THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM IN SWITZERLAND.

Democratic versus Representative Government.

There is a radical difference between a democracy and a representative government. In a democracy, the citizens themselves make the law and superintend its administration; in a representative government, the citizens empower legislators and executive officers to make the law and to carry it out. Under a democracy, sovereignty remains uninterruptedly with the citizens, or rather a changing majority of the citizens; under a representative government, sovereignty is surrendered by the citizens, for stated terms, to officials. In other words, democracy is direct rule by the majority, while representative government is rule by a succession of quasi-oligarchies, indirectly and remotely responsible to the majority.

Observe, now, first, the influences that chiefly contribute to make government in the United States what it is:—

The county, state, and federal governments are not democracies. In form, they are quasi-oligarchies composed of representatives and executives; but in fact they are frequently complete oligarchies, composed in part of unending rings of politicians that directly control the law and the offices, and in part of the permanent plutocracy, who purchase legislation through the politicians.

Observe, next, certain strong influences for the better that obtain in a pure democracy:—

An obvious influence is, in one respect, the same as that which enriches the plutocrat and prompts the politician to reach for power—self-interest. When all the members of any body of men find themselves in equal relation to a profitable end in which they solely are concerned, they will surely be inclined to assert their joint independence of other bodies in that respect, and, further, each member will claim his full share of whatever benefits arise. But, more than that; something like equality of benefits being achieved, perhaps through various agencies of force, a second influence will be brought powerfully to bear on those concerned. It is that of justice. Fair play to all the members will be generally demanded.

In a pure democracy, therefore, intelligently controlled self-interest and a consequent sentiment of justice are the sources in which the highest possible social benefits may be expected to begin.

The reader has now before him the political principle to be here maintained—pure democracy as distinguished from representative government. My argument, then, becomes this: To show that, by means of the one lawmaking method to which pure democracy is restricted,—that of direct legislation by the citizenship,—the political "ring," "boss," and "heeler" may be abolished, the American plutocracy destroyed, and government simplified and reduced to the limits set by the conscience of the majority as affected by social necessities. My task involves proof that direct legislation is possible with large communities.

Direct Legislation in Switzerland.

Evidence as to the practicability and the effects of direct legislation is afforded by Switzerland, especially in its history during the past twenty-five years. To this evidence I turn at once.

There are in Switzerland twenty-two cantons (states), which are subdivided into 2,706 communes (townships). The commune is the political as well as territorial unit. Commonly, as nearly as consistent with cantonal and federal rights, in local affairs the commune governs itself. Its citizens regard it as their smaller state. It is jealous of interference by the greater state. It has its own property to look after. Until the interests of the canton or the Confederation manifestly replace those of the immediate locality, the commune declines to part with the administration of its lands, forests, police, roads, schools, churches, or taxes.

In German Switzerland the adult male inhabitants of the commune meet at least once annually, usually in the town market place or on a mountain plain, and carry out their functions as citizens. There they debate proposed laws, name officers, and discuss affairs of a public nature. On such occasions, every citizen is a legislator, his voice and vote influencing the questions at issue. The right of initiating a measure belongs to each. Decision is ordinarily made by show of hands. In most cantons the youth becomes a voter at twenty, the legal age for acquiring a vote in federal affairs, though the range for cantonal matters is from eighteen to twenty-one.

Similar democratic legislative meetings govern two cantons as cantons and two other cantons divided into demi-cantons. In the demi-canton of Outer Appenzell, 13,500 voters are qualified thus to meet and legislate, and the number actually assembled is sometimes 10,000. But this is the highest extreme for such an assemblage—a Landsgemeinde (a land-community)—the lowest for a canton or a demi-canton comprising about 3,000. One other canton (Schwyz, 50,307 inhabitants) has Landsgemeinde meetings, there being six, with an average of 2,000 voters to each. In communal political assemblages, however, there are usually but a few hundred voters.

The yearly cantonal or demi-cantonal Landsgemeinde takes place on a Sunday in April or May. While the powers and duties of the body vary somewhat in different cantons, they usually cover the following subjects: Partial as well as total revision of the constitution; enactment of all laws; imposition of direct taxes; incurrence of state debts and alienation of public domains; the granting of public privileges; assumption of foreigners into state citizenship; establishment of new offices and the regulation of salaries; election of state, executive, and judicial officers.[A]

The programme for the meeting is arranged by the officials and published beforehand, the law in some cantons requiring publication four weeks before the meeting, and in others but ten days. "To give opportunities for individuals and authorities to make proposals and offer bills, the official gazette announces every January that for fourteen days after a given date petitions may be presented for that purpose. These must be written, the object plainly stated and accompanied by the reasons. All such motions are considered by what is called the Triple Council, or legislature, and are classified as 'expedient' and 'inexpedient.' A proposal receiving more than ten votes must be placed on the list of expedient, accompanied by the opinion of the council. The rejected are placed under a special rubric, familiarly called by the people the Beiwagen. The assembly may reverse the action of the council if it chooses and take a measure out of the 'extra coach,' but consideration of it is in that case deferred until the next year. In the larger assemblies debate is excluded, the vote being simply on rejection or adoption. In the smaller states the line is not so tightly drawn.... Votes are taken by show of hands, though secret ballot may be had if demanded, elections of officers following the same rule in this matter as legislation. Nominations for office, however, need not be sent in by petition, but may be offered by any one on the spot."[B]

The Initiative and the Referendum.

It will be observed that the basic practical principles of both the communal meeting and the Landsgemeinde are these two:

(1) That every citizen shall have the right to propose a measure of law to his fellow-citizens—this principle being known as the Initiative.

(2) That the majority shall actually enact the law by voting the acceptance or the rejection of the measures proposed. This principle, when applied in non-Landsgemeinde cantons, through ballotings at polling places, on measures sent from legislative bodies to the people, is known as the Referendum.

The Initiative has been practiced in many of the communes and in the several Landsgemeinde cantons in one form or other from time immemorial. In the past score of years, however, it has been practiced by petition in an increasing number of the cantons not having the democratic assemblage of all the citizens.

The Referendum owes its origin to two sources. One source was in the vote taken at the communal meeting and the Landsgemeinde. The principle sometimes extended to cities, Berne, for instance, in the fifty-five years from 1469 to 1524, taking sixty referendary votings. The other source was in the vote taken by the ancient cantons on any action by their delegates to the federal Diet, or congress, these delegates undertaking no affair except on condition of referring it to the cantonal councils—ad referendum.

The principles of the Initiative and Referendum have of recent years been extended so as to apply, to a greater or lesser extent, not only to cantonal affairs in cantons far too large for the Landsgemeinde, but to certain affairs of the Swiss Confederation, comprising three million inhabitants. In other words, the Swiss nation today sees clearly, first, that the democratic system has manifold advantages over the representative; and, secondly, that no higher degree of political freedom and justice can be obtained than by granting to the least practicable minority the legal right to propose a law and to the majority the right to accept or reject it. In enlarging the field of these working principles, the Swiss have developed in the political world a factor which, so far as it is in operation, is creating a revolution to be compared only with that caused in the industrial world by the steam engine.

The cantonal Initiative exists in fourteen of the twenty-two cantons—in some of them, however, only in reference to constitutional amendments. Usually, the proposal of a measure of cantonal law by popular initiative must be made through petition by from one-twelfth to one-sixteenth of the voters of the canton. When the petition reaches the cantonal legislature, the latter body is obliged, within a brief period, specified by the constitution, to refer the proposal to a cantonal vote. If the decision of the citizens is then favorable, the measure is law, and the executive and judicial officials must proceed to carry it into effect.

The cantonal Referendum is in constant practice in all the cantons except Freiburg, which is governed by a representative legislature. The extent, however, to which the Referendum is applied varies considerably. In two cantons it is applicable only to financial measures; in others it is optional with the people, who sometimes demand it, but oftener do not; in others it is obligatory in connection with the passage of every law. More explicitly: In the canton of Vaud a mere pseudo-referendary right exists, under which the Grand Council (the legislature) may, if it so decides, propose a reference to the citizens. Valais takes a popular vote only on such propositions passed by the Grand Council as involve a one and a half per cent increase in taxation or a total expenditure of 60,000 francs. With increasing confidence in the people, the cantons of Lucerne, Zug, Bâle City, Schaffhausen, St. Gall, Ticino, Neuchâtel, and Geneva refer a proposed law, after it has passed the Grand Council, to the voters when a certain proportion of the citizens, usually one-sixth to one-fourth, demand it by formal petition. This form is called the optional Referendum. Employed to its utmost in Zurich, Schwyz, Berne, Soleure, Bâle Land, Aargau, Thurgau, and the Grisons, in these cantons the Referendum permits no law to be passed or expenditure beyond a stipulated sum to be made by the legislature without a vote of the people. This is known as the obligatory Referendum. Glarus, Uri, the half cantons of Niwald and Obwald (Unterwald), and those of Outer and Inner Appenzell, as cantons, or demi-cantons, still practice the democratic assemblage—the Landsgemeinde.

In the following statistics, the reader may see at a glance the progress of the Referendum to the present date, with the population of Switzerland by cantons, and the difficulties presented by differences of language in the introduction of reforms:—

Canton.No. inhab. Dec., 1888.Language.Form of Passing Laws.Yr. of Entry

Zurich337,183German.Oblig. Ref.1351

Berne536,679Ger. and French."1353

Lucerne135,360German.Optional Ref.1332

Uri17,249Ger. and Italian.Landsgemeinde.1291

Schwyz50,307German.Oblig. Ref."

Unterwald "

Obwald15,041"Landsgemeinde.

Niwald12,538""

Glarus33,825""1352

Zug23,029"Optional Ref."

Freiburg119,155French and Ger.Legislature.1481

Soleure85,621German.Oblig. Ref."

Bâle 1501

City73,749"Optional Ref.

Country61,941"Oblig. Ref.

Schaffhausen37,783"Optional Ref."

Appenzell 1573

Outer54,109"Landsgemeinde.

Inner12,888""

St. Gall228,160"Optional Ref.1803

Grisons94,810Ger.,Ital.,Rom.Oblig. Ref."

Aargau193,580German.""

Thurgau104,678"""

Ticino126,751Italian.Optional Ref."

Vaud247,655French and Ger.""

Valais101,985"Finance Ref.1814

Neuchâtel108,153French.Optional Ref."

Geneva105,509"""

2,917,740

In round numbers, 2,092,000 of the Swiss people speak German, 637,000 French, 156,000 Italian, and 30,000 Romansch. Of the principal cities, in 1887, Zurich, with suburbs, had 92,685 inhabitants; Bâle, 73,963; Geneva, with suburbs, 73,504; Berne, 50,220; Lausanne, 32,954; and five others from 17,000 to 25,000. Fourteen per cent of the inhabitants (410,000) live in cities of more than 15,000. The factory workers number 161,000, representing about half a million inhabitants, and the peasant proprietors nearly 260,000, representing almost two millions. The area of Switzerland is 15,892 square miles,—slightly in excess of double that of New Jersey. The population is slightly less than that of Ohio.

Switzerland—The Youngest of Republics.

It is misleading to suppose, as is often done, that the Switzerland of today is the republic which has stood for six hundred years. In truth, it is the youngest of republics. Its chief governmental features, cantonal and federal, are the work of the present generation. Its unique executive council, its democratic army organization, its republican railway management, its federal post-office, its system of taxation, its two-chambered congress, the very Confederation itself—all were originated in the constitution of 1848, the first that was anything more than a federal compact. The federal Referendum began only in 1874. The federal Initiative has been just adopted (1891.)[C] The form of cantonal Referendum now practiced was but begun (in St. Gall) in 1830, and forty years ago only five cantons had any Referendum whatever, and these in the optional form. It is of very recent years that the movement has become steady toward the general adoption of the cantonal Referendum. In 1860 but 34 per cent of the Swiss possessed it, 66 per cent delegating their sovereign rights to representatives. But in 1870 the referendariship had risen to 71 per cent, only 29 submitting to lawmaking officials; and today the proportions are more than 90 per cent to less than 10.

The thoughtful reader will ask: Why this continual progress toward a purer democracy? Wherein lie the inducements to this persistent revolution?

The answer is this: The masses of the citizens of Switzerland found it necessary to revolt against their plutocracy and the corrupt politicians who were exploiting the country through the representative system. For a peaceful revolution these masses found the means in the working principles of their communal meetings—the Initiative and Referendum,—and these principles they are applying throughout the republic as fast as circumstances admit.[D]

The great movement for democracy in Europe that culminated in the uprising of 1848 brought to the front many original men, who discussed innovations in government from every radical point of view. Among these thinkers were Martin Rittinghausen, Emile Girardin, and Louis Blanc. From September, 1850, to December, 1851, the date of the coup d'état of Louis Bonaparte, these reformers discussed, in the "Democratic pacifique," a weekly newspaper of Paris, the subject of direct legislation by the citizens. Their essays created a sensation in France, and more than thirty journals actively supported the proposed institution, when the coup d'état put an end to free speech. The articles were reprinted in book form in Brussels, and other works on the subject were afterward issued by Rittinghausen and his co-worker Victor Considérant. Among Considérant's works was "Solution, ou gouvernement direct du peuple," and this and companion works that fell into the hands of Carl Bürkli convinced the latter and other citizens of Zurich ("an unknown set of men," says Bürkli) of the practicability of the democratic methods advocated. The subject was widely agitated and studied in Switzerland, and the fact that the theory was already to some extent in practice there (and in ancient times had been much practiced) led to further experiments, and these, attaining success, to further, and thus the work has gone on. The cantonal Initiative was almost unknown outside the Landsgemeinde when it was established in Zurich in 1869. Soon, however, through it and the obligatory Referendum (to use Herr Bürkli's words): "The plutocratic government and the Grand Council of Zurich, which had connived with the private banks and railroads, were pulled down in one great voting swoop. The people had grown tired of being beheaded by the office-holders after every election." And politicians and the privileged classes have ever since been going down before these instruments in the hands of the people. The doctrines of the French theorists needed but to be engrafted on ancient Swiss custom, the Frenchmen in fact having drawn upon Swiss experience.

The Optional and the Obligatory Referendum.

To-day the movement in the Swiss cantons is not only toward the Referendum, but toward its obligatory form. The practice of the optional form has revealed defects in it which are inherent.[E]

Geneva's management of the optional cantonal Referendum is typical. The constitution provides that, certain of the laws being excepted from the Referendum, and a prerequisite of its operation being the presentation to the Grand Council of a popular petition, the people may sanction or reject not only the bulk of the laws passed by the Grand Council but also the decrees issued by the legislative and executive powers. The exceptions are (1) "measures of urgence" and (2) the items of the annual budget, save such as establish a new tax, increase one in force, or necessitate an issue of bonds. The Referendum cannot be exercised against the budget as a whole, the Grand Council indicating the sections which are to go to public vote. In case of opposition to any measure, a petition for the Referendum is put in circulation. To prevent the measure from becoming law, the petition must receive the legally attested signatures of at least 3,500 citizens—about one in six of the cantonal vote—within thirty days after the publication of the proposed measure. After this period—known as "the first delay"—the referendary vote, if the petition has been successful, must take place within forty days—"the second delay."

The power of declaring measures to be "of urgence" lies with the Grand Council, the body passing the measures. Small wonder, then, that in its eyes many bills are of too much and too immediate importance to go to the people. "The habit," protested Grand Councilor M. Putet, on one occasion, "tends more and more to introduce itself here of decreeing urgence unnecessarily, thus taking away from the Referendum expenses which have nothing of urgence. This is contrary to the spirit of the constitutional law. Public necessity alone can authorize the Grand Council to take away any of its acts from the public control."

Another defect in the optional Referendum is that it can be transformed into a partisan weapon—politicians being ready, in Geneva, as in San Francisco, to take advantage of the law for party purposes. For example, the representatives of a minority party, seeking a concession from a majority which has just passed a bill, will threaten, if their demands are not granted, to agitate for the Referendum on the bill; this, though the minority itself may favor the measure, some of its members, perhaps, having voted for it. As the majority may be uncertain of the outcome of a struggle at the polls, it will probably be inclined to make peace on the terms dictated by the minority.

But the most serious objections to the optional form arise in connection with the petitioning. Easy though it be for a rich and strong party to bear the expense of printing, mailing, and distributing petitions and circulars, in case of opposition from the poorer classes the cost may prove an insurmountable obstacle. Especially is it difficult to get up a petition after several successive appeals coming close together, the constant agitation growing tiresome as well as financially burdensome. Hence, measures have sometimes become law simply because the people have not had time to recover from the prolonged agitation in connection with preceding propositions. Besides, each measure submitted to the optional Referendum brings with it two separate waves of popular discussion—one on the petition and one on the subsequent vote. On this point ex-President Numa Droz has said: "The agitation which takes place while collecting the necessary signatures, nearly always attended with strong feeling, diverts the mind from the object of the law, perverts in advance public opinion, and, not permitting later the calm discussion of the measure proposed, establishes an almost irresistible current toward rejection." Finally, a fact as notorious in Switzerland as vote-buying in America, a large number of citizens who are hostile to a proposed law may fear to record an adverse opinion by signing a Referendum list. Their signatures may be seen and the unveiling of their sentiments imperil their means of livelihood.

Zurich furnishes the example of the cantons having the obligatory Referendum. There the law provides: 1. That all laws, decrees, and changes in the constitution must be submitted to the people. 2. That all decisions of the Grand Council on existing law must be voted on. 3. That the Grand Council may submit decisions which it itself proposes to make, and that, besides the voting on the whole law, the Council may ask a vote on a special point. The Grand Council cannot put in force provisionally any law or decree. The propositions must be sent to the voters at least thirty days before voting. The regular referendary ballotings take place twice a year, spring and autumn, but in urgent cases the Grand Council may call for a special election. The law in this canton assists the lawmakers—the voters—in their task; when a citizen is casting his own vote he may also deposit that of one or two relatives and friends, upon presenting their electoral card or a certificate of authorization.

In effect, the obligatory Referendum makes of the entire citizenship a deliberative body in perpetual session—this end being accomplished in Zurich in the face of every form of opposing argument. Formerly, its adversaries made much of the fact that it was ever calling the voters to the urns; but this is now avoided by the semi-annual elections. It was once feared that party tickets would be voted without regard to the merits of the various measures submitted; but it has been proved beyond doubt that the fate of one proposition has no effect whatever on that of another decided at the same time. Zurich has pronounced on ninety-one laws in twenty-eight elections, the votes indicating surprising independence of judgment. When the obligatory form was proposed for Zurich, its supporters declared it a sure instrument, but that it might prove a costly one they were not prepared by experiment to deny. Now, however, they have the data to show that taxes—unfailing reflexes of public expenditure—are lower than ever, those for police, for example, being only about half those of optional Geneva, a less populous canton. To the prophets who foresaw endless partisan strife in case the Referendum was to be called in force on every measure, Zurich has replied by reducing partisanship to its feeblest point, the people indifferent to parties since an honest vote of the whole body of citizens must be the final issue of every question.

The people of Zurich have proved that the science of politics is simple. By refusing special legislation, they evade a flood of bills. By deeming appropriations once revised as in most part necessary, they pay attention chiefly to new items. By establishing principles in law, they forbid violations. Thus there remain no profound problems of state, no abstruse questions as to authorities, no conflict as to what is the law. Word fresh from the people is law.

The Federal Referendum.

The Federal Referendum, first established by the constitution of 1874, is optional. The demand for it must be made by 30,000 citizens or by eight cantons. The petition for a vote under it must be made within ninety days after the publication of the proposed law. It is operative with respect either to a statute as passed by the Federal Assembly (congress), or a decree of the executive power. Of 149 Federal laws and decrees subject to the Referendum passed up to the close of 1891 under the constitution of 1874, twenty-seven were challenged by the necessary 30,000 petitioners, fifteen being rejected and twelve accepted. The Federal Initiative was established by a vote taken on Sunday, July 5, 1891. It requires 50,000 petitioners, whose proposal must be discussed by the Federal assembly and then sent within a prescribed delay to the whole citizenship for a vote. The Initiative is not a petition to the legislative body; it is a demand made on the entire citizenship.

Where the cantonal Referendum is optional, a successful petition for it frequently secures a rejection of the law called in question. In 1862 and again in 1878, the canton of Geneva rejected proposed changes in its constitution, on the latter occasion by a majority of 6,000 in a vote of 11,000. Twice since 1847 the same canton has decided against an increase of official salaries, and lately it has declined to reduce the number of its executive councilors from seven to five. The experience of the Confederation has been similar. Between 1874 and 1880 five measures recommended by the Federal Executive and passed by the Federal Assembly were vetoed by a national vote.

Revision of Constitutions.

Revision of a constitution through the popular vote is common. Since 1814, there have been sixty revisions by the people of cantonal constitutions alone. Geneva asks its citizens every fifteen years if they wish to revise their organic law, thus twice in a generation practically determining whether they are in this respect content. The Federal constitution may be revised at any time. Fifty thousand voters petitioning for it, or the Federal Assembly (congress) demanding it, the question is submitted to the country. If the vote is in the affirmative, the Council of States (the senate) and the National Council (the house) are both dissolved. An election of these bodies takes place at once; the Assembly, fresh from the people, then makes the required revision and submits the revised constitution to the country. To stand, it must be supported by a majority of the voters and a majority of the twenty-two cantons.

Summary.

To sum up: In Switzerland, in this generation, direct legislation has in many respects been established for the federal government, while in so large a canton as Zurich, with nearly 340,000 inhabitants, it has also been made applicable to every proposed cantonal law, decree, and order,—the citizens of that canton themselves disposing by vote of all questions of taxation, public finance, executive acts, state employment, corporation grants, public works, and similar operations of government commonly, even in republican states, left to legislators and other officials. In every canton having the Initiative and the obligatory Referendum, all power has been stripped from the officials except that of a stewardship which is continually and minutely supervised and controlled by the voters. Moreover, it is possible that yet a few years and the affairs not only of every canton of Switzerland but of the Confederation itself will thus be taken in hand at every step.

Here, then, is evidence incontrovertible that pure democracy, through direct legislation by the citizenship, is practicable—more, is now practiced—in large communities. Next as to its effects, proven and probable.