financial incentive to
Patricia: got rejected.
Mike: I did. Okay. Well in.
Patricia: That got rejected. Yeah.
Mike: But say if, if it did, it’s in the Constitution, so there is no law saying that they do need to get financial incentive or they need to follow it.
What, what does that mean in terms of what they, what, what the outcome needs to be?
Patricia: Yeah, I mean, [00:12:00] that’s on the question. I think in general there should then be some laws that follow this constitutional, thing. And, but that’s also another, problem. , You can vote on that issue, and then, , in the end it’s how it’s actually implemented and how it’s actually, implemented in the law in the end, that’s then the parliament that decides on that again. And , there we had actually a huge discussion also about, , there was the, , mass Immigration Initiative that was from the Swiss People’s Party. They wanted to just to have some immigration protest and that got accepted, , quite long time ago.
I think it’s more than 10 years. And, , and then how it actually gets implemented that then something else, I mean, it’s been written in the Constitution, but it still needs to have some laws that then really decide how that works. And, , yeah, that also gets, quite often people are then not [00:13:00] happy or satisfied how it’s actually, it actually gets implemented and. I mean, there also a possibility would be that, , we would change the rules like that, that also initiatives that get accepted, that in the end, one would also need to vote on actually how it gets implemented so that you, you will have a vote again on the implementation because that’s not the case in general.
So one would need to, yeah, start a new, initiative
Mike: see, I see. So you get something added to the Constitution, the people pushing that are very happy. And then the laws that follow, , because how it was written in the Constitution was a bit ambiguous. The laws actually aren’t written the way they want them to, therefore making them potentially unhappy, motivating them to try to make another change.
Patricia: Yeah, maybe, maybe it can be summarized like that. Yeah. [00:14:00] So, and I, I think, I mean, one possibility would really be that you, you will just, that there’s just a fixed rule that you also, that the people will vote again on the issue, how it gets implemented in the end, like in the laws. So not just the initiative beforehand, but also then about the implementation.
Again, I think that would, would help a lot.
Mike: Okay. So the people vote for the change in the Constitution, but how the rules are set, the people that currently don’t have a say in.
Patricia: Yeah. I mean, it depends. You can also have referenda in the end so that, that the laws passed by parliament, they get, that there’s going to be a referenda again, and then people can vote on this law again.
Mike: How frequent are the referendums, typically?
Patricia: So we usually wrote, four times a year. Yeah, no, three times. So February, June, November, September. Yeah. Four times. Usually. And, yeah, and it then depends [00:15:00] on how many, I mean, there can be some three votes, just one vote. It depends a bit on, on what’s ready, to get voted on. , But usually, yeah, every two, three months, , there are some votes on the federal level and then there sometimes you have on the can level at the same time, also some votes, , and sometimes even on the municipal level.
But. That really depends on the contents of how much votes there are
Mike: Hmm. Can I, could, could I make a change to the constitution? In theory, yeah.
Patricia: As an Australian,
Mike: Say, okay. In, in this, and, okay. As a foreigner, I understand, no say, could you personally decide that, okay, I want shops to be open on Sunday. Is there a path for you to follow that in theory is possible for you to make that possible?
Patricia: [00:16:00] so I mean, shops open on Sunday. I think that goes to the, to the competence of the cantons. So that would not be on the federal level. There. You would probably need to go on the Canton level, but I mean, there you also have these possibilities usually. On the AL levels, you would have in most can these, the, the possibility to make a co not only cons constitutional initiative, but also a, a law initiative.
And I think there one would need to collect signatures, but like the threshold of how many signatures you need to collect. I mean, that also, , yeah, is quite different between, , the different contents, but also like on the federal level, if you want to make, start an initiative, , it’s, a hundred thousand signatures that you need.
I mean, in, in theory, just one single person can start that. But, , it’s quite hard still. I mean, to usually [00:17:00] you need to be very well organized, so that you’re able, , to do that. So, I mean, just the idea that just one single person can just start that and do that and perfect.
But I think it’s not that easy in theory. Yes. And I mean, on the local levels, if you’re really on the local, local levels, then it gets, , much easier. So for instance, if we, in the municipality where, where I’m in the council, I mean there, , we have this town meetings, , twice a year usually. , And there all the people from municipality can come and, , they can meet.
And so we have like the different topics that we need to discuss, but also in the end, everybody can just drop some. Ideas that he wants to change or whatsoever. I mean, that’s always possible there. You can really bring in your ideas. So I think there, it’s quite easy actually to, to, to bring in new ideas.
But I mean, the higher you [00:18:00] go the, the harder it
Mike: Mm-hmm. I guess that’s a good thing.
Patricia: You get. That’s a good thing.
Mike: you don’t want things changing too frequently. Can you ex, can you explain to me how the Swiss Federal Council works? Who are its members, and how are their responsibilities divided?
Patricia: Yeah. So I guess, you know that the federal Council consists of seven members. So it’s, I mean, yeah, it’s a bit a different thing than in the other, countries or democracies where you have, president, so really one president presidential democracy. So we don’t have that. , But we have this federal council with seven members, , so that since, what is it, 70 years approximately, that we have like this magic formula, , which is actually just the gentleman, gentleman agreement.
So that’s not written in the constitution or anything. But, so the parties, they just, , agreed on that. [00:19:00] We have, , the different parties in this federal council. So we have like two seats of the Swiss , people’s party, two seats of the Swiss Democrats, two seats of the middle party, and one of the liberals, the FDP and , yeah, that’s. Since almost 70 years, I think like that. So there are seven members. They have their own, , they have the responsibility for their department, which they, , are responsible for. But then the decisions they are made in this, , in the council. So the seven members, they, , vote on the different, , topics, , by maturity vote.
And, every year, one person takes on the role of the president, but it’s actually not the president who has a larger say. But it’s really just that you have someone who can go to the other countries to say, yeah, I’m the, I’m here for the, the [00:20:00] federal council. So it’s just like this person then takes over a bit this role, this representative role.
And. Yeah, I think that’s actually, I mean, that we don’t have just one president. That’s actually what, what brings us a lot of stability as we can see nowadays. , Because , you really need to, to find a compromise just from the beginning on, I mean, already in the council there are just the different views, all the different, like the different parties included. And they already need to find some solutions that might be able to find, to really be, , backed up by a maturity because Yeah, and I mean, that brings a lot of stability. Many people also think it looks quite boring and, not, there’s not much going on and, that the federal council is too slow in reacting and whatsoever.
I actually think it’s a very good thing that we have, , this [00:21:00] very slow decision making and also quite, boring decisions sometimes and not just,
Mike: Politics should be boring, I think.
Patricia: yeah. I also think it’s, it’s better, it’s boring. Yeah.
Mike: How, are there any other ways which these parties are diversified? I can imagine that you would need, you know, fair representation from the different languages, from the different areas of Switzerland. Is that also taken into consideration with who is representative? Who is there?
Patricia: Yes, yes. That’s actually, that’s actually the idea. They always check. There is not like the, a fixed rule that there need to be, , three from the French or Italian speaking part, and three or four women. So it’s not the case that it’s like that. But , you should. Is it written?
It’s written the Constitution, I guess, that, that the linguistic, are just like the different regions. They should be represented, accordingly [00:22:00] somehow, but I mean, of course it cannot always be perfectly looked after that. But, usually you have, French speaking and German speaking, more or less well represented in the council.
And, nowadays we have someone from the Italian speaking part and, but it then gets quite, quite quickly, quite complicated if you want to really take into account, the regional, dimension. Then also the, the gender dimension and, . As we could see now, just in the, there was a one seat that got the three in March from Theola Health and there is now Mal who took over the seat in the federal council.
There. We, we have seen that there are actually not that many people that were interested in, taking over this role. And if you then have to look after all these other criteria, it can get [00:23:00] already quite difficult finding the, the candidate that, that can really make sure that all the regions are, represented and everything.
Mike: In in general, does the public get a say with, in who is elected if one person’s doing a particularly good or bad job, is there anything the public can do to influence their position there?
Patricia: No, no. Actually that’s, that’s something that’s quite Yeah. Interesting. In Switzerland, because we don’t elect the Federal Council directly. So we elect the, Parliament, so the National Council and the Council of State, we elect them every four years. But then this, , federal assembly, so the parliament, they actually, , vote. , So they elect the federal council. . And that’s why it also needed like, somehow this gentleman agreement and [00:24:00] something, because otherwise just the largest party could make sure that, , they would just have the maturity in the council. They would not need to. Yeah. , , But it’s not the people that, , vote on that.
No. So, but it can happen that, , that federal councils don’t get elected again or whatsoever. But that’s not the case usually. I mean, usually if you’re there, you stay there till you decide that you’re not, you don’t want to do it anymore. , But , yeah, I mean we as the people, we cannot do a lot, I would say.
Mike: Yeah. Now one other thing I found very interesting, about the Swiss political system is the militia system, and my understanding is that you are a militia politician yourself. Can you explain to me what that is exactly?
Patricia: So the militia system, militia politics, it, it’s just the idea that we, we don’t have like the professional politicians that are really doing that [00:25:00] as their main profession, but, that we have people who are having their work and besides their actual work, they also take over some responsibilities for the state.
So as, for instance, , the. , Positions in the municipal councils. , They’re mostly made up with people that are really, , having their other profession besides that. , And so there are around like the municipalities there, around hundred thousand people I guess, who are doing stuff, , for the municipalities.
So they’re all the governments, which usually, usually consists of the five to seven members. And then you have, , different committees also on the municipal level, , but where you also, , take over some responsibilities. , Yeah, and also on the canal level, it. Still [00:26:00] mostly made up really with this militia system.
And I think, yeah, that’s really just the idea that you have people who, who take our responsibility in the state. And at the same time they’re also, , members. Yeah, they’re also really in the economy. They are, just normal people. And that can help to bring some insights , into politics.
Politics and administrations, but also the other way around. So from directly from politics to the economy. I think it’s very, , important, aspect of, of swift democracy. , But it also has some challenges of course.
Mike: Also before this conversation I looked up what other countries have, militia system in politics. And once again, Switzerland really does seem to be an outlier. There are a couple of Nordic countries which have traditions in part-time involvement in politics.
There is, Germany and Austria also have part-time roles, but they [00:27:00] don’t really extend as broadly in higher levels of politics. So, once again, Switzerland’s doing something quite special
Patricia: Mm-hmm.
Mike: You outlined a few benefits. What are, what do you think are the drawbacks of this, that some of the implications.
Patricia: Yeah. I mean, I think you have to, to. Differ a bit between the local levels, so like really on the local levels and with the national level. So I think there are different challenges, , that are faced and also different problems. And, , what’s often said on the national level is that we, we have a bit of problem at the moment that they are still officially militia politicians.
So, which means they are, I don’t know if you have also looked up how much they earn and stuff, but they earn less, for instance than, , politicians in other countries. Because they are actually not supposed to have that as their full profession. . And there you can then of course have some problems [00:28:00] with lobbying then always come up so that they are a bit more dependent on special interest groups because they may also get some money from there. And, , yeah, but I mean there quite some efforts have been done, , to, to make sure that there is transparency. So that people can look up, what actually, what other, little mandates these politicians they have just, yeah.
To make sure that you understand where they come from. , And on the local level, you have completely, yeah, you have different problems there. It’s more the problems that you don’t really find the people in smaller municipalities because, it takes, yeah, it takes a lot of time. , And, , it’s usually not as, it still has in quite many municipalities, it has this militia character, so it’s really not paid, , very well quite [00:29:00] often. And also people are maybe more involved in their work lives. , So it gets more and more difficult to just make that, besides that. And so. Also quite often in the media that, , some municipalities didn’t even have to force people, , to do that. So it’s really not a free choice. They get elected even if they did not, , want to do it.
So they were not even candidates or anything. But, there are some cantons and municipalities that even allow that.
Mike: So you think even at the national level? How sustainable is having this militia system in today’s political and global environment? Everything seems so fast paced and complicated. If it’s really manageable for people only doing this 20% of the time to be able to keep up and, and provide valuable input, but also keep their own sanity.
Patricia: On the, on the national level, it’s not 20%. They earn less than in many other countries, but [00:30:00] they don’t earn, that less, so they, they can really, I mean, you can, you can also live with that. , And so there are quite many who are doing it more or less full-time or at least, as their o only part-time job .
No, on the, on the national level, it’s much more than that, of course. But there were some ideas that you have to course, to, to, strengthen a bit the services, for instance, from the, so the parliamentary services so that you can have a bit more, , information from the parliament.
So which should from the parliamentary services. So it’s like the administration of, of the parliament. And yeah, maybe that you can take away some workload of the politicians by, giving them the possibility to, , have a, a scientific collaborator or something, which might help them. But , that’s one of the criticism, but it’s also, somehow a positive [00:31:00] aspect can also be a positive aspect is that, , the politicians, they also get a lot of information of the lobby group.
I think it’s a bit a challenge. I mean, the workload has increased and one needs to, to decide on how to manage that, because I think it’s a, it’s a very good thing when, people have not just this milia system, but also have another profession next to it because it somehow makes them also a bit less dependent on politics. So they don’t need to, carry too much to their special interest groups, but that they can also be a bit more independent, , because they, they are not really too dependent on this political, career.
, But of course it also has some can have some downside. But I, what I think is very important is that we have transparency of where the people come from, what they do besides, , politics.
Mike: mm.
Patricia: So that you have a bit, these insights and you also know from where they get their information.[00:32:00]
Mike: Mm. Yeah. You mentioned lobby groups a couple of times. How much influence do lobby groups have in shaping Swiss policy at the, I guess, federal level?
Patricia: I mean, they, they have a large influence. Because so because we have like the system, this consensus system, so we really need to find these compromises. And in the end , in the, in popular votes, it somehow needs to hold the different, propositions.
They also need to hold the, the public votes. So. There is this pretty long pre parliamentary, stage. So even before the laws and the propositions that they go into parliament, there’s this pre parliamentary phase and there we have, the name, so the, the consulta consultations.
Yeah. And they’re actually already all [00:33:00] the relevant actors that might have some large interest in this, in this special law or whatsoever. They are asked to, to say what they think about that. So it’s already there in this pre parliamentary phase that they are actually involved.
And then of course, the lobby groups. That’s actually what’s then often seen more negative is that they, are then also involved in the parliamentary stage. So when it’s already in the parliament, the proposal, there, the largest problem that is often seen is that we have these different committees, and so for instance, I, I worked for the parliamentary service for the committees of the, transport and telecommunication, and then just the proposals that enter the parliamentary stage, that are in this [00:34:00] field.
They will be discussed in the committees before they go into the parliament and. That’s where the influence of the lobby groups is, then often seen quite, negatively. Because if you have, members in these different committees, for instance, in the, what’s the health and social policy, committee for instance, and then you have their people, so parliamentarians who are somehow related to some health insurances, and then they just bring these interests directly into the committee. So that means these committees, they’re quite, influential because they then make proposals to the, to the council. For instance, the committee of, of transport and telecommunication of the national council. That then makes a proposal to [00:35:00] the, national council whether to accept or to reject or, yeah, what to do with, with the proposal.
And if you have in these committees who are quite influential, you have, very special interest groups in it, then that might be a bit problematic and that’s what’s, quite often, discussed.
Mike: I guess when I think of, lobby groups, I think of the, funding which they can give certain political parties to, influence their decision making. Do you didn’t mention financial, incentives through lobby groups . Do you think that’s also, happens in Switzerland?
Patricia: Yeah, I mean, we have, I would need to check again from what, but, we have like new, new transparency laws, I think, where you see, I mean, the politicians, they have to say, which mandates they have besides their, [00:36:00] their mandate in politics and. I don’t remember exactly how it, how it’s defined, but I mean, of course money, money is also an important topic.
I mean, if you have, if you have a very important mandate for some health insurance, and then you are sitting in the committee for health and social policy, then of course that’s, that’s,
Mike: Hmm. You can join the dots. I see.
Patricia: I mean, that’s that clear. And I’m also quite often discuss what influence the money has in the initiatives and the, so the campaigning, et cetera.
And they’re also, it’s, yeah, of course money always has a,
Mike: One thing I haven’t asked you about, which I also found quite interesting was, suffrage and civic participation.
So, Switzerland is quite famously the last [00:37:00] country in Europe to allow women to vote. Why do you think it, it takes so long? Is it to do with the fact that it’s a direct democracy?
Patricia: Yeah. Yes. So, so that was actually, yeah, that, those were some of the questions that I was also tackling during my PhD. So there I did more, yeah, I tackled some questions about the extensions of voting rights , especially because Switzerland was that famous because of, the late in franchisement of women.
And I don’t know if you have also, read that like some Canton, so up until the road even had to be forced in the end by the federal court when women were already allowed on the federal level to vote, to also give them the voting rights on the AL level. And, yeah, I think, I mean, that’s what. We did also in some research is actually that we found that people, so it [00:38:00] matters how much, influence people have to lose, which might make them a bit more reluctant in, sharing voting rights with new groups.
So I mean, if you have less power to lose, then probably you are, more open in sharing it also with others. But if you have a bit larger say, then maybe it might, make you a bit more reluctant. So I think it has a lot to do with direct democracy. I also think it has a lot to do with the, how direct democracy was implemented because the Canton, who was the last up until, in the road they have, so for them it was not a ballot, votes, on this voting right extensions, but they actually have like the L command, which is like the town hall. So people meet, to discuss on the topics and decide, and then you actually just, need to, yeah, [00:39:00] you, you meet on a, on a place and then you raise your hand to say, yes, I agree or not.
And I can imagine, I’m mean there it’s, quite difficult maybe also for men to stand there and say, yeah, I would like to give, women the right to vote. And I would like to make that we have a bit lesser stay. But I mean, it’s, it’s, yeah, I think it has a lot to do with democracy of course, because it also makes things just much slower in general.
Mike: I guess it’s giving up power in order of fairness, I suppose. Are there any other, so I’m just thinking that was one of the key, changes to, who is allowed to vote. And is there anything else, currently as a. Hot topic or a current affair, which is related to who is allowed to vote.
Patricia: Yeah, I mean, there are always, because yeah, I mean the society’s changing a bit. And nowadays we still, I mean, we still have [00:40:00] the. It’s still the case that people that are Swiss and are over 18 years old, they are allowed to vote. So if you need to be a holder of Swiss passport, for the federal level, and, that’s why it’s quite often discussed whether, the voting rights should be extended to new groups, especially to people without a Swiss passport but who have been here for a while, and pay taxes here.
And, yeah, because they make up quite a huge population now in Switzerland. And that’s why it’s quite often discussed also mostly on the canal levels. There are some cantons that have introduced, voting rights for, non-citizens. And yeah, that quite often debated as well. Also the voting, age 16 quite often debated, whether one should, lower the age threshold to [00:41:00] 16.
And there is also 16. Yeah,
Mike: know anything when I was 16. I’m not sure. That would’ve been a good idea.
Patricia: yeah. There is, I think Glarus, one Canton who, who has that already. They have voting age 16. But yeah, of course, I mean, there are pros and cons and, I mean, also I, I think what’s just important is that the people who decide to be the ones who pay tax on should be the ones who live, who have to live with the decisions.
And I mean, their one needs to define, what one thinks, yeah, what, what, what we think, who he. Groups or, I mean, I’m, I’m, I think like if you, if they’re, yeah, there are for sure some, arguments in favor and against
Mike: I love what you just said, everywhere else in the world it seems to be chaotic because this isn’t the case. [00:42:00] People are living with consequences due to government decisions, which they did not vote for. So in principle. Yeah, it sounds like, yeah. Whatever the people want, they get, so I think that’s really nice.
Patricia: Whatever the people want they get.
Mike: I mean, that’s a oversimplify, oversimplification, but
Patricia: It’s very
Mike: Yeah, of
Patricia: but yeah.
Mike: Just, closing up now, Patricia. I wanted to ask you, was there anything else that you are working on or involved in at the moment which you find particularly interesting worth sharing?
Patricia: What, what else? Yeah, so I think, yeah, I think the militia system was one of the things I’m going to work on soon a bit more, because I really think that’s, yeah, as you said, it’s a very special case, Switzerland, like the many people that take, take over the responsibilities, in the state and how to make sure that that’s [00:43:00] also the case in the future.
I mean, there, I think that’s something I, I really think is important and, yeah, otherwise. We talked about a lot.
I think we did not talk a lot about federalism though, but another
Mike: Another time. That’s for round two. Patricia, this has been a really fascinating conversation. Thank you very much for your time.
Patricia: Thank you very much it was a pleasure.
