Research Institute for Direct Democracy

1. Historical foundations

Swiss direct democracy, with its specific political culture, developed in many variations during the 19th century, but always from the bottom up, starting from the cooperatively organised municipalities, on to the cantonal and then federal level. The theoretical elements of the co-operative principle, Christian and modern natural law and the sovereignty of the people were fundamental to this process. If one places Swiss direct democracy in a European and international context, the following historical facts must be noted:

Although the processes of change in the Swiss political system from the 18th century onwards were based on partly different conditions in the old Cantons, the results were similar in terms of democratic institutions. In other European countries, there were similar initial conditions, but practically no comparable political processes.
Similar to Great Britain (and also the USA) and at times France, but in contrast to other European states, liberal-representative constitutional systems based on natural law developed very early on in the Swiss Cantons in the wake of the French and Helvetic Revolution. Ticino was the first canton to create a liberal constitution. From 1830/31, ten further cantons followed in the course of regeneration, in which liberal-representative constitutions were implemented. These were the cantons of Aargau, Bern, Fribourg, Lucerne, Schaffhausen, Solothurn, St. Gallen, Thurgau, Vaud and Zurich. In the context of the Swiss Confederation, sovereignty gave the cantons room for internal reforms, which were also encouraged by Swiss perpetual neutrality recognised under international law from 1815. Due to its neutral status, there were only isolated foreign attempts to blackmail Switzerland or force it down a restorative path by means of reprisals. On the contrary, many political refugees found asylum in Switzerland, who in turn actively supported Swiss democratisation (such as the Snell brothers).
In contrast to England and France (individual states in the USA did not follow suit until the end of the 19th century), the cantonal constitutions have been supplemented with direct democratic instruments since the 1830s, initially with the legislative veto. The veto was later developed into a mandatory or optional referendum and as such was also implemented at the federal level in the second half of the 19th century. This gave rise to a democratic model – alongside and with the development of the legislative and constitutional initiative – that is still unique in Europe and the world today.
In the historical-geographical area of Switzerland, the rural population in particular, as a genuine popular movement, supported liberal concepts in this democratisation process and was mainly responsible for direct democratic demands. The rural popular movements ultimately pushed through direct democracy. The decisive factor was the temporary connection and/or cross-fertilisation of early socialist, liberal-radical approaches with Catholic-conservative ideas, which pursued the same goal in different theoretical ways: to create more direct democracy and thus realise the political concretisation of popular sovereignty. This was in contrast to liberal concepts, which favoured representative democracy. As a result, a longue durée of political and co-operative culture dating back to the late Middle Ages was continued and strengthened in the 19th century. The co-operative democracy of the Landsgemeinde, which met with great interest among the Swiss rural population in particular, also belongs in this context. The "People's Days", which were held in various cantons from 1830 onwards, were explicitly called "Landsgemeinde".

2. Method and theoretical concept

At the Research Institute, I work with the tried and tested "historical-critical method". Historiography has developed a systematic approach based on the indexing and evaluation of source texts, the so-called historical-critical method. As a serious working technique, the term "method" encompasses the entire path from the mere linguistic "understanding" of a text to its interpretation and its compelling categorisation in a larger historical context. The adjective "critical" qualifies this concept of method in three respects:

a) as philological-hermeneutic text criticism

b) as historical criticism

c) as a critique of ideology

ad a) Starting from "methodological doubt" with regard to authorship, time of origin and the wording itself, the historian is able to analyse his sources with philological aids, especially with linguistic history, word history and stylistic criticism. Closely linked to philological textual criticism is the interpretation of a text, namely the hermeneutics inherent in the text. However, a clear separation of "criticism" and "interpretation" is rarely feasible in practical work with the sources. Textual criticism also always contains elements of interpretation, so there is a constant interaction between the two factors.

ad b) Historiography cannot stop at texts and their philological-hermeneutical interpretation. Historical criticism includes further-reaching questions, namely

how the respective text relates to its contemporary "reality",
to which section of this reality it refers and
the perspective from which this reality has been viewed.

ad c) This historical criticism, which is primarily directed towards a critical examination of traditional "facts" and "circumstances", is followed by "ideological criticism", which includes questions about the political and ideological standpoint of the author of a text as well as the standpoint of the historian as the bearer of the research.

Furthermore, a clear distinction must be made from so-called critical theory (Freudo-Marxism), "postmodern" approaches (e.g. deconstructivism) and economistic theories that only aim to generate economically utilisable knowledge. Christian and modern natural law in particular, as the scientific basis for democracy and human rights, has received little attention for some time. At schools and universities, natural law is introduced as one of many "approaches" and often in contrast to "modern and progressive world views", thereby devaluing it. Historians and other humanities scholars are trying to usher in the "post-democratic" or "transnational" era with postmodern and ahistorical approaches. It should be clearly stated that the historical-critical method is based on a well-founded concept of science that is committed to the criteria of purposelessness, verifiability and universality and assumes an objective reality.

The historical method is still fundamental to the historian's "process of understanding" and to the scientific theorisation of history. After numerous research projects of my own and after a major study on the subject, I am convinced that the historical-critical method is the appropriate method for researching direct democracy.

Side note:
This methodological-theoretical concept was the basis for submitting a research project entitled "Paths to direct democracy in the Swiss cantons" to the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) for a second time with the support of academic colleagues. Although there were two favourable external reports from historians, the Humanities and Social Sciences Division of the National Research Council of the SNSF once again placed the revised research project at the lowest priority level due to an intransparent internal procedure. Despite this, I will continue to press ahead with my research projects.

3. Scientific projects

In recent years, research into direct democracy in Switzerland has been promoted with a number of detailed studies. Although these studies provide illuminating answers to detailed questions, many fields of research still remain unexplored. What the studies clearly show is that the genesis of direct democracy took place in very different ways historically and that the cantonal context was responsible for this in each case. What is certain is that there was not just one or two paths to direct democracy in Switzerland. The emergence and development of direct democracy in Switzerland can therefore only be explained by analysing the communal level and the individual cantons. Based on the developments at cantonal level, it becomes clear why the introduction of direct democratic instruments was also successful at the national level.

In order to advance research into the history of democracy, I founded the "Forum for the Study of Direct Democracy" in September 2006. Prof. Dr Martin Schaffner, who had himself initiated a National Fund project together with Prof. Dr Andreas Suter in 1998, provided me with important ideas. The project at the time, entitled "Direct democracy in Switzerland (1789-1872/74): Preconditions, Supporters and Enforcement of a Constitutional Institution in an International Comparative Perspective" forms an important point of reference.

In terms of content, the "Forumconnects to this project with the aim of analysing historiographical research on democracy in Switzerland and encouraging and supporting further research projects. These goals were served by regular work meetings, which promote interdisciplinary exchange in the sense of networking between academics. In this way, I have already carried out important basic research. In the meantime, I have developed the "Forum" into an independent institute. With the "Research Institute for Direct Democracy", I am building on the idea and basic research of the "Forum" and supporting further projects, working in the field of consulting and organising events and lectures. Since 2014, I have been organising several academic conferences and publishing the papers in conference volumes as part of the academic series "Contributions to the Study of Democracy".

Dr. phil. René Roca