Direct democracy and women's suffrage

Citizens in a direct democracy have full legislative rights. In a representative democracy, these rights are exerted only by MPs. Most western countries are purely representative democracies. Switzerland is an exception; this country is a direct democracy. Switzerland was in 1971 also the last western country to introduce women's suffrage. Opponents of direct democracy often bring up this fact in order to support their view that direct democracy works against the emancipatory ideals of modern western society.

But this is a logic-defying argument. However important it of course is that men and women have equal rights, I find it very hard to understand how the largely symbolic right to vote in a representative democracy could ever be more important than the very real right to vote in a referendum. The fact that this is overlooked so often actually illustrates my point that it is representative, not direct, democracy which undermines emancipatory ideals.

In the text below, I defend the view that not only today is Switzerland a more democratic country than our representative democracies, but also that it was so before 1971, because even at that time, women in Switzerland were closer to the actual decision-making than any common citizen (man or woman) is in a representative democracy.

The text is a compilation of a usenet discussion (in the usual ping-pong style of the medium) I had about this topic in May 1998 in the newsgroup soc.culture.nordic.

Hiski Haapoja from Finland wrote:
[Hiski:] I live in a democracy. Guess which country was the first in Europe to give equal suffrage to women?

Markku Grönroos, also from Finland, replied:
[Markku:] First in the world actually. Some records give this honour to New Zealand (1893), but I have learned that there the female votes were dependent on their personal wealth and property.

Herman Beun:
This is true for 1893, although AFAIU both female _and_ male votes were dependent on personal wealth, so their rights were equal. However, the wealth requirements were abolished in 1899, which makes New Zealand still the first country in the world with full voting rights for both men and women.

And actually, the first country in Europe where women were granted the same voting rights as men was, oddly enough, Habsburgian Austria! The 'Februarpatent' of 1861 introduced a bicameral national parliament, of which one chamber was elected. Indirectly, that is, and according to a complex system of class and wealth requirements that eventually gave voting rights to only 6% of the population. The original voting regulations made no mention of sex, so especially in the countryside and in the class of land-owners groups of women succeeded in getting the right to vote. This was obviously a mistake of the law-makers, since it was "repaired" in later regulations. The reform of 1907 which introduced universal suffrage for men even explicitely excluded women.

[Markku:] As everyone knows there were few women anywhere with any substantial economic independence in those days. The Finnish law on elections did not include such strains.

Indeed, but there is also the fact that not only Finnish women, but Finland as a whole too lacked any substantial independence in those days. The Russian Czar still had a veto right in Finnish politics, and the right to dissolve parliament. But this was of course not the fault of the Finnish.

[Markku:] British women got their vote in 1920's I guess and in Switzerland (which is widely considered as "democratic") as late as in 1971.

Britain: 1924.
As for Switzerland, your quotation marks around 'democratic' are not quite appropriate. Switzerland is, at least since 1971, without any doubt the most, if not the only, democratic country in the world. And I am inclined to argue that it was so even before 1971, certainly compared to all the other western democracies of that time, despite the absence of women voting rights.

You seem to forget one important difference: The Swiss, living in a direct democracy, have full control over their country. We have not. We are not even close.
-----------------
Source: Huub Spoormans, "'Met uitsluiting van voorregt', het ontstaan van liberale democratie in Nederland", SUA, Amsterdam, 1988.

In reply to Osmo Ronkanen on 28 May 1998:
[Herman:] This is true for 1893, although AFAIU both female _and_ male votes were dependent on personal wealth, so their rights were equal.

[Osmo:] Only if women were equally wealthy as men. It would be same as saying that all persons over 170 cm have a right to vote regardless of gender. That would not be equal.

But their _formal_ rights were equal. They were not excluded from voting rights because they were _women_, and that was quite a revolutionary concept in those days when a woman's task was supposed to be the household and the children instead of politics -- not least so in the 'higher circles'.

If the New-Zealanders had wanted to exclude women from voting, nothing would have prevented them (in those days) from saying so explicitly. The wealth requirements in New Zealand and elsewhere were defended with entirely different arguments. The idea was that the larger your wealth, the larger your interest in society, the larger your public responsibility. The same faulty reasoning is still used today, to defend the way influence is distributed among stakeholders and employees in large companies. In both cases, the underlying motivation is of course plain protection of vested interests.

However, the wealth requirements were abolished in 1899, which makes New Zealand still the first country in the world with full voting rights for both men and women.

As for Switzerland, your quotation marks around 'democratic' are not quite appropriate. Switzerland is, at least since 1971, without any doubt the most, if not the only, democratic country in the world.

[Osmo:] Note that the 1971 is for national elections. For local ones it was much later, IIRC last women got their right to vote in the 1990's. In Finland women got right to vote in local elections in 1920.

This is not generally true; the majority of Swiss women could vote in local elections already before 1991, most likely even before 1971. The 1991 case is only one small kanton.

Switzerland is a federal state, meaning that the highest power is vested in the local kantons, instead of in the central state. The kantons delegate some of their power to the federal level. In a unitary state like Finland or the Netherlands, the situation is reverse: the state is the highest power, and delegates some of it to the local level.

As a result of this, each Swiss kanton can define its own voting rules. Some kantons introduced women suffrage in the 1960's, earlier than the federal government. And a few were later. The last kanton to introduce women suffrage was Appenzell, which actually consists of two half-kantons: The men of Appenzell Außer-Rhoden voted for women suffrage in 1989, Appenzell Inner-Rhoden was forced by a federal court decision in 1991. Both are small, pretty conservative rural communities. There are generally large cultural differences a.o. between rural and urbanised kantons, and that shows in the voting behaviour.

[Osmo:] I do not think one does have to have direct democracy to have democratic country.

That depends on where you draw the borderline between 'democratic' and 'not democratic'.

[Osmo:] Representative democracy is as democratic.

Rubbish.

In a representative democracy, your "influence" is limited to filling in one ballot paper per 4 years. And even that one time you are not allowed to take one single binding decision, but instead, an oligarchy of political parties feels legitimised to fill a parliament with people _they_ selected in order to take the decisions _for_ you. So coarse, so indirect, so little room for nuance! And you call that 'democracy'?

[Herman:] And I am inclined to argue that it was so even before 1971, certainly compared to all the other western democracies of that time, despite the absence of women voting rights.

[Osmo:] Despite absence of women's rights???? How can you say so. A country that denies right from a group that consists half of the population and that does have different interests in many issues (equality, reproductive rights, day-care etc.) is not democratic by any sense of the word.

I didn't mean Switzerland before 1971 meets _my_ standards of 'democracy', I mean that it was _more_ democratic than our Dutch, Finnish and other western societies at that time, and that it was probably also more democratic then, than our societies are today.

After all, what is the difference between the Swiss women not being allowed to take part in direct legislative action, and the Dutch and Finnish electorates not being allowed the same? Sure, we elect our parliaments, whereas the Swiss women couldn't "elect" the male electorate. But are periodic elections a more effective way to influence parliamentary decisions than continuous, every day personal contact with your "MPs"? I doubt that!

Now, to be sure, I am not saying that the exclusive male suffrage in Switzerland was _right_, but I don't think it is worse than representative democracy either. Both of them continued to exist for the same reasons: conservatism and silly prejudices. However, Switzerland introduced women suffrage and became a democracy in 1971. They are not behind, but ahead of us.

[Herman:] You seem to forget one important difference: The Swiss, living in a direct democracy, have full control over their country. We have not.

[Osmo:] So is that good? Should also the courts act according to direct democracy?

Why, is jurisdiction in Finland done by parliament then?

We were talking about the legislative, not about the judicature. But if you want to know, I have no reasons to assume that judgment by jury does worse than the Dutch system with appointed judges and no jury. Nor better, for that matter.

In reply to Osmo Ronkanen on 29 May 1998:

[Herman:] (New Zealand, 1893) But their _formal_ rights were equal. They were not excluded from voting rights because they were _women_,

[Osmo:] Irrelevant. East Germany was formally democratic. Formal things mean nothing, only actual things count.

OK, I agree with the last statement, so let's keep that point in mind then. As for East Germany however, I agree with Markku Grönroos that it is debatable whether a country that has the eternal supremacy of one single party written in its constitution is, even formally, a democracy. East Germany was a state of law though -- in the formal sense.

[Osmo:] Yes, and here (in Helsinki) 200+ years ago people (bourgeoisie) had votes in the proportion of the amount taxes they paid. That principle sucks.

Couldn't agree more.

[Herman:] This is not generally true; the majority of Swiss women could vote in local elections already before 1991, most likely even before 1971. The 1991 case is only one small kanton.

[Osmo:] The fact is that women got full right to vote in local elections only in 1991.

By the same logic, _European_ women got the full right to vote in local elections only in 1991!

[Herman:] The men of Appenzell Außer-Rhoden voted for women suffrage in 1989, Appenzell Inner-Rhoden was forced by a federal court decision in 1991.

[Osmo:] So the central government forced them.

Yes, that surprised me too. By what right did it meddle in Appenzeller internal affairs, one wonders. Probably a federal equal treatment law that overruled the local voting regulations, I suppose.

[Osmo:] I do not think one does have to have direct democracy to have democratic country.

[Herman:] That depends on where you draw the borderline between 'democratic' and 'not democratic'.

[Osmo:] I draw it on the right to vote. Denying a group of adults right to vote means the country is not democratic.

Ah! But what did you say a few lines up? "Formal things mean nothing, only actual things count." However, you are so obsessed with the formal right of voting that you forget to take into account what _actual_ influence there is or was. And my statement is that, since Swiss men had more or less the same rights as our MPs, and Swiss women were actually interacting directly and continuously with the Swiss men, Swiss women even before 1971 had more (or certainly not less) political influence then you and I have today. Well, it _is_ a novel concept for me too, but I haven't seen you convincingly disprove my reasoning, so I have to maintain it.

[Osmo:] Representative democracy is as democratic.

[Herman:] Rubbish. In a representative democracy, your "influence" is limited to filling in one ballot paper per 4 years.

[Osmo:] So? Is that some problem? That is what representative democracy means.

Yes, that is what it means. And yes, that is a problem to me as I have been trying to explain all along. You are of course free to think otherwise, but I do think you should withdraw your statement that representative democracy is as democratic as direct democracy. It doesn't make sense. The point is that you don't want more democracy: you are satisfied with representative democracy. Well, fine, I am not.

[Osmo:] Yes, that is democracy and even more than direct democracy if one understands that true democracy is not dictatorship of the majority but it also has checks and balances.

What makes you think that Switzerland is a dictatorship of the majority, or that direct democracies are not capable of taking care of the interests of minorities? In fact, they might even be better at it at least in some respects, since majorities in a direct democracy are not fixed in political parties or government coalitions but vary along with the topic.

[Herman:] After all, what is the difference between the Swiss women not being allowed to take part in direct legislative action, and the Dutch and Finnish electorates not being allowed the same?

[Osmo:] The system is different in Switzerland. Women should be allowed to take part in the democratic process as it is implemented in the particular country.

I am not denying that. In fact, I would even say that full voting rights should be given to _anyone_ living in a particular country (age and mental sanity requirements set aside), including e.g. foreigners.

[Herman:] Sure, we elect our parliaments, whereas the Swiss women couldn't "elect" the male electorate. But are periodic elections a more effective way to influence parliamentary decisions than continuous, every day personal contact with your "MPs"? I doubt that!

[Osmo:] That has nothing to do with the issue of women's vote.

Indeed, but women's vote is not the actual topic of this discussion since we do not disagree about that. The issue is whether Switzerland before 1971, when it lacked women's voting rights, was democratic or not. The viewpoint I am defending is that Switzerland before 1971 was more democratic than Finland and the Netherlands. Consequently, if you state that Finland and the Netherlands are, by your standards, democracies, then Switzerland was one too before 1971.

[Herman:] Now, to be sure, I am not saying that the exclusive male suffrage in Switzerland was _right_, but I don't think it is worse than representative democracy either.

[Osmo:] You got to be kidding. Denying half of the population rights is not worse than representative democracy. What next? Had South Africa had direct democracy among whites would that have been better than representative democracy here?

I expected you would come up with that. No, that would not have been better since the whole objective of apartheid was to _avoid_ all direct interaction between whites and blacks, so how could blacks have been able to positively influence the decision-making by whites? They could not receive the same education, they could not fundamentally discuss politics without ending up in jail (or worse), they could not even sit in the same bus, let alone marry each other! There is a world of difference between this outright oppression of blacks and the Swiss situation.

No, with the reasonable assumption that e.g. marriages in Switzerland were not less based on love and mutual respect than anywhere else in Europe, the logical conclusion must be that there simply was no significant interest in politics among Swiss women. The absence of women's voting rights reflected the poor state of emancipation of Swiss men _and_ women (although I do not believe it was significantly worse than in other European countries). But also, the introduction of women voting rights in 1971 reflected that that situation was improving. Switzerland has child care facilities today, and legal abortion. I don't think they came later than in other countries.

Now you might say that withholding women the right to vote, as happened in Switzerland, is not exactly the way to fasten up the emancipation process. I would agree. In fact, it is exactly my point that for this reason participation of citizens in decision-making should be stimulated as much as possible. The educating effect is one of the reasons why I am for direct rather than for representative democracy; it is also an investment in an active, critical and responsibly acting electorate, not only a more secure means of neutralising power. Not having influence keeps people stupid. Just look around you.

[Osmo:] How many percent of people actually vote in Switzerland?

Turn-outs varied between 31.1 % to 68.6 % (abolition of the army) in the time period from 1987 to the summer of 1992. (Thanks, Malte ;-)

[Osmo:] The fact is that people get easily bored of constant referendums.

Well, ask them. Ask them if they wouldn't rather get rid of the referenda and have representative democracy like everybody else. What do you think the answer would be?

The fact is that Switzerland _does_ have a parliament that takes most of the decisions. The difference is, that after a law has been accepted in parliament, a referendum can be held about it if a significant proportion of the electorate (50,000 people, i.e. about 1%) signs a list petitioning for one. So if you think the number of referendums is too high and turn-outs too low, you can simply heighten the petition treshold to 2, 3, 4 or 5% of the electorate. There is a point in this, since the number of 50,000 was fixed at a time when the population of Switzerland was smaller and generating publicity for a petition was more difficult.

On the other hand, I wouldn't be that concerned about, say, 30-40% turn-outs in referendums if they are held as frequently as in Switzerland. The topic does not always affect, interest or concern everyone, so why shouldn't a proportion of the electorate stay at home each time? Note that this is different for elections: Elections concern each and every aspect of public affairs, so voting in an election is always in everyone's interest.

[Osmo:] I personally would never want jury trials. My point is that decision makes should have necessary distance from the people. In juridical power it should be greatest but even in legislative there should be some distance so that one can make unpopular but necessary decisions.

Well, I do not want my politicians to take "impopular but necessary" decisions. I want them to convince me why an impopular decision is necessary. People are reasonable beings. If they weren't, would Switzerland have a social security system at all?

[Osmo:] For example abolishing death penalty is not easy if one makes it issue in referendum.

Switzerland doesn't have death penalty. I don't see representative democracy is any better as a protection against it than direct democracy is. Culture seems far more important. Also in this kind of issues, I'd say that investing in a responsible electorate is "safer" than keeping it stupid.

[Osmo:] Also I have much doubt in direct democracy in case of ethnic diversity that is not divided nicely in cantons etc.

Well, I _am_ a federalist too. The Swiss population counts 19% foreigners, not all of them bankers -- in fact half of the jobless population is foreign. I'd say they are spread rather evenly over the country. Last year, the Swiss voted against a (federal level) proposal to lower unemployment benefits. This might be an argument against your point. Also, they voted for making Rumantsch an official federal language, although it is spoken by only 0.8% of the population. Yes, they are all concentrated in one single kanton, but their political weight is really insignificant at the federal level.

For the rest of it, what I said about the death penalty applies here too.