A LEAP ACROSS CENTURIES
Geneva’s Jean-Jacques Rousseau,
Swiss Popular Sovereignty, and the
Direct Democracy Global Network
Table of Contents
I. Geneva's Jean-Jacques Rousseau
II. Switzerland's Popular Sovereignty
III. Direct Democracy Global Network
Ingenious solutions to 21st century global crises of democracy were invented by Geneva's Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the 18th century.
If Rousseau's solutions had been adopted around the world, and people could determine without interference the outcome of their elections and government actions, such crises could have been averted -- in tandem with Swiss popular sovereignty and direct democracy practices. In fact, Rousseau praised and recommended these practices.
In order to leap across centuries and adopt these inventions to resolve 21st century crises of democracy, the Direct Democracy Global Network uses modern technologies to empower people worldwide to control elections anand government actions, as described below.
A British producer/director emphasizes these ingenious solutions in a recently released a documentary entitled "How Switzerland Changed the World."
His asserts that Geneva's world famous political philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau "could quite reasonably be the most influential man to have ever lived." He praises Swiss people as "lovers of liberty", and the country as the "oldest continuously true constitutional democracy."
My view, as a Swiss American political scientist, is that Rousseau's treatises are unique in identifying the fundamental causes of current socio-economic, ethnic, racial, and political divisions, which now threaten the survival of humanity and planetary sustainability.
These treatises include the Social Contract and the Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men.
Today, what I find most alarming is that during four centuries, the same powerful groups and political actors that Rousseau opposed have worked against implementation Rousseau's ingenious insights for creating authentic democracies.
These insights are rooted in his concepts of inalienable individual rights, equality, and popular power to determine the "'the general will' of the people as a whole." The anti-democratic vilains Rousseau identified, and warned about, have instituted authoritarian regimes in countries around the world. Often they have done so by means of undemocratic elections and legislation in once reputable democracies.
The British film producer/director cites new discoveries about Rousseau's original thinking, including those provided by a Swedish historian and American university scholar in her dissertation, Rousseau and Geneva: From the First Discourse to The Social Contract, 1749–1762.
These sources set the stage for my essay below. It explains why I recommend we take a leap across centuries to see how the urgently needed 21st century Direct Democracy Global Network was inspired by Rousseau, and the Alpine mountain dwellers who invented the core features of Swiss popular sovereignty and direct democracy now enshrined in the Swiss constitution.
Frankly, when I was working my way through variations iterations of the network, I had not specifically focused on these roots. In fact, as a dual Swiss American citizen and political scientist, I was more focused on what was happening to weaken democratic institutions and processes in the US and abroad outside Switzerland. International surveys revealing a precipitous decline of democracies convinced me they needed to be re-invented from the ground up. But effective ways and means for doing so came to my mind rather slowly because of the complexity and variety of the causes.
Curiously, when I began casting about for solutions for strengthening democracy, the ones I found most promising came from Rousseau's insights and Switzerland's popular sovereignty and direct democracy practices. I was also encouraged when I discovered in the process emerging technologies that now make it possible for people worldwide to connect to each other online to strengthen democratic institutions and processes, even when powerful groups, political actors, and their governments are weakening them.
This technology, which is incorporated into the platform of the Direct Democracy Global Network, enables voters to implement Rousseau's insights and admonitions, and adapt Switzerland's popular sovereignty model and direct democracy tools to meet their needs.
In my essay below, I compare and contrast alternatives through which people can strengthen and even re-invent democratic institutions and processes, with emphasis on Rousseau and Switzerland. These alternatives merit careful evaluation due to the life-threatening risks that billions of people worldwide are facing -- from climate disruption, pandemics, and conflicts -- rooted in the unwillingness and incapacity the large majority of governments and lawmakers to protect the well-being, lives, and livelihoods of their constituents.
Clearly, the status quo of governmental incapacity can not continue if life on the planet is to be sustained. Alternatives must be found. My view is that my proposed Direct Democracy Global Network incorporates indispensable ingredients for effective solutions rooted in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's wisdom, Switzerland's popular sovereignty and direct democracy, and emerging technologies.
In closing, as a Swiss citizen, let me share the view that what distinguishes Geneva and Switzerland today, as a result of Rousseau's unflagging assertions, and Swiss popular sovereignty and political neutrality, is the key role they play in peace-building efforts around the world.
This role is symbolized by the country's hosting of the United Nations in Geneva, whose Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a globally respected, inspiring, and widely invoked instrument. This role is also reflected in the work of the Swiss-based International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which works with all parties involved in conflicts to mediate and resolve confrontations, and deliver humanitarian aid to all those in need.
Harking back to the views above of the British film producer/director, it is my view the time has come for Switzerland to go beyond changing the world to saving it, in tandem with the Direct Democracy Global Network!
All best regards,
N.J.Bordier
Contact: hello@directdemocracynetwork.ch
The skies started to severely darken over representative forms of government several decades ago. They were originally designed to be "democratic" by according citizens "universal suffrage" -- the right to vote. even though other provisions counteracted this design. Despite these contradictions, it was assumed citizens would exercise this right by voting in periodic elections to choose representatives to enact legislation on their behalf.
The original intent of this democratic form of government is defined by the Encyclopedia Britannica as follows:
“Democracy is a system of government in which laws, policies, leadership, and major undertakings of a state or other polity are directly or indirectly decided by the “people,” . . . generally understood since the mid-20th century to include all (or nearly all) adult citizens.”
Unfortunately, by the 21st century, this definition does not portray what is actually occurring in the large majority of countries, due to factors described below. Evidence indicates these factors tend to lower voter turnout, and create significant gaps between laws passed by elected representatives, and the needs and demands of their constituents and populations.
- Political parties supplant voters in setting priorities, and determining who runs for office, who wins elections, and what laws are passed
- Voters are prevented from registering to vote, casting ballots, and having them accurately tallied.
- Rules enable candidates to be declared winners even when all the other candidates running against them cumulatively received more votes.
- Voters are subjected to influences that distort their perceptions and judgement, emanating from biased social media, political parties, and special interests.
- These distorting influences can spur them to vote against their interests for candidates who ignore their needs once in office.
Consequently, the number of fully functioning democracies is declining. According to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance based in Stockholm, Sweden:
"Half of democratic governments around the world are in decline, undermined by problems ranging from restrictions on freedom of expression to distrust in the legitimacy of elections."
"The number of backsliding countries—those with the most severe democratic erosion—is at its peak and includes the established democracy of the United States, which still faces problems of political polarization, institutional disfunction, and threats to civil liberties. Globally, the number of countries moving toward authoritarianism is more than double the number moving toward democracy."
"Global democracy’s decline includes undermining of credible elections results, restrictions on online freedoms and rights, youth disillusionment with political parties as well as out-of-touch leaders, intractable corruption, and the rise of extreme right parties that has polarized politics."
"The Global State of Democracy Indices (GSoD) show that authoritarian regimes have deepened their repression, with 2021 being the worst year on record. More than two-thirds of the world’s population now live in backsliding democracies or authoritarian and hybrid regimes."
"In Europe, almost half of all democracies—a total of 17 countries-- have suffered erosion in the last five years. These declines affect 46 per cent of the high-performing democracies."
"Authoritarianism continues to deepen. Almost half of all authoritarian regimes have worsened."
"Democracy does not appear to be evolving in a way that reflects quickly changing needs and priorities. There is little improvement, even in democracies that are performing at mid-range or high levels.""
Academic research in Europe and the US supports findings that vital decisions tend not to be made directly or indirectly by "the people". Instead, in nations throughout the world, the prevailing form of governance is more accurately described as "minority rule".
Harvard University Professors Levitsky and Ziblatt conducted research revealing the contours of Minority Rule in the US:
“Democracy is supposed to be a game of numbers: The party with the most votes wins. In our political system, however, the majority does not govern. Constitutional design and recent political geographic trends . . . have unintentionally conspired to produce what is effectively becoming minority rule.”
“No other established democracy has an Electoral College or makes regular use of the filibuster. And a political system that repeatedly allows a minority party to control the most powerful offices in the country cannot remain legitimate for long.”
In Tyranny of the Minority (2023),
"They draw on a wealth of examples—from 1930s France to present-day Thailand—to explain why and how political parties turn against democracy: When political leaders realize they can no longer win at the ballot box, they begin to attack the system from within, condoning violent extremists and using the law as a weapon. Unfortunately, our Constitution makes us uniquely vulnerable.
"It is a pernicious enabler of minority rule, allowing partisan minorities to consistently thwart and even rule over popular majorities. Most modern democracies—from Germany and Sweden to Argentina and New Zealand—have eliminated outdated institutions like elite upper chambers, indirect elections, and lifetime tenure for judges. The United States lags dangerously behind."
The numerous causes of minority rule are complex and complicated. As a whole, the causes of minority rule tend to be internal to nation-states, electoral jurisdictions, and decision-making bodies in multiple branches of government. In addition, social media is also cited in terms of spreading misinformation and interfering with consensus building within electorates and legislative decision-making bodies.
One type of minority rule is caused by elections controlled by one or two established parties. They restrict voters’ choices to choosing between established parties and party candidates they disdain. The parties monopolize the electoral machinery and prevent competitive third parties from taking root and running candidates that have a fair chance of winning. And once a “winning” party and their candidates take office, they impose minority rule within the legislative bodies they control.
What is most worrisome is that few if any comprehensive solutions to overcome these challenges are on the table. Least promising are internal reform efforts that lawmakers can veto. What is needed, and the solution proposed in this essay, the Direct Democracy Global Network, is a technology driven, web-based global network. It incorporates innovations that experts argue are required to integrate
"social networks and the broader civil society into governance through new deliberative practices, such as citizens’ assemblies and other forms of impactful citizen engagement ‘that complement representative government and compensate for its waning legitimacy’.
The mission of this social network is to connect verified voters to each other online, within and across nation-state boundaries, without charge. It provides them a unique environment free of the undue influence of biased social media, undemocratic political parties, and partisan lines and ideologies. It empowers voters to autonomously and collectively gather and evaluate information; debate, discuss, and build consensus across partisan lines; and vote on who runs for office, who gets elected, and what laws are passed.
This social network has been inspired by Geneva’s Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Swiss popular sovereignty as expressed via direct democracy practices and laws enshrined in Switzerland's constitution. I argue below that Rousseau’s ideas and doctrines, and Switzerland’s unique form of popular sovereignty, are even more relevant today in the 21st century than they were in the 18th century due to the complexities causing global democracy decline.
While I recognize and applaud the wisdom of American political institutions and processes, I also recognize and applaud those of Rousseau and Swiss popular sovereignty expressed through constitutionally protected direct democracy. I propose in this essay that we revisit both, with special emphasis on ways and means for providing voters worldwide opportunities to take advantage of Rousseau’s vision and Swiss popular sovereignty by using the network’s free tools and services.
This social network, as described below, is a web-based global superstructure enabling voters worldwide to freely connect online. They can build consensus across ideological and partisan lines to reconcile divergent views and resolve conflicts, and set individual and collective legislative agendas. They can democratically build and manage online political parties, voting blocs, and electoral coalitions that grow large enough to win elections.
Portrait by Maurice Quentin de La Tour, 1753
Rousseau dedicated most of his life vigorously arguing in favor of the primacy of individual liberty, citizens’ sole power to determine the "the general will, and their irrevocable control of governing bodies. Simultaneously, he vigorously refuted the views of wealthy "patrician" families, aristocrats of assorted lineage, and even monarchists defending the French monarchy. In his native Geneva, they fought unceasingly to assert control of governing bodies, and use them to levy taxes on all inhabitants.
Rousseau’s unique and expansive ideas about individual liberty were well-known in the 18th century. His doctrines advocating self-government were also well-known, especially his insistence that government officials are “servants” of the people. He authored the famous Social Contract in which he provided a multi-faceted rationale and numerous prescriptions for building political institutions capable of empowering individuals to use government to protect their liberty. Given the simultaneous emergence of Switzerland’s popular sovereignty doctrines and direct democracy principles, he urged European countries to emulate them.
Although Rousseau’s life was caught up in turbulent cultural, economic, and political upheavals inside and outside his native city, his writings displayed dogged determination to make sense of these upheavals, as Swedish historian and American university scholar describes in Rousseau and Geneva: From the First Discourse to The Social Contract, 1749–1762.
As a consequence, Rousseau’s views were controversial during and after his lifetime. Although he is regarded as one of the world’s most influential thinkers and authors, the following critique was written by historians Will and Ariel Durant:
“How did it come about that a man born poor, losing his mother at birth and soon deserted by his father, afflicted with a painful and humiliating disease, left to wander for twelve years among alien cities and conflicting faiths, repudiated by society and civilization, repudiating Voltaire, Diderot, the Encyclopédie and the Age of Reason, driven from place to place as a dangerous rebel, suspected of crime and insanity . . . how did it come about that this man, after his death, triumphed over Voltaire, revived religion, transformed education, elevated the morals of France, inspired the Romantic movement and the French Revolution, influenced . . . the socialism of Marx, the ethics of Tolstoy and, altogether, had more effect upon posterity than any other writer or thinker of that eighteenth century?"
He pursued this avocation even when his idiosyncratic formulations for reversing growing inequality evoked criticism from wealthy patricians and aristocratic proponents of social, political, and economic hierarchies. At that time, Geneva was largely governed by an oligarchy comprised of wealthy families whose control of governing institutions enabled them to levy and collect taxes from all families and individuals. The population at large considered their tax levies unfair, as was their undemocratic control of the governing institutions that enabled them to decide these and related matters.
And while he read widely and familiarized himself with the renowned authors of his time, and met many of them in his travels, especially to Paris, his eclectic views were idiosyncratic and non-conformist. He opposed the censorship of intellectuals’ views and writings by members of both patrician families and aristocrats in Geneva. In retaliation, they frequently banned works and their authors, who could be beaten, and even killed if they deviated from orthodoxy. Nonetheless, even though Rousseau could mince words if necessary to propagate this views and avoid censorship, he rarely went out of his way to conform, even though he often found himself unwelcome in many places throughout his life.
On occasion, Rousseau did try to immerse himself into other ways of thinking aligned with more patriarchal and aristocratic views. They included those espoused by prominent French intellectual Voltaire and prominent partisans in nearby France, which was ruled by an oppressive monarchy ended by a revolution lasting from 1789 -1799. But soon thereafter he repudiated Voltaire and these views, and re-aligned his views with those of the people with whom he grew up in his native city of Geneva, and in surrounding regions that later coalesced into the nation-state of Switzerland.
What I find most unique and remarkable about Rousseau is his comprehensive analysis of virtually all types of human interactions, and his delving into history and immersing himself in works written centuries before his time, such as those of the Greek philospher Plutarch His aims included identifying the institutions and processes he considered indispensable to ensuring ordinary people are sovereign decision-makers.
In arguing that lawmakers in government are the servants of the people, he was countering long-standing patriarchal and aristocratic views that were being continually re-affirmed. Undaunted, he painstakingly identified, described, and prescribed specific ways and means by which sovereign citizens can determine the general will, by gathering together to make decisions, voting in elections to decide which "servants" of the people will hold positions in governing institutions."
“Rousseau believed in a legislative process that necessitates the active involvement of every citizen in decision-making through discussion and voting. He coined this process as the “general will”, the collective will of a society as a whole, even if it may not necessarily coincide with the individual desires of each member.” [141] Wikipedia
"Throughout his life he kept returning to the thought that people are good by nature but have been corrupted by society and civilization. He did not mean to suggest that society and civilization are inherently bad but rather that both had taken a wrong direction and become more harmful as they became more sophisticated." Encyclopedia Britannica
Paradoxically, Rousseau signed his original works “J.J. Rousseau, Citoyen de Geneve”. But later after Geneva elders condemned his books and they were ordered to be destroyed, he renounced his citizenship. Interestingly, he maintained his independent, idiosyncratic views even after they were roundly condemned, and he was declared persona non grata in one place and one country after another. He simply moved on to other less hostile environments where he could find influential people who would protect him.
What makes Rousseau’s 18th century work especially relevant to the Direct Democracy Global Network in the 21st century is its emphasis on the source of political liberty — people’s rights at birth, and the institutions and processes needed for them to exercise it -- not on constitutions, laws, court decisions, cultural mores, etc.
What he railed against were the external forces and factors that obstructed this exercise, and limited the possibilities for people to live their lives in their own way, as part of self-defining and self-determining communities, a far cry from modern political parties with pre-set priorities and candidates that were determined by top officials. Rousseau overcame these fears when he learned about indigenous mountain dwellers in regions that became Switzerland who had created unique pathways to exercise and retain their sovereignty.
Outside the region that eventually coalesced into the nation-state Switzerland, in earlier centuries, neighboring France and the Austrian Hapsburg dynasty were rife with internal and external conflicts and attacks. But one notable exception within the region were people living high in the mountains who co-operated to build peaceful, agrarian communities. They were well-armed and capable of fending off external attackers
As early 1291, fiercely independent and autonomous farmers and peasants banded together to provide each other mutual aid and protection against foreign invaders. As the formal structure of the nation took shape, governing laws were written. They included the insertion of self-governing laws into Switzerland’s evolving governmental structure that entitled Swiss citizens at the grassroots living in “communes” and “cantons”. They created a “direct democracy” form of government that included “initiatives” empowering citizens to directly propose laws to lawmakers, and “referendums” empowering citizens to directly mandate amendments and revocation of existing laws.
As early 1291, fiercely independent and autonomous farmers and peasants living high in the Swiss mountain ranges banded together to provide each other mutual aid and protection against foreign invaders. They were strong and well-armed, and included the legendary William Tell. He was "an expert mountain climber and marksman with a crossbow", who is credited with slaying a tyrannical Austrian duke. According to the legend,
"Tell's defiance and tyrannicide encouraged the population to open rebellion and a pact against the foreign rulers with neighbouring Schwyz and Unterwalden, marking the foundation of the Swiss Confederacy. Tell was considered the father of the Swiss Confederacy."
Due to the successes of these early inhabitants of Switzerland in repelling external attackers, more and more of their neighbors in nearby regions joined their mutual aid alliance. (See How was Switzerland Formed? The History of Switzerland. Knowledgia YouTube.)
As the formal structure of the nation took shape, governing laws were written. They included self-governing laws inserted into the country’s evolving federal structure by Swiss people living at the grassroots in “communes” and “cantons”. Among the fundamental laws inserted into the constitution, creating a “direct democracy” form of government, are "initiatives" that empower citizens to directly propose laws to lawmakers, and "referendums" that empower citizens to directly mandate amendments and revocation of existing laws. These actions are legitimized by nationwide votes by Swiss citizens to accept or reject specific proposals formulated by Swiss citizens, which mandate implementing actions by federal lawmakers.
What is most impressive in the evolution of the Swiss nation-state is that the people living at the grassroots succeeded in maintaining their autonomy and authority to launch and vote in initiatives and referendums during the several centuries when Switzerland’s statehood was being formalized.
Eventually, a bicameral federal legislature was created, with the lower level comprised of lawmakers representing the population, and the upper level comprised of lawmakers representing the cantons, all subject to implementing the results of referendums and initiatives. Wisely and presciently, rules have been made to prevent any elected lawmaker from serving more than one-year term as president, and prevent any of the multiple Swiss political parties from placing one of their elected lawmakers in the presidency for more than one year.
An important consequence of Switzerland's historic "direct democracy" roots, and evolution into a formal nation-state, is the emergence of political and cultural norms that favor compromise and consensus building to reconcile divergent views. The emergence of these norms was motivated in all likelihood by common recognition of the need to reconcile the internal diversity existing within Switzerland, reflected in distinct, geographically-based cultures; four different languages; and two major religions.
In the early years of forming the Swiss Confederation, the Swiss people most likely agreed that in order to unite internally to build a common front to repel external adversaries, their survival might well depend on their ability to reconcile diversity and avoid being internally divided by domestic quarrels and conflicts. A small country like Switzerland, existing in environments dominated by far larger, well-armed, and often aggressive countries, needed to be as free as possible of internal confrontations in order to circumvent external confrontations with foreign countries. On many occasions in the early days of its existence, what saved the day were the high Swiss mountain ranges which few foreigners could climb better or faster than the Swiss themselves.
What is also salient is about the pervasive, long-standing consensus-building norms is that Swiss federal lawmakers strive to avoid provoking Swiss citizens into launching and passing initiatives and referendums mandating federal lawmakers to change what they have done, or are planning to do. In effect, these fundamental rights, which that empower Swiss citizens at the grassroots possess to decide what laws are passed, revoked, or amended, are reported to exercise an inhibitory influence on lawmaking at the federal level.
Significant benefits of Switzerland's accrued from its internal and external circumstances and environments, however. One such benefit, dating back to the early 1800s, is Switzerland's decision to declare its political neutrality and refusal to take sides in external conflicts. This neutrality has contributed to internal and external stability. In contrast to countries where internal and external conflicts are endemic, and political violence is frequent, the politically neutral, consensus-building Switzerland is internally peaceful, by comparison, and can play a uniquely helpful international role as conflict mediator and peace builder.
In addition, the country has become the home of numerous humanitarian organizations, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, and as one of the four major offices of the United Nations. In the difficult times characterizing the first two decades of the 21st century, Switzerland can also serve as an encouraging role model illustrating ways and means to use "direct democracy" to reverse the global decline of democracy.
Although Rousseau urged European countries whose governments were in formation to adopt Switzerland’s model of popular sovereignty based on “direct democracy” model, it was fully functioning and vibrant only in Switzerland.
Nor was it emulated by the founders of the American republic when they devised new institutions and processes, and ratified the constitution in 1776. In fact, the founders incorporated fundamentally undemocratic features limiting the scope of citizen’s rights, such as the Electoral College and the U.S. Senate
The consequences of hobbled democratic institutions and processes are dire when judged by the precipitous decline of democratic institutions and processes worldwide, not merely in the US and Europe. Increasing ways and means are being devised and implemented, legally and illegally, by politicians, political parties, and special interests, to restrict citizens’ and voters’ control of elections. They prevent citizens and voters from duly registering to vote, choosing candidates, setting platforms and legislative agendas, casting ballots, and having their ballots accurately counted.
One consequence are widening gaps between the needs, priorities, and demands of people at the grassroots, on the one hand, and those of lawmakers who enact legislation, on the other hand. In my view, these retrograde developments indicate traditional democratic institutions and processes are failinh to withstand the tests of time. Demands for reform are of scant avail, because effective internal reform mechanisms are ineffective and inaccessible. Consequently, it is my view that these institutions and processes must be re-invented externally — to protect individual liberty and popular sovereignty, as defined by Rousseau, and incorporate the basis premises and tenets of “direct democracy”.
To do so, voters must be able to circumvent anti-democratic and un-democratic laws and decisions that have been enacted, by using the advanced technologies that have been developed to support these rights and expand opportunities to exercise them. The Direct Democracy Global Network incorporates these technological advances and combines them with the prescriptions provided by Rousseau and the Swiss model of popular sovereignty and direct democracy.
III. Direct Democracy Global Network
The organizational efforts and strategies described above enable voters worldwide to use the direct democracy tools and services accessible on the Direct Democracy Global Network to re-invent democracy, and thereby increase their control over elections, legislation, and foreign policies. The description includes the 10 Step Process outlined below.
The steps and network surmount the “democratic deficits” diminishing the capabilities of governments and lawmakers to serve the public good. They are designed to fuel a global power shift to voters at the grassroots, via an autonomous web-based platform, a unique global consensus-building superstructure.
This global power shift and global superstructure can be implemented using the 10 Step Process described below.
These steps incorporate consensus-building mechanisms that enable virtually unlimited numbers of people to connect online via the autonomous social network platform of the Direct Democracy Global Network, set common legislative agendas, and build their own voting blocs, political parties, and electoral coalitions to elect lawmakers to enact their agendas.
They can also use the network’s platform to vote on any proposals they wish, at any time and on any subject, without waiting for elections. For example, if voters oppose laws and policies that have been enacted, or are pending enactment, they can use the platform to vote on proposals that express their opposition, and transmit them to lawmakers with legislative mandates.
This unique capability prevents lawmakers from ignoring voters, which many often do between elections. If lawmakers do not heed voters’ priorities and mandates reflected in voters’ online votes, the voters can hold additional votes — “recall votes” in which they declare their intention to vote against the lawmakers in upcoming elections. Such “recall votes” alert lawmakers to the prospect of electoral defeat and loss of offices in legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government.
In anticipation of the description of the 10 Step Process, below is a short synopsis of the types of empowerment that the social network’s tools provide voters to increase their control over their own lives, their elections, and their governments (voters include individuals intending to vote, even if they have yet to be officially registered in an election district in which they are eligible to vote).
- Network tools enable voters to extend their spheres of influence beyond the boundaries of an election district in which they may be eligible to vote, by enabling them to join forces with voters in other election districts, within and beyond a single nation-state.
- Voters can use network communication tools at any time, day and night, to connect online with other voters using the network for a broad array of purposes.
- They can individually define, express and share their needs, priorities, and legislative agendas with other voters using the network whose identifies have been verified.
- The needs, priorities, and agendas that voters define do not have to conform to those of any political party, and can be updated, stored, retrieved, and shared at any time.
- For the first time in history, voters have an autonomous web-based platform where they can individually and collectively define priorities and legislative agendas that affect regions and election districts anywhere in their home country, and in nations and regions around the world.
- To call attention to their priorities and agendas on the part of individuals and groups outside the network, voters can use the network’s online voting utility to calculate how many voters support specific priorities and agendas, regions and election districts in which these voters reside (although voters can decide whether or not to provide this information), and publicize these numbers and locations through as many channels as they see fit.
- Voters can also share their needs, priorities, and legislative mandates with lawmakers anywhere at any time, and alert unresponsive lawmakers to the numbers of dissatisfied voters in their election districts who indicate they are learning towards voting to defeat them in future elections.
- The network’s AI and ML-based agenda-setting, consensus-building, and political organizing tools empower voters to create their own online political parties, and work within and between them to build consensus across partisan lines in support of specific agendas, as well as reach out across partisan lines to forge electoral bases large enough to win elections to defeat incumbent lawmakers and elect lawmakers of their choice to replace them.
- Voters can bypass AI-generated information containing falsehoods and misrepresentations, and actively participate in elections and influence legislative decision-making, by using the network’s person-to-person and teleconferencing tools to engage in real-time, face-to-face interactions with other network users.
To summarize, the 10 Step Process enables voters worldwide to re-invent democracy and thereby increase their control over their lives and their governments.
Notably, the U.S. political system is used above and below as a case in point of key causes characterizing global democracy decline due to its recent ranking internationally as a “flawed democracy” — a sharp contrast to its formerly heralded model democracy.
Interestingly, the Swiss model of direct democracy has become more relevant and quite possibly indispensable in the 21st century, as described below, given the refusal of so many elected lawmakers to enact reforms of deliberately dismantled democratic institutions and processes, especially elections.
IV. Expanding 21st Century Direct Democracy Tools
The Direct Democracy Global Network adds significant tools and activities to the repertory of direct democracy instruments that have traditionally centered around initiatives and referendums. They address the decline of fully functioning democracies around the world, documented by the research conducted by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance cited above.
To reverse these setbacks, the Direct Democracy Global Network provides voters tools and services that enable them to re-build failed and failing democracies, and in the process re-invent them.
For example, they shift power to voters at the grassroots, connect them online, and empower them to democratically set legislative priorities and decide who is elected to be the lawmakers receiving the results of voters’ initiatives and referendums.
In effect, the network provides voters a unique and unprecedented web-based platform where they can dialogue, debate, and vote on any proposals and issues they wish at any time, and share their decisions as they best see fit.
For example, voters can use the platform to build consensus across partisan lines to set common legislative agendas, decide whether to join existing political parties, or create and manage their own parties, electoral coalitions, and voting blocs. Their parties, coalitions, and blocs can nominate electoral candidates and conduct campaigns to elect lawmakers of their choice, by engaging in the following activities:
- Build consensus across partisan lines from the grassroots upwards.
- Set common legislative agendas, and update them whenever necessary to keep pace with evolving needs and priorities.
- Create and manage formal and informal online voting blocs, political parties, and electoral coalitions, and host them on the network.
- Invite voters across the spectrum to join with them in forging cross-partisan electoral bases large enough to determine who runs for office, who gets elected, and what laws are passed.
- Mandate lawmakers to implement voters’ agendas by conducting petition drives, initiatives, referendums, and recall votes.
The Direct Democracy Global Network empowers voters to engage in activities such as the following that can effectively surmount and circumvent obstacles to democracy.
1. Participation in dialogues, debates, and bottom-up consensus-building. All too often, voters play passive and inconsequential roles in determining legislative priorities, reconciling divergent priorities, and resolving conflicts. The network’s agenda-setting and consensus-building tools and services enable voters to individually and collectively overcome obstacles to playing determining roles in these pivotal aspects of democracy.
They do so by enabling voters to set written legislative agendas, update them whenever necessary, transmit them to lawmakers and decision-makers, as well as track and evaluate their responsiveness to voters’ mandates.
2. Gaining control of political parties, lawmakers and governmental decision-makers. The preemptive role that traditional political parties and their elected lawmakers tend to play in ostensibly democratic and representative forms of government often minimizes voters’ electoral and legislative influence and control of their governments. This minimization is often due to the tendency of party officials and electoral candidates to decide their priorities by themselves, with scant input from their supporters and voters.
In order for initiatives and referendums to work effectively as core indispensable instruments of direct democracy, it is vitally important for voters to be able to democratically control political parties from the bottom up, and play determining roles in elections so that voters can nominate and elect candidates of their choice, and determine who are the lawmakers and decision-makers that receive the results of voters’ initiatives and referendums. The Direct Democracy Global Network provides voters political organizing tools and services for joining forces to democratically determine who runs for office, who gets elected, and what laws are passed.
The network’s agenda-setting and consensus-building tools and services, when combined with its political organizing tools and services, contains an inherent impetus to continually increase the numbers of voters who join together to build consensus across partisan lines. The larger these clusters grow, the more likely they are to nominate and elect candidates in sufficient numbers to control legislative and decision-making bodies, and halt the increasing emergence of legislative stalemates and paralyses.
Increasing voters’ influence and control is vital to reducing the age gap that often exists between lawmakers and decision-makers who remain in office for many terms and even decades, recently leading critics to argue that governments such as the U.S are becoming “gerontocracies” rather than democracies.
While the aging process often brings immeasurable wisdom to aged adults, it can also impede understanding and recognition of the needs, wants, and demands of younger and middle aged adults. In the political sphere, for example, younger voters in various locations around the world appear to be the more concerned about climate warming and halting climate disruption than older generations. It is important that they be able to elect lawmakers who are responsive to their demands.
3. Conducting and implementing petition drives, initiatives, referendums, and recall votes within shorter time frames It has become commonplace for voters’ roles in governance to be restricted to merely voting in elections. The consequence is that voters’ needs, wants, and demands tend to be given short shrift by political parties and their elected representatives who spend much of their time opposing each other and blocking each others’ legislative initiatives.
The Direct Democracy Global Network counteracts this undemocratic passivity by enabling voters to use the network as a platform to vote on any proposals they wish, at any time, anywhere, e.g. for conducting online petition drives, initiatives, referendums, and recall votes. They do not have to sit by passively between elections while lawmakers ignore them. If lawmakers are unresponsive, voters can conduct recall votes, transmit their results to warn unresponsive lawmakers when they risk electoral defeat if they fail to honor voters demands, and ultimately defeat them at the polls when they seek re-election.
4. Creating an autonomous, voter-centered platform functioning autonomously of existing governing institutions and processes. Voters can use the network’s platform to shift electoral and legislative control to themselves at the grassroots without previously changing existing governance frameworks. Voters worldwide can access the network’s and use tools and services free of charge. They can form online voting blocs, political parties, and electoral coalitions hosted on the network, whose members register to vote in election districts and venues where they are entitled to vote. These actions are separate and independent of the activities that take place using the platform.
5. Transnationally connecting people-to-people problem-solvers within and across nation-state boundaries. Voters throughout the world are experiencing many of the same needs, crises, and emergencies for which their individual governments have yet to devise effective solutions and reconcile divergent priorities. The Direct Democracy Global Network provides them a platform where they can join forces to devise common solutions, policies, and programs, and take action within their home countries to implement their plans. This is especially indispensable with respect to devising and seeking to implement common, amicable, non-violent solutions to spreading and escalating conflicts.
Fortunately, the spread of mobile telecommunications and digitization of popular communications have brought tens of millions of devoted and capable individuals, groups, and organizations worldwide into active, public, problem-solving processes. Sole governments are no longer separate and isolated problem-solvers and implementers. What can accelerate this new plateau of decision-making are the tools provided by the direct democracy movement and the Direct Democracy Global Network platform designed to bring voters at the grassroots directly into these processes.
Step 1. Voters use the Direct Democracy Global Network to create a decentralized civic infrastructure of democracy by engaging in continuous grassroots deliberations, debates, and online voting.
Step 2. Voters use the crowdsourcing tools accessible on the Direct Democracy Global Network to connect and unite online to gain control of elections and legislation.
Step 3. Voters define and share their legislative priorities, collaborate to build consensus across partisan lines, and collectively set common legislative agendas.
Step 4. Voters join forces online to build their own online voting blocs, political parties, and electoral coalitions.
Step 5. Voters’ blocs, parties, and coalitions nominate electoral candidates, place them on official ballot lines, and elect them to enact voters’ legislative agendas.
Step 6. Voters fact check and debunk social media disinformation using the network’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) tools.
Step 7. Voters use Direct Democracy Global Network tools to conduct petition drives, referendums, initiatives, and recall votes; publicize their results, and mandate lawmakers to enact voters’ legislative priorities.
Step 8. Voters mandate lawmakers they elect to reform election laws and legislative processes to ensure Majority Rule throughout all branches of government, while protecting universally recognized minority rights.
Step 9. Voters use network tools to raise funds online to finance and conduct campaigns to elect their candidates.
Step 10. Voters create a new “International Order” by building multi-national online voting blocs, political parties, and electoral coalitions; devising and enacting common peace-keeping plans; and voting online to collectively deploy multi-national peacekeepers to resolve conflicts without the use of force.
Bordier, Nancy.
Decision Assisting Artificial Intelligence System for Voter Electoral and Legislative Consensus Building. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Number: US 11,935,141 B2, 19 March 2024.
Dean, James.
“Democratic decline a global phenomenon, even in wealthy nations. Cornell Chronicle, 17 January 2024.
(Delphi Series Eight Book 18)
Delphi Collected Works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Illustrated) Kindle, 29 July 2017.
Gardels, Nathan. “How To Soul-Search As A Losing Party”. Noema Magazine, 23 November 2024.
Gardels, Nathan.
“Illiberal Democracy Comes To America”. Noema Magazine, 7 November 2024.
Hossenfelder, Sabine.
“Is the U.S. a republic or democracy?” YouTube, 2 November 2024.
Kaufmann, Bruno.
"The way to modern direct democracy in Switzerland." House of Switzerland, 26 April, 2019.
Maison Rousseau Litterature. Geneva, Switzerland.
Rosenblatt, Helena.
Rousseau and Geneva: From the First Discourse to The Social Contract, 1749–1762. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
University of Geneva.
Rousseau et Geneve: Entretiens Jean-Jacques Rousseau.,
Swiss Confederation.
Direct Democracy
Swiss Confederation.
Political System.
Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA).
United Nations.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
University of Geneva.
Rousseau et Geneve: Entretiens Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 2012.
Waller, Lewis.
How Switzerland Changed the World. YouTube
Wikipedia.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
The Social Contract, 1762.
Wikipedia.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men, 1755.
Wikipedia.
"The General Will."
Switzerland is governed under a federal system at three levels: the Confederation, the cantons and the communes. Thanks to direct democracy, citizens can have their say directly on decisions at all political levels. This wide range of opportunities for democratic participation plays a vital role in a country as geographically, culturally and linguistically varied as Switzerland.
Since becoming a federal state in 1848, Switzerland has expanded the opportunities it provides for democratic participation. Various instruments are used to include minorities as much as possible — a vital political feature in a country with a range of languages and cultures. The country’s federal structure keeps the political process as close as possible to Swiss citizens. Of the three levels, the communes are the closest to the people, and are granted as many powers as possible. Powers are delegated upwards to the cantons and the Confederation only when this is necessary.
Switzerland is a direct democracy. Alongside the usual voting rights accorded in democracies, the Swiss people also have the right to vote on specific issues. Switzerland is governed by the Federal Council, a seven-member collegial body whose decisions are made by consensus. Federal councillors are elected by the United Federal Assembly, which consists of an upper and a lower chamber. The National Council is the lower house, and represents the people. The Council of States is the upper house, and represents the cantons. Delegates from eleven different parties set forward their views in the current parliament.
Direct democracy is one of the special features of the Swiss political system. It allows the electorate to express their opinion on decisions taken by the Swiss Parliament and to propose amendments to the Federal Constitution. It is underpinned by two instruments: initiatives and referendums.
In Switzerland the people play a large part in the decision-making process at all political levels. All Swiss citizens aged 18 and over have the right to vote in elections and on specific issues. The Swiss electorate are called on approximately four times a year to vote on an average of fifteen such issues. In recent decades, voter turnout has been a little over 40% on average.
Citizens are also able to propose votes on specific issues themselves. This can be done via an initiative, an optional referendum, or a mandatory referendum. These three instruments form the core of direct democracy.
Popular initiative
The popular initiative allows citizens to propose an amendment or addition to the Constitution. It acts to drive or relaunch political debate on a specific issue. For such an initiative to come about, the signatures of 100,000 voters who support the proposal must be collected within 18 months. The authorities sometimes respond to an initiative with a direct counter-proposal in the hope that a majority of the people and the cantons support that instead.
Optional referendum
Federal acts and other enactments of the Federal Assembly are subject to optional referendums. These allow citizens to demand that approved bills are put to a nationwide vote. In order to bring about a national referendum, 50,000 valid signatures must be collected within 100 days of publication of the new legislation.
Mandatory referendum
All constitutional amendments approved by Parliament are subject to a mandatory referendum, i.e. they must be put to a nationwide popular vote. The electorate are also required to approve Swiss membership of specific international organisations.
hello@directdemocracynetwork.ch
Copyright © 2024 Direct Democracy Global Network
All Rights Reserved